Civil Appeal - Challenge to the High Court's order in a Writ Appeal - Appellant's representation for appointment as Assistant Engineer and seniority dispute - Appellant's appointment as Assistant Engineer - Seniority dispute between appellant and private-respondents - Chief Engineer's provisional and final seniority lists - Promotion and correction of promotion dates - Writ petition filed by private-respondents - High Court's direction to consider private-respondents' representation - Appeal against the High Court's order. [Para 1-13]

Seniority Dispute - Challenge to the seniority list - Delay in challenging the seniority list - Examination of applicability of precedent - Different quotas for promotion based on different categories - Appellant and private-respondents falling in different categories with separate quotas - Dismissal of the appeal as meritless. [Para 18-21]

Criminal Appeal – Bail Application – Appellant seeks bail in prosecutions related to RC No. 0032022A00553 under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Enforcement Case Information Report No. HIU-II/14/2022 under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Various legal issues raised – Scope of constitutional protection, interpretation of PML Act, prosecution under PML Act, and more – Lengthy trial expected – Allegations of kickback and money laundering – Co-accused granted bail – Hearsay statements and evidence challenged – Destruction of evidence alleged – Complex web of transactions through hawala route – Appellant's possession of proceeds of crime – Destruction of mobile phones – Appellant's power and influence – Statements of witnesses and documents at risk. [Para 2-7]

Statutory Interpretation – Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act - court's role in bail applications is not to determine guilt but to assess broad probabilities. It underlined the importance of a tentative finding based on the available evidence while considering bail applications, and that such findings won't prejudice the merits of the case during the trial. [Para 8]

Bribery Allegation Examination – scrutinized the allegation regarding a bribe payment of Rs. 2,20,00,000 to the appellant, Manish Sisodia, which was not included in the CBI's chargesheet, making it difficult to regard as 'proceeds of crime' under the PML Act. [Para 10]

Proceeds of Crime Utilization – Analyzed the claim of proceeds of crime being used for election funding in Goa by AAP, a juristic person, and the alleged transfer of Rs. 45,00,00,000 through Hawala for the same purpose - lack of specific allegations on the involvement of the appellant, Manish Sisodia, in this transfer. [Para 11-12]

Money Laundering - Offence Scope – examining the terms 'generation', 'possession', and their implications in light of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Mohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan. It also referred to the judgment in Y. Balaji v. Karthik Desari and Another for understanding the three 'P's principle - person, process or activity, and the product, in the context of money laundering offence under Section 3 of the PML Act. [Para 13-17]

Conspiracy and Abetment Exclusion – offence of conspiracy and abetment under Sections 120/120B and Sections 107/108 of the IPC are not applicable to offences under the PML Act, elaborating on the wide scope of Section 3 of the PML Act concerning involvement in money laundering activities. [Para 18]

Mobile Phone Destruction Allegation – its correctness would be determined post evidence recording, but it's not a weighty factor for bail decision given the detention period undergone by the appellant. [Para 20]

Proceeds of Crime Calculation – The Court deliberated on the calculation of proceeds of crime based on the new excise policy's operation, analyzing the difference in profit margins and the one-time license fee collected from wholesale distributors. The Court highlighted the alleged unlawful gains to private individuals at the expense of the government exchequer and the public, as per the complaint filed under the PML Act and the charge-sheet under the Prevention of Corruption (PoC) Act. [Para 21-22]

PoC Act Section 7 - Applicability: Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 7 -  where a public servant engages in corrupt practices, either directly or indirectly, by abusing their position for undue advantage, regardless of the performance of their public duty. The definitions and examples provided elucidate the scope and intent of these clauses, emphasizing the criminality of obtaining, accepting, or attempting to obtain undue advantage through corrupt or illegal means. [Para 23]

Excise Policy Alteration and Conspiracy - alteration in excise policy, led by appellant Manish Sisodia, aimed at enhancing commission rates to facilitate kickbacks and bribes from wholesale distributors, highlighting a well-orchestrated conspiracy. [Para 24]

Bail Denial - Economic Offence - Despite the grave economic offence allegations against appellant Manish Sisodia, the Court expressed concerns over the prolonged incarceration. The references to previous judgments reiterate the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution, and the necessity for case-by-case consideration for bail, even in grave economic offences, emphasizing the importance of securing the accused's presence for trial. [Para 25-28]

Court provides liberty to appellant Manish Sisodia to seek bail afresh in case of changed circumstances or protracted trial. The provision for interim bail in case of medical emergencies and the overarching emphasis on the right to a speedy trial reflect the Court's inclination towards upholding constitutional mandates while ensuring law enforcement. [Para 29]

Bail Dismissal - appeals are dismissed with a clarifying note that observations made herein are for disposal purposes of the present appeals, not to influence the trial court's proceedings on the merits of the case, ensuring the adherence to legal protocols and a fair evaluation of evidence in the subsequent trial. [Para 30]

Criminal Appeal – Quashing of FIR – High Court's rejection of petition under Section 482 of CrPC without considering the merits – Strange approach by the High Court – Order set aside, and the case remanded to the High Court for consideration on merits.

Interim Relief – Extension of interim relief granted by the Supreme Court – Appellant allowed to apply for continuation of interim relief if the remanded case is not decided by a specified date – High Court directed to decide the case on merits without being influenced by the interim relief.

Criminal Appeal - Bail - Appellant aggrieved by the High Court's order rejecting bail application in connection with FIR for various offenses including under the Indian Penal Code and the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organized Crime Act - Appellant in judicial custody for over 2 years and 9 months - No other criminal antecedents - Conditions for invoking the GCTOC Act not fulfilled - Only one chargesheet against the appellant - No "continuing unlawful activity" found - Appellant granted bail with specific conditions. [Para 1-10]

Judicial Delay – Article 142 of the Constitution of India - Demonstrates the impact of judicial delays, compelling the Supreme Court to invoke its Extraordinary Jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to arrive at a resolution. [Para 3]

Labor Law – Unfair Labour Practices – Reinstatement and Back Wages - Outlines the order of dismissal against the first respondent dated 25th June, 2001, and subsequent filing of a complaint before the Labour Court. Discusses the Labour Court's direction for reinstatement with back wages and the subsequent procedural history including orders from the Industrial Court and High Court. [Para 4]

Superannuation – Impact on Ongoing Litigation - first respondent reached the age of superannuation on 31st December, 2006, making the outcome of continuing litigation even more uncertain. [Para 5]

Penalty – Disproportionate Punishment - Highlights the contention of the first respondent that the penalty of dismissal imposed upon him was disproportionate. [Para 6]

Article 142 – powers under Article 142 to resolve the matter by directing the appellant to pay a lump sum amount to the first respondent. [Para 7-8]

Order – Final Disposition of the Appeal - appeal is disposed of, directing the appellant to pay Rs.10,00,000/- to the first respondent within two months. Also provides for disposal of Writ Petitions and other pending proceedings between the parties. [Para 8-9]

Employment Eligibility – Suppression of material fact regarding involvement in a criminal case – Respondent’s selection as Grade-II Constable – Inquiry revealed his involvement in a criminal case, followed by acquittal – Respondent failed to disclose this information during verification. [Para 5-7]

Verification Roll – Column 15 inquiry about any past or present involvement in a criminal case – Respondent answered ‘NO’ despite prior involvement and subsequent acquittal – Misleading information amounting to suppression of facts. [Para 11-12]

Employment Eligibility vs. Suppression of Information – Legal position summarized – Candidate must provide truthful information about convictions, acquittals, arrests, or pending criminal cases – Employer retains the right to consider antecedents even with truthful declaration – In this case, non-disclosure of involvement and subsequent acquittal raises doubts about character and antecedents, justifying disqualification. [Para 14-16]

Decision – Division Bench’s decision in writ appeal set aside – Writ court’s judgment restored – Respondent’s writ petition dismissed – No costs awarded. [Para 17-18]

Maintenance Claim – Daughter-in-law seeking recovery of arrears and monthly maintenance from father-in-law and mother-in-law – Marriage deteriorated, leading to legal proceedings – Husband’s anticipatory bail denied – Daughter-in-law granted interim maintenance – Maintenance order enhanced – Daughter-in-law claims inheritance rights to ancestral property – Husband obtained a divorce decree in Australia – Property attachment and auction attempts failed – Daughter-in-law seeks transfer of ownership of specific shops – Past history displays defiance by husband and father-in-law – Court’s power under Article 142 invoked for complete justice – Directions issued for sale of specific shops and payment to daughter-in-law. [Para 1-19]

Civil Appeal – Dispute over lease of property – Litigation spanning several years – Appellant, the owner of the property, executed a lease deed with respondent no. 2 for 33 years – Suit premises sublet without permission – Legal notice issued for vacant possession after lease expiry – Respondent no. 2 claimed an oral extension of the lease – Wakf Tribunal decreed the suit in favor of the appellant – Respondents filed revision petition – High Court upheld the decree – Execution proceedings initiated – Objection raised citing Ramesh Gobindram case – Executing Court rejected the objection, but High Court reversed it – Challenge to the High Court's order. [Para 2-8]

Legal Jurisdiction – Interpretation of the Wakf Act – Jurisdiction of the Wakf Tribunal to decide issues related to eviction from a Wakf property – Rival arguments presented on the scope of the Act – Citing precedent cases to support respective positions. [Para 9-12]

Pending Issues – Examination of legal issues raised in the case – Evaluation of the applicability of the Wakf Act in the context of the dispute – Consideration of precedent cases and their relevance. [Para 13]

Forum and Jurisdiction - The principle that an Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree, subject to the rigor of Section 47 read with Order XXI of the Code - Duty of an Executing Court to give effect to the decree - Interference with jurisdiction to be undertaken sparingly - Heavy onus on the judgment-debtor to establish a decree's inexecutability - Consideration of jurisdiction issues should be avoided when it involves factual adjudication [Para 14]

Conduct of Parties - Significance of a party's conduct - Parties should not be permitted to have undue advantages by raising jurisdiction issues at a belated stage - Consequences of such conduct in the context of the huge backlog of cases in the country - The principle of "approbate and reprobate" - A party cannot accept and reject the same thing, blow hot and cold, or take advantage of one part while rejecting the rest of a transaction - Application of this principle with an element of fair play and equity - Common law principle inherent in the doctrine of election [Para 15]

Change of Forum - Discussion on the retrospective application of changes in forum - Amendments to statutes on forum changes are generally regarded as procedural and therefore retrospective, unless expressly stated otherwise - The absence of vested rights in the choice of forum - Citations of relevant cases including New India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Shanti Misra, Hitendra Vishnu Thakur and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Another, Neena Aneja and Another v. Jai Prakash Associates Ltd. - Distinction between procedural and substantive law - The deviation in the Dhadi Sahu case regarding vested rights in forum selection [Para 17-19]

Jurisdiction of Civil Courts – Prima facie satisfaction of jurisdiction – Duty of Court to check its own jurisdiction – The court must satisfy itself as to the existence of jurisdiction, even if not raised by the parties – Maxim “actus curiae neminem gravabit” (no one shall be prejudiced by an act of Court) – The duty to mitigate damage suffered by a party due to the act of the court – Failure to check jurisdiction may lead to the application of this maxim – Specialized forums created by statute – Civil court should normally entertain disputes not amenable to such forums – Exceptions when fundamental principles, including natural justice, are violated – Consideration of the objective behind the enactment and its provisions – Principles laid down in Dhulabhai case followed. [Para 20-27]

Jurisdiction - Interpretation of statutory provisions concerning the jurisdiction of Wakf Tribunal - Amendment to the Act in 2013 - Removal of the basis of a previous decision - Applicability of procedural amendments retrospectively - Respondents hindering justice by protracted proceedings - Appellate Court restoring the order of the Executing Court - Decision in Rashid Wali Beg clarifying jurisdiction post-amendment applied - High Court's order set aside. [Para 28-32]

Criminal Appeal – Cancellation of Bail – Change in testimony of crucial witnesses – Allegations of intimidation and influence on witnesses – High Court’s order granting bail to Respondent No. 1 challenged – Post-bail developments reveal a disturbing change in stance of key witnesses – Prima facie proximity between bail and attempts to influence witnesses – Grant of bail withdrawn in the interest of justice. [Para 14-32]

Witnesses – Recalling of Witnesses – Cross-examination of crucial witnesses – Family members of the deceased turning hostile – Invocation of Constitutional and statutory powers to recall witnesses – Ensuring a fair trial – Witnesses to be recalled for further cross-examination in a congenial environment, free from threats or inducement. [Para 28-30]

Decision – Bail cancelled – Direction to surrender within one week – Recalling of witnesses for further cross-examination – Security provided to the appellant and her family – Investigation into alleged threats or inducement against the witnesses – Close observation of demeanor during cross-examination to ensure a free and unpolluted version of witnesses’ testimony. [Para 32-33]