Service Law – Leave Encashment – Salary Component – Leave encashment forms part of salary under the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 – State responsible for 70% of leave encashment, with the management establishment covering 30% – Arbitrary Rule 5(viii) of the 2010 Rules invalidated as unconscionable and unenforceable [Paras 18-21].

Gratuity – Employer's Liability – Rule 82 of the 1993 Rules mandates gratuity payments by aided institution's management – Rajasthan Welfare Society case reaffirmed management's liability for gratuity – High Court's rejection of appellants' claim for gratuity and leave encashment overturned [Paras 22-23].

Decision: Appeal allowed – State to calculate and pay 70% of leave encashment, management establishment to cover remaining 30% – Management establishment to pay gratuity from date of employment to absorption in State service – Interest at 10% per annum on due amounts until payment [Paras 23-24].

SARFAESI Act – Powers of District Magistrate – Ministerial Role – Powers exercisable by District Magistrate (DM) under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act are ministerial – DM is not required to adjudicate disputes between the borrower and the secured creditor or any third party – High Court rightly set aside DM’s order delaying possession until tenant eviction proceedings were completed [Paras 5-8].

SARFAESI Act – Scope of Section 14 – Section 14 empowers DM to assist secured creditors in taking possession of secured assets without adjudicating rights – DM must act on a secured creditor's application for possession after verifying compliance with statutory requirements – Delay in action contradicts the Act's objective [Paras 5.1-5.2].

Decision: Special Leave Petition dismissed – High Court's order directing DM to dispose of the application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act upheld [Paras 6-8].

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Delay in Reasoning – High Court orally pronounced order rejecting plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC but delayed providing reasoned order – Supreme Court held this delay unacceptable, violating principles of justice – Order set aside for lack of timely reasoning – Case restored for reconsideration by the High Court [Paras 15-23].

Judicial Process – Need for Reasoned Orders – Courts must provide reasoned judgments promptly – Supreme Court referenced "Anil Rai v. State of Bihar" and "State of Punjab v. Jagdev Singh Talwandi" emphasizing timely reasoned orders to prevent prejudicing parties – Lack of reasons impedes parties' right to appeal and understand the judicial decision [Paras 9-10, 16-17].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned High Court order set aside – Matter restored for reconsideration by the High Court – Chief Justice of High Court to assign case for fresh consideration – Parties to appear before Chief Justice on October 10, 2022 [Paras 24-27].

Admiralty Law – Addition of Parties – Appealability – Commercial Division (Single Bench) of the High Court ordered the addition of Gulf Petroleum FZC as a party in the admiralty suit – Division Bench set aside this order – Supreme Court finds that an order under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC is not appealable under Section 14 of the Admiralty Act – Intra-court appeals in admiralty matters are restricted to orders specified under Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC as per Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act – Division Bench erred in setting aside the Single Bench's order [Paras 54-89].

Harmonious Interpretation – Non-obstante Clauses – Admiralty Act and Commercial Courts Act both contain non-obstante clauses – Conflict resolved by considering the purpose and policy underlying the enactments – Special statutes prevail over general statutes – Appeal from an interim order in an admiralty suit must be read in harmony with Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC [Paras 67-88].

Procedural Law – Necessary and Proper Parties – Single Bench added Gulf Petroleum FZC as it was necessary for the effective adjudication of the dispute – Division Bench's decision to set aside this order was incorrect – Presence of Gulf Petroleum FZC is essential for resolving all questions involved in the suit [Paras 51-52, 82-83].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Division Bench's order set aside – Single Bench's order adding Gulf Petroleum FZC as a defendant restored – No order as to costs [Paras 89-90].

Service Law – Disciplinary Enquiry – High Court found the enquiry against the respondent was conducted in violation of principles of natural justice – Respondent was not given a copy of the Inquiry Officer’s Report nor an opportunity to comment on it – High Court ordered reinstatement with full back wages – Supreme Court held that proper remedy is to remit the case to the Disciplinary Authority to conduct the enquiry from the stage it stood vitiated [Paras 1-7].

Natural Justice – Opportunity to be Heard – Principles of natural justice require that the delinquent employee be given a copy of the Inquiry Officer's Report and an opportunity to submit comments – Non-compliance with these principles vitiates the disciplinary proceedings – Proper course is to remit the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority for fresh enquiry from the point of violation [Paras 6-7].

Judicial Review – Scope and Limits – Court should not order reinstatement when the disciplinary enquiry is set aside for procedural lapses – Instead, the matter should be remanded to the Disciplinary Authority to rectify the lapses and conclude the enquiry [Paras 6-7].

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – High Court's order of reinstatement with back wages set aside – Matter remitted to the Disciplinary Authority to conduct the enquiry afresh from the stage it stood vitiated – Appellant to pay costs of Rs. 50,000 to the respondent [Paras 7].

Service Law – Adverse Entries in ACR – Respondent's ACRs for 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 were "Very Good" but downgraded to "Good" for 2007-2008 by the same reviewing officer – No valid reasons provided for the downgrade – Tribunal and High Court directed Department to reassess respondent’s suitability for SAG excluding the 2007-2008 ACR – Appeal by Union of India dismissed [Paras 1-10].

Administrative Law – Representation Against Adverse Entries – Tribunal and High Court found that the representation against the adverse entry was not considered objectively – Departmental Promotion Committee's rejection of the respondent's representation was arbitrary and inconsistent – Opportunity for representation must be given within a reasonable time and considered fairly [Paras 6-10].

Judicial Review – Standard of Review – Courts will intervene if adverse entries in ACRs are found to be arbitrary, inconsistent, or lacking bona fides – Consistent performance in previous years must be considered – Reviewing authority's discretion subject to principles of natural justice and fair play [Paras 5-10].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court's judgment and Tribunal's order upheld – Department directed to reassess respondent’s suitability for SAG excluding the ACR for 2007-2008 [Paras 10].

Criminal Law – Bail Cancellation – High Court granted bail to the respondent based on parity with co-accused – Supreme Court finds that bail granted to co-accused was previously disapproved – Bail order found to suffer from illegality and impropriety – High Court failed to consider the gravity of the offense and relevant factors – Impugned order set aside [Paras 1-18].

Parity in Bail – Relevance and Limitations – Bail cannot be granted solely on the ground of parity without independent consideration of the individual case's facts – Supreme Court emphasizes that each bail application must be assessed on its own merits, considering the nature of the crime and the role of the accused [Paras 12-17].

Seriousness of Crime – Consideration of Facts – Daylight murder with multiple grievous injuries – Respondent named in the FIR as one of the assailants – Supreme Court underscores the need to consider the crime's seriousness and potential impact on public interest and justice administration [Paras 16-17].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's order granting bail set aside – Respondent directed to surrender forthwith – Liberty granted to respondent to apply for bail afresh after surrendering – Application to be considered on its own merits at an appropriate stage [Paras 18-20].

Civil Law – Permanent Injunction – Appeal against High Court's decision affirming the first appellate court's decree for permanent injunction – Based on an unregistered agreement to sell on ten rupees stamp paper – Supreme Court holds that such an unregistered document is inadmissible in evidence for substantive relief – Plaintiff cannot obtain relief indirectly which is otherwise not permissible directly [Paras 1-8].

Unregistered Documents – Admissibility and Collateral Use – Unregistered agreement to sell can only be used for collateral purposes – However, relief for permanent injunction cannot be granted when specific performance is not achievable due to the document's unregistered status – Trial court's dismissal of suit for permanent injunction and allowance of defendant's counter-claim for possession restored [Paras 5-7].

Procedural Impropriety – Clever Drafting – Plaintiff's attempt to circumvent the inadmissibility of the unregistered document by seeking permanent injunction without specific performance – Supreme Court emphasizes that clever drafting cannot be used to achieve what is otherwise legally untenable [Paras 6-7].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment and decree set aside – Trial court's judgment dismissing the suit for permanent injunction and allowing the counter-claim for possession restored – No order as to costs [Paras 7-8].

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of FIRs – FIRs/complaints arising from the Newshour Debate telecasted on Times Now on 26.05.2022 were transferred to the IFSO unit of Delhi Police – Supreme Court holds that there cannot be two investigating agencies for the same incident involving different co-accused – Petitioner permitted to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution or Section 482 of CrPC for further relief [Paras 1-9].

Transfer of Investigation – Investigative Parity – Considering parity with a co-accused whose investigation was transferred to the IFSO unit of Delhi Police – All similar FIRs/complaints against the petitioner also transferred to IFSO unit – Emphasizes the necessity for a single investigating agency to maintain consistency and efficiency in the investigation process [Paras 5-7].

Interim Relief – No Coercive Steps – Supreme Court directs that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner for a period of eight weeks – Allows the petitioner to seek appropriate relief from the Delhi High Court during this period [Para 7(iv)].

Decision: Writ Petition disposed of – Investigation of all FIRs/complaints transferred to the IFSO unit of Delhi Police – Liberty granted to petitioner to approach the High Court for further relief – Clarification that no opinion expressed on the merits of the allegations [Paras 7-9].