Negotiable Instruments – Vicarious Liability – Section 141 of the NI Act – The High Court should not quash proceedings under Section 482 CrPC unless there is unimpeachable and incontrovertible evidence that a director/partner was not involved with the issuance of the cheque – The complainant must make specific averments regarding the role of the accused partner – Absence of specific averments in the complaint does not automatically warrant quashing the proceedings – The onus is on the accused to provide incontrovertible material to support their defense [Paras 1-48].

Decision – Appeal allowed – The High Court order quashing the proceedings against the respondent set aside – The complaint to proceed against the respondent [Paras 49-50].

Motor Vehicles – Compensation – Enhancement – The claimant, who worked in the Merchant Navy, suffered an amputation of his right arm below the elbow, resulting in 70% disability – The High Court enhanced the Tribunal's compensation award to ₹1,482,000 but considered the claimant's income at ₹18,000 per month, assuming he worked only six months a year – This observation was without basis – The correct income should be at least ₹30,000 per month considering future income rise – Total compensation recalculated to ₹6,235,000 – Pain and suffering compensation increased from ₹25,000 to ₹400,000 due to multiple operations and prolonged hospitalization [Paras 1-7].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Total compensation set at ₹6,235,000 with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till realization – Enhanced amount to be deposited within eight weeks and paid to the claimant by account payee cheque – No costs [Paras 6-7].

Education – Fundamental Right – Article 19(1)(g) – The right to establish educational institutions is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) – Reasonable restrictions on this right can be imposed only by a law enacted by the legislature, not by an executive resolution or instruction – The Pharmacy Council of India's moratorium on the opening of new pharmacy colleges for five years, imposed through executive instructions, is invalid [Paras 28-55].

Reasonableness of Restrictions – The power to regulate includes the power to impose reasonable restrictions in the interest of the general public – However, such restrictions must be imposed by law and satisfy the test of proportionality – The Pharmacy Council of India’s moratorium failed this test as it was not enacted through proper legislative procedure [Paras 34-38, 41-48].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – The moratorium imposed by the Pharmacy Council of India through resolutions dated July 17, 2019, and September 9, 2019, is invalid – High Courts’ orders quashing these resolutions upheld – No order as to costs [Paras 55-58].

Criminal Law – Bail – Serious Offences – The accused, named in the FIR, were involved in a land dispute with the informant – They attacked the informant's family, resulting in the death of the informant's brother and serious injuries to others – The High Court granted bail without considering the seriousness and gravity of the offences and without providing cogent reasons – The bail order is quashed and set aside [Paras 1-5].

Cancellation of Bail – High Court's Failure – The High Court failed to consider the nature of the allegations and the seriousness of the offences – The informant's statement consistently named the accused – The High Court's observation that the accused could not be identified due to the dark night is without basis and is a matter for trial – The High Court's order granting bail is unsustainable [Paras 4-5].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's order releasing the accused on bail quashed – Accused to surrender before the concerned Jail Authority forthwith [Para 5].

Criminal Law – Dying Declaration – Statement under Section 164 CrPC – A dying declaration is inadmissible if the declarant survives – The appellant's statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC was treated as a confession but lacked corroborative evidence – PWs 1 and 5, the husband and father-in-law of the appellant, turned hostile, raising doubts about the prosecution's case – Conviction based solely on the disputed confession is not sustainable without adequate supporting evidence [Paras 6-19].

Reasonable Doubt – In criminal proceedings, the presence of reasonable doubt requires thorough judicial consideration of all evidence – The appellant's continued marriage and parenting of two children post-incident suggest alternative explanations not adequately considered by lower courts – Reasonable doubt regarding the appellant's guilt necessitates her acquittal [Paras 16-21].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentences under Sections 302 and 309 IPC set aside – Interim protection made absolute – No costs [Paras 22-23].

Constitutional Law – Domicile and Allocation – Respondent, a state cadre officer, contested his allocation to Andhra Pradesh after the bifurcation of the state – Claimed right to be allocated to Telangana based on his domicile and spouse’s employment in Telangana – High Court upheld his claim – Supreme Court affirmed, emphasizing harmonization of allocation guidelines with constitutional rights [Paras 1-71].

Fundamental Rights – Right to Reside and Settle – Supreme Court reiterated that citizens have the fundamental right to reside and settle in any part of India under Article 19(1)(e) – State reorganization cannot infringe this right – Guidelines for employee allocation must align with constitutional principles [Paras 63-66].

Employee Allocation – Seniority and Local Candidature – Supreme Court upheld High Court’s decision, highlighting the importance of considering seniority and local candidature in employee allocation – Directed allocation based on seniority and spouse's employment in Telangana [Paras 56-58].

Decision: Special Leave Petitions dismissed – High Court’s order directing the allocation of the respondent to the State of Telangana upheld – Emphasis on aligning administrative guidelines with constitutional rights and considering seniority and local candidature in employee allocation.

Securities Law – SEBI Investigation – Non-compliance with Summons – Appellants were under investigation for aiding and abetting market manipulation by Ketan Parekh – Failed to comply with multiple summons issued by SEBI requiring the production of documents and information – SEBI imposed penalties under Section 15A(a) of the SEBI Act – SAT upheld SEBI’s decision [Paras 1-47].

Penalties – Quantum and Proportionality – Supreme Court examined the appropriateness of the penalties imposed – Affirmed that non-compliance with summons constitutes a fresh offence under the amended Section 15A(a) – Penalty of rupees one crore was justified given the severity of the appellants' offences and the obstruction of SEBI’s investigation [Paras 32-34, 40-44].

Statutory Interpretation – Powers of SEBI and Delegated Authorities – Clarified the authority of SEBI and its Investigating Officers under Section 11C(3) to compel the production of documents and information – Upheld the penalties as within the statutory framework and necessary for ensuring compliance and market integrity [Paras 45-46].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Penalties imposed by SEBI and upheld by SAT affirmed – Appellants directed to bear their respective costs.

Service Law – Terminal Benefits – Appellants, former employees of the Research and Analysis Wing, sought terminal benefits and pension after the merger of their posts was retrospectively applied – The Cabinet Secretariat initially reclassified the posts, merging them in a manner that was challenged – Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) directed for reconsideration and the merger's proper implementation – High Court set aside CAT’s order – Supreme Court reinstated CAT’s direction, ordering terminal benefits and pension to be calculated and paid based on earlier CAT orders [Paras 1-12].

Retroactive Application – Merger of Posts – Supreme Court addressed the retrospective application of the merger of Assistant Foreign Language Examiner (AFLE) and Deputy Foreign Language Examiner (DFLE) posts – Emphasized no adverse impact on career prospects of existing direct recruits due to the merger – Upheld CAT's order on the merger's effects on terminal benefits and pension [Paras 3.1-3.7].

Pension and Terminal Benefits – Calculation and Payment – Supreme Court directed Union of India to calculate and pay terminal benefits and pension from 1st January 2023 – Denied arrears of pension from the date of superannuation to 31st December 2022 – Granted 6% interest per annum on terminal benefits from the date of superannuation until actual payment [Paras 10-12].

Decision:

Appeal disposed of with directions to calculate and pay terminal benefits based on CAT orders dated 26th May 2008 and 7th July 2010 – Terminal benefits to be cleared by 31st December 2022 – Pension effective from 1st January 2023 – No arrears of pension allowed from superannuation date to 31st December 2022 – Interest at 6% per annum on terminal benefits from superannuation date until payment – No order as to costs.

Securities Law – SEBI Adjudication – Petitioner sought documents relied upon by SEBI in a show cause notice concerning alleged fund diversion – SEBI provided some documents but withheld others citing confidentiality – High Court dismissed the petition – Supreme Court upheld, emphasizing procedural compliance by SEBI and principles of natural justice [Paras 1-88].

Fair Hearing – Disclosure of Documents – Supreme Court emphasized that only documents relied upon by SEBI need to be provided – Confidential documents or those not relied upon are exempt from disclosure – Adequate disclosure ensures fair hearing without compromising the investigation's integrity [Paras 29-49].

Regulatory Compliance – SEBI Adjudication Rules – Compliance with procedural requirements under SEBI Adjudication Rules – Adjudicating officer’s decision to proceed based on preliminary examination upheld – Importance of following statutory framework to ensure fairness and transparency in proceedings [Paras 44-50].

Decision:

Appeal dismissed – High Court’s decision upheld – SEBI directed to continue with the inquiry without relying on documents not provided to the petitioner – Petitioner's liberty to challenge adverse orders in appropriate forum preserved.