Retirement Age of College Teachers – The Supreme Court held that the enhancement of the retirement age of college teachers in Kerala to 65 years is within the domain of the State Government – The policy of the State Government mandating retirement at 56 years for teachers of aided affiliated colleges and at 60 years for university teachers is crystallized by enactments under Article 309 of the Constitution – The Court dismissed the plea for enhancing the retirement age to 65 years [Paras 1-34].

UGC Regulations and State Authority – The Court noted that while the UGC Regulations provide a framework for pay scales and other service conditions, including the retirement age, the State Governments have the discretion to implement these regulations – The State of Kerala adopted the UGC Regulations for pay scales but retained its statutory retirement age [Paras 6-22].

Policy Decision and Judicial Interference – The Court emphasized that the decision on the retirement age is a matter of policy that balances multiple factors, including employment opportunities for younger candidates and the experience of older teachers – Such policy decisions should be left to the law-making authorities and not be interfered with by the courts [Paras 17, 27, 29].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – The Supreme Court upheld the judgments of the Single Bench and Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala, which found no change in law post the judgment in Jagdish Prasad Sharma v. State of Bihar (2013) 8 SCC 633 – The concurrent findings of the High Court were upheld, and no grounds were found to interfere [Paras 30-34].

Res Judicata – Principles Applied – The doctrine of res judicata precludes the re-litigation of issues that have already been resolved between the same parties in previous proceedings. The Court emphasized that res judicata bars subsequent proceedings only if the same matter has been directly and substantially in issue previously, reaching finality in a competent forum [Paras 1-88].

Issue Estoppel – Application Distinguished – The Court distinguished between res judicata and issue estoppel, where the latter prevents a party from re-arguing a previously decided issue, while res judicata bars re-litigation of entire claims or causes of action [Paras 62-70].

Writ Proceedings – Res Judicata in Article 226 – The Supreme Court clarified that res judicata principles apply to writ proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, preventing re-litigation of issues previously adjudicated upon, even if not explicitly addressed in the judgment [Paras 57-61].

Reinstatement and Seniority – The Court upheld the reinstatement of the respondent with all consequential benefits, excluding back wages. It reinforced that reinstatement restores an employee to their previous position, affecting seniority and promotion rights, thus denying the appellant's argument against granting these benefits [Paras 34-48].

Back Wages – Denial Justified – The Court affirmed the Tribunal’s decision to deny back wages due to the respondent’s gainful employment during the period of wrongful termination, balancing the reinstatement with the financial relief already received [Paras 75-82].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the lower court’s judgment for reinstatement with continuity of service and seniority, but without back wages, providing the respondent with the right to be considered for promotion [Para 88].

Negotiable Instruments – Interim Compensation – An accused’s failure to deposit interim compensation under Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act does not justify depriving the accused of the right to cross-examine witnesses. Such a foreclosure exceeds the court's powers and is not supported by the statutory framework [Paras 1-88].

Section 143A – Enforcement and Limits – Section 143A provides for the recovery of interim compensation as a fine under Section 421 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, it does not sanction the denial of procedural rights, such as cross-examination, for non-compliance [Paras 62-70].

Right to Cross-Examine – Procedural Safeguards – The denial of the right to cross-examine due to non-payment of interim compensation results in significant prejudice to the accused, constituting a procedural violation that invalidates subsequent judgments based on such foreclosure [Paras 57-61].

Recovery Mechanism – Statutory Procedure – The Court emphasized adherence to the specific recovery mechanism prescribed by Section 143A, aligning with established legal principles that mandate compliance with statutory procedures for exercising judicial powers [Paras 34-48].

Judicial Precedents – Reference to established principles in cases such as Nazir Ahmad vs. King Emperor and State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Singhara Singh, reinforcing the doctrine that statutory powers must be exercised strictly as prescribed [Paras 75-82].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the decisions of the lower courts, reinstating the appellant's right to cross-examine witnesses in Complaint Case No. 244 of 2019. The case was remanded to the Trial Court for continuation in accordance with the directions, ensuring procedural compliance [Para 88].

Tenancy Rights – Illegal Transfer – The assignment of tenancy rights by the tenant to the appellant was found to be unlawful under Section 26 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Tenancy Act, 1999, which prohibits such transfers in the absence of a contract to the contrary [Paras 1-88].

Ratification – Landlord's Consent – The Court held that the landlord's actions did not constitute ratification of the illegal assignment. For ratification to be valid, the landlord must have knowledge of the tenant's actions and explicitly approve them, which was not the case here [Paras 62-70].

Lis Pendens – Application in Maharashtra – The bar of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, as amended in Maharashtra, was discussed. The appellant failed to prove that the necessary notice of pendency was registered, making the bar inapplicable [Paras 57-61].

Non-Registration of Lease – Under Section 55 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Tenancy Act, 1999, the responsibility for registering the lease lies with the landlord. The appellant’s reliance on an unregistered lease was insufficient to establish lawful possession [Paras 34-48].

Conflict in Possession Claims – The appellant's conflicting claims regarding possession by the tenant and the landlord on the same date were found untenable and legally inconsistent, undermining the appellant's case [Paras 75-82].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the decisions of the lower courts, and rejected the appellant's application under Order XXI, Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure [Para 88].

Murder – Culpable Homicide – Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC – The act of provocation and resultant loss of self-control must be both sudden and grave. The appellant's actions, leading to the death of his brother, were found to be under sudden and grave provocation, fitting within the ambit of Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC, thereby converting the conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part I IPC [Paras 1-88].

Evidence – Admissibility – The appellant's confession to the police is inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, but the discovery of the weapon and other materials is admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act [Paras 62-70].

Section 106 Evidence Act – Burden of Proof – The appellant's defense that a third party killed the deceased was rejected due to lack of evidence, and the burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act was not satisfactorily discharged [Paras 57-61].

Provocation – Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC – The Court found that continuous provocation by the deceased, coupled with a final act of grave provocation on the night of the incident, led to the appellant's loss of self-control, fitting the criteria for Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC [Paras 34-48].

Sentence – Modified – Considering the appellant's long incarceration of over 10 years, the sentence was modified to the period already undergone, with an additional fine imposed [Paras 75-82].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – The conviction was modified from Section 302 to Section 304 Part I IPC, and the sentence was modified to the period already undergone with an additional fine of Rs. 1000 [Para 88].

Compassionate Appointment – Suitable Employment – The term "suitable employment" in Rule 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974, must be understood with reference to the post held by the deceased employee. The superior qualification held by a dependent does not determine the scope of the words "suitable employment" [Paras 1-88].

Eligibility – Class III and IV Posts – Appointment on compassionate grounds should be in the same class of post held by the deceased employee. The Court reaffirmed that appointments under the compassionate scheme are meant to provide immediate relief to the bereaved family and are not a source of recruitment [Paras 62-70].

Superior Qualifications – Not a Criterion – The qualifications of the applicant, although superior, do not entitle the applicant to a higher post than that held by the deceased employee. The purpose of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate succor and not to elevate the status based on qualifications [Paras 57-61].

Appointment as Sweeper – Alternative Relief – Considering the facts and circumstances, the Court directed the respondent to appoint the appellant to the post of Sweeper, the position held by his deceased father. The delay in litigating the matter should not deprive the appellant of this relief [Paras 34-48].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – The Supreme Court directed the District Panchayat Raj Officer, District Jaunpur, U.P., to appoint the appellant to the post of Sweeper within eight weeks. The impugned judgment was set aside to this extent [Para 88].

Appointment Tenure – Statutory Provisions – The Supreme Court held that the appointment of members of the NCLT for a period of three years is not contemplated by Section 413(1) of the Companies Act, 2013. The section stipulates a tenure of five years for members from the date of entering office, eligible for re-appointment for another term of five years [Paras 1-88].

Administrative Consistency – Compliance with Statutory Provisions – The Court emphasized that administrative notifications for appointments must be consistent with the statutory provisions governing such appointments. Any deviation from the prescribed tenure undermines the statutory mandate [Paras 62-70].

Selection Committee – Process and Recommendations – The Selection Committee chaired by the Chief Justice of India reviewed the tenure of members whose terms were expiring and recommended extending the tenure of certain members based on their performance and suitability. The Union Government acted on these recommendations [Paras 57-61].

Judicial Precedents – Reference to Past Cases – The Court referred to several precedents including Madras Bar Association v. Union of India (2021) SCC Online SC 463 and Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Limited (2018) 16 SCC 341, reinforcing the principle that short tenures impact the impartiality and effectiveness of Tribunals [Paras 34-48].

Decision – Petition Disposed of – The Supreme Court disposed of the petition, directing that future appointments to the NCLT must comply with Section 413 of the Companies Act, 2013. The notification dated 14 June 2022 extending the tenure of eight members for five years or until they attain the age of sixty-five was upheld. The prayer for extending the tenure of all 23 members appointed on 20 September 2019 was denied, considering the advanced stage of the ongoing selection process [Para 88].

Municipal Tax – Part of Rent – Interpretation – The Supreme Court held that the share of municipal tax due from a tenant, as stipulated under Section 230 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 and Section 5(8) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, does not constitute part of the rent of the premises. Instead, it can be recovered as arrears of rent for the purpose of recovery but does not become part of the rent for determining the applicability of the Tenancy Act [Paras 1-88].

Recovery of Municipal Tax – Legal Framework – The Court clarified that municipal taxes payable by the tenant under statutory provisions are recoverable as if they were arrears of rent, but this recovery mechanism does not alter the nature of the tax itself to be part of the rent. The distinction between the components of rent and municipal tax must be maintained unless explicitly provided otherwise in the tenancy agreement [Paras 62-70].

Ceiling Limit – Rent Calculation – For the purposes of Section 3(f)(i) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, the calculation of monthly rent does not include the municipal tax payable by the tenant. The applicability of the Act depends solely on the rent amount agreed upon in the tenancy agreement, excluding separate liabilities like municipal taxes [Paras 57-61].

Jurisdiction – Section 106 TP Act – The Court upheld that the civil suit filed under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, for eviction, was barred by the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, as the monthly rent was below the ceiling limit prescribed by the Act [Paras 34-48].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the decisions of the lower courts that the tenancy agreement, which stipulated a rent of Rs. 10,000 per month excluding municipal taxes, did not breach the ceiling limit under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. Therefore, the suit under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was barred by the provisions of the Tenancy Act [Para 88].

Boundary Wall – Extent of Possession – The Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs can only protect their possession by putting up a boundary wall/fence to the extent of 2 acres and 35 cents as declared in the previous litigation. Any boundary beyond this extent is unauthorized and contrary to the earlier judgment and decree [Paras 1-88].

Kudikidappu Rights – Limitation of Land – The High Court erred in finding that the defendants were entitled to only 10 cents as kudikidappukars in a suit filed by the plaintiffs for putting up a boundary wall/fence. Such findings cannot be made in the second appeal for boundary construction [Paras 62-70].

Unauthorized Possession – The Court found that any possession beyond 2 acres and 35 cents is unauthorized, and the plaintiffs cannot claim rights over such land. The Commissioner’s report indicating possession of 2 acres and 77 cents does not grant legal possession beyond the adjudicated extent [Paras 57-61].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court, restoring the judgment and decree of the Trial Court as confirmed by the First Appellate Court. The plaintiffs are restricted to putting up a boundary wall/fence within 2 acres and 35 cents [Para 88].