Service Law – Judicial Review – High Court’s Scope – The High Court's role in judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 is not to act as an appellate court over departmental enquiries. It is confined to examining whether the enquiry was conducted by a competent authority, following prescribed procedures, and ensuring natural justice was not violated. The High Court cannot reappreciate evidence or interfere with findings supported by some evidence [Paras 7-7.3].

Departmental Enquiry – Evidence and Findings – The disciplinary authority's findings, based on substantial evidence including witness testimonies and documents, concluded the respondent was guilty of preparing a fraudulent letter to withdraw Rs. 10 lakhs. The High Court erred in reassessing this evidence and setting aside the dismissal, as there was sufficient evidence to support the disciplinary authority's decision [Paras 7.1-7.3, 8].

Criminal Acquittal vs. Departmental Proceedings – An acquittal in criminal proceedings does not automatically invalidate findings in departmental proceedings. The standards of proof differ, and an acquittal on benefit of doubt does not negate the guilt established in a disciplinary enquiry [Para 9].

Proportionality of Punishment – Given the seriousness of the misconduct, involving misappropriation of Rs. 10 lakhs and fabricating documents, the penalty of dismissal was deemed appropriate and proportionate. The disciplinary authority's decision to dismiss the respondent was justified and warranted [Para 10].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – The Supreme Court quashed the High Court’s judgment and reinstated the disciplinary authority’s order dismissing the respondent from service [Para 11].

Criminal Law – Applicability of MCOCA – The High Court upheld the invocation of MCOCA against the appellant, who was involved in multiple cases of organised crime with the objective of gaining pecuniary and other advantages. The Supreme Court confirmed that the organised crime activities included violence, threats, and other unlawful means, satisfying the requirements under Section 2(1)(e) of MCOCA [Paras 14-17].

Satisfaction of Sanctioning Authority – Proper Consideration – The sanctioning authority applied its mind to all relevant aspects, confirming that the activities of the accused, including the appellant, were part of an organised crime syndicate involved in continuing unlawful activities as defined under MCOCA. The Court found no discrepancy or irrelevant factors considered in the sanction order [Paras 16-17.5].

Strict Interpretation of Penal Statutes – The Court reiterated that while MCOCA provisions must be strictly construed, such construction should not render the statute impracticable. The interpretation should ensure the statute’s purpose is fulfilled, especially in combating organised crime [Paras 12-12.7].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's judgment and the sanction order, concluding that the invocation of MCOCA was justified and the procedural requirements were duly met [Para 17.5].

Criminal Law – Cognizability of Offence under Copyright Act – High Court held offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act as non-cognizable, thus quashing criminal proceedings. Supreme Court overturns this, asserting the offence is cognizable and non-bailable. The punishment extends up to three years; thus, it falls under cognizable offences per Part II of the First Schedule of Cr.P.C. [Paras 1-7].

Application of Part II, First Schedule, Cr.P.C. – For offences punishable with imprisonment for three years and upwards, the offence is cognizable. The High Court erred in interpreting the statute and prior Supreme Court precedents [Paras 5.2-6].

Quashing of FIR – Judicial Interpretation – High Court's quashing of FIR under Section 63 deemed incorrect by Supreme Court. Supreme Court mandates continuation of proceedings, categorizing the offence as cognizable and non-bailable, contradicting High Court's ruling [Paras 6-7].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court's judgment quashing the FIR and criminal proceedings set aside. FIR and proceedings to continue per law, recognizing the offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act as cognizable and non-bailable [Para 7].

Criminal Procedure – Expeditious Trial – Special Courts – The Supreme Court directed a pilot study to test the scheme of employing retired judicial officers and staff to operationalize Special Courts for NI Act cases. The pilot study will be conducted in 25 Special Courts across five states with the highest pendency: Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Gujarat, Delhi, and Uttar Pradesh [Paras 7-8, 10].

Operational Guidelines – Implementation – The pilot study will run from September 1, 2022, to August 31, 2023. The courts will handle cases where summons have been duly served and the accused have entered appearance. Detailed timelines for infrastructure setup, training, case identification, and procedural guidelines are provided to ensure effective functioning and speedy disposal of cases [Paras 10-11].

Mediation and Data Collection – Efficiency Measures – The Court emphasized the use of mediation for settlement and mandated weekly and quarterly reporting of disposal rates to monitor progress. The appointment of Facilitation Officers to assist in data collection and coordination was also directed [Paras 10-11].

Judicial Review – Policy Decision – The Court acknowledged the practical challenges in immediately establishing new courts and supported the use of retired personnel to expedite the process. The guidelines aim to address the backlog and enhance the efficiency of the judicial system in handling NI Act cases [Paras 4-5].

Decision – Directions Issued – The Supreme Court issued detailed directions for the pilot study, including the establishment of Special Courts, procedural adherence, mediation mechanisms, and data reporting requirements. The Registrar Generals of the concerned High Courts were instructed to ensure compliance and report progress [Paras 10-11].

Land Acquisition – Additional Compensation – The Supreme Court upheld the policy decision of the State Government to demand additional compensation from the allottees of land to resolve disputes with farmers. The Court noted that the policy decision was in the larger public interest, aiming to balance the equities between the allottees and the aggrieved farmers. The decision took into account farmers' agitation and the need for development, following the principles laid down in the Gajraj and Savitri Devi cases [Paras 50-56].

Policy Decision – Judicial Review – The Supreme Court reiterated that judicial review of policy decisions is limited. Interference is warranted only if the policy is arbitrary, irrational, mala fide, or violative of statutory provisions. The Court found that the High Court erred in holding the policy decision arbitrary and irrational. The State's policy was guided by reason and aimed at resolving ongoing disputes affecting public interest [Paras 59-60].

Contractual Obligations – Public Interest – The Court emphasized that policy changes in public interest can override private agreements. The decision to demand additional compensation was within the government's power to ensure equitable solutions and continued development, outweighing individual contractual rights [Paras 61-64].

Non-joinder of Necessary Parties – Procedural Lapse – The High Court's failure to implead affected farmers and relevant stakeholders in the proceedings was highlighted as a procedural lapse. The absence of necessary parties in the litigation rendered the High Court's order unsustainable [Paras 27-29].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – The Supreme Court quashed the Allahabad High Court's judgment, dismissed the writ petitions, and upheld the State Government's policy decision. The Court also allowed the applications for intervention and directed the respondents to comply with the policy directives [Paras 71-72].

Legal Proceeding – Non-Joinder of Necessary Parties – Non-joinder of a necessary party is critical and can render a legal proceeding null and void. Procedural and substantive laws mandate that in the absence of necessary parties, any order passed is a nullity and not binding. The High Court erred in not considering the necessity of impleading the factory's workmen and the Union of India in the respondent's challenge to the notification [Paras 24-28].

Interpretation of Notification – Territorial Coverage – The notification dated 21.07.1999 under Section 1(3) of the ESI Act was intended to cover areas beyond the Silchar Municipal Corporation, including specific named villages like Tarapur. The High Court's restrictive interpretation limiting the notification's applicability only to the Silchar Municipal Corporation area was incorrect. The notification's language, including specific mentions and the use of the word "including," indicates a broader coverage [Paras 15-19, 30-31].

Beneficial Legislation – ESI Act – The ESI Act, being a beneficial legislation, must be interpreted to extend its benefits to the widest possible extent. The intention of the legislation and the notification is to provide social welfare benefits to employees, and restrictive interpretations should be avoided [Paras 23, 30].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's decision, holding that the notification covers the respondent's establishment, which is located in Tarapur. The appeal was allowed, confirming the applicability of the ESI Act to the respondent's factory [Paras 30-32].

Criminal Law – Road Rage – Voluntary Causing Hurt – The Supreme Court reviewed the sentencing of Navjot Singh Sidhu, who was convicted under Section 323 IPC for causing voluntary hurt leading to the death of a 65-year-old man in a road rage incident. The Court noted the physical fitness and strength of Sidhu, a former international cricketer, and the age disparity with the victim, emphasizing the foreseeable severity of the blow inflicted [Paras 24-25, 32].

Sentencing Principles – Proportionality and Deterrence – The Court highlighted the need for sentences to reflect the seriousness of the crime and serve as a deterrent. The initial fine of Rs. 1000 was deemed manifestly inadequate, failing to align with the principles of proportionality and societal deterrence [Paras 25-29, 38].

Victimology – Rights of Victims – Recognizing the rights of victims and their families in the sentencing process, the Court emphasized that inadequate punishment undermines public confidence in the justice system. The review application was considered within this context, affirming the victim’s right to a fair and just outcome [Paras 29-35].

Decision – Sentence Enhanced – The Supreme Court allowed the review petitions, enhancing the sentence from a mere fine to one year of rigorous imprisonment in addition to the fine. This decision underscored the necessity of appropriate punishment reflecting the gravity of the offense and serving the ends of justice [Para 40].

Land Acquisition – Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act – The Supreme Court examined whether the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, could be declared lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The Court noted that the period of five years had not lapsed without possession being taken or compensation being paid before the 2013 Act came into force. Therefore, the acquisition proceedings could not be deemed lapsed [Paras 1, 28].

Exclusion of Stay Period – Judicial Precedent – The Court referred to several precedents, including the judgment in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, which clarified that the period during which the acquisition process was stayed by the courts must be excluded when computing the five-year period under Section 24(2). It was held that the stay orders in various writ petitions prevented the authorities from taking possession, thus the acquisition could not be considered lapsed [Paras 17-18, 27].

Declaratory Relief – Non-Hearing of Objections – The Court highlighted that the non-hearing of objections under Section 5A of the 1894 Act only affects the specific landowners who filed objections. It does not automatically nullify the entire acquisition process for other landowners who did not object. Therefore, judgments quashing notifications under Section 6 based on non-hearing of objections are judgments in personam and not in rem [Paras 6-7, 20, 26].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the Delhi High Court's order, dismissing the writ petition filed by the landowners. The Court held that the acquisition proceedings did not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, considering the stay orders and the proper exclusion of the stay period [Paras 29].

Service Tax – Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency – Secondment of Employees – The Supreme Court examined whether the secondment of employees from group companies abroad to the respondent constituted a "manpower recruitment or supply agency service" under Section 65(68) read with Section 65(105)(k) of the Finance Act, 1994. The Court held that the secondment agreement, which involved transferring employees to work under the control and direction of the respondent while remaining on the payroll of the foreign group companies, did not amount to manpower recruitment or supply. The relationship was one of employment, and the foreign group companies were not engaged in the business of supplying manpower [Paras 1-3, 12, 18, 50].

Contract of Service vs. Contract for Service – The Court distinguished between contracts of service (employment) and contracts for service (independent contractors). It emphasized the importance of analyzing the terms of the secondment agreement, noting that the seconded employees worked under the respondent's control and direction, with the respondent bearing the risks and responsibilities for their work. The employees remained on the payroll of the foreign group companies solely for administrative reasons, such as continuity of social security benefits, and not for supplying manpower [Paras 20-23, 33-34, 50].

Revenue Neutrality – No Additional Tax Burden – The Court considered the respondent's argument that even if service tax were payable, it would be eligible for input tax credit, making the situation revenue-neutral. It noted that the nature of the transaction, involving reimbursement of salaries and other expenses without any markup, did not constitute consideration for a taxable service under the Finance Act, 1994 [Paras 26-29, 57].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – The Supreme Court dismissed the revenue's appeals, upholding the CESTAT's decision that the secondment of employees did not constitute a taxable service under the category of manpower recruitment or supply agency. The Court ruled that the foreign group companies were not in the business of providing such services, and the arrangements were purely for administrative convenience, maintaining the employer-employee relationship during the secondment period [Paras 10-11, 59].