Civil Appeal – Challenge to National Green Tribunal Order – Non-compliance of STP regulations – Imposition of interim compensation – Quantum of compensation disputed – Lack of reasons for imposition of higher amount – Appellant challenges lack of reasoning – Tribunal’s decision lacks recorded reasons – Remand for reconsideration of interim compensation quantum – Committee of Experts initially proposed lower compensation – Appellant deposited the proposed lower amount – Appellant’s challenge not to finding of non-compliance but to higher imposed compensation – Lack of reasons for higher compensation – Case remanded to National Green Tribunal for fresh consideration of interim compensation quantum – Tribunal directed to hear parties and decide interim compensation issue afresh – Appellant’s deposited amount to be treated as interim compensation – Appeal partly allowed – Urgent resolution of interim compensation issue urged. [Para 1-9]

Income Tax Appeal - Exemption for charitable activities - Appellant's challenge to reliance on High Court judgment - Issue of applicability of judgment in a similar case - Whether activities of the respondent qualify for tax exemption - Court's consideration of the nature of activities conducted by statutory corporations - Emphasis on excluding activities serving public purposes from business or commercial receipts - Scrutiny of charges exceeding costs and nominal markups - Application of previous judgment's observations to the case - Dismissal of appeals, affirming the respondent's eligibility for tax exemption under Sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act - Court's reinforcement of principles distinguishing public utility activities from commercial ventures for tax exemptions. [Para 1-5]

The appellant, an Assistant General Manager at the State Bank of India, Overseas Bank, faced charges under the IPC and the PC Act. He contested the proceedings, arguing that he was entitled to protection under Section 197 of the CrPC and that no sanction was granted under Section 19 of the PC Act.

Issues: Whether the appellant falls under the category of a public servant not removable from office except with government sanction, as per Section 197 of the CrPC.

• Whether the appellant can be prosecuted for IPC offenses without the sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act.

Analysis:

• Section 197 of the CrPC applies to public servants not removable from office without government sanction. The appellant, employed in a Nationalized Bank, does not fall under this category.

• The requirement for sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act applies to PC Act offenses, not IPC offenses. The need for sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC for IPC offenses depends on whether the act has a reasonable connection with the official duty of the public servant.

Held: The appellant does not fall under the category of a public servant entitled to protection under Section 197 of the CrPC. While he was discharged from PC Act offenses, he can be prosecuted for IPC offenses without the need for sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act. The appeal is dismissed.

Civil Appeal – Pay Protection – Appellant's claim for pay protection – Appellant appointed as a Lecturer in English at the 1st respondent college – Dispute arises regarding pay protection – Single Judge of the High Court grants pay protection – Division Bench of the High Court overturns the decision – Appeal filed in the Supreme Court. [Para 1]

Interpretation of Regulations – Applicability of Article 77-D of the Jammu & Kashmir Civil Service Regulations – Whether the appellant's post was substantive or ad-hoc – Application of third proviso to Article 77-D – Key question of whether the appellant's appointment was on a substantive basis. [Para 5-10]

Advertisement and Terms of Appointment – Examination of the language used in the advertisement and the terms of the appellant's appointment – Differentiating between a tenure post and an appointment on a regular post with tenure basis – Indications supporting the appellant's substantive appointment. [Para 7-8]

Exception to Article 77-D – Analysis of the third proviso to Article 77-D – Determining whether the appellant's previous post was ad-hoc, temporary, or against a short-term vacancy – Finding that the appellant's appointment did not fall within the exception. [Para 10]

High Court's Decision – Critique of the Division Bench's reasoning – Ignoring the exception carved out by the third proviso to Article 77-D – Faulty conclusion that the appellant's post was not substantive – Restoration of the Single Judge's judgment directing pay protection. [Para 13-14]

Conclusion and Orders – Impugned judgment set aside – Single Judge's judgment restored – Direction to 1st and 2nd respondents to provide pay protection to the appellant within one month – Payment of arrears within three months – Appeal allowed. [Para 15-16]

Criminal Appeal – Quashing of FIR – Allegations of sexual offences and assault – Appellants seeking quashing of FIR – Examination of the factual matrix and legal submissions – Absence of specific details in the FIR regarding date and time of alleged offences – Completion of investigation and readiness of charge sheet – Court’s duty to examine whether FIR is manifestly frivolous or vexatious – Importance of considering attending circumstances beyond the averments – Possibility of private vengeance or personal grudge in multiple FIRs – Appellants directed to prefer discharge application under Section 227 of the CrPC before the Trial Court. [Para 7]

Observation – Duty of the Court in scrutinizing FIRs for quashing – Court’s obligation to look beyond the averments and consider overall circumstances – Reading between the lines in frivolous or vexatious proceedings – Multiple FIRs indicating the possibility of personal grudge or private vengeance. [Para 10]

Conclusion – Appeal disposed with liberty for appellants to file discharge application under Section 227 of the CrPC before the Trial Court – Matter to be examined based on materials collected during investigation – Importance of considering the possibility of personal grudge or private vengeance in the registration of multiple FIRs. [Para 11]

Insurance Claim – Prawn Cultivation – Repudiation of claim by insurance company – Calculation of admissible loss – Methods of computation as per insurance policy – Application of principles of good faith and fair dealing in insurance contracts – Relevance of death certificate issued by independent authorities – Quantum of claim and interest – Appeal against the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – Court's observations on computation methods and insurance company's actions – Compensation determined based on just and equitable principles. [Para 1-2]

Calculation Methods – Insurance policy provided three methods for computing admissible loss – Input Cost Method, Unit Cost Method, and Fortnightly Valuation Method – Appellant's computations based on actual evidence and death certificate – NCDRC's reliance on survey report despite rejecting certain conclusions – Court's evaluation of average body weight and validity of death certificate – Importance of good faith and fair dealing in insurance contracts. [Para 8, Para 10, Para 11]

Death Certificate – Significance of death certificate issued by independent authorities – Insurance company's own direction to obtain death certificate from relevant bodies – Duty of both parties to observe utmost good faith in insurance contracts – Insurance company's obligation to consider evidence objectively – Inability to disregard or dismiss evidence just to its detriment. [Para 11, Para 12]

Quantum of Claim and Interest – NCDRC's computation of loss and interest – Appellant's entitlement to the lowest of computed values – Respondent insurance company's delay in settling claim – Appropriate interest rate based on prevailing bank deposit rates – Equitable settlement of claim and interest. [Para 14, Para 15]

Appeal allowed – Appellant entitled to receive balance amount of claim with interest – Principles of good faith and fair dealing reiterated in insurance contracts – Timely and just settlement of claims emphasized. [Para 16]

Criminal Appeal – Quashing of FIR – Appellant challenges High Court's order rejecting the Writ Petition to quash FIR – Final report subsequently filed by the investigation officer stating no case against appellant – Acceptance of final report by Additional Sessions Judge – Appellant seeks relief on the basis of these developments – Appeal disposed of. [Para 2-6]

Factual Matrix – FIR lodged under Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 – Allegations of forming a gang, spreading terror, and unlawful possession – Criminal history of accused mentioned – Investigation officer filed final report stating no case – Additional Sessions Judge accepted final report – No challenge to final report – Conclusion reached that present matter requires no further adjudication. [Para 3-5]

Observations and Conclusion – Appellant's senior counsel points out investigation developments – Final report accepted, no case to proceed against appellant – Observations made relevant only to the present FIR and proceedings – Observations won't impact pending cases – Appeal disposed of accordingly. [Para 6-7]

Criminal Appeal – Quashing of FIR – Delay in lodging FIR – Allegations of robbery, criminal intimidation, intentional insult – Appellants challenging the continuation of criminal proceedings – Whether FIR discloses essential ingredients of offences – Consideration of delay in lodging FIR – Evaluation of criminal antecedents – Abuse of process of law – High Court's order quashed. [Para 1]

Offences of Robbery, Criminal Intimidation, and Intentional Insult – Analysis of IPC Sections 390, 391, 395, 503, 504, and 506 – Essential ingredients to establish robbery, criminal intimidation, and intentional insult – Interpretation of the words “for that end” in Section 390 – Requirement for threat of injury in criminal intimidation – Nature of intentional insult provoking breach of peace – Examination of ingredients of Sections 503, 504, and 506. [Paras 11-31]

Delay in Lodging FIR – Significance of delay in lodging FIR – Importance of disclosing date and time of alleged incident – Implications of vague and general allegations without plausible explanation – Balance between law enforcement and protection of citizens from harassment – Inherent right of accused to not be disturbed without sufficient grounds – Impact of criminal antecedents on quashing proceedings. [Paras 32-35]

Quashing of criminal proceedings – Abuse of process of law – Impugned order of High Court set aside – FIR and consequential proceedings arising from FIR No. 224 of 2022 dated 19.09.2022 registered at Police Station Mirzapur, Saharanpur, State of U.P. quashed – Observations relevant only for the specific case – No bearing on pending criminal prosecutions or other proceedings. [Paras 36-37]

Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR - Parameters: The Court reiterated the parameters for quashing an FIR, as established in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, including scenarios where the allegations do not constitute an offense, the allegations are absurd, and the proceedings are manifestly attended with malice.

Facts - Allegations - Investigation: The appellant challenged an order of the High Court rejecting his petition to quash an FIR registered against him for offenses under the IPC. The FIR was based on allegations that the appellant, in a position of influence, committed offenses such as dacoity, kidnapping, and extortion. Investigations revealed a history of multiple FIRs registered against the appellant and his family.

Analysis - Ingredients of Offense - Abuse of Process: The Court analyzed the content of the FIR, considering the history of multiple FIRs and the possibility of abuse of process. The Court concluded that the allegations made in the FIR, even if true, did not meet the necessary criteria to constitute the alleged offenses, particularly dacoity. The Court emphasized the importance of not restricting analysis to the face value of the FIR but considering surrounding circumstances.

Appeal Allowed - set aside the High Court's order - quashed the criminal proceedings arising from the FIR. (Para No. 10, 14, 20, 26, 32, 35)