Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 – Dishonour of Cheques – Essential Ingredients – Complaint filed under Section 138 of the NI Act lacked specific averments that the appellant, as the authorized signatory of the company, was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of its business – Held: Such averments are statutorily mandatory to maintain a complaint under Section 138 – Absence of such averments renders the complaint unsustainable – Complaint and all proceedings emanating therefrom quashed [Paras 6-8, 9].

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Quashing of Summoning Orders – High Court declined to quash summoning orders despite the absence of mandatory averments in the complaints – Held: Compelling the appellant to stand trial in the absence of foundational statutory requirements would amount to abuse of the court process – Summoning orders and all related proceedings set aside [Paras 8-9].

Legal Principle – Liability of Authorized Signatory – It is settled law that to maintain a charge under Section 138 NI Act against an individual associated with a company, the complaint must specifically state that the individual was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company’s business – Failure to make such averments is fatal to the complaint – Reliance placed on Ashok Shewakramani v. State of Andhra Pradesh [Paras 7, 8].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Complaints Quashed – High Court order dismissing petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. set aside – Complaints filed under Section 138 NI Act and related summoning orders quashed – Proceedings before the Metropolitan Magistrate quashed as against the appellant [Paras 9-10].
 

Civil Writ - PIL - Judicial Review – Public Contracts – Excessive Delegation Invalidated – Articles 13 and 14 of the Concession Agreement, allowing NOIDA Toll Bridge Company Ltd. to levy toll, were held invalid for violating public policy – Held: Power to levy fees or toll cannot be delegated to private entities as per the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976; only the collection of fees may be delegated [Paras 42-50].

Public Interest Litigation – Maintainability and Delay – Continuous Cause of Action – The PIL filed after 15 years of the Concession Agreement was held maintainable due to continuous public injury and absence of clear disclosure of toll recoveries – Held: Delay in filing a public interest matter does not preclude maintainability where public welfare is at stake [Paras 16-21].

Reasonableness of Toll Policy – Violation of Public Policy – Perpetual Recovery of Costs – Formula in the Concession Agreement led to perpetual recovery of escalating project costs, extending the concession period indefinitely – Held: The agreement imposed an undue burden on public commuters and failed to align with the principles of equity and public trust [Paras 53-65].

Role of the State – Responsibility in Public-Private Partnerships – Lack of Transparency – Selection of NTBCL without competitive bidding and delegation of financial oversight to private stakeholders highlighted misuse of power – Held: Actions violated Article 14, mandating fairness and equality in public governance [Paras 30-40].

Decision: The appeal was dismissed. The High Court's judgment prohibiting the collection of toll and severing Articles 13 and 14 from the Concession Agreement was upheld. NTBCL was directed to cease toll collection immediately.
 

Scope of Section 195 Cr.P.C. – Applicability to Tribunals – Section 195 read with Section 340 Cr.P.C. mandates that complaints for offences under Sections 193, 199, and 200 IPC, when committed before a Court, must be filed only by orders of the Court concerned – Tribunal not defined as "Court" under law – Held: Offences alleged to have been committed before a Tribunal may be addressed through private complaints rather than following the procedure under Section 195 Cr.P.C..

Private Complaints – Offences under Sections 193, 199, and 200 IPC – Where offences are committed outside a Court, private complaints are maintainable – Tribunal, being outside the definition of "Court," can entertain such complaints – Held: Private complaints are valid for offences committed before the Municipal Building Tribunal in this case.

Quashing of Complaint – High Court’s Jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – High Court quashed the private complaint on the ground that it contravened Section 195 Cr.P.C. – Supreme Court held this reasoning to be erroneous, as the Tribunal was not a Court – Held: High Court order set aside, and private complaint restored for adjudication on merits by the Tribunal.

Decision – Appeal allowed – Private complaint restored to the Tribunal – Supreme Court clarified that the decision is based solely on technical and legal grounds, and the merits of the case remain to be adjudicated by the Tribunal.

Matrimonial Law – Divorce - Mental Cruelty – Filing False Complaints – Section 13(1)(ia), HMA – Divorce Granted – The High Court held that the appellant-wife’s act of filing a false dowry harassment complaint against the respondent-husband and his family, later abandoned, amounted to mental cruelty – Prolonged separation of over 15 years demonstrated an irretrievable breakdown of marriage – Held: Filing false complaints with intent to harass constitutes cruelty, justifying dissolution of marriage – Decision: Decree of divorce granted; appeal dismissed; permanent alimony awarded to the appellant and daughter [Paras 8, 10, 14-16, 27-29, 41].

Desertion – Prolonged Separation – Section 13(1)(ib), HMA – Divorce Granted – The High Court concluded that the appellant’s prolonged separation without reasonable cause and lack of interest in reconciliation amounted to desertion – Held: Willful abandonment of matrimonial obligations constitutes desertion, justifying divorce – Decision: Marriage dissolved due to desertion; permanent alimony granted [Paras 11, 13, 30-33, 40].

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Prolonged Separation – Article 142 of the Constitution – Relief Granted – The Court acknowledged the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage due to 20 years of separation, during which reconciliation efforts failed – Held: While not a statutory ground, irretrievable breakdown justifies dissolution of a marriage when continuation would only perpetuate distress – Decision: Marriage declared irretrievably broken; divorce decree upheld; permanent alimony granted [Paras 30-33, 41].

Jurisdiction of High Court – Section 100, CPC – Substantial Question of Law – High Court’s Interference Justified – The High Court reversed concurrent findings of the lower courts by addressing substantial questions of law related to the appellant’s conduct and the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage – Held: Such interference is permissible under Section 100, CPC – Decision: High Court’s jurisdiction upheld; divorce decree maintained [Paras 6-8, 17-18, 23].

Permanent Alimony – Financial Independence and Dignity – Alimony Awarded – The Court directed the respondent-husband to pay Rs. 50,00,000/- as permanent alimony to the appellant-wife and an additional Rs. 50,00,000/- for the education and future expenses of their daughter – Held: Alimony ensures financial stability and dignity, safeguarding the rights of dependents post-divorce – Decision: Permanent alimony of Rs. 1 crore awarded to appellant and daughter; payments to be made within four months [Paras 36-40, 41].

Family Law - Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Grant of Divorce under Article 142(1) – The Court dissolved the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent, citing irretrievable breakdown of marriage – The marriage was marred by multiple litigations, allegations of cruelty, and false criminal complaints – Held: The marriage had become emotionally dead and unworkable – Divorce granted under Article 142(1), balancing equities, including permanent alimony to the petitioner [Paras 9.10, 9.15-9.16, 12].

Transfer Petition – Section 25 CPC – Adjudication of Alimony – The Court transferred the divorce petition from Bhopal to Pune for adjudication limited to determining alimony – Alimony fixed at ₹2 lakhs per month or ₹10 crores in lump sum, considering the respondent’s financial status, marriage duration, and circumstances [Para 3.10, 3.13].

Misuse of Criminal Law – Effect on Marital Relationship – The petitioner’s filing of false criminal cases under Sections 498A, 376, and 377 IPC, Look Out Circulars, and arrest of the respondent irreparably fractured the marriage – Such actions amounted to cruelty against the respondent [Paras 9.9, 10].

Exercise of Article 142(1) – Complete Justice Achieved – Broad powers under Article 142(1) were used to dissolve the marriage and provide equitable relief – Held: Prolonged litigation and acrimony necessitated this decision – Relief included permanent alimony balancing fairness for both parties [Paras 9.16, 10].

Decision: Petition partly allowed – Marriage dissolved under Article 142(1) – Alimony to be determined by the Family Court at Pune.

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 148 – Deposit of Compensation – Legislative Intent – High Court dismissed subsequent petition under Section 482 CrPC for lack of leave in an earlier withdrawal – Held: Section 148 allows appellate discretion to waive the 20% deposit in exceptional cases – Appellants’ second petition maintainable due to subsequent clarifications in law – Matter remitted to Sessions Court for reconsideration of deposit conditions [Paras 8-15].

Maintainability of Successive Petitions – Section 482 CrPC – Principle of Res Judicata – Res Judicata inapplicable to criminal cases – High Court’s denial of maintainability of second petition erroneous – Change in law constitutes a valid ground for entertaining successive petitions [Paras 12-14].

Judicial Interpretation – Use of ‘May’ and ‘Shall’ in Statutes – Section 148 N.I. Act employs ‘may’ for appellate discretion on ordering deposits and ‘shall’ for specifying minimum deposit quantum – Contextual interpretation supports discretionary powers for exceptional cases – Mandatory deposit requirement not absolute [Paras 16-18].

Decision – High Court’s dismissal of subsequent petition quashed – Sessions Court’s order on mandatory deposit set aside – Matter remitted to Sessions Court for reconsideration based on new legal interpretation [Paras 19-20].

Civil Law - Recovery Proceedings – Public Demand – Jurisdictional Facts – Role of Civil Supplies Corporation - Dispute over recovery of undelivered Custom Milled Rice (CMR) for procurement year 2011-12 – Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation (respondent) initiated recovery proceedings under the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914, alleging default by rice millers (appellants) – Supreme Court upheld recovery as a “public demand” under the Act – Held: Civil Supplies Corporation acted as the nodal agency of the State, and the claim qualified as a public demand – Rice millers failed to exhaust statutory remedies, limiting the scope of judicial intervention [Paras 1-42].

Public Demand – Interpretation of Section 3(6) – Recovery Justified – The definition of ‘public demand’ under Section 3(6) read with Clause 8-A of Schedule I is broad and inclusive – Held: The cost of undelivered CMR qualifies as a public demand recoverable under the Act as it pertains to obligations under the State's procurement policy [Paras 45-48].

Nodal Agency – Civil Supplies Corporation’s Status – Valid Recovery – The Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation acted as the State’s nodal agency in implementing the procurement policy for Custom Milled Rice (CMR) – Held: The Corporation is entitled to recover dues as public demand, consistent with its statutory and contractual obligations [Paras 30-35].

Procedural Safeguards – Adherence to Natural Justice – Allegations of procedural deviations in recovery proceedings were dismissed – Held: Certificate proceedings complied with statutory provisions, and aggrieved parties were provided sufficient opportunities to raise objections and seek remedies [Paras 50-53].

Jurisdictional Facts – Importance of Totality of Circumstances – The Court emphasized the necessity of considering the totality of circumstances, including the contractual relationship and public interest in the procurement scheme – Held: Jurisdictional facts establishing the validity of the recovery proceedings were satisfied [Paras 37-40].

Statutory Remedies – Limitation Waived for Appeals – The Court provided an extended timeframe for the Rice Millers to avail statutory remedies under the Act – Held: Parties may pursue appeals or revisions within 30 days of the judgment, without the bar of limitation [Paras 55-57].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Recovery proceedings under the Act upheld – Liberty granted to appellants to avail statutory remedies within the extended timeframe [Para 58].
 

Employment Law – University Recruitment – Teaching Experience as a Criterion – Validity of Regulation – Shortlisting for Interviews – Regulations Interpreted - Respondent 1, an aspirant for the post of Assistant Professor at Allahabad University and its constituent colleges, challenged the non-inclusion of her teaching experience as a guest lecturer and contractual faculty in the shortlisting process – The University relied on Regulation 10(f)(iii) of the UGC (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers) Regulations, 2018, which excludes certain types of teaching experience unless specific conditions are met – The High Court read down the regulation, holding it inapplicable for direct recruitment to Assistant Professor posts – Supreme Court held: The High Court erred in reading down Regulation 10(f)(iii), as it was neither challenged nor found ultra vires – Regulation 10(f)(iii) applies to shortlisting, and its application is consistent with the UGC’s recruitment policy [Paras 1-52].

Shortlisting Process – Applicability of Regulation 10(f)(iii) – Legality Upheld – Regulation 10(f)(iii), which mandates specific emolument thresholds for recognizing past teaching experience, was contested as discriminatory – The Supreme Court upheld its applicability, finding it rational and consistent with UGC policy for merit-based shortlisting – The Division Bench of the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by reading down the provision without declaring it unconstitutional [Paras 32-40].

Article 14 – No Discrimination in Salary-Based Distinction – The emolument-based differentiation under Regulation 10(f)(iii) was challenged as arbitrary – The Court found the provision aligned with quality benchmarks and not violative of Article 14, as teaching experience must meet specified standards [Paras 45-47].

Judicial Review – Limitation on Courts’ Legislative Role – The Court criticized the High Court for judicial overreach in reading down Regulation 10 without adequate constitutional basis or a finding of unconstitutionality – Held that courts must avoid rewriting legislation under the guise of interpretation [Paras 50-55].

Shortlisting Criteria – Rationality and Fairness – Affirmation of Process – The Supreme Court emphasized that rational shortlisting criteria, like Regulation 10(f)(iii), are permissible and necessary in handling a large number of applications for limited vacancies – The University's method of shortlisting was deemed reasonable and upheld [Paras 58-61].

Interpretation of Statutes – Reading Down – Principles Clarified – The Court reiterated that reading down is permissible only to save a provision from unconstitutionality and cannot be used to supplant clear legislative intent – Regulation 10(f)(iii) was found unambiguous and valid as enacted [Paras 63-67].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court's order set aside – Regulation 10(f)(iii) upheld – Writ petition by Respondent 1 dismissed [Para 70].
 

Taxation Law - Central Excise Tariff – Classification of Coconut Oil – Edible Oil vs. Hair Oil - Pure coconut oil marketed in small quantities – Dispute on classification under Heading 1513 (Edible Oil) in Section III-Chapter 15 or Heading 3305 (Hair Oil) in Section VI-Chapter 33 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 – Held: Classification depends on the packaging and intended use indicated on the labels – If packaged and marketed as edible oil, it is classifiable under Heading 1513 – Packaging indicating use as a cosmetic or toilet preparation brings it under Heading 3305 [Paras 1-48].

Classification Dispute – Coconut Oil – Heading 1513 or 3305 – Classifiable as Edible Oil – Dispute over classification of coconut oil packaged in small quantities ranging from 5 ml to 2 liters – Court held that pure coconut oil, marketed as edible oil, is classifiable under Heading 1513 unless its packaging indicates use as a cosmetic or toilet preparation under Heading 3305 – Relied on alignment of Indian tariff with the Harmonized System of Nomenclature (HSN) and statutory changes post-2005 [Paras 30-40].

Statutory Interpretation – Role of Harmonized System of Nomenclature (HSN) – Affirmed that the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act aligns with the HSN – The classification must consider HSN notes unless explicit divergence is legislated in India – Applied to interpret changes in the classification of coconut oil post-2005 amendment [Paras 15-22].

Applicability of the ‘Common Parlance Test’ – Limited to Ambiguity – Emphasized that the common parlance test applies only when statutory provisions and tariff headings lack clarity – Court rejected Revenue’s reliance on the test for classifying coconut oil as hair oil without evidence supporting such use [Paras 41-45].

Onus of Proof – Burden on Revenue for Reclassification – Held: The burden of proof lies on Revenue to demonstrate that goods are classifiable under a specific heading other than the one claimed by the assessee – Revenue failed to prove that coconut oil was marketed as a cosmetic product [Paras 50-55].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Coconut oil marketed as edible oil classified under Heading 1513 – Revenue directed to bear costs [Para 58].