Environmental Law – Imposition of Damages – Section 33 Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 – Forest Department imposed damages of Rs. 10 Crores on respondents for discharging effluents causing environmental damage to the National Chambal Sanctuary – High Court set aside the order for violation of natural justice and lack of authority under Section 33 to impose damages – Supreme Court upheld High Court’s decision – Forest Department has wide powers under Section 33 to take steps for the security and preservation of wildlife and the sanctuary but cannot impose damages directly – Authority can seek closure of institution and other measures after following principles of natural justice – Appropriate proceedings must be initiated to determine damages [Paras 1-6].

Principles of Natural Justice – No Show Cause Notice – Order imposing damages found in violation of principles of natural justice – No show cause notice issued before imposing damages – High Court’s decision setting aside the damages upheld [Paras 3-4].

Decision: Appeals disposed of with observations – Authority may take necessary steps under Section 33 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 to stop effluent discharge and protect the environment and wildlife in accordance with law and principles of natural justice – No direct imposition of damages allowed [Paras 6-7].

Culpable Homicide – Not Amounting to Murder – Section 304-II IPC – Appellants convicted for culpable homicide not amounting to murder – No premeditation to commit murder – Assault occurred during a sudden verbal altercation – Weapons (sticks and brick) were picked up from the scene – Single blow inflicted by each accused on the deceased – No unlawful assembly formed with a common object – Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside – Conviction under Section 304-II IPC and other sections maintained [Paras 21-23].

Injury and Weapon – Nature and Impact – Injuries inflicted with sticks and a brick during the altercation – Injuries on the vital parts (head and neck) sufficient in ordinary course to cause death but were unintentional – No repeated assault [Paras 19-21].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside – Appellants convicted under Section 304-II IPC – Sentence for the period already undergone – Appellants to be released forthwith unless required in any other case [Paras 24-25].

Insolvency Resolution Process – Discretionary Power of NCLT – Section 7(5)(a) IBC – Appellant challenged the CIRP initiated by Axis Bank under Section 7 of IBC – NCLT and NCLAT held that once a debt and default were established, admission was mandatory – Supreme Court held that Section 7(5)(a) confers discretionary power on NCLT – NCLT should consider relevant factors including the financial health and viability of the corporate debtor – NCLT’s discretion should not be arbitrary and must be exercised judicially [Paras 56-88].

Award/Decree in Favor of Corporate Debtor – Effect on Admission of Application – Adjudicating Authority must consider the existence of an award or decree in favor of the corporate debtor, especially when the amount exceeds the debt claimed by the financial creditor – Example given where NCLT may keep the admission of the application in abeyance [Paras 88-90].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Orders of NCLT and NCLAT set aside – NCLT directed to reconsider the application for stay of CIRP on merits [Paras 91].

Criminal Law – Cheating and Criminal Breach of Trust – Appellants (bus conductors) convicted under various sections of IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act – Allegations included unauthorized printing and selling of bus tickets – Enquiry report by Inspection Committee not admitted as evidence due to lack of original documents – Recovery of tickets found invalid – Prosecution failed to prove possession and sale of tickets beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 1-8].

Secondary Evidence – Admissibility – Trial Court allowed secondary evidence of enquiry report subject to proof of original's existence and loss – State failed to prove existence and loss of original documents – High Court held enquiry report not a valid piece of evidence – Supreme Court upheld this view, emphasizing proper procedure for secondary evidence [Paras 6-13].

Burden of Proof – Incriminating Evidence – Seized tickets not sealed or connected to specific buses – Witnesses (PW-8 and PW-15) unable to verify tickets' relevance to appellants – Inspection Team's statements failed to validate ticket recovery – Supreme Court ruled evidence insufficient to support conviction [Paras 9-13].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Convictions and sentences set aside – Appellants acquitted of all charges – Bail bonds discharged [Paras 14-17].

Criminal Law – Bail – Rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act – Prima facie evaluation of the evidence suggests doubt about the prosecution's case – High Court’s view that rigours of Section 37 are not applicable upheld [Paras 13-16].

Evidence – Contradictory Statements – Statements of motorcar occupants versus initial complaint by SI create serious doubt – High Court rightly considered the contradiction while granting bail [Paras 16.1-16.2].

Section 27A NDPS Act – Financing Illicit Traffic – Prosecution failed to establish prima facie evidence for Section 27A – Single transaction not sufficient for charge of financing illicit trafficking [Paras 14.1, 16.3].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – High Court's order granting bail with stringent conditions upheld – No prima facie evidence supporting the allegations under Section 27A NDPS Act [Paras 19-21].

Service Tax – Consulting Engineer – Definition – The definition of 'Consulting Engineer' under Section 65(31) of the Finance Act, 1994, includes a 'body corporate' – The amendment in 2005 clarifying the inclusion of 'body corporate' is not merely prospective but clarificatory in nature – Respondent providing consultancy engineering services liable to pay service tax [Paras 6-13].

Interpretation of Taxing Statutes – Strict Rule of Construction – Taxing statutes must be strictly interpreted but not to the extent of ignoring legislative intent – Courts may read in essential inferences to avoid absurdity – Exclusion of 'body corporate' would lead to unjust results and contradict legislative purpose [Paras 3.2-3.3, 8].

Prior Judicial Interpretations – Decisions of High Courts – Karnataka and Calcutta High Courts’ rulings in favor of including 'body corporate' within 'Consulting Engineer' supported – Earlier decisions of Delhi and Karnataka High Courts contrary to legislative intent and subsequent authoritative decisions [Paras 10.1-10.4, 11].

Decision – Appeal allowed – CESTAT's judgment set aside – Respondent liable to pay service tax under the pre-amendment definition of 'Consulting Engineer' – Case remanded to CESTAT to consider other grounds raised in the appeal [Paras 13-14].

Civil Law – Religious Endowments – Suit jewellery claimed by the appellant as private property – Jewellery kept in the Temple's Kudavarai and used for adorning the deity during festivals – Concurrent findings by three courts affirming the jewellery as a specific endowment to the deity – Dedication inferred from long possession and use for religious purposes [Paras 15-25].

Specific Endowment – Evidence and Inference – Evidence showed jewellery was donated by the ancestors of appellant – Suit jewellery recorded in the Temple's register as endowment – Long possession and usage for adorning the deity confirmed the public nature of the endowment – Appellant's claim based on inheritance from adoptive parents rejected [Paras 15-19].

Bar of Res Judicata – Prior Suit – Previous suit dismissed for technical reasons, not on merits – Subsequent suit for declaration of title and injunction not barred by res judicata or constructive res judicata – Plea of Order II Rule 2 of CPC also rejected as causes of action in the suits were different [Paras 26-34].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – High Court's judgment and decree of declaration of specific endowment upheld – Direction to appellant to hand over the keys of the Kudavarai and the suit jewellery to the Temple authorities during festival times – Appellant restrained from interfering with the Temple's right to use the jewellery [Paras 37-40].

Murder – Common Intention – Section 302/34 IPC – Conviction based on the non-cooperation of the accused in a test identification parade – Courts drew adverse inferences without considering the exposure of witnesses to the accused in the police station – Identification parade is part of the investigation and should not be overemphasized – Prosecution must prove the case beyond reasonable doubt – Prosecution’s evidence lacked reliability and consistency – Convictions and sentences under Section 302/34 set aside [Paras 1-15].

Test Identification Parade – Evidentiary Value – The evidence available on record must be scrutinized when the accused have been exposed to witnesses prior to the identification parade – Reliance on such evidence without corroboration is flawed – Prosecution failed to establish common intention and occurrence beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 3-14].

Constructive Liability – Section 34 IPC – Section 34 does not constitute an offence by itself but creates constructive liability based on proven foundational facts – Prosecution failed to demonstrate common intention and participation in the crime adequately – Evidence presented was inconsistent and not wholly reliable [Para 13].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 302/34 IPC set aside – Appellants to be released forthwith [Paras 15].

Selection Process – Award of Marks for Experience – Appellant contested the denial of marks for prior experience as a daily wager – High Court failed to consider the merits of this plea – Specific challenge was against the Selection Committee's decision – High Court should have adjudicated on whether the Selection Committee's actions were justified [Paras 2-3].

Eligibility Criteria – Qualifications of Selected Candidate – Appellant contended that respondent no.6 did not meet the eligibility criteria of having experience in a Computer Science Lab – High Court did not assess this claim on merits, deferring to the Selection Committee’s decision without judicial review – Matter remanded to Single Judge for fresh consideration on both issues [Paras 2-3].

Judicial Review – Scope of High Court’s Power – High Court’s refusal to interfere with the Selection Committee’s decisions on the grounds of judicial review was erroneous – High Court required to examine if the Selection Committee's actions were arbitrary or unjustified [Para 3].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Judgments of Single Judge and Division Bench set aside – Case remanded to Single Judge to reconsider writ petition on merits regarding the awarding of marks for experience and the qualifications of respondent no.6 – Parties allowed to submit additional documents within four weeks – Single Judge to complete hearing within six months [Paras 4].