Criminal Law – Bail – Organized Smuggling and Terrorism – Petitioner denied bail in case involving smuggling of 236.622 kg of Heroin – Prosecution's case based on interception of Pakistani boat and involvement of petitioner as recipient – Appeal against High Court order denying bail dismissed – Supreme Court emphasized seriousness of offenses and prima facie evidence against petitioner [Paras 1-11].

Unlawful Activities – Terrorism Funding – Smuggling of narcotic drugs to generate funds for terrorism – Court noted severity of offenses under IPC, UAPA, and NDPS Act – Sufficient material on record against petitioner to deny bail – Investigations revealed clandestine operations involving international waters and coordination with Pakistani entities [Paras 2-9].

Appeal – Denial of Bail – High Court's decision upheld – Supreme Court found no grounds to interfere with denial of bail at this stage – Emphasized that observations limited to bail decision, not on merits of the case [Paras 10-11].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No interference with High Court's order denying bail – Observations limited to bail decision and not on merits of the case [Para 11].

Service Law – Regularization – LIC as a statutory corporation bound by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution – Ensuring fair and open recruitment process – Supreme Court emphasized that allowing back-door entries into service negates equal opportunity and fairness – LIC cannot be directed to carry out mass absorption without following a fair recruitment process [Paras 1-31].

Industrial Disputes – Srivastav Award – Directed absorption of temporary/badli/part-time workers – LIC's objections to the Dogra Report on verification of workers' claims – Supreme Court upheld Srivastav Award, emphasizing adherence to constitutional principles [Paras 12-31].

E Prabavathy Group – Workers governed by a scheme approved in 1992 by Supreme Court – Srivastav Award excluded these workers from absorption – Supreme Court reaffirmed that such workers are governed by the scheme approved in E Prabavathy [Paras 28-30].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Upheld Srivastav Award with directions for LIC to absorb eligible workers as per verified claims – Directed payment of compensation in lieu of reinstatement for eligible workers – No mass absorption without adherence to fair recruitment principles [Paras 31-33].

Insolvency and Bankruptcy – Moratorium – Exclusion of Time – Section 60(6) of the IBC provides for the exclusion of the entire period during which the moratorium was in force in respect of a corporate debtor in regard to a proceeding as contemplated therein – Proceedings by the corporate debtor during the moratorium period are also covered under this exclusion – Interpretation aims to fulfill the object of the IBC and provide a 'calm period' for the revival or resolution of the corporate debtor [Paras 1-28].

Arbitration – Limitation – Impact of Moratorium – Application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, by corporate debtor – Moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC does not bar such applications – Exclusion of moratorium period for limitation purposes is valid – Corporate debtor entitled to benefit from the exclusion provided under Section 60(6) of the IBC [Paras 18-28].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Section 60(6) of the IBC contemplates the exclusion of the moratorium period for proceedings by the corporate debtor – Application under Section 11(6) not barred by limitation considering the exclusion – No orders as to costs [Para 29].

Constitutional Law – Right to Property – Public Purpose – Appellants contended that they were assured compensation for land utilized for road construction/widening – Municipality and State denied any such assurance – Supreme Court held that deprivation of property must be for public purpose with compensation – Absence of evidence for voluntary surrender by appellants without compensation – Municipality and PWD failed to provide documentary proof of voluntary surrender – Action of respondents arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of Article 300-A [Paras 1-22].

Burden of Proof – Voluntary Surrender – Municipality's claim of voluntary surrender without compensation required substantiation – Burden on Municipality to provide evidence – Absence of documentation or formal agreement to support voluntary surrender claim [Paras 12-13].

Judicial Review – Compensation for Deprivation of Property – Deprivation without authority of law and compensation unjustified – Article 300-A mandates compensation for deprivation of property – Construction/widening of road recognized as public purpose, but compensation must be justified [Paras 20-21].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's Division Bench order set aside – Single Judge's order directing compensation reinstated – Municipality to compensate appellants as determined by Collector – No order as to costs [Para 22].

Stamp Duty – Deed of Assignment – Applicability – Appellant challenged demand for additional stamp duty under Article 45(f) of the Gujarat Stamp Act, 1958 – High Court held the deed of assignment chargeable to stamp duty as both a conveyance under Article 20(a) and a power of attorney under Article 45(f) – Supreme Court overturned High Court decision – Deed of assignment already charged under Article 20(a), further duty under Article 45(f) not permissible – Notifications under Section 9(a) reduced duty on securitization or assignment of debt – Revenue cannot split instrument for additional duty once correctly charged under primary provision [Paras 1-16].

Notification – Reduction in Stamp Duty – Government notifications reduced stamp duty on instruments of securitization or assignment of debt with underlying securities – Cap of Rs. 100,000 applied – Additional duty under Article 45(f) deemed inappropriate [Para 15].

Judicial Review – Interpretation of Taxing Statutes – Once charged under correct provision, instrument cannot be subject to additional duty under another provision – High Court's focus on Article 45(f) without addressing Section 9(a) notifications rendered decision unsustainable [Para 16].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court order set aside – Demand by Chief Controlling Revenue Authority quashed – No order as to costs [Para 16].

Criminal Law – Definition of Gang and Gangster – Appellant accused of being part of a conspiracy involving a single crime – Court held that even a single crime committed by a 'Gang' suffices under the Gangsters Act – Definitions under Section 2(b) (Gang) and Section 2(c) (Gangster) of the Act are inclusive and broad, encompassing those who abet or assist in gang activities – Statutory provisions do not require multiple offences for prosecution under the Gangsters Act [Paras 1-11].

Gangsters Act – Application in Single Offence – Unlike other preventive statutes like MCOCA and Gujarat COTOC, the Gangsters Act does not necessitate multiple offences for prosecution – A single FIR/charge sheet sufficient for invoking the Act if anti-social activities defined under Section 2(b) are present [Paras 10-11].

Conspiracy and Pecuniary Benefit – Appellant involved in conspiracy to commit murder for pecuniary benefit due to property dispute – Other co-accused already prosecuted under the Gangsters Act – Appellant and co-accused required to be prosecuted similarly [Para 11].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – High Court's refusal to quash criminal proceedings upheld – Prosecution under the Gangsters Act valid even for a single offence if conditions of the Act are met [Paras 12].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Complaint – Pre-trial Stage – Appellant sought quashing of the summoning order under Section 482 CrPC on the grounds that the cheques were issued as security and not for a legally enforceable debt – Supreme Court held that quashing of complaints at a pre-trial stage should be approached with caution – Legal presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act favors the complainant when cheque and signature are undisputed – Balance of convenience favors allowing the trial to proceed [Paras 1-19].

Negotiable Instruments – Legal Presumption – Sections 138 and 139 NI Act – When cheque and signature are not disputed, legal presumption of debt or liability arises in favor of the holder – Accused must rebut presumption during the trial – High Court correctly denied quashing based on factual defences that need to be adjudicated during the trial [Paras 11-13].

Factual Defences – Security Cheques – Appellant claimed cheques were security for a share buyback agreement – Court emphasized that such defences must be evaluated during trial, not at quashing stage – Quashing proceedings should not prematurely extinguish cases supported by legal presumptions [Paras 7-10, 13-14].

Judicial Review – Limited Scope – Section 482 CrPC – High Court's power to quash complaints should be exercised sparingly – Premature quashing can result in grave and irreparable consequences by denying parties the opportunity to adduce evidence in trial – Proper forum for weighing evidence is the trial court [Paras 14-17].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – High Court judgment upheld – Trial to proceed with opportunity for appellant to adduce evidence to rebut presumption – Observations limited to quashing stage and should not influence trial court's determination on merits [Paras 18-20].

Service Law – Reservation in Promotion – Scheduled Tribe Status – Appellant, a member of the ST category in the undivided State of Bihar, contended he should retain reservation benefits in the successor State of Jharkhand post-bifurcation – Supreme Court examined Sections 72 and 73 of the Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000, and related Articles of the Constitution – Held that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of reservation in the State of Jharkhand as his service conditions should not be varied to his disadvantage [Paras 1-24].

Constitutional Obligation – Equal Protection – Court emphasized that Parliament must ensure that individuals affected by state reorganization are not disadvantaged – Protection of rights under Articles 14 and 15(1) is crucial to prevent discrimination based on place of birth – Emphasized the need for consistent legal protections across different reorganization cases [Paras 10-12, 19-23].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court set aside – Judgment and order of the Single Judge of the High Court restored – Appellant entitled to be considered for promotion under the ST category in the State of Jharkhand.

Mizo Customary Law of Inheritance – Right to Inherit – Under Rule 109(5), a person who supports the deceased until death inherits the properties, even in the presence of a natural heir – Appellant (daughter) who supported her mother, the deceased, was found entitled to inherit the property – District Council Court Aizawl's judgment in favor of appellant based on equitable principles and responsibilities discharged towards the deceased – High Court's reversal set aside, affirming the District Council Court’s decision [Paras 1-21].

Inheritance and Responsibilities – The court highlighted the principle that inheritance under Mizo Customary Law depends on the support provided to the deceased – The decision considers equity and responsibility, aligning with the precedents set by the Gauhati High Court in similar cases [Paras 15-19].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Judgment of the Gauhati High Court, Aizawl Bench set aside – Judgment of the District Council Court, Aizawl affirmed.