Negotiable Instruments Act – Dishonour of Cheque – Sections 138 and 141 NI Act – Quashing of Complaint – The appellant was neither a signatory to the dishonored cheque nor was the cheque drawn from her account – Section 138 applies to the individual who has drawn the cheque on an account maintained by him – Joint liability does not implicate individuals who are not signatories to the cheque – Section 141 pertains to offenses by companies and does not apply to individual liabilities – High Court erred in not quashing the complaint against the appellant – Appeal allowed [Paras 1-8].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Interpretation – Section 138 NI Act – A person can be prosecuted under Section 138 only if they are the signatory to the cheque and it is drawn on an account maintained by them – Joint liability alone does not suffice for prosecution under Section 138 if the individual is not the account holder or signatory [Paras 7-8].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Criminal complaint against the appellant for offenses under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the NI Act quashed – High Court judgment set aside – Complaint in the Metropolitan Magistrate’s court quashed [Paras 8-9].

Criminal Law – Bail – IPC Sections 302, 307 – Arms Act – High Court granted bail to accused on the basis of parity – Co-accused's bail subsequently canceled by Supreme Court – Orders granting bail to respondents set aside – Respondents to surrender and may apply for fresh bail [Paras 1-19].

Bail – Judicial Discretion – High Court granted bail without proper application of judicial mind – Seriousness of offense and nature of allegations not considered – Parity with co-accused not justified as co-accused's bail was canceled by Supreme Court [Paras 11-18].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court's orders granting bail to respondents canceled – Respondents to surrender within 24 hours – Liberty granted to apply afresh for bail [Paras 18-19].

Criminal Procedure Code – Section 482 – Quashing of FIR – High Court cannot pass a blanket order of protection from arrest – Proceedings ended once High Court declined to quash the FIR – Remedies under CrPC available to accused for protecting liberty – Blanket direction impedes investigation – Appeal allowed, High Court order set aside [Paras 2-11].

Judicial Procedure – Anticipatory Bail – Section 438 CrPC – Accused can seek anticipatory bail or regular bail under Section 439 CrPC – High Court's blanket protection from arrest unjustified – Investigation and enforcement of criminal justice obstructed by such orders [Paras 8-10].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court's blanket order restraining arrest set aside – Third respondent to surrender and apply for bail – Regular bail application to be considered after hearing the public prosecutor [Paras 12-13].

Administrative Law – Promotion to IAS – Reconsideration of Promotion – High Court endorsed Tribunal's directions without independent analysis – 'Cut-copy-paste' judgment critiqued – Importance of reasoned judicial decisions emphasized – Judgment set aside, writ petition restored for fresh adjudication [Paras 3-9].

Judicial Reasoning – Necessity for independent application of mind – High Court failed to provide substantive reasoning – Prolific use of 'cut-copy-paste' function criticized – Reasons are the soul of a judicial decision – Need for crisp reasoning highlighted [Paras 7-8].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment set aside – Writ petition restored to file – High Court to dispose of the writ petition within four months [Paras 9-12].

Landlord and Tenant Relationship – Possession – No evidence of tenancy – Defendant's admission of not maintaining rent records – Relationship of landlord and tenant not proven – Defendant's claim of tenancy based on conjectures – Partnership deed executed on 18.12.1976 not a sham document – Defendant's tenancy claim denied – Appeal allowed [Paras 11-20].

Partnership Deed – Execution – Consequences of signed partnership deed – Parties cannot negate the partnership deed by calling it a sham – Deed signed to avoid rigours of clause 12 of the Allotment Order [Paras 20-21].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Judgment of the First Appellate Court restored – Estate Officer directed to ensure appellant's possession of Booth No. 186 – Appellant may seek damages and mesne profit for use of premises by the defendant [Paras 23].

Service Law – Reservation – Sections 27 and 27(f) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 – Reservation in direct recruitment – Meritorious candidates from reserved categories to be considered in the General Turn first – Backlog vacancies to be filled first among reserved category candidates – Misinterpretation of Section 27(f) caused dispute in selection process – Appeals dismissed [Paras 1-30].

Reservation – Meritorious Candidates – Reserved category candidates securing high marks to be adjusted against General Turn vacancies first – Followed by filling backlog vacancies and then current vacancies for reserved categories [Paras 23-27].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Orders of the High Court upheld – Reserved category candidates securing merit positions to be adjusted against General Turn vacancies first [Paras 30-31].

Arbitration – Scope of Judicial Review – Sections 30 and 33 of Arbitration Act, 1940 – Courts do not sit in appeal over arbitral awards – Reappraisal of evidence not permissible – Arbitrator’s reasonable interpretation upheld if not perverse or based on a wrong proposition of law – Appeals dismissed [Paras 10-13].

Construction Contracts – Rebate and Escalation Charges – Conditional rebate – Arbitrator interpreted rebate as conditional based on documents and negotiations – Escalation charges awarded for delay attributable to appellant – Courts upheld Arbitrator’s interpretation – Appeals dismissed [Paras 16-18].

Costs – Costs imposed by forums below not interfered with – Appellant directed to pay pending amounts within six months [Paras 27-29].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Appellant directed to pay pending amounts within six months [Para 29].

Reservation for OBCs – Validity of Reservation Provisions – Section 12(2)(c) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 – Provision read down to mean reservation for OBCs may be up to 27% but must not exceed an aggregate of 50% of the total seats reserved for SCs/STs/OBCs together – Requirement for contemporaneous rigorous empirical inquiry into backwardness before reservation – Impugned notifications reserving seats for OBCs void as conditions not met [Paras 1-28].

Constitutional Law – Reservation in Local Bodies – SCs/STs/OBCs – Constitution Bench's dicta in K. Krishna Murthy v. Union of India – Reservation for OBCs must comply with the triple test: dedicated Commission for empirical inquiry, proportionate reservation, and overall ceiling of 50% [Paras 4-7, 12, 25].

Decision – Writ Petitions Partly Allowed – Held – Section 12(2)(c) to be read down – Notifications dated 27.07.2018 and 14.02.2020 quashed – State Election Commission to announce elections for vacated seats [Para 28].

Arbitration – Jurisdiction – Section 2(1)(f) Arbitration Act – International Commercial Arbitration – High Court's jurisdiction questioned – Transaction between parties had international flavour due to the respondents being US nationals and habitually resident there – High Court had no jurisdiction to appoint arbitrator – Appeal allowed [Paras 7-16].

Arbitration – Appointment of Arbitrator – Section 11(6) Arbitration Act – Arbitration becomes international commercial arbitration if one party is a foreign national or habitually resident in a foreign country – Matter to be filed under Section 11(6) read with Section 11(9) in the Supreme Court [Paras 16-17].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's order set aside – Respondents to follow procedure under Section 11(6) read with Section 11(9) Arbitration Act [Paras 17-18].