Voluntary Retirement – Resignation and Acceptance – Employee's resignation under MVRS accepted on 28.05.2003 – Postponement of cut-off date for administrative reasons – Employee's subsequent withdrawal of resignation on 01.07.2003 not permissible – Resignation deemed accepted and final on 28.05.2003 – Post stood abolished simultaneously with acceptance of resignation [Paras 1-47].

Provident Fund Discrepancies – Delay in resolving provident fund discrepancies did not justify withdrawal of resignation – Provident fund issue a separate administrative matter – Resignation acceptance and post-abolishment valid and binding [Paras 7-10, 32-35].

Contractual Interpretation – MVRS terms and conditions – Resignation once accepted under MVRS not revocable – Post abolishment simultaneous with resignation acceptance as per MVRS Clause 5.1 – Delay in relieving duties does not impact resignation acceptance [Paras 18-31, 39-42].

Judicial Precedents – Distinguished cases based on factual nuances – No conditional resignation under MVRS – Reliance on judgments for prospective resignation withdrawals not applicable [Paras 20-45].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment set aside – Resignation deemed accepted on 28.05.2003 – Employee entitled to benefits under MVRS already paid – No reinstatement or further benefits due [Paras 46-47].

Criminal Law – Summoning of Accused – Magistrate's order summoning the accused must record satisfaction about a prima facie case – High Court and Sessions Court quashed summons against corporate executives due to lack of specific allegations and individual roles – Appeal dismissed, reinforcing need for detailed allegations in vicarious liability cases [Paras 1-10].

Vicarious Liability – Corporate Executives – Summoning directors and officers – Mere designation as Chairman, Managing Director, Executive Director, or Deputy General Manager does not suffice for vicarious liability – Specific allegations and roles required – No evidence of personal involvement or command in alleged offenses [Paras 7-9].

Judicial Scrutiny – Serious Matter – Summoning in criminal cases requires application of mind and careful scrutiny of allegations – Summoning order must reflect satisfaction of prima facie case – Legal principles reiterated from previous judgments emphasizing careful judicial exercise [Paras 8.2, 8.3].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – High Court and Sessions Court orders upheld – Complaint against remaining accused to proceed on merits [Paras 10].

Stamp Duty – Refund – Application for refund of stamp duty – Appellant sought refund due to prolonged proceedings before NCDRC – Application rejected on grounds of delay beyond six months – Supreme Court held rejection of refund application due to judicial delay violates equity and fairness – Case fit for exercise of power under Article 142 of the Constitution – Application for refund granted with interest [Paras 1-33].

Judicial Delay – Equity and Fairness – Litigants not to suffer due to judicial delays – Refund applications in cases involving prolonged judicial proceedings should not be rejected on the ground of delay – Principle of restitution and equity upheld [Paras 30-31].

Statutory Interpretation – Sections 47, 48, 50, and 52A of Stamp Act – Section 48's limitation period not applicable to cases outside Section 47 – Non-obstante clause in Section 52A overrides authority of adjudicating officer but not limitation provisions – Holistic interpretation required to avoid discrimination [Paras 12-27].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court judgment set aside – Appellant entitled to refund of stamp duty with 6% interest from 16 July 2016 until date of refund – No order as to costs [Paras 32-33].

Electricity Duty – Imposition and Penalty – Appellant challenged imposition of electricity duty and penalty on supply of electricity to BSEB – High Court dismissed writ petition citing availability of alternate remedy and factual nature of dispute – Supreme Court held High Court erred in dismissing petition – Issues raised were questions of law suitable for writ jurisdiction – High Court's judgment set aside and matter remanded for fresh determination [Paras 1-27].

Writ Jurisdiction – Alternate Remedy – High Court's discretion to entertain writ petitions despite alternate remedies – Exceptions to rule of alternate remedy include violation of fundamental rights, lack of jurisdiction, or legislative competence – Supreme Court emphasized principles from previous rulings on writ jurisdiction [Paras 19-24].

Legislative Competence – Tax on Electricity – Appellant argued State lacked legislative competence to tax supply of electricity to BSEB – Relied on interpretation of Entry 53 of List II in Constitution – Supreme Court directed High Court to adjudicate issue on remand [Paras 22-24].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment set aside – Writ petition restored for fresh determination – No order as to costs [Paras 25-27].

Civil Procedure – Res Judicata – Section 92 CPC – Representative suit – Suit filed under Section 92 CPC for settling a scheme of administration for a mosque – Ownership of the suit property was an issue – Judgment in the representative suit is binding on all interested parties – Issue of title to the suit property determined in the representative suit bars subsequent suit for declaration of title – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-47].

Section 92 CPC – Scope – In suits filed under Section 92 CPC, the court may decide on the title to the property if it is necessary for settling the scheme of administration – The judgment in a representative suit binds all interested parties [Paras 32-35].

Determination of Res Judicata – Mixed questions of law and fact – Res judicata can be decided as a preliminary issue if it involves only questions of law – In cases involving mixed questions of law and fact, it may be necessary to conduct a full trial [Paras 19-23].

Previous Suits – Analysis – The earlier suits involved determination of the title to the suit property – The issue of title was directly and substantially in issue and was necessary for the decision – Subsequent suit barred by res judicata [Paras 24-43].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Suit barred by res judicata – Judgment of High Court affirmed [Paras 46-47].

Arbitration – MSMED Act – Jurisdiction and Procedure – Dispute regarding payment for supply of TMT bars – Facilitation Council dismissed proceedings citing lack of jurisdiction – High Court dismissed writ petition suggesting remedy under Section 34 of Arbitration Act – Supreme Court held Facilitation Council did not follow proper procedure under Section 18 of MSMED Act – Remanded case for proper arbitration proceedings [Paras 1-12].

Special Statute – MSMED Act Overriding Arbitration Act – MSMED Act being special statute, its provisions have overriding effect – Dispute resolution to follow Section 18 of MSMED Act – Facilitation Council first acts as conciliator, failing which arbitration proceedings commence – Arbitration Act provisions apply post-conciliation [Paras 9-10].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment and Facilitation Council's order set aside – Matter remitted to Facilitation Council for fresh proceedings in accordance with Section 18 of MSMED Act – Council to complete proceedings within six months [Paras 12].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Dishonor of Cheque – Complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act for dishonor of cheque – Respondent issued cheque for Rs. 1,50,000 as part repayment of advance – Cheque dishonored due to insufficient funds – Magistrate convicted respondent, sentencing to six months imprisonment and fine – Sessions Court upheld conviction – High Court set aside conviction – Supreme Court restored conviction – Presumption under Sections 118 and 139 in favor of holder of cheque – Respondent failed to rebut presumption – Sentence modified to enhanced fine of Rs. 2,50,000 with default imprisonment [Paras 1-22].

Judicial Review – Scope of Revision – High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in re-evaluating evidence and setting aside concurrent findings of lower courts – Limited scope in revision to interfere only if findings are perverse or incorrect [Paras 16-18].

Presumption of Debt or Liability – Sections 118 and 139 NI Act – Presumption in favor of holder – Burden on accused to rebut presumption by preponderance of probabilities – Respondent failed to provide satisfactory rebuttal evidence [Paras 11-20].

Decision – Appeals allowed in part – High Court's order set aside – Conviction restored with modified sentence of fine Rs. 2,50,000 – Fine to be paid as compensation to appellant – Default sentence of six months simple imprisonment [Paras 21-22].

Non-Release of Prisoners – Delay in Release after Bail – Suo moto proceedings initiated due to reports of non-release of prisoners post bail grant – Adoption of FASTER (Fast and Secured Transmission of Electronic Records) system proposed – Supreme Court directed ensuring internet facility in jails for electronic transmission of orders – Interim communication through State Nodal Officers until full implementation – Amendments to rules and procedures to recognize e-authenticated orders – Directions issued for smooth implementation of FASTER system by coordinating with NIC and State authorities [Paras 1-13].

Judicial Administration – ICT Utilization – Need for efficient transmission of court orders highlighted – FASTER system to transmit e-authenticated copies of orders for compliance – Steps for ensuring internet connectivity and necessary administrative amendments outlined [Paras 7-12].

Decision – Directions issued to Chief Secretaries and other relevant authorities to ensure implementation of FASTER system – Matter listed for further review after two weeks [Para 13].

Toll Plaza – Location and Compliance with Rules – Construction of toll plaza at 194 km of Patna-Bakhtiyarpur section of NH30 challenged – High Court directed relocation citing violation of Rule 8 of 2008 Rules – Rule 8 mandates toll plazas to be beyond 10 km from municipal or town area limits – Supreme Court found that establishment of toll plaza within municipal limits violated Rule 8 – Directions given to shift toll plaza outside specified limits [Paras 1-32].

Judicial Review – Expert Bodies – Limited judicial review on matters decided by expert bodies unless decisions are arbitrary or perverse – DPR by expert body recommended toll plaza location – Judicial deference to expert opinion provided compliance with statutory provisions [Paras 10-15].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – High Court judgment upheld – Toll plaza to be relocated as directed – Compliance with statutory requirements emphasized [Paras 30-32].