Mining Law – Coal Block Allocation – Wrongful Inclusion – Respondent No.1 (UOI) failed to follow due process, leading to wrongful inclusion of appellant in list of illegal coal block allotments – Appellant followed proper procedure under MMDR Act and MC Rules – UOI's callous approach caused appellant loss and ignominy – Allocation to appellant not through Screening Committee Route or Government Dispensation Route – Consequences of Supreme Court's judgment on coal block allocations not applicable to appellant – [Paras 1-22].

Liability for Additional Levy – Compensation and Penalty – Additional levy imposed by UOI based on erroneous inclusion in illegal allocation list – Demand for additional levy quashed – UOI directed to pay litigation costs to appellant [Paras 22-24].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Demand for additional levy quashed – UOI directed to pay litigation costs of Rs. 100,000/- to appellant within four weeks – Contempt Petition (Crl.) No. 7 of 2016 dismissed [Para 22-24].

Civil Procedure Code – Counter Claim – Order 8 Rule 6A – Counter claim must be against the plaintiff and must be instituted before the defendant has delivered his defense or before the time limit for delivering his defense has expired – Counter claim can be made on a separate or independent cause of action, but it has limitations such as pecuniary limits of the court's jurisdiction – Counter claim set up by defendants in present case was not related to plaintiff's claim and was rightly rejected by the High Court [Paras 1-17].

Punjab Courts Act, 1918 – Section 41 – Applicable in Haryana – Second appeals governed by Section 41 do not require formulation of substantial question of law – High Court's error in decreeing claim on two plots due to lack of counter claim by defendants despite plaintiffs' failure to prove their case – High Court's judgment partially set aside [Para 15-16].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – High Court’s judgment decreeing the claim of the plaintiffs on Killa Nos. 21//3/2 and 7//13 set aside – Counter claim by defendants on Killa Nos. 6//18 and 23 correctly rejected by High Court [Para 17].

Educational Law – UGC Regulations – Exemption from NET – 2016 UGC Regulations exempting Ph.D. holders from NET applied retrospectively – Dr. Jayakumar's appointment in compliance with earlier regulations – Appointment upheld – Appeals allowed – High Court judgment set aside [Paras 1-27].

Declaratory and Clarificatory Amendments – Interpretation – Retrospective Operation – Courts to interpret amendments giving clear inference of retrospective application – Amendments intended to protect prior rights and provide clarity operate retrospectively [Para 19-25].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Impugned judgment set aside – Dr. Jayakumar's appointment as Lecturer upheld – No order as to costs [Para 27].

Maternity Leave – Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972 – Rule 43 – The appellant, a government employee, applied for maternity leave for her first biological child – Leave was denied on the ground that she had two stepchildren from her husband's previous marriage, thereby exceeding the limit of two surviving children stipulated under Rule 43 – Tribunal and High Court upheld the denial – Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the appellant’s entitlement to maternity leave for her first biological child is independent of her prior availing of child care leave for her stepchildren [Paras 1-30].

Purposeful Interpretation – Beneficial Legislation – The court emphasized that maternity leave provisions must be construed to support the continuance of women in the workplace, recognizing child birth as a natural incident of life – Rejected a literal interpretation that would disadvantage families not conforming to traditional structures – Affirmed the purposive approach to extend benefits under social welfare legislation to non-traditional families [Paras 15-26].

Constitutional Rights – Articles 15(3), 21, and 42 – The court reinforced that beneficial provisions for women under Article 15(3) and the right to privacy and dignity under Article 21 support the appellant's claim – Emphasized the State's duty under Article 42 to provide just and humane work conditions, including maternity relief [Paras 21-26].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Judgments of the High Court and Central Administrative Tribunal set aside – Appellant entitled to maternity leave under Rule 43 – Directed release of benefits within two months [Paras 28-30].

Contract Law – Tender Process – Uniform Bidding – GST Rates – High Court directed the appellant to clarify GST rates and HSN codes in the tender document to ensure fair competition – Supreme Court held that no statutory or public duty exists requiring the appellants to indicate the HSN code – Bidder's responsibility to quote correct GST rate [Paras 1-48].

Mandamus – Scope and Application – The High Court's issuance of mandamus to compel the appellant to seek clarification from GST authorities was deemed impractical and beyond legal requirements – Appellants not bound to provide HSN code in tender documents under current statutory framework [Paras 15-49].

GST Regime – Supplier's Tax Liability – The GST Act places the tax liability on the supplier, not the purchaser – Suppliers must self-assess and quote accurate tax rates – High Court's directions to the appellant were inconsistent with GST provisions [Paras 33-47].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment set aside – No mandatory duty for appellants to specify HSN codes in tender documents – Bidders responsible for quoting correct GST rates [Paras 28-49].

Judgment Writing – Incomprehensible Language – The High Court's judgment affirming the CGIT's order was found to be incomprehensible – Supreme Court emphasized the importance of clarity and accessibility in judgment writing – Highlighted the need for judgments to be written in a manner that is understandable to all stakeholders, including the parties involved and the public [Paras 10-14].

Judicial Review – Disciplinary Proceedings – Misconduct – The respondent was charged with gross misconduct and dismissed from service – The CGIT found the penalty of dismissal harsh and disproportionate, modifying it to compulsory retirement – High Court affirmed CGIT's decision – Supreme Court remanded the case to the High Court for reconsideration in clear and comprehensible language [Paras 1-31].

Accessibility – Digital Signatures – Courts and tribunals must ensure judgments and orders are accessible and signed using digital signatures – Avoid scanned versions of printed copies to ensure accessibility for persons with disabilities using screen readers [Paras 21-22].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment set aside – Case remanded to the High Court for fresh consideration – All rights and contentions of the parties on merits kept open – High Court requested to expedite disposal of the writ petitions [Paras 29-31].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Sections 138 and 139 – Dishonour of Cheque – The drawer's admission of signing a cheque raises a presumption of liability – This presumption cannot be rebutted merely by proving that the cheque details were filled in by someone other than the drawer – Handwriting expert's report on whether the drawer filled in the cheque details is irrelevant to determining the purpose of the cheque issuance [Paras 1-17].

Presumption of Liability – Section 139 NI Act – Once a cheque is signed and handed over, it is presumed to be for the discharge of debt or liability – The burden shifts to the drawer to rebut this presumption with evidence to the contrary – Reports from handwriting experts do not suffice to rebut the statutory presumption of liability [Paras 13-17].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's order permitting the engagement of a handwriting expert set aside – Handwriting expert's report not to be considered in trial – Respondents may raise other legitimate defenses during trial [Paras 19-20].

Dowry Death – IPC Section 304B – The trial court convicted the appellant based on the second dying declaration implicating him, despite acquitting his parents on the same evidence – High Court reduced the sentence but upheld the conviction – Supreme Court found the first dying declaration more reliable as it was made voluntarily without any external influence, unlike the second declaration recorded in the presence of the deceased's relatives, which could have been influenced – Benefit of doubt given to the appellant similar to that given to his parents by the trial court [Paras 1-20].

Dying Declaration – Reliability – The court must ensure the dying declaration is true, reliable, voluntary, and made in a fit state of mind – When multiple dying declarations exist, the one recorded by a higher authority like a Magistrate, without suspicion, is more reliable – Inconsistencies and lack of corroboration necessitate careful scrutiny of each case's facts [Paras 8-10].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court and trial court judgments set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges – Bail bonds discharged [Paras 22-23].

Criminal Law – Conviction Reversal – High Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC after reversing the trial court's acquittal – Appellant's appeal to Supreme Court dismissed in limine without recording reasons – Supreme Court emphasized the need for notice and recording reasons when disposing of appeals under Article 134(1)(a) or (b) or Section 2 of the Enlargement of Jurisdiction Act [Paras 1-38].

Constitutional Law – Right to Appeal – Supreme Court upheld that the deletion of Rule 15(1)(c) of Order XXI by the Amendment Rules, 1981, does not violate the principles laid out in the Constitution Bench decision in Sita Ram v. State of Uttar Pradesh – Emphasized procedural fairness and the necessity of recording reasons in appeal dismissals [Paras 19-37].

Judgment – Fairness in Judicial Process – The necessity of recording reasons for dismissal of appeals to ensure transparency and fairness – The decision aligns with Article 21 of the Constitution guaranteeing the right to life and personal liberty [Paras 24-27].

Decision – Writ Petition disposed of – No relief granted due to the finality of the previous judgment and dismissal of the review petition – Principles from the Constitution Bench's decision in Sita Ram to guide future procedures in preliminary hearings of criminal appeals [Paras 38-40].