Summoning Order – Quashing – Appellant, a director of M/s. Writer Safeguard Pvt. Ltd., challenges the summoning order issued under the Minimum Wages Act for non-compliance with statutory provisions – Supreme Court quashes the summoning order, emphasizing the requirement of specific averments to establish vicarious liability and procedural propriety in issuing summons [Paras 1-33].

Vicarious Liability – Requirements under Section 22C – Court clarifies that vicarious liability under Section 22C(1) of the Minimum Wages Act requires specific allegations that the accused was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of business – General and presumptive accusations are insufficient – Emphasizes the prosecution's burden to prove these requirements before invoking the proviso that places the onus on the accused [Paras 10-13].

Prosecution of Companies – Precedents and Legal Standards – Discusses relevant precedents and legal standards for prosecuting company directors and officers, including the necessity of prosecuting the company itself for establishing vicarious liability – Cites judgments establishing that the absence of the company as an accused invalidates proceedings against individual directors or officers [Paras 19-27].

Procedure under CrPC – Judicial Responsibility – Reiterates the responsibility of the courts to ensure that summons are not issued in a mechanical manner – Courts must apply their mind to the allegations and evidence to determine a prima facie case before issuing summons – Highlights the exemption under Section 200 of CrPC for complaints filed by public servants but underscores the need for judicial scrutiny [Paras 31-32].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Summoning order and proceedings against the appellant quashed – Proceedings against co-accused Vinod Singh also quashed [Paras 33-34].

Land Acquisition – Re-notification Prohibited – Once an award is approved, compensation paid, and possession handed over to the Government, the acquisition proceedings cannot be reopened or re-notified. The Land Acquisition Act does not allow for reacquisition of land already vested in the Government [Paras 1-17].

Award Approval and Government Interest – The initial award approved on 05.03.2010 was valid, and subsequent re-notifications were invalid. The Government cannot acquire its own land, and the approval process completed in 2010 cannot be nullified by subsequent procedural missteps or correspondence indicating lapses [Paras 18-19].

Possession and Compensation – Finality – The first respondent's receipt of compensation and transfer of possession to the Government solidified the acquisition process, negating the need for any further notifications or awards. Subsequent claims under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act, 2013, do not apply once the original process is completed [Paras 13-15].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court’s orders set aside – Original award and acquisition proceedings upheld – Subsequent notifications and actions declared null and void [Para 19].

Review Petition – Maintainability Post Miscellaneous Application – The rejection of a Miscellaneous Application seeking recall of a judgment does not preclude filing a review petition under Article 137 of the Constitution. The review petition remains maintainable as it is a statutory proceeding distinct from an application for recall [Paras 13-15].

Review Jurisdiction – Error Apparent on the Face of Record – The review jurisdiction of the Supreme Court can be invoked in criminal proceedings only on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record. The review power under Article 137 is granted to rectify manifest errors or omissions that lead to a miscarriage of justice [Paras 10-12, 16].

Non-Issuance of Notice – Violation of Natural Justice – The order transferring the criminal case was passed ex-parte without issuing notice to the review petitioner, violating principles of natural justice. This procedural lapse constituted an error apparent on the face of the record, warranting review and recall of the order [Paras 17-18].

Rectification of Judicial Errors – Principle of Justice – Rectifying judicial errors is fundamental to the justice system. The power to review under Article 137 of the Constitution is an acknowledgment of human fallibility and aims to correct such errors to ensure justice prevails [Para 16].

Decision: Review petition allowed – Order dated 18.05.2018 recalled – Transfer Petition (Crl.) No. 262 of 2018 revived – Review petitioner impleaded as respondent No. 4 – Time granted for filing counter affidavits and rejoinders – Contempt petition closed [Paras 20-22].

Voluntary Retirement – Eligibility and Notice Period – Regulation 29 of the Indian Bank Employees Pension Regulations, 1995, entitles an employee to voluntary retirement after 20 years of qualifying service by giving three months' notice. A request for waiver of the three-month notice period must be considered on merits. The High Court correctly found that the respondent’s request for voluntary retirement was in accordance with Regulation 29, and the bank's rejection of the request was unjustified [Paras 9-10].

Deputation vs. Transfer – Applicability of Proviso to Regulation 29(1) – The proviso to Regulation 29(1), which applies to employees on deputation, was found inapplicable to the respondent, who was transferred to the Colombo Branch. The High Court rightly held that the respondent’s transfer did not constitute deputation, and thus the one-year service requirement after returning to India did not apply [Paras 11].

Rejection of Voluntary Retirement Application – Legality and Timing – Although the bank's decision to reject the voluntary retirement application was taken within the stipulated three-month period, the rejection was found to be legally flawed. The rejection did not comply with Regulation 29(3)(b), which requires the employer to consider the request for curtailment of the notice period on merits [Paras 12].

Departmental Enquiry – Nullity Post Voluntary Retirement – Once voluntary retirement is granted, all subsequent disciplinary proceedings become null and void due to the termination of the employer-employee relationship. The respondent is entitled to all retiral benefits based on the voluntary retirement application [Paras 13].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court’s decision upheld – Respondent entitled to retiral benefits based on voluntary retirement application [Para 13].

NDPS Act – Charges and Sections Invoked – Appellant was charged under Sections 21, 21(c), 27A, 27(b), and 29 of the NDPS Act. The primary issue was the invocation of Section 37, which imposes stringent conditions for bail in certain offenses. However, the proper application of these sections was in question, with the appellant primarily accused of drug consumption [Paras 2, 7-8].

Consumption of Drugs – Bail Provisions – The maximum sentence for consumption under Section 27(a) is one year and under Section 27(b) is six months. Given the charges, Section 37 was wrongly invoked, as the offenses under Section 27 do not attract the stringent bail conditions of Section 37 [Paras 7-8].

Evidence and Arrest – Basis for Bail – No drugs were found in the appellant's premises, and the case relied primarily on statements and the case diary. The arrest included a tenuous conspiracy charge, which needs to be proven at trial. The court noted that no chargesheet had been filed yet [Paras 6-7].

Decision: Bail granted to Ragini Dwivedi – The High Court’s judgment set aside – Appellant enlarged on bail subject to conditions imposed by the trial court. Anticipatory bail granted to Shivaprakash under similar conditions. Observations made will not affect the ongoing investigation or trial [Paras 8-10].

IBC and Limitation – Right to Sue and NPA – Applications under Sections 7 and 9 of the IBC are governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act, and the right to sue accrues upon default. If the default occurred more than three years prior to filing the application, it is barred by limitation. Here, the account was declared NPA on April 1, 1993, making the application time-barred [Paras 18-19, 23].

Acknowledgment of Debt – Section 18 Limitation Act – An acknowledgment must be made before the expiration of the limitation period to renew the debt. The balance sheet dated August 16, 2017, and the letter dated April 23, 2019, do not constitute an acknowledgment of liability as required under Section 18 of the Limitation Act. The application remains barred by limitation [Paras 30-35].

Alternative Remedies – Recovery Forum – The IBC is not intended as a substitute for a debt recovery forum. Ongoing proceedings in the DRT provide an adequate remedy for the appellant, who has been substituted in place of the Assignor Bank in execution proceedings. Thus, the IBC proceedings were not appropriate for the recovery of dues [Paras 37-38].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – NCLAT’s judgment upheld – The application under Section 7 of the IBC was time-barred and not intended as a substitute for recovery proceedings [Paras 36-39].

PC&PNDT Act – Gravity of Offense and Prima Facie Case – The PC&PNDT Act prohibits the use of prenatal diagnostic techniques for sex determination. Violations under this act are serious, non-bailable, non-compoundable, and cognizable. The charge sheet presents a prima facie case against the petitioner, involving a sting operation and the seizure of unlicensed ultrasound equipment and materials used for illegal abortions [Paras 2-4].

Bail in Non-Bailable Cases – Considerations – In non-bailable cases, factors such as the nature and gravity of the offense, its societal impact, and the presence of a prima facie case against the accused must be considered. Given the strong prima facie case, no leniency should be granted to the petitioner to reinforce the seriousness of the offense and the need for strict enforcement of the PC&PNDT Act [Paras 2, 5].

Pari Materia – Co-Accused Bail Not Determinative – The co-accused’s bail does not warrant parity for the petitioner due to her more active role in the alleged illegal practices compared to the limited role of the co-accused [Para 6].

Expedited Trial – Direction to Lower Court – While denying bail, the petitioner may request the Trial Court to expedite the trial and decide it within one year, following the Supreme Court's mandate for speedy disposal of such cases [Para 7].

Decision: Special leave petition dismissed – High Court’s denial of bail upheld – Petitioner may seek expedited trial [Paras 7-8].

Casual Trader – Definition and Limitation – Under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, a "Casual Trader" is one who has occasional transactions of business involving buying and selling. The limitation period for assessing a casual trader is two years from the date of the transaction. The respondent, having made a single transaction, was rightly considered a casual trader, and the assessment was barred by limitation as it was passed beyond two years from the transaction date [Paras 9-15].

Statutory Interpretation – Singular and Plural – Statutory provisions must be interpreted reasonably and sensibly. Words in singular include plural and vice versa unless the context demands otherwise. The statutory context indicated that even a single transaction could bring a person within the definition of a casual trader [Paras 16-18].

Assessment Order – Limitation and Validity – The Rajasthan Tax Board and the High Court concurred that the assessment order was barred by limitation, being passed after the prescribed two-year period. The petitioner’s contention that a single transaction does not constitute a casual trader was rejected, affirming the limitation bar [Paras 9-15, 19-20].

Decision: Special Leave Petition dismissed – High Court’s judgment upheld – Assessment barred by limitation [Para 20].

Service Law – Termination and Abandonment of Service – The employer must justify termination before the tribunal by leading evidence if no disciplinary enquiry is conducted. The entire matter, including whether the dismissal or discharge was justified, would be open before the tribunal. A defective enquiry is treated similarly to no enquiry, necessitating the employer to prove the facts before the tribunal [Paras 14].

Proving Continuous Employment – Onus on Employee – The employee must prove continuous employment for 240 days in the year preceding termination. The respondent failed to provide evidence of her employment till March 8, 2006. The school's records showed her absence since July 1, 1997, after moving to another district post-marriage. The respondent did not call for the attendance register or accounts to prove her employment, nor provided salary slips after the school became a government-aided institution in 2005 [Paras 15-17].

Employer's Evidence – Justification of Termination – The school led sufficient evidence before the Labour Court proving the respondent's abandonment of service. The onus to prove her continuous employment was on the respondent, which she failed to discharge. The reliance on a letter dated June 20, 2013, from the Block Development Officer was not sufficient as it only mentioned her leave status and recommended compliance with a prior labour court order, later set aside by the High Court [Paras 15, 17-18].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment set aside – Labour Court’s award dated August 22, 2016, restored [Para 19].