Taxation Law - Central Sales Tax – Cancellation of Form C – Rule-Making Power of State – Rule Held Ultra Vires - Rajasthan Rule 17(20) allowed authorities to cancel Form C declarations on grounds of fraud or misrepresentation – Held: State lacked legislative competence under CST Act to frame such a rule – Only Central Government can prescribe and regulate Form C under Section 13(1)(d) – State rule inconsistent with Central rules and therefore ultra vires [Paras 1, 13–16, 18].

Scope of Rule-Making – State vs Central Jurisdiction – Interpretation Clarified - Court clarified distinction between powers under Sections 13(1), 13(3), and 13(4) of CST Act – While State can frame rules under Section 13(3), they must not conflict with Central rules framed under Section 13(1)(d) – Rule 17(20) intruded into Central domain and thus violated legislative scheme [Paras 12–16].

Statutory Interpretation – No Implied Powers to Cancel Declaration – Express Provision Required - Court emphasized that cancellation of declarations like Form C must be expressly provided for by statute or validly delegated authority – Absence of such power in CST Act or Central Rules precludes State from assuming it by implication [Paras 11.1, 14–15].

Precedent – Central Government Alone Can Prescribe Declaration Requirements – Rule Quashed - Relying on State of Madras v. R. Nand Lal & Co. and other precedents, Court reiterated that only Central Government can regulate the format, usage, and cancellation of Form C declarations – Rajasthan’s unilateral rule held invalid [Para 17].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – High Court Judgment Affirmed - Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision declaring Rule 17(20) ultra vires the CST Act – Appeal by State of Rajasthan dismissed with no order as to costs [Para 19].

Murder and Attempted Murder Conviction – Upheld by Supreme Court - Conviction of Ramvir @ Saket Singh for murder of Kaptan Singh and attempted murder of Indal Singh (PW-12) under Sections 302 and 307 of the IPC respectively - Trial Court and High Court judgments upheld - In-depth analysis of eyewitness testimonies and forensic evidence confirming involvement - Self-defence by victims highlighted - Fatal injuries to Chutallu @ Ram Mohan and Shiv Singh caused by Indal Singh (PW-12) in self-defence found justified [Paras 1-5, 14-28]

Evidence and Witness Credibility – Reliance on testimonies of Raj Kumari (PW-7) and Indal Singh (PW-12) for conviction - Discrediting of testimony from Ramraj Singh (PW-14) by the High Court due to inconsistencies - Medical evidence and circumstances corroborated the occurrence and participants in the incident [Paras 5, 14-25]

Legal Defence and Acquittal in Cross Case – Discussion on the rightful exercise of self-defence leading to the death of two assailants from the appellant's side in the same incident - High Court's acquittal in the cross case of Indal Singh (PW-12) and others for offences under Section 396 IPC, holding that they acted in self-defence - Impact of this acquittal on establishing the sequence of events in the present case [Paras 14-16, 26]

Assessment of Partisan Witnesses – Court finds no reason to discard testimony of closely related witnesses who were present at the scene, especially given the nature of the incident and injuries to Indal Singh (PW-12), who also participated in the defense actions [Paras 24-25]

Decision – Appeal dismissed due to lack of merit, affirming the conviction for murder and attempted murder - High Court and Trial Court findings on witness credibility and sequence of events upheld [Para 28]

Acquittal on Grounds of Unreliable Witness Testimony – Criminal Appeal – Supreme Court reverses High Court and trial court conviction of appellant Dharambir @ Dharma under Section 302 IPC – Highlights discrepancies and contradictions in key witness testimonies, including the lack of corroboration and the implausibility of the prosecution's scenario – Acquittal granted due to unreliable evidence and benefit of doubt extended to appellant. [Paras 1-42]

Examination of Motive and Presence at Crime Scene – Criminal Analysis – Finds the alleged motive and presence of the appellant at the crime scene not substantiated beyond reasonable doubt – Notable contradictions in witness statements regarding the seating arrangement and events post-incident – Testimony of Krishan Kumar (PW-5) deemed unreliable when challenged against physical and other testimonial evidence. [Paras 21-31, 33-34]

Judicial Handling of Extra Judicial Confessions – Legal Principle – Reiterates the established principle that extra judicial confessions are weak evidence, requiring careful judicial scrutiny and substantial corroborative evidence – Discredits the confession presented in this case due to contradictions and lack of supportive testimony. [Paras 35-36]

Decision – Acquittal of Dharambir based on unreliable witness testimony and uncorroborated extra-judicial confession - Highlighted the improbability of the prosecution's version of events - The appeal allowed, previous convictions quashed [Paras 36-40].

Service Law - Applicability of Government Orders in Promotion to Assistant Engineers – Jurisdiction and Legal Analysis – Appeals challenging the judgment of the Madras High Court which allowed writ appeals filed by respondents, reversing the earlier decision to restrict appointments of Technical Assistants to Assistant Engineers based on service and qualifications – Held, Executive instructions valid for filling gaps until formal rules are framed, as per historical precedents and existing governmental orders, ensuring promotions from Technical Assistants to Assistant Engineers based on specified conditions are lawful. [Paras 1-3, 15-17]

Regularization of Technical Assistants as Assistant Engineers – Legal Basis and Precedents – Examination of the regularized status of Technical Assistants appointed as Assistant Engineers on a temporary basis – Held, Regularization justified by Rule 48 of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services, validated by executive orders, aligning with service requirements and not constituting backdoor appointments, thereby upholding service justice and administrative efficiency. [Paras 22-25]

Judicial Discretion in Civil Service Appeals – Equity and Legal Precedents – Discussion on the discretionary power of the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution in adjudicating service-related appeals – Held, No interference warranted with High Court’s judgment given the established practice and regularized appointments under debate, as it would disrupt settled positions and undermine service equity and justice. [Paras 26-27]

Outcome – Civil Appeal Nos. 4886 to 4889, 4892 and 5748 to 5750 of 2023 are dismissed, affirming the Division Bench’s judgment in favor of allowing promotions based on executive instructions and historical precedents, without contravention of constitutional provisions. [Para 28]

Service Law - Service Termination and Natural Justice – Civil Appeal – Termination of Services as Registrar at GB Pant Institute of Engineering and Technology – Challenge against High Court decision dismissing writ petition and review application regarding termination of services – Supreme Court finds termination unjustified and in violation of natural justice, orders reinstatement of appellant. [Paras 1-22]

Dismissal on Technical Grounds – High Court dismissed writ petition for non-disclosure of minutes from Board of Governors meeting, viewed as suppression of material facts – Supreme Court finds such dismissal inappropriate, noting the minutes actually supported the appellant's case – Directions given for reinstatement and quashing of termination order. [Paras 5, 19-20]

Probation and Regularization – Appellant was appointed as Registrar, initially on probation – Continued service nearly two years, deemed regularization under terms of appointment letter – Termination without disciplinary enquiry or cause shown deemed improper. [Paras 7, 17-18]

Requisite Qualifications and Enquiry – Allegations of appellant lacking qualifications for Registrar post addressed – Prior committee found appellant’s qualifications genuine and satisfactory – Termination based on alleged lack of approval by Board contradicted by documented evidence. [Paras 13-14, 18]

Remedy and Future Proceedings – Supreme Court orders immediate reinstatement of appellant with all consequential benefits – Institute may conduct disciplinary proceedings as per law if desired. [Para 20]

University Employment Regularization – Challenge against High Court's dismissal of appeal concerning regularization of appellants' temporary academic positions after reorganization of university center - Appellants appointed through regular selection process as per UGC and university standards; court highlighted errors in High Court's application of precedents and statutory interpretation – Appellants' rights affirmed to continue in employment after positions' merger into regular university establishment [Paras 1-32].

Qualifications and Selection Process – Appellants appointed based on qualifications and selection process prescribed by UGC and confirmed by University’s Executive Council – UGC’s approval for merger of posts into regular university establishment, thereby endorsing continuation of appellants under regular establishment budget [Paras 17-26].

Misconduct Allegations and Procedural Rights – Despite recommendations for disciplinary inquiry against appellants due to alleged misconduct, court allows continuation of employment, subject to outcomes of any disciplinary actions – Court finds procedural fairness in handling of appellants’ initial appointments and subsequent challenges [Paras 27-29].

Judicial Remedy and Relief – Supreme Court sets aside High Court judgment, directs reinstatement of appellants with continuity of service but without back pay for the period not worked – Addresses potential implications for individuals appointed in appellants' positions pending litigation [Paras 30-32].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court’s judgments set aside – Appellants to be reinstated with continuity in service but without pay for periods not worked – University may consider accommodating any appointees from the disputed posts into other vacancies if available.

Challenge Against Auction Sale Notice – Borrower’s application in DRT under SARFAESI Act against auction notice by UCO Bank – Interim DRT order allowing auction with conditions – Conditions unmet by Borrower – Auction completed and sale confirmed in favor of appellant [Paras 3.3, 3.5, 3.6, 10].

Restoration of Securitization Application – Dismissal by DRT Challenged – Alternative Remedy and High Court’s Jurisdiction – Held, High Court erred in entertaining writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution when alternative remedy under SARFAESI Act was available. Observes that High Court should refrain from entertaining such matters unless exceptions carved out by Supreme Court in Chhabil Dass Agarwal case are present. Auction purchaser's appeal allowed, setting aside High Court’s order and dismissing writ petition. [Paras 16-34]

Validity of Auction Purchase – Impact of Confirmed Sale – Borrower’s Conduct – Finds that confirmed auction sale should only be interfered with in cases of fraud or collusion, which is not the case here. Notes Borrower's conduct and failure to comply with DRT's order to deposit dues, impacting the outcome. Emphasizes the finality achieved by auction sale confirmation and subsequent registration, leading to extinguishment of Borrower's right of redemption. [Paras 25-27]

Exercise of Jurisdiction under Article 226 – Exceptional Circumstances – Reiterates the Supreme Court’s stance on not entertaining petitions under Article 226 in presence of an effective alternative remedy, except in specific exceptional circumstances. The case at hand found not to fall under these exceptions. [Paras 28-31]

Decision –  Appeal allowed by Supreme Court.

Impugned order dated 4^th February 2022 by High Court in Writ Petition No. 5275 of 2021 quashed and set aside.

Writ Petition No. 5275 of 2021 dismissed with costs of Rs.1,00,000 imposed upon the Borrower [Para 34].

Easementary Rights – Dispute over 20ft. wide road in land Survey No.57 Hissa No.13A/1 owned by Ramani's, claimed by Gala's under easement – Gala's (appellants) claimed easementary rights over the road which is part of respondents' property – Suit filed for declaration of easementary rights and for permanent injunction – Original suit decreed but overturned by appellate court and dismissal upheld by High Court [Paras 1-5].

Easementary Right by Prescription – Gala's claim of easementary right over road by prescription not established – Requirement of uninterrupted usage for over 20 years under Section 15 of Indian Easements Act, 1882 not fulfilled – Gala's failed to specifically claim use of road for over 20 years [Paras 21-22, 27].

Easement of Necessity – No easement of necessity established as there existed an alternative access to Gala's land – Gala's unable to prove necessity of disputed road for accessing their property [Paras 32-33].

Transfer of Easement Rights – Gala's claim of acquiring easement rights under Sale Deed dated 17.09.1994 – No evidence presented that government transferred easement rights to initial purchaser, nor such rights were acquired or perfected by Joki Woler Ruzer (original plaintiff) – Photocopy of sale deed inadmissible as evidence [Paras 35-36].

Comparison with Another Easement – Gala's contention of having rights similar to another landowner (Dharmadhikari) rejected – Dharmadhikari's easement rights explicitly assigned in separate sale deed, not applicable to Gala's [Para 37].

Appellate Court's Power – Appellate court has power to overturn findings of the court of first instance – First appellate court justified in its reassessment of the evidence and findings [Para 39].

Decision – Appeals by Gala's dismissed – Easementary rights over disputed road not established – No legal or factual basis for claiming easement rights [Paras 40-41].

Curative Petition – Invoked under Article 142 – Addressing miscarriage of justice in arbitral award interpretation – Overlooking of vital evidence and erroneous contractual interpretation leading to an undeserved financial burden on DMRC – Curative petition maintainable and allowed. [Paras 30-72]

Arbitral Award Review – Patently Illegal – Incorrect interpretation of termination clause by Arbitral Tribunal – Overlooked vital evidence, namely CMRS certificate, in evaluating the validity of contract termination by DAMEPL – The award failed to recognize DMRC’s effective steps during the cure period – Award set aside due to patent illegality and perversity. [Paras 44-66]

Interpretation of Termination Clause – Analysis of Clause 29.5.1(i) – Unreasonable interpretation by Tribunal – Misinterpretation leading to overlooking effective steps taken by DMRC during the cure period – Contradicts contractual intent. [Paras 47-54]

CMRS Certificate – Overlooked Evidence – Significance under Metro Railways (Operation and Maintenance) Act, 2002 – Certificate relevant for assessing the safety and effective steps towards defect remedy – Arbitral Tribunal’s disregard led to miscarriage of justice. [Paras 55-66]

Execution Proceedings – Termination and Refund – Execution proceedings for enforcing the arbitral award to be discontinued – Amounts deposited by DMRC to be refunded. [Para 69]

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the curative petition, setting aside the previous judgment which had upheld the arbitral award favoring Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. The Court found the award patently illegal and perverse, as it overlooked vital evidence and contained an erroneous interpretation of the termination clause of the contract. The decision reinstated the position of the parties as it was prior to the arbitral award and directed the discontinuation of execution proceedings.