Constitutional Law – Article 279A – GST Council – Implementation of Document Identification Number (DIN) – Petitioner, a Chartered Accountant, sought directions for the implementation of a DIN system for all communications by State Tax Officers to ensure transparency and accountability – Supreme Court directed the GST Council to issue advisories to all States to implement the DIN system [Paras 1-7].

Public Interest – DIN System – Central Government implemented DIN for CBDT communications – Only Karnataka and Kerala implemented DIN for State Tax Officers – Court recognized the public interest in extending the DIN system nationwide for indirect tax administration [Paras 2-6].

Decision – Writ Petition Disposed – Held – Union of India/GST Council directed to issue advisory/instructions to States for implementing DIN system – States encouraged to adopt DIN for transparency and accountability in indirect tax administration – Registry to send order copies to Chief Secretaries of all States [Paras 7].

Criminal Law – Testimony of Eyewitness – Trustworthiness – Eyewitness testimony found trustworthy and reliable cannot be rejected due to minor contradictions – Conviction upheld despite minor inconsistencies in witness statements [Para 22].

Evidence – Non-Recovery of Weapon – Conviction can be based on ample ocular and medical evidence even if the weapon is not recovered – Prosecution case not materially affected by non-recovery of weapon [Para 24(ii)].

Penal Code – Section 302 – Murder – Broad daylight attack with direct evidence – Previous enmity established motive – Conviction under Section 302 IPC affirmed as prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 21-25].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Held – Trial Court and High Court judgments convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC upheld – No ground for interference found [Paras 24-26].

Insolvency and Bankruptcy – Operational Debt – Pre-existing Dispute – Appellant filed application under Section 9 of IBC for initiation of CIRP against HBL – NCLT admitted the application – NCLAT set aside the admission, citing pre-existing disputes between parties – Supreme Court upheld NCLAT’s decision, emphasizing that CIRP cannot be used for debt collection where disputes exist [Paras 1-35].

IBC Sections 8 and 9 – Conditions for Admitting Application – Adjudicating Authority must reject application if there is a pre-existing dispute – Existence of a dispute is sufficient to reject application – Adjudicating Authority not required to examine merits of the dispute [Paras 13-17].

Debt Collection vs. Insolvency Resolution – IBC not intended as debt collection mechanism – CIRP meant for genuine insolvency cases, not disputes over operational debts – Detailed correspondence indicated genuine pre-existing disputes [Paras 31-32].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Held – Application under Section 9 IBC rightly rejected due to pre-existing dispute – Appellant advised to seek other remedies including arbitration if applicable [Paras 30-35].

Criminal Procedure – Anticipatory Bail – Appeal challenging the High Court’s orders which inquired into unrelated matters during the consideration of an anticipatory bail application – High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by involving third parties and overstepping the scope of Section 438 CrPC – Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s orders, emphasizing that anticipatory bail proceedings must focus solely on matters pertinent to the applicant [Paras 1-13].

High Court Jurisdiction – Scope of Inquiry – High Court’s inquiry into matters beyond the anticipatory bail application held impermissible – The Supreme Court stressed that High Courts should exercise circumspection and limit their inquiry to relevant facts applicable to the concerned applicant – Directions issued by the High Court to third parties were annulled [Paras 5-12].

Civil Procedure – Application of CPC in Criminal Matters – Supreme Court clarified that the High Court cannot invoke powers under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC while dealing with anticipatory bail applications under Section 438 CrPC – Jurisdiction of the High Court to involve third parties in such proceedings was negated [Paras 11-12].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Orders by the High Court set aside – Supreme Court directed that all unrelated observations or directions by the High Court are to be expunged – Liberty granted to the State to pursue legal remedies for unrelated matters [Paras 13-15].

Constitutional Law – Habeas Corpus – Custody of Minor Children – Petitioner-mother filed writ seeking custody of minor children taken to India by respondent-father against US court orders – High Court issued notice and deferred hearing multiple times to explore amicable settlement – Supreme Court reiterated paramount importance of child's welfare and upheld inherent jurisdiction of Habeas Corpus writ for child custody cases – Directed return of children to USA [Paras 1-98].

Child Custody – Welfare Principle – Supreme Court emphasized that welfare of minor children is paramount in custody disputes – Natural guardianship rights of parents secondary to child's best interests – Custody to be determined by considering stability, security, and child's overall well-being [Paras 70-94].

International Custody Disputes – Comity of Courts – Supreme Court acknowledged principle of comity but stressed welfare of child over international jurisdiction conflicts – Directed adherence to US court custody orders while considering child's acclimatization and best interests [Paras 95-98].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Supreme Court directed respondent-father to return minor children to the USA – Emphasized compliance with US court custody orders – Ensured welfare and best interests of children were paramount [Paras 98-100].

Criminal Procedure – Appeal against Conviction – Appellant convicted under Sections 302 and 120B IPC and Section 27(1) of Arms Act – Appeal admitted for final hearing – High Court dismissed appeal for non-prosecution as appellant was absconding – Supreme Court set aside dismissal, holding appeal cannot be dismissed for non-prosecution once admitted for hearing – Appeal remanded to High Court for decision on merits [Paras 1-8].

Absconding Appellant – Impact on Appeal – High Court expressed frustration with appellant's absconding, seeing it as defiance of justice – Supreme Court noted absconding is not ground to dismiss appeal already admitted – Emphasized need to decide appeal on merits, ensuring proper administration of justice [Paras 6-8].

High Court Rules – Applicability – Patna High Court Rule requiring surrender of appellant before hearing appeal not applicable post-admission – Appeal admitted in 2009; rule not applicable to post-admission stage – Supreme Court clarified this distinction [Para 7].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's order dismissing appeal for non-prosecution set aside – Case remanded for hearing on merits – High Court directed to prioritize disposal of appeal, aiming for decision within six months – Appellant allowed to apply for suspension of sentence if appeal not heard within six months [Paras 8-14].

Assam Rifles – Discharge from Service – Appellant discharged based on four Red Ink entries during service – Regulations 107(c) and 108 of Assam Rifles Regulation 2016 not applicable as discharge order issued in 2004 – Supreme Court held discharge order unjustified due to lack of application of mind and failure to consider severity and nature of misconduct – Directed reinstatement for purpose of completing qualifying service for pension [Paras 1-41].

Administrative Law – Exercise of Discretion – Discharge not automatic on four Red Ink entries – Commandant must exercise discretion considering severity of misconduct and provide reasoning – Discharge order invalidated due to failure to record reasons and improper application of mind [Paras 8-12, 27-36].

Judicial Review – Scope and Grounds – Court can review administrative action for lack of evidence, improper purpose, irrelevant grounds, and failure to consider relevant factors – Supreme Court quashed discharge order for failing these standards [Paras 27-37].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Discharge order set aside – Appellant treated as in service till completion of qualifying period for pension – No back wages awarded, but continuity of service for pension and other benefits granted – Monetary benefits to be released within four months [Paras 39-41].

Evidence Act – Section 27 – Discovery of Weapon – Mere discovery cannot infer authorship of concealment by the person who discovered the weapon – Supreme Court emphasized the conditions under Section 27, including that the information must cause discovery and relate distinctly to the discovered fact [Paras A, C-D, 35-42].

Evidence Act – Sections 8 and 27 – Discovery of Weapon and Disclosure Statement – Evidence of discovery is admissible as conduct under Section 8, irrespective of admissibility under Section 27 – Court highlighted the necessity of establishing a direct connection between the information provided and the fact discovered [Paras B, 48-49].

Eyewitness Testimony – Assessment – Supreme Court outlined principles for assessing the value of eyewitness evidence, emphasizing the importance of determining the possibility of their presence at the scene and the reliability of their testimonies – Inconsistencies in minor details should not overshadow the core truth of their statements [Paras E, 25-33].

Judicial Review – Scope under Article 136 – Supreme Court reiterated its limited interference in concurrent findings of fact unless there are exceptional circumstances or manifest errors – Court emphasized the need for a thorough evaluation of the entire evidence to ensure just conclusions [Paras 20-24].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding the evidence of the eyewitnesses reliable and corroborated by medical and forensic evidence – Emphasized the need for careful evaluation of evidence in criminal cases [Paras 51-52].

Sugarcane Control Order – Extension of Time – Appellant sought extension of time for setting up a sugar factory under Clause 6C of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 – High Court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the IEM issued to the appellant – Supreme Court held that time extensions were justified due to litigation and environmental compliance issues – Emphasized that ultimate beneficiary is the farmer due to competitive service options [Paras 1-15, 50-51].

Environmental Compliance – High Court directed compliance with anti-pollution and ecological laws before setting up the factory – Supreme Court upheld this directive but emphasized that aerial distance certificate should not be reopened, adhering to previous High Court judgment – Extension granted due to unforeseen circumstances including litigation and environmental issues [Paras 10-14, 23-29].

Judicial Review – Scope of Interference – Supreme Court reiterated principles of judicial review, emphasizing restraint and non-interference in administrative decisions unless shown to be arbitrary, irrational, or unjust – High Court's order overturned as it failed to consider justified extensions and recommendations by State and Central Government [Paras 30-41].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court's order set aside – Writ petitions dismissed – Supreme Court directed exclusion of litigation period while determining compliance timeline for setting up the sugar factory – Emphasized competitive benefits for farmers [Paras 42-51].