Payment of Gratuity – Definition of Employee – Appellant contended that service as a daily wager should be counted for gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 – High Court ruled provisions of the Act do not apply to individuals governed by other statutes, specifically the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 – Supreme Court noted conflicting decisions and referred the matter to a larger bench [Paras 1-7].

Service Rules and Gratuity – Conflicting Decisions – Supreme Court identified conflict between the decision in Netram Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2018) 5 SCC 430 and Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Jammu vs. Teja Singh (unreported) – Highlighted that the provisions of the 1976 Rules were not considered in Netram Sahu [Paras 4-6].

Referral to Larger Bench – Judicial Propriety – Due to conflicting decisions and to maintain judicial propriety, Supreme Court referred the issue to a larger bench for detailed examination and resolution [Para 7].

Decision: Issue referred to a larger bench for consideration – Registry directed to place the file before the Chief Justice for constitution of a larger bench [Para 7].

Retirement Age – Enhancement of Retirement Age – Appellant challenged the denial of extension of retirement age from 60 to 65 years as per notification dated 6 February 2015 – Supreme Court held that the notification is prospective and does not apply to those who had already attained the age of superannuation – The end of session benefit does not alter the date of superannuation [Paras 1-24].

Fundamental Rules and Special Orders – Application and Interpretation – Supreme Court found that the special order dated 6 February 2015 enhancing the retirement age to 65 years cannot be regarded as ultra vires but is prospective in nature – The appellant's extension until the end of the session under the GO dated 19 November 2012 does not entitle him to benefit from the increased retirement age [Paras 14-19].

Comparison with Regulation 21 of the Intermediate Education Act – Supreme Court distinguished the provisions and noted that Regulation 21 contains a deeming provision extending retirement to the end of the academic year, which is not present in the GO dated 19 November 2012 for medical teachers [Paras 20-22].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Appellant not entitled to enhanced age of retirement of 65 years – Terminal benefits to be computed and released within two months [Paras 23-24].

Land Acquisition – Enhancement of Compensation – Appellant challenged the award of compensation and interest from the date of the award rather than from the date of possession or notification – Supreme Court directed the Collector to examine if the land came under submergence in 1991 and determine the quantum of damages accordingly – Interest under Section 34 to be awarded from the date of notification if submergence occurred [Paras 1-16].

Interest on Compensation – Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act – Interest at 9% per annum for the first year from the date of possession, increasing to 15% per annum if not paid within one year – Court emphasized that interest under Section 34 is payable from the date of notification in cases of prior possession [Para 13].

Determination of Possession and Damages – Court noted the absence of clear evidence regarding the period of submergence and possession – Directed the Collector to ascertain the factual situation and determine damages from 1991 to the date of notification, and interest from the date of notification under Section 34 [Paras 15-16].

Decision: Appeal disposed of with directions to the Collector to examine the facts and determine the quantum of damages and interest as per the Land Acquisition Act [Para 16].

Criminal Law – Unlawful Assembly and Murder – Appellants convicted for participating in an unlawful assembly that brutally beat the deceased, causing his death – Conviction based on consistent eyewitness testimonies and corroborative medical evidence – Supreme Court upheld conviction under Sections 147, 148, 302/149 IPC, emphasizing the intention to cause death and the merciless nature of the assault [Paras 1-24].

Witness Testimony – Consistency and Corroboration – Multiple eyewitnesses provided consistent accounts of the incident, identifying the appellants as part of the unlawful assembly – Court emphasized the reliability of such consistent testimonies, supported by medical evidence detailing the extent of injuries [Paras 15-20].

Evidence – Recovery of Weapons – Blood-stained weapons recovered from appellants, corroborating their participation in the assault – Supreme Court noted that such recovery, along with eyewitness accounts, reinforced the prosecution's case [Paras 21-24].

Section 149 IPC – Vicarious Liability – Court reaffirmed the principle that every member of an unlawful assembly is vicariously liable for the acts done in prosecution of the common object – No need to prove specific role of each member [Para 14].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – Convictions of some appellants upheld, others acquitted on benefit of doubt – Supreme Court maintained that the brutal nature of the assault evidenced the intent to cause death, justifying convictions under Section 302/149 IPC [Para 26].

Land Settlement – Pre-Partition Tenants – Appellants claimed themselves as pre-partition tenants on land in Village Poppalguda, Ranga Reddy District – Supreme Court remitted the matter to the High Court to decide the writ petitions in accordance with law, as the High Court had earlier allowed writ petitions filed by the State without considering the claims of pre-partition tenants – Other appellants given liberty to seek redressal in appropriate forums [Paras 1-8].

Central Government Land Transfer – Court referred to its earlier judgment in Ramesh Parsram Malani & Ors. vs. The State of Telangana & Ors., which held that transfer of land to the State Government does not take it out of the compensation pool, but should be used for the settlement of displaced persons first before other purposes [Para 4].

Decision – Order of the High Court dated February 12, 2016, set aside – Matter remitted to the High Court for reconsideration – Appellants allowed to seek redressal in appropriate legal forums [Para 8].

Murder vs. Culpable Homicide – Appellant contended the act falls under Section 304 Part II of IPC, arguing the applicability of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC – Supreme Court found that none of the exceptions in Section 300 IPC were attracted – The act clearly constituted murder under Section 300 IPC, as the appellant throttled his wife without provocation or sudden quarrel, thus attracting the ingredients of murder [Paras 29-30].

Evidence – Section 106 of Evidence Act – Court noted that the appellant failed to explain the injuries on the deceased and set up a false plea of suicide – Injuries on the deceased corroborated the prosecution's case of throttling, negating the defence of accidental or provoked death [Paras 6-9, 20-21].

Intoxication – Section 86 IPC – Appellant's intoxication did not exempt him from liability as the presumption is that he had the knowledge of his acts – The degree of intoxication was not sufficient to negate intent [Paras 25-27].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Conviction under Section 302 IPC and life sentence upheld [Para 30].

Armed Forces – Misconduct – Summary trial dismissed the respondent from service for striking a superior officer – Armed Forces Tribunal modified the dismissal to 75 days detention and deprivation of First Good Conduct Badge – Supreme Court held that Tribunal has jurisdiction to substitute and mitigate punishment, finding the original dismissal order disproportionate – Appeal dismissed, reinstating the respondent without back wages but with consequential benefits [Paras 1-14].

Evidence and Procedure – Examination of Witnesses – Superior officer who was struck by the respondent was neither cited as a witness nor examined during the investigation – Tribunal noted lack of evidence from three witnesses regarding the alleged incident – Tribunal found the respondent's reaction was provoked by abusive language used by the superior officer, leading to substitution of the punishment [Paras 3-5, 9-12].

Jurisdiction – Powers of Armed Forces Tribunal – Tribunal empowered under Section 15(6) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act to substitute findings and mitigate punishment if found excessive, illegal, or unjust – Supreme Court slow to interfere with Tribunal's decision unless found arbitrary, unreasonable, or capricious [Paras 10, 13].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Respondent to be reinstated within two months without back wages but with all consequential benefits [Para 14].

Insurance Claim – Validity of Survey Reports – Appellant challenged NCDRC's order to pay insurance claim, arguing multiple survey reports justified repudiation due to overload-induced collapse of the paddy boiling structure – Supreme Court upheld SCDRC's findings, rejecting NCDRC's conclusions on procedural delays in survey reports – Emphasized insurer's right to appoint multiple surveyors under valid reasons without mala fides [Paras 1-17].

Surveyors’ Reports – Appointment and Validity – Insurer initially appointed a surveyor for preliminary assessment, followed by structural expert and final surveyor – Supreme Court highlighted consistency in reports affirming structural overload as cause of collapse, and not collision as claimed by respondent – NCDRC's reliance on delay in survey report submission was misplaced [Paras 12-16].

Section 64-UM(2) of Insurance Act – Requirement for Survey Report – Court elucidated statutory mandate for licensed surveyor’s report before claim settlement – Found insurer complied with statutory requirements, justified in appointing multiple surveyors for comprehensive assessment [Paras 10-14].

Decision: Appeal allowed – NCDRC’s order set aside – Consumer complaint by respondent dismissed – Court recognized insurer’s compliance with legal and procedural standards in claim assessment and repudiation [Para 17].

Sales Tax – Applicability on Bonded Warehouses – Appellants argued that sales of imported goods stored in bonded warehouses and sold to foreign-bound ships should not be subject to sales tax as they are in the course of import – Supreme Court held that such sales, occurring after goods are unloaded and kept in bonded warehouses on West Bengal's landmass, are not in the course of import or export and are therefore subject to sales tax under the West Bengal Sales Tax Act [Paras 1-26].

Crossing Customs Frontiers – Definition and Interpretation – Court clarified that goods kept in bonded warehouses are considered to have crossed the customs frontiers of India, thus not exempt from sales tax – Emphasized strict interpretation of taxation statutes, noting that bonded warehouses do not fall within "customs station" as defined under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and the Customs Act, 1962 [Paras 14-15, 21-25].

Case Analysis – Court rejected appellants' reliance on Indian Tourist Development Corporation case, distinguishing it based on the specific facts involving duty-free shops at airports, which are within customs station areas – Appellants' argument that goods were sold in the course of import was dismissed, affirming that the sales were complete upon appropriation within bonded warehouses [Paras 16-17, 19-20].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Sales of goods stored in bonded warehouses in West Bengal and sold to foreign-bound ships are subject to state sales tax [Para 27].