Labour Law - Termination of employment - Back wages - Burden of proof - Appellant, a conductor employed by respondent, was removed from service after an inquiry found him guilty of misconduct - Labour Court ordered reinstatement but denied back wages - Appellant filed writ petition seeking back wages, which was dismissed by the High Court - Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court - Burden of proof on appellant to establish unemployment after termination - Appellant made specific assertions of unemployment in statement of claim and during cross-examination before Labour Court - Appellant withdrew an earlier affidavit stating unemployment - Court held that appellant had discharged burden of proving unemployment until a certain date - Respondent failed to provide evidence to the contrary - Appellant entitled to some back wages - Court awarded appellant Rs. 3 lakhs as back wages - Respondent directed to make payment within two months, with interest at 9% per annum if payment not made within stipulated time. (Para 1-11)

Special Leave Petition (Civil) – Maintainability – Appeal against order passed in review – Whether a Special Leave Petition (Civil) can be filed against an order passed in review – Provisions of Order XLVII Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code – Bar on filing Special Leave Petition against order passed in review – Lack of specific permission to file subsequent Special Leave Petition – Interpretation of previous judgments – Conflict in case law – Need for adjudication by a larger bench. [Para 25-42]

Doctrine of merger – Dismissal of Special Leave Petition by way of a nonspeaking order – Effect on the maintainability of subsequent proceedings – Non-applicability of doctrine of merger to a dismissal without reasons – Dismissal not considered as law under Article 141 of the Constitution – Dismissal not treated as res judicata – Possibility of filing a fresh Special Leave Petition – Need for reasons in dismissal of Special Leave Petition – Floodgates of litigation. [Para 37-41]

POCSO Act – Aggravated penetrative sexual assault – Conviction and sentence – Appellant-accused was prosecuted for offences under Sections 377 and 506 of IPC and Sections 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act – Trial Court convicted appellant for all three offences and sentenced him accordingly – High Court modified conviction to penetrative sexual assault under Section 4 of the POCSO Act and reduced sentence – Appeal by State against High Court’s decision. (Para 1)

POCSO Act – Definition of ‘penetrative sexual assault’ – Section 3(a) – Definition of ‘aggravated penetrative sexual assault’ – Section 5(m) – Court referred to definitions of ‘penetrative sexual assault’ and ‘aggravated penetrative sexual assault’ under POCSO Act – Found that appellant had committed an offence of aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a child below twelve years. (Para 9)

POCSO Act – Minimum sentence for aggravated penetrative sexual assault – Section 6 – Court held that Section 6 of POCSO Act mandates a minimum sentence for aggravated penetrative sexual assault – No provision enabling Court to impose a lesser sentence unless provided by law – Emphasized gravity of the crime and its impact on the child victim. (Para 12)

POCSO Act – Restoration of Trial Court’s judgment – Court set aside High Court’s decision and restored Trial Court’s judgment – Directed appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years for offence under Section 6 of POCSO Act and pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- - Directed appellant to surrender within one month, failing which non-bailable warrant would be issued – Special Court to ensure implementation of judgment. (Para 13)

Classification and taxation of maize starch under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act - Appellant dealt in maize starch and claimed exemption based on an Exemption Notification - The Act was amended, and maize starch was moved to a different entry subject to a 4% tax rate - Commissioner issued a clarification stating maize starch was taxable - Appellant challenged the clarification and tax assessments - High Court dismissed the writ petition and review application - Supreme Court held that maize starch falls under the taxation entry for 'sago and starch of any kind' and is subject to a 4% tax rate - Exemption entry for 'products of millets' does not include maize starch - Clarification issued by the Commissioner can have retrospective effect - Appeals dismissed. (Paras No. 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29)

Quashing of criminal proceedings - Jurisdiction of High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC - Principles to be considered - Exercise of power sparingly and with circumspection - Allegations must be patently absurd and inherently improbable for quashing – No meticulous examination of evidence at the stage of framing charges - Power to be used to prevent abuse of process and miscarriage of justice - Balance between freedom of the accused and the right of prosecution. (Para 17)

Role of petitioner - Allegations of conspiracy and involvement in cheating and fraud - Presence during the exchange of money - Trial to proceed to determine the extent of involvement - Insufficient grounds for quashing the proceedings. (Para 18)

Additional documents - Relevance of documents in determining guilt or innocence - Not material at the stage of quashing - Should be considered during the trial. (Para 14)

 Responsibilities of the courts - Limited scope to ascertain the outcome of the trial - Courts should focus on whether the allegations disclose an offence - Illegitimate prosecution resulting in an abuse of the process of law may warrant quashing. (Para 17)

Duties of police officers - Swearing of responsible affidavits - Proper understanding of legal provisions - Consequences of ignorance on pending criminal proceedings - Caution to be exercised by officers to avoid such incidents. (Para 20)

Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 – Limitation – Invocation of extended period of limitation – Suppression of facts – Bonafide belief – Interpretation of law – Held, the extended period of limitation can be invoked only in cases of deliberate non-disclosure aimed at evading duty – The assessee’s belief based on a view taken by the Tribunal in a previous case was bonafide – The assessee was not required to separately disclose deemed export clearances in the returns filed – Amendments to valuation provisions did not render the Tribunal’s decision irrelevant – Demands were time-barred – Appeals dismissed. [Para 26, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10]

Interpretation of law – Self-assessment procedure – Assessee’s responsibility to determine duty liability – Plausible views on interpretation of legal provisions – Invocation of extended period of limitation – Held, in cases of disputes on interpretation of legal provisions, it would be unjustified to invoke the extended period of limitation by considering the assessee’s view lacking bonafides – The assessee followed a view taken by the Tribunal in a previous case, and their conduct cannot be considered malafide – Bonafide belief based on a plausible view of law is sufficient – Assessee’s determination of duty liability in a bonafide manner under self-assessment procedure is justified. [Para 24, 23, 22]

Suppression of facts – Requirement of disclosure – Accusation of non-disclosure – Held, an assessee can be accused of suppression only if there is a requirement to disclose – The assessee was not required to make additional disclosures of documents or facts – Allegation of suppression of facts is not tenable. [Para 25]

Written pleadings and oral arguments – Scope – Invoking new grounds during oral arguments – Held, parties should not be permitted to argue beyond the written pleadings – Arguments made beyond the written pleadings deserve to be ignored – Parties cannot rely on grounds or findings not pressed before the Tribunal or incorporated in the memo of appeal. [Para 23]

Headnote:

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Appeal - Cross Objections - Consideration of - Appellants challenging compensation granted for acquisition of their lands by Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority - High Court confirming compensation determined by District Judge - Appellants contending that their cross objections were not considered by High Court - Supreme Court held that cross objections have same status as regular appeal and must be considered in full - High Court under obligation to apply its mind to all issues raised, record findings supported by reasons, and consider cross objections - Impugned order failing to consider cross objections - Matter remanded back to High Court for fresh adjudication on grounds raised in cross objections - Appeals allowed to that extent. (Para No. 12-22)

Trend of initiating mala fide criminal proceedings against financial institutions/lenders and their officers to obstruct debt recovery or coerce settlement - Petitioners allowed to challenge FIRs and ECIR in respective High Courts. (Para 2)

Supreme Court observes the potential detrimental impact of bypassing statutory remedies and using criminal law to target financial institutions. (Para 3)

Previously stayed criminal proceedings in three FIRs found to be an abuse of the criminal process and a case of forum shopping. (Para 4)

Additional FIR filed with overlapping facts - Petitioners challenge FIRs and ECIR, permitted to approach High Courts for redressal. (Para 5)

High Courts directed to expeditiously decide the petitions, not exceeding six months from their presentation. (Para 6)

DGPs instructed to examine petitioners' contentions regarding FIRs and take appropriate measures within one month. (Para 7)

Interim order staying proceedings in three FIRs continues until final disposal of respective petitions. (Para 8)

No coercive steps to be taken against petitioners until disposal of the further FIR and ECIR - Petitioners can seek a stay of proceedings. (Para 9)

Interim protection applicable only to petitioner financial institution and its officers, representatives, and managers. (Para 9)

All legal contentions preserved for High Court's consideration and decision based on their merits and in accordance with the law. (Para 10)

All petitions, including contempt petition and pending applications, disposed of by the Supreme Court. (Para 11)

Conditional Sale Deed - Assignment of right to repurchase - Personal or assignable nature - Interpretation of document - Whether the right to repurchase contained in a sale deed can be assigned by the vendor or if it is personal and cannot be transferred - Consideration of relevant clauses in the sale deed - Applicability of previous judicial decisions - Held, the right to repurchase is not personal unless explicitly stated in the document, and can be assigned unless the terms of the contract indicate otherwise - No implied prohibition against assignment or transfer should be inferred - Assignment of obligations, however, requires the consent of the other party. [Para 15, 16]

Gift Deed - Transfer of right to repurchase - Consideration money involved - Validity - Whether the assignment of a right to repurchase in a gift deed can be considered a gift - Consideration of the executor's intent and the conditions attached to the assignment - Held, the transfer of the right to repurchase can be considered an assignment and need not be categorized as a gift solely due to the involvement of consideration money. [Para 23]

Enforceability of contract - Specific performance - Relief sought - Multiple reliefs claimed in the suit - Whether specific performance and tenancy claims can be simultaneously sought - Held, multiple reliefs can be claimed in a suit, but the nature of the claims and their compatibility must be considered. [Para 14]

Assignment of contractual rights - Assignability - Rights not of personal nature - Consent of the other party - Whether contractual rights can be assigned without the consent of the other party - Distinction between assignment of rights and obligations - Held, contractual rights are generally assignable unless the contract is personal in nature or the rights are incapable of assignment under the law or an agreement between the parties - Assignment of obligations requires the consent of the other party. [Para 20]

Construction of documents - Implied terms - Prohibition against assignment or transfer - Whether an implied prohibition against assignment or transfer can be read into a document - Necessity of clear indications in the document - Applicability of Section 15(b) of the Specific Relief Act - Held, unless the contents of the document and evidence clearly indicate a prohibition, no implied prohibition against assignment or transfer should be inferred - Section 15(b) of the Specific Relief Act allows for the assignment of benefits unless the contract is personal in nature. [Para 17]