Labour Law – Coverage under Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 – Appeal against High Court decision exempting Nagar Nigam Allahabad from coverage under ESI Act – Appellant Corporation contended that the workshop run by Nagar Nigam engaged in repairs and maintenance of vehicles is a 'factory' under the Act – High Court quashed recovery notice issued by ESI Corporation – Supreme Court held that the workshop is indeed a factory under the Act – Appeal allowed, High Court order set aside – Respondent directed to approach the Insurance Court for resolution. [Paras 1-28]

Definition of ‘Factory’ – Applicability – Held – Workshop carrying out repairs and maintenance of vehicles with more than 10 employees is a ‘factory’ under Section 2(12) of the ESI Act – Respondent’s failure to comply with ESI contributions from 1978 onwards without seeking exemption under Section 90 of the Act – Supreme Court observed that respondent’s participation in prior statutory contributions affirmed the applicability of the Act. [Paras 19-23]

Judicial Review – Writ Jurisdiction – Exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 – Supreme Court found High Court erred in entertaining writ petition without directing respondent to seek remedy before Insurance Court – Extraordinary writ jurisdiction not justified where factual disputes require examination by Insurance Court. [Paras 24-25]

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court order quashed – Respondent directed to seek remedy under Section 75 of the ESI Act – Pending applications disposed of. [Paras 26-28]

Promotion Process - Principle of 'Merit-cum-Seniority' - Petitioners challenged the promotions made by the High Court of Gujarat under Rule 5(1) of the Gujarat State Judicial Service Rules, 2005 - Alleged misapplication of 'Merit-cum-Seniority' - High Court's promotion process involved a Suitability Test comprising Written Test, Evaluation of Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs), Assessment of Average Disposal, and Evaluation of Judgments - Petitioners contended the process effectively applied 'Seniority-cum-Merit' - Writ petition under Article 32 is maintainable despite alternative remedy under Article 226 - Rule 5(1) and All India Judges’ Association (3) envisages a suitability test to ensure candidates meet a minimum standard of merit for promotion - The principle of 'Merit-cum-Seniority' does not mandate a comparative merit assessment but rather an assessment of minimum suitability - High Court's method of promotion, which assesses legal knowledge, efficiency, and case law comprehension through a Suitability Test, complies with the principle of 'Merit-cum-Seniority' - Deviating from the established process would cause prejudice to judicial officers previously affected by seniority-based promotions - Petition dismissed, Select List dated 10.03.2023 upheld [Paras 1-145]

Maintainability - Preliminary objection raised on maintainability of writ petition under Article 32 due to availability of alternative remedy under Article 226 - Court held that existence of alternative remedy does not affect maintainability of petition under Article 32 - Rule behind relegating to alternative remedy is a rule of self-restraint and convenience - Court entertained petition on merits [Paras 37-43]

Historical Context - Examined evolution of promotion principles, statutory provisions, and judicial interpretations - Discussed Law Commission's recommendations, All India Judges’ Association cases, and various precedents on 'Merit-cum-Seniority' and 'Seniority-cum-Merit' - Clarified the distinct modes of recruitment and their objectives as intended by judiciary reforms [Paras 44-139]

Guidelines for Suitability Test - Court suggested enhancing Suitability Test by including an interview component, raising minimum threshold marks, evaluating judgments from last two years, and allocating marks for seniority in Suitability Test - Suggested amending rules in line with Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975 [Paras 140-146]

Decision - Validity of Promotion Process - Upheld High Court of Gujarat’s promotion process - Confirmed that process adheres to 'Merit-cum-Seniority' principle as per All India Judges’ Association (3) - Suitability Test is valid and comprehensive, assessing legal knowledge, efficiency, and case law comprehension - Process ensures minimum merit standards and maintains judicial efficiency - Dismissed petition, upheld Select List dated 10.03.2023 - Interim Order vacated (Paras 141-144).

Criminal Law – SC/ST Act – Appeal against the order directing registration of FIR and prosecution of public servant – Complaint by Respondent No. 2 alleging caste-based insults at an equestrian training academy – High Court directed registration of FIR and prosecution of the SHO for not acting on the complaint – Supreme Court quashed the FIR and set aside the prosecution order – Held that allegations did not meet the public view requirement under the SC/ST Act – Complaint did not disclose cognizable offense under the Act – Order for prosecution of public servant without administrative enquiry recommendation invalid – FIR and consequent orders quashed. [Paras 1-29]

Public View Requirement – Analysis – Held – Intentional insult or intimidation must occur within public view – Allegations did not specify the public context required under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act – WhatsApp group chats and private settings not sufficient to meet the public view standard. [Para 20-21]

Prosecution of Public Servant – Section 4 of SC/ST Act – Held – Proviso to Section 4 requires administrative enquiry and recommendation for prosecution – High Court order bypassing this requirement is unsustainable – Protection for public servants in performing duties under the Act is crucial to avoid frivolous complaints. [Para 13-16]

Decision – Quashing of FIR and prosecution order – Supreme Court quashes the FIR and the order directing prosecution of the SHO – Complaint against appellants does not constitute offenses under the SC/ST Act – High Court's orders set aside. [Paras 27-29]

Termination of Dealership - Procedural Compliance - Appeal against High Court order affirming the quashing of dealership termination for violation of procedural norms during sample collection - Appellants contended that the dealership was terminated due to violations of the dealership agreement clauses and that SGS India, the agency appointed for sample collection, was authorized under Marketing Discipline Guidelines - Respondent challenged the validity of the sample collection process by SGS India, arguing it violated Clause 7 of the Control Order, which mandates sample collection by specific authorized officers - Single Judge and Division Bench upheld the respondent's contention, finding procedural lapses in sample collection and testing.

Procedural Lapses - Clause 7 of Control Order - The High Court found that SGS India lacked authority under Clause 7 of the Control Order to collect samples and the entire process was flawed as the required authorized officers were not involved - The Division Bench upheld the Single Judge’s decision, emphasizing the need for compliance with statutory procedures.

Sample Collection Authority - The appellants argued that the Marketing Discipline Guidelines permitted third-party agencies to collect samples - Supreme Court held that while the guidelines allowed administrative convenience, they could not override statutory provisions - The respondent was not prosecuted under the Control Order, rather the dealership was terminated for breach of contractual terms.

Judicial Discipline - Supreme Court noted adherence to principles laid down in prior judgments - Held that dealership termination must strictly comply with procedural rules and guidelines - Following the precedent in R.M. Service Centre, termination was justified if based solely on contractual breaches without violating statutory procedures.

Decision - Appeals allowed - Supreme Court found the dealership termination valid as per the terms of the agreement and procedural compliance under Marketing Discipline Guidelines - Noted no prosecutable offense under the Control Order, thus adherence to its procedural requirements was unnecessary for this case.

Civil Law – Refund of Stamp Duty – Appeal against High Court’s dismissal of demand for refund of stamp duty paid towards unexecuted conveyance deed – Appellant was defrauded by vendor who had already sold the property to a third party – Despite timely online application for refund, appellant's request was denied based on limitation period – Supreme Court examined statutory provisions and relevant rules – Held, appellant’s right to refund cannot be barred by limitation – Appeal allowed, impugned orders set aside, and refund directed [Paras 2-17].

Stamp Duty Refund – Appellant applied for refund within six months but cancellation deed was executed later due to vendor's unavailability – High Court's strict interpretation of limitation period found misplaced – Supreme Court emphasized just treatment over technicalities, referencing previous judgments on similar issues – Legal principles settled in Committee-GFIL v. Libra Buildtech case applied – Appellant’s bonafide actions and pursuit of remedies justified refund [Paras 8-16].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Held – Impugned orders dated 02.08.2019, 09.06.2015, and 25.02.2016 set aside – Respondents directed to refund the stamp duty amount of Rs. 25,34,400/- to the appellant – State should act fairly and not rely solely on technicalities when dealing with citizens [Para 17].

Specific Performance – Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell land – Appellant/plaintiff entered agreement with respondent no. 4, the Power of Attorney holder of other respondents, for purchase of land – Initial agreement dated 26.09.1995 with earnest money paid and extensions granted – Sale deed executed in favor of other respondents during the extension period – Plaintiff sued for specific performance after discovering the sale – Trial Court decreed in favor of plaintiff – High Court reversed, dismissing the suit – Supreme Court upheld High Court’s decision.

Agreement Validity – Assessment – Held – Initial agreement not executed by all co-owners – Defendant no. 1 signed as Power of Attorney holder but the agreement did not specify this role clearly – Power of Attorney not produced or proved in Trial Court – High Court correctly found that agreement was not binding on all co-owners. [Paras 6-7]

Plaintiff's Non-Appearance – Legal Implication – Held – Plaintiff did not appear as a witness, instead Power of Attorney holder deposed – Legal position prohibits Power of Attorney holder from testifying on matters requiring principal's personal knowledge and cross-examination – Non-appearance of plaintiff in specific performance suits seen as detrimental – High Court rightly disallowed deposition of Power of Attorney holder in place of plaintiff. [Paras 8-13]

Delay and Limitation – Suit for specific performance filed on last day of limitation – Cited legal precedents stress prompt action in specific performance suits – Delays viewed unfavorably – Supreme Court found suit was filed with unreasonable delay despite knowledge of adverse sale – Specific performance denied. [Paras 14-18]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court's judgment and decree upheld – Suit for specific performance denied due to lack of valid agreement by all co-owners, plaintiff's non-appearance, and delay in filing suit. [Paras 19-20]

Criminal Law – Regular Bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. – Appeal against High Court’s orders granting bail to accused in a double murder case – High Court’s orders set aside due to failure to consider the gravity of the offense, the role attributed to the accused, and the potential for witness tampering – Accused directed to surrender within two weeks [Paras 2, 6-7, 26, 28, 31-33, 35].

Evidence Evaluation – Supreme Court noted that the High Court overlooked substantial evidence against the accused, including consistent witness testimonies and the severity of the crime – Previous criminal history of the accused and allegations of threatening witnesses while on bail further justified setting aside the bail orders [Paras 30-32, 34].

Decision – Quashing of Bail Orders – Held – The appeals are allowed, and the orders granting bail to the respondents are quashed. The respondents are directed to surrender within two weeks. The observations made are limited to the issue of bail and do not reflect the merits of the ongoing trial [Paras 35-36].

Industrial Law – Application of Conferment Act – Civil Appeals against High Court decision affirming the conferment of permanent status to workmen – Tamil Nadu Medical Services Corporation claimed exemption from the Act – High Court and Supreme Court analyzed the applicability of the Act – Held, Tamil Nadu Medical Services Corporation qualifies as an industrial establishment under the Act and its employees are entitled to permanent status – Supreme Court dismissed the Corporation's appeal and allowed the employees' appeal – Directed compliance with the Inspector of Labour's order. [Paras 1-29]

Industrial Establishments – Definition and Applicability – Analysis – Held – Tamil Nadu Medical Services Corporation is an industrial establishment as per Section 2(3)(e) of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 – Activities of the Corporation deemed commercial – Employees met the continuous service requirement – Act applicable to Corporation and employees – No exemption under Section 7 applicable. [Paras 18-27]

Decision – Compliance with Labour Inspector's Order – High Court's limited scope on remand – Held, Inspector of Labour's order conferred permanent status to eligible employees – High Court should have enforced compliance instead of suggesting raising an industrial dispute – Supreme Court directs compliance with Labour Inspector's order. [Paras 28-29]

Land Allotment – Cancellation of patta initiated after 13 years – Supreme Court's intervention – Appellants challenged the order of the High Court upholding the cancellation of patta on the grounds of fraud and irregular allotment – Supreme Court examined whether the proceedings for cancellation could be initiated at any time in absence of a prescribed limitation period under Section 122-C(6) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (UPZALR Act) – Court held that power must be exercised within a reasonable period – Proceedings initiated after 13 years deemed unreasonable and without sufficient foundational facts of fraud – Appeal allowed and impugned orders set aside [Paras 1-19].

Fraud Allegations – Absence of clear evidence – Supreme Court scrutinized the allegations of fraud in land allotment process – Found no clear indication of fraudulent activity by the allottees – Irregularities based on presumed forged signatures deemed insufficient for proving fraud – Principle of reasonable time for exercising suo motu power applied – Orders of cancellation deemed unjust due to lack of concrete evidence of fraud [Paras 11-16].

Rights of Poor Villagers – Supreme Court emphasized the protection of rights of poor and rustic villagers – Allottees had constructed houses and lived there for several years based on legitimate allotment by Sub-District Magistrate – Quashing of cancellation orders to prevent injustice to poor and houseless persons – Established that unsettling long-standing residential allotments causes undue hardship [Paras 17-18].

Decision – Allowing of Appeal – Held – The appeal is allowed, and the impugned orders by the High Court, Additional Collector, and Additional Commissioner are set aside – The Supreme Court concluded that the initiation of cancellation proceedings after 13 years was unreasonable, and the allegations of fraud were unsubstantiated – The long-standing possession and residential use by the allottees justified the quashing of the cancellation orders [Paras 19].