Criminal Procedure – Revision Petition by Private Complainant – The Supreme Court held that a private complainant can file a revision petition under certain circumstances, including when the trial court wrongly excludes evidence that the prosecution wishes to produce – Emphasized the importance of revisional jurisdiction in ensuring justice and correcting manifest illegality or preventing gross miscarriage of justice [Paras 14-16].

Interlocutory Orders – Definition and Scope – The Court clarified that the term 'interlocutory order' under Section 397(2) CrPC should be interpreted narrowly, referring to orders of a purely interim or temporary nature – Orders affecting substantial rights or crucial aspects of the trial are not 'interlocutory' and can be challenged through revision petitions [Paras 12-13].

Decision – Appeal allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's decision dismissing the revision petition on the ground of maintainability – Directed the trial court to allow the prosecution to mark the statement of the appellant recorded on 26 December 2016 as an exhibit – Directed the trial court to conclude the trial by 31 March 2023 [Paras 16-17].

Limitation Act – Effect of Acknowledgment in Writing – The Supreme Court held that Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, stipulates that if an acknowledgment of liability in writing is made before the expiration of the prescribed period, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time the acknowledgment was signed – The Court emphasized that an acknowledgment must be within the period of limitation to be valid for extending the limitation period [Paras 17-18].

Execution of Decree – Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 – The Court observed that the provisions of the Limitation Act do not apply to the execution of decrees under the Special Court Act, 1992, based on the decision in L.S. Synthetics Ltd v. Fairgrowth Financial Services Ltd – Held that the execution application by the Custodian was not barred by limitation, and the acknowledgment by the appellant on 22 February 2018 was valid [Paras 15-19].

Decision – Appeal disposed of – The Supreme Court upheld the directions for the disclosure of assets issued by the Special Court – Granted the appellant four weeks to file the disclosure of assets and directed the Special Court to dispose of the Execution Application within two months – Conditional stay on the application for arrest of the appellant until the Execution Application is decided [Paras 19-21].

Service Law – Reinstatement – The Supreme Court noted that the original writ petitioner, Sandeep Kaushik, would be approximately 49 years of age, and the retirement age for drivers is 55 years – Given the changes in circumstances and that the original petitioner would need to clear a driving test, the Court held that actual appointment was not feasible – Directed the payment of compensation instead of reinstatement [Paras 5-6].

Compensation in Lieu of Appointment – The Court awarded the original writ petitioner a sum of Rs. 7.5 lakhs as compensation, with 6% interest from September 2013 onwards until the actual payment is made – Emphasized that this would meet the ends of justice considering the impracticality of actual reinstatement after 14 years [Paras 5-6].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – The Supreme Court modified the High Court's judgment, directing the appellant to pay the specified compensation within eight weeks – It also allowed the appellant to recover the amount from respondent No.2, but held the appellant initially liable for the payment – No order as to costs [Paras 5-6].

Civil Procedure – Abatement of Appeal – The Supreme Court held that the Second Appeal did not abate upon the death of one of the respondents, as the right to sue survived against the surviving respondents – Highlighted that abatement occurs only when the cause of action does not survive upon or against the surviving party – The High Court's dismissal of the appeal and the application to set aside abatement was found to be erroneous [Paras 5-10].

Order XXII Rule 2 CPC – Survival of Right to Sue – The Court noted that where there are multiple plaintiffs or defendants and one of them dies, the right to sue survives to the surviving plaintiffs or defendants – Applied to appeals by virtue of Order XXII Rule 11 CPC, ensuring the continuation of proceedings against surviving parties [Paras 7-9].

Decision – Appeals allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and decree dismissing the Second Appeal and the order dismissing the application to set aside abatement – Remanded the Second Appeal back to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits – Directed the High Court to expedite the hearing and decision within six months [Paras 11-12].

Compassionate Appointment – Eligibility Criteria – The Supreme Court held that compassionate appointment cannot be granted merely on the death or incapacitation of an employee – It must be in accordance with the scheme framed by the employer, which may include financial criteria to determine the indigence of the family – The Court emphasized that the aim of compassionate appointment is to tide over immediate financial crises, not to provide employment irrespective of financial condition [Paras 1-24].

Suppression of Material Facts – The Court noted that the respondent suppressed the fact that he was employed with ICICI Bank at the time of applying for compassionate appointment – Such suppression of material facts disqualifies the respondent from being considered for compassionate appointment – The High Court erred in ignoring this suppression and the financial criteria of the scheme [Paras 23-24].

Decision – Appeal allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court – Held that the respondent's application for compassionate appointment was liable to be rejected on the ground of suppression of material facts and the financial condition of the family not meeting the criteria under the scheme – No order as to costs [Para 25].

Civil Procedure – Declaration and Possession – The Supreme Court held that an order or decree passed without jurisdiction is a legal nullity – The deficiency of jurisdiction cannot be cured by the consent of the parties – The Deputy Commissioner (DC) lacked inherent jurisdiction to either entertain the appeal or endorse the compromise during the suspension of the Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, 1972 – Consequently, the compromise being unregistered cannot confer title on the respondent – The decree in favor of the respondent is set aside [Paras 18-32].

Deficiency of Jurisdiction – Legal Nullity – The Court reiterated that any order passed by an authority without jurisdiction is a nullity and can be challenged whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced or relied upon [Paras 20-30].

Registration Requirement – The Court emphasized that the compromise and the consequent order required registration under the Registration Act, 1908, and the Jammu and Kashmir Transfer of Property Act, 1920, for it to have any legal effect – Without registration, the compromise could not confer title on the respondent [Paras 22-28].

Decision – Appeal allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the decree in favor of the respondent concerning the land measuring 11 Kanals and 15 Marlas – Parties to bear their own costs [Para 34].

Service Tax – Composite Works Contracts – The Supreme Court held that service tax could not be levied on composite works contracts prior to the introduction of the Finance Act, 2007, which amended the Finance Act, 1994, to introduce Section 65(105)(zzzza) – The Court found that the Finance Act, 1994, contained no charge or machinery to levy and assess service tax on indivisible composite works contracts – Consequently, any exemption regarding service tax 'levied' did not arise at all [Paras 2-5, 13].

Reconsideration of Precedent – Principle of Stare Decisis – The Court refused to reconsider the decision in the case of Larsen & Toubro Limited, which held that no service tax was leviable on works contracts prior to the 2007 amendment – Emphasized the importance of consistency, certainty, and uniformity in judicial decisions, following the principle of stare decisis – Highlighted that the decision in Larsen & Toubro Limited had been consistently followed by various High Courts and Tribunals since 2015 [Paras 10-12].

Decision – Appeals allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgments and orders passed by the respective High Courts/Tribunals, holding that service tax was not leviable on composite works contracts for the period prior to the 2007 amendment – Consequently, the respective assessment orders levying service tax were also quashed – Civil Appeal No. 6792 of 2010 filed by the Revenue was dismissed [Paras 14-15].

Criminal Law – Interim Stay of Investigation – The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in granting an interim stay of investigation in the petitions seeking quashing of criminal complaints – Reiterated that such stays should be granted only in the rarest of rare cases and that the Investigating Officer's right to investigate should be respected – The High Court's order was found to be in contradiction to the principles laid down in M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. [AIR 2021 SC 1918] [Paras 1-8].

Exercise of Powers under Article 226 and Section 482 CrPC – The Court emphasized that the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 482 CrPC must be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, particularly in matters of staying investigations – The High Court must provide detailed reasoning for any such stay, and it must align with established judicial principles [Paras 6-7].

Decision – Appeals allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's interim order dated 14/02/2022, thereby lifting the stay on further criminal proceedings and investigation – Directed the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation within three months and file the appropriate report/charge sheet – The High Court was directed to consider the special criminal applications in accordance with law and on their own merits – The Court also permitted the accused to apply for anticipatory bail [Paras 8].

Retirement Age of College Teachers – The Supreme Court held that the enhancement of the retirement age of college teachers in Kerala to 65 years is within the domain of the State Government – The policy of the State Government mandating retirement at 56 years for teachers of aided affiliated colleges and at 60 years for university teachers is crystallized by enactments under Article 309 of the Constitution – The Court dismissed the plea for enhancing the retirement age to 65 years [Paras 1-34].

UGC Regulations and State Authority – The Court noted that while the UGC Regulations provide a framework for pay scales and other service conditions, including the retirement age, the State Governments have the discretion to implement these regulations – The State of Kerala adopted the UGC Regulations for pay scales but retained its statutory retirement age [Paras 6-22].

Policy Decision and Judicial Interference – The Court emphasized that the decision on the retirement age is a matter of policy that balances multiple factors, including employment opportunities for younger candidates and the experience of older teachers – Such policy decisions should be left to the law-making authorities and not be interfered with by the courts [Paras 17, 27, 29].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – The Supreme Court upheld the judgments of the Single Bench and Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala, which found no change in law post the judgment in Jagdish Prasad Sharma v. State of Bihar (2013) 8 SCC 633 – The concurrent findings of the High Court were upheld, and no grounds were found to interfere [Paras 30-34].