Insolvency Law – Operational Creditor – Advance Payment – Supreme Court held that an advance payment for goods or services that remains unpaid due to contract termination constitutes an operational debt under the IBC – The appellant, having made an advance payment for light fittings which were not delivered after the project termination, qualifies as an operational creditor under Section 5(20) of the IBC – The contract between the appellant and the proprietary concern (taken over by the respondent) establishes this operational debt [Paras 21-46].

Memorandum of Association – Takeover of Proprietary Concern – The respondent's Memorandum of Association (MOA) stated the takeover of the proprietary concern – Supreme Court held that the respondent is liable for the debts of the proprietary concern as the amendment to MOA was not registered as per statutory requirements – The Board resolution to not take over the concern, lacking Registrar's approval, does not negate the liability [Paras 47-56].

Limitation – Commencement of Default – The period of limitation for filing an application under Section 9 of the IBC begins from the date of default, not the date of debt becoming due – Supreme Court found the default date as 2 March 2017 when the proprietary concern refused to return the advance payment, making the application filed on 1 November 2017 within the limitation period [Paras 57-61].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment set aside – Respondent is liable to repay the advance amount – Application under Section 9 of the IBC is maintainable.

Criminal Law – Murder vs. Culpable Homicide – The accused attacked the deceased with multiple blows using a "Phakadiyat" on the head, resulting in severe injuries including a skull fracture – Supreme Court held that the case falls under Clauses Thirdly and Fourthly of Section 300 IPC – High Court's judgment altering the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder and reducing the sentence to ten years rigorous imprisonment quashed – Conviction under Section 302 IPC restored [Paras 1-14].

Indian Penal Code – Clauses Thirdly and Fourthly of Section 300 – The injuries inflicted by the accused were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, and the act was imminently dangerous, making the accused's actions fall squarely under Clauses Thirdly and Fourthly of Section 300 IPC – The accused's intent and knowledge were inferred from the nature of the weapon used, the force applied, and the severity of the injuries [Paras 7-8, 16, 45-47, 56-57].

Judicial Interpretation – Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC – Supreme Court clarified that Exception 4, which deals with acts done in a sudden fight in the heat of passion, was not applicable – The second incident occurred later and was not a result of a sudden fight but a deliberate attack by the accused, who chased the deceased to his house and continued the assault [Paras 5, 6].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's order set aside – Accused held guilty under Section 302 IPC – Life imprisonment sentence restored [Para 8].

Service Law – Selection Grade – Clean Record Requirement – The respondent, who was compulsorily retired and faced 19 charge-sheets during his service, sought Selection Grade benefits – Supreme Court held that employees are entitled to Selection Grade only if their service record is satisfactory, which implies an unblemished record – The respondent's multiple disciplinary penalties indicated that his record was not satisfactory, disqualifying him from Selection Grade benefits [Paras 10-11].

Limitation – Suit for Benefits – The respondent filed the suit seven years after compulsory retirement – Supreme Court found the suit barred by limitation under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which prescribes a three-year period – The representation for Selection Grade benefits rejected in 2010 did not extend the limitation period as the cause of action arose at the time of retirement [Paras 7-9].

Constitutional Law – Article 14 – Reasonable Classification – The Court upheld the classification that only employees with an untainted record are eligible for Selection Grade benefits, finding it reasonable and within the ambit of Article 14 – This classification ensures that benefits are awarded based on merit and clean service records [Para 9].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment set aside – Respondent's suit dismissed as barred by limitation and lacking merit – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 12-14].

Labour Law – Industrial Disputes Act – Contractors’ Workmen – The respondent Union representing workmen engaged by contractors claimed wages and service conditions at par with ONGC employees – Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal’s award, as modified by the High Court, finding that the settlement of 19th September 2016 did not bind the respondent workmen and that they were entitled to wage revisions and benefits based on earlier MoUs between ONGC and Unions [Paras 16-24].

Jurisdiction – Tribunal’s Jurisdiction – Mixed Question of Law and Fact – The Tribunal’s jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute was contested on the ground that the workmen were not employees of ONGC – Supreme Court held that the issue was a mixed question of law and fact, appropriately addressed by the Tribunal and upheld by the High Court, thus not warranting interference [Paras 12-15].

Settlement – Section 18(3)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act – Binding Nature – The settlement dated 19th September 2016 was held not binding on the respondent workmen – Supreme Court affirmed that the settlement primarily involved contractors and did not encompass the specific demands of the respondent Union representing ONGC’s workmen [Paras 19-24].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court’s judgment sustained – Directives for wage revisions and arrears payment to be implemented as per Tribunal’s award and High Court’s modifications – No order as to costs [Paras 25-28].

Service Law – Premature Retirement – Entire Service Record Consideration – Supreme Court held that an order of premature retirement must consider the entire service record, including both adverse and positive entries, up to the time of retirement – Recent reports are given more weight but do not exclude earlier records – The High Court’s decision to ignore records prior to the respondent's promotion was incorrect [Paras 2, 15].

Judicial Review – Scope and Limitations – The Court reiterated that judicial review of premature retirement orders is limited to checking for mala fides, arbitrariness, or lack of material basis – The decision to retire an employee is not a penalty and does not require a speaking order – The High Court misapplied these principles, leading to its order being set aside [Paras 6-7, 9-10, 13].

Adverse Entries – Relevance Post-Promotion – Clarified that adverse entries are not washed off upon promotion and can be considered for assessing suitability for continuation in service – The High Court’s reliance on post-promotion records only, and its factual errors regarding the respondent’s service record, were grounds for reversal [Paras 12, 14].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's order set aside – Order of premature retirement restored – The writ petition stands dismissed [Paras 16].

Labour Law – Section 33(C)(2) of Industrial Disputes Act – Jurisdiction of Labour Court – Supreme Court held that the Labour Court under Section 33(C)(2) cannot adjudicate disputes regarding entitlement or the basis of the claim of workmen – The Labour Court's jurisdiction is limited to interpreting the award or settlement on which the claim is based, akin to the jurisdiction of an executing court – In cases where there is no prior adjudication or recognition of the disputed claim, proceedings for computation of arrears or difference of wages are not maintainable under Section 33(C)(2) [Paras 6-7].

Employer-Employee Relationship – Serious Dispute – In cases where there is a serious dispute regarding the existence of an employer-employee relationship, the Labour Court must not proceed under Section 33(C)(2) and should direct the claimant to seek appropriate adjudication of their rights through reference under the Industrial Disputes Act [Paras 6-7].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment and Labour Court’s order set aside – Respondent No. 2 directed to pursue alternative remedies available under the Industrial Disputes Act for adjudication of their rights as an employee – No costs [Paras 8].

Constitutional Law – Article 226 – Protocols for Funeral Rites – Supreme Court upheld a mutually agreed protocol and Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) between the Parsi Panchayat Board and the Union Government – The SOP ensures the observance of Parsi Zoroastrian funeral rites while adhering to Covid-19 safety guidelines – This decision resolves the dispute between the need for religious observance and public health considerations [Paras 3-9].

Dialogic Judicial Review – Promoting Harmony – The Court highlighted the role of dialogic judicial review in resolving disputes amicably and promoting harmony between conflicting interests – The agreed protocol reflects an effective solution balancing religious rights with public health requirements [Paras 5, 9].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment set aside – Agreed protocol and SOP accepted – Writ petition governed by the agreed statement – Appeal disposed of in these terms – Pending applications, if any, disposed of [Paras 10-12].

Criminal Law – Conviction for Murder – The appellants were convicted for the murder of two individuals, caused by multiple bullet injuries – Supreme Court upheld the conviction under Section 302 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act – High Court’s judgment modified the trial court's conviction by acquitting the appellants under Section 307 IPC due to the lack of evidence on the charge of attempt to murder [Paras 1-8].

Evidence Act – Credibility and Assessment – The Court emphasized the importance of evaluating the credibility of related and interested witnesses – Held that the testimonies of the eyewitnesses (PWs-1 & 2) were consistent and reliable despite being related to the deceased – The fact that PW-3 turned hostile did not affect the overall credibility of the prosecution’s case, as his initial testimony supported the prosecution [Paras 9-21, 33-34].

Hostile Witness – Legal Interpretation – Supreme Court clarified that the testimony of a hostile witness is not to be entirely discarded – The portions of the testimony that are reliable and consistent with the prosecution’s case can be accepted and relied upon [Paras 21-23].

Non-examination of Witness – Not Fatal – The non-examination of an injured witness (Om Prakash) was explained by the prosecution, and the Court held that this did not vitiate the case – The evidence provided by the other witnesses and forensic reports were sufficient to uphold the conviction [Paras 24-25, 34-35].

Judicial Integrity – Handling of Witnesses – The Court expressed concern over the practice of delaying cross-examination, which allows time for witnesses to be influenced – Directed trial courts to complete the examination of private witnesses on the same day as far as possible and prioritize the examination of private witnesses before official witnesses [Paras 39-40].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Conviction under Section 302 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act upheld – High Court’s judgment acquitting the appellants under Section 307 IPC affirmed – Directions issued for better handling of witness examinations in trial courts [Paras 38-40].

Civil Procedure – Modification of Consent Decree – Court's Inherent Powers – Supreme Court held that a consent decree can be modified under Sections 152 and 153 read with Section 151 of the CPC if it is vitiated by fraud, misrepresentation, or misunderstanding – The application for modification should be treated under the proviso to Order 23 Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the CPC – No allegation of fraud or misrepresentation was found, and the appeal was dismissed [Paras 1-3, 5-6, 13-14].

Judicial Review – Consent Decree – Estoppel and Mistake – The Court emphasized that a consent decree is intended to conclude litigation and creates estoppel by judgment – A decree can be modified if there is a patent or obvious mistake, but not for minor misunderstandings or ambiguities that do not affect the core agreement – The thorough correspondence between the parties' advocates indicated no ambiguity or lack of clarity [Paras 11-13].

Settlement Agreement – Trademark Dispute – Detailed Examination – The case involved a dispute over the use of the trademark "FX-991ES PLUS" – The Court scrutinized the communications and found that the settlement agreement was detailed and deliberate, without any apparent mistake that could justify modification [Paras 6-10].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court’s judgment upheld – No case for modification of the consent decree established – No costs [Paras 14].