Legitimate Expectation – Gender Discrimination – Women officers in the Indian Air Force who were inducted as SSCOs between 1993 and 1998 – Appellants were not considered for PC despite initial policy assurances – Appeals challenged the exclusion from PC and sought pensionary benefits [Paras 1-33].

Policy Implementation – Supreme Court examined the policy implementation following the judgment in Secretary Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya and Others – Emphasized the doctrine of legitimate expectation and directed consideration of pensionary benefits for eligible officers [Paras 19-33].

Pensionary Benefits – Directive to grant one-time pensionary benefits to women SSCOs who were not considered for PC – Evaluation based on HRP dated November 19, 2010 – No arrears of salary, but arrears of pension from the date of completing twenty years of service [Paras 34-36].

Decision – Civil Appeals Disposed – Held – Women SSCOs eligible for pensionary benefits on completion of minimum qualifying service – Evaluated under HRP dated November 19, 2010 – Sympathetic consideration for officers scoring QRs between 6.29 and 6.41 [Para 34-36].

Advocates Act – Constitutional Validity of AOR Rules – Petitioner challenged Order IV Rule 1(b), Rule 5, and Rule 7(c) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Contended these rules were discriminatory and violated Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution – Claimed the exclusive right given to AORs contravened Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961 [Paras 1-4].

Supreme Court Rules – Authority under Article 145 – Supreme Court affirmed its authority under Article 145 to regulate persons practicing before it – Cited Section 52 of the Advocates Act, 1961, which saves the Supreme Court's power to make such rules – Held the AOR system was within the Court's rule-making authority and did not violate constitutional provisions [Paras 5-10].

Judicial Review – Reasonableness of Legislation – Emphasized the limited scope of judicial review concerning subordinate legislation – Court’s role not to question the wisdom of rules unless afflicted with arbitrariness or unreasonableness – Found no merit in the petitioner’s claims of unreasonableness or arbitrariness in the AOR requirements [Paras 10-11].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the AOR rules under the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Found no violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), or Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961 [Para 11].

Execution of Decree – Dismissal for Default – Second Execution Petition – High Court held second execution petition not maintainable due to dismissal of first petition for default and lack of transfer under Section 39 CPC – Supreme Court overturned, stating mere dismissal for default does not preclude fresh execution petition if within limitation period – Second execution petition maintainable [Paras 21-24].

Limitation – Commencement – Certificate under Section 103 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act obtained in 1995 – Execution petition filed within 12 years from the date of certificate issuance valid – Limitation period computed from certificate issuance [Para 22].

Attachment and Garnishee Order – Procedural Requirements – High Court found order under Order 21 Rule 46A CPC flawed due to lack of prior attachment under Order 21 Rule 46 – Supreme Court affirmed necessity of attachment and garnishee’s right to dispute liability under Order 21 Rule 46C – Execution Court’s order to be treated as attachment order under Order 21 Rule 52 [Paras 25-32].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court's judgment set aside – Execution Court’s order treated as valid attachment under Order 21 Rule 52 – Execution proceedings to continue with the Execution Court directed to assess exact amount payable after adjustments [Para 32-33].

SARFAESI Act – Typographical Error – Auction Validity – High Court set aside e-auction sale due to a typographical error in the property description (Door No. 12-3-393 instead of 12-3-39) – Supreme Court held typographical error inconsequential as no prejudice was caused – Full property description with boundaries provided – Auction process upheld [Paras 13, 35-37].

Compliance with Rule 9(4) – Auction Timelines – Rule 9(4) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 mandates balance payment within 15 days of sale confirmation – Delay of four days occurred due to Tribunal's interim order and negotiations – Supreme Court held delay justified and did not invalidate auction – Auction upheld [Paras 38-44].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment quashing the auction set aside – Auction sale and proceedings upheld – Surplus amount of Rs. 1,880,000/- to be transferred to borrowers/guarantors within eight weeks [Paras 46-47].

Electricity Tariff – Concessional Rates – Respondent industrial unit started commercial production on March 26, 1995, and sought concessional tariffs based on the Government Order (GO) dated February 6, 1992 – Dispute over whether the benefit period should start from the date of commercial production or the date of energisation – High Court initially ruled in favor of commercial production start date – Respondent later claimed parity with another unit, M/s Patspin India Ltd., which had received benefits from the date of energisation – High Court granted benefits to respondent based on this parity – Supreme Court found the parity claim invalid after benefits to M/s Patspin India Ltd. were withdrawn [Paras 1-21].

Policy Implementation – GO dated February 6, 1992 – Provided tariff concessions for five years to new industrial units starting production between January 1, 1992, and December 31, 1996 – High Court’s decision based on incorrect parity with another industrial unit – Supreme Court ruled the benefit period should adhere strictly to GO terms – Extended period for power cuts already accounted for in Board’s orders [Paras 22-24].

Decision: Appeals Allowed – Held – High Court’s judgments dated November 22, 2018, and July 29, 2019, set aside – No order as to costs [Para 24-26

Tax Deduction at Source (TDS) – Commission and Brokerage – Supplementary Commission – Travel agents earning amounts over the Net Fare set by airlines – Section 194H of IT Act mandates TDS on such amounts if principal-agent relationship exists – Supplementary Commission to be included for TDS deduction [Paras 1-19].

Principal-Agent Relationship – Analysis under Contract Act – No transfer of title in tickets from airline to travel agents – Relationship remains that of principal-agent, not of two principals – Relevant clauses of Passenger Sales Agency Agreement (PSA) indicate agent's actions on behalf of the airline [Paras 20-32].

Revenue Neutrality – Tax already paid by agents – No further recovery of TDS shortfall but interest may be levied under Section 201(1A) of IT Act – Assessing Officer to compute interest from date of default to date of tax payment by agents [Paras 52-58].

Decision: Appeals Partly Allowed – Held – Airlines liable for TDS on Supplementary Commission – Recovery of shortfall barred due to agents' tax payments – Interest to be computed by Assessing Officer – Penalty proceedings under Section 271C of IT Act quashed due to reasonable cause for non-deduction of TDS [Paras 59-67].

Contempt of Court – Imprisonment Term – Applicant (contemnor) in continuous custody from February 3, 2020, seeks clarification on the commencement date of the six-month imprisonment term imposed by the Supreme Court’s order dated September 22, 2022 – Applicant contends term should start from February 3, 2020 – Supreme Court rejects contention, holding that custody in connection with another case cannot be converted to custody in the contempt case [Paras 1-15].

Clarification on Sentence – Section 428 of CrPC – Application of set-off for period of detention requires custody to be in connection with the same case – Court determines that applicant’s custody since February 3, 2020, was in connection with another case and not the contempt case – No merit found in applicant’s request for clarification [Paras 9-15].

Decision: Miscellaneous Application Dismissed – Held – Term of imprisonment of six months shall commence from September 22, 2022, as per original order – No change to commencement date of imprisonment term [Para 15].

Seniority – Promotees vs. Direct Recruits – Promotees and direct recruits appointed in the same recruitment year (1997-1998) for the post of ACOs – Seniority list prepared by the State giving higher seniority to direct recruits challenged – High Court ruled in favor of promotees – Supreme Court upheld High Court's decision [Paras 1-28].

Application of Rules – Rule 18 and Rule 19 of the 1992 Rules – Require combined select list and cyclic order of seniority – First name in the list to be a promotee – Seniority list dated 29th July 2005 giving undue benefit to direct recruits found unsustainable in law [Paras 17-27].

Retrospective Seniority – Not Permissible – Seniority cannot be reckoned from the date of occurrence of vacancy and given retrospectively unless expressly provided by the service rules – Any departure must be consistent with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution [Paras 20-21].

Decision: Appeals Dismissed – Held – Seniority list dated 29th July 2005 quashed – Combined select list to be prepared in accordance with Rules 18 and 19 of the 1992 Rules – Promotees to be placed above direct recruits for the recruitment year 1997-1998 [Paras 28-29].

Bond Forfeiture – Excessive Amount – Appellant, a daily-wage earner, furnished a bond of Rs. 500,000 under Section 107 CrPC for keeping the peace during Panchayat Elections – Allegations of illegal construction and obstruction of officials – Magistrate ordered forfeiture of the entire bond amount – High Court and Revisional Court upheld the order – Supreme Court emphasizes preventive nature of Section 107 CrPC and proportionality of bond amount [Paras 1-16].

Preventive Measures – Purpose of Bond – Chapter VIII of CrPC aims to prevent breach of peace and disturbance of public tranquillity – Bond should not be excessive or punitive – Court has discretion under Section 446 CrPC to remit part of the bond amount [Paras 11-14].

Reasonable Amount – Considering appellant's financial status and nature of alleged acts – Court finds Rs. 500,000 excessively high – Reduced amount payable to Rs. 5000 to meet ends of justice [Paras 15-17].

Decision: Appeal Allowed in Part – Held – Forfeiture amount reduced to Rs. 5000 – Appellant directed to deposit the amount within six weeks [Para 18].