Mutual Funds – Winding Up – SEBI Regulations – FIFA sought commission for mutual fund distributors from the date of winding-up notices – Court held that Regulation 52 applies only when the scheme is in operation and not after the winding-up notice – Commission payment is not an expense connected with winding up under Regulation 41(2)(b) [Paras 1-9].

Regulatory Interpretation – Recurring Expenses – Court clarified that recurring expenses under Regulation 52, including distributor commission, are applicable during the scheme's operation – Post-winding-up, such expenses are not permissible – Transparency regulations do not confer additional rights to claim expenses during winding up [Paras 3-9].

Order – Application dismissed – FIFA's claim rejected – Franklin Templeton's statement on bearing liquidation expenses recorded [Paras 10-11].

Criminal Law – Charge Framing – High Court set aside the trial court's order framing charges of rape and POCSO Act offenses against the accused – Supreme Court found the High Court's reasoning, particularly on delay in lodging FIR, incomprehensible and erroneous – Reiterated that charges should be framed based on prima facie evidence and strong suspicion, not proof [Paras 20-31].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope – Emphasized that the revisional jurisdiction should be invoked sparingly, primarily to correct gross errors or jurisdictional issues – Interference at the charge-framing stage should be minimal, allowing the trial to proceed unless there's clear abuse of process [Paras 21-27].

Delay in FIR – Not a Ground for Discharge – Supreme Court held that delay in lodging FIR cannot be a sole ground for discharging the accused – The truthfulness and sufficiency of evidence are to be tested during the trial [Para 20].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's order set aside – Trial court directed to proceed with the trial based on the original charges framed – Observations made for deciding the appeal not to influence the trial court's final judgment on the merits [Paras 31-32].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Section 482 CrPC – High Court dismissed the appellant's application to quash criminal proceedings related to an offense under Section 376 IPC – Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the allegations did not prima facie constitute the offense of rape – Consensual relationship between the parties negated the essential ingredients of Section 376 IPC [Paras 3-15].

Consent and Misconception of Fact – Sections 375, 376 IPC – The complainant and appellant were in a consensual relationship from 2013 to 2017 – The complainant's marriage and subsequent divorce were acknowledged – Allegations did not establish that the appellant's promise to marry was false at inception and intended to induce a sexual relationship – Supreme Court emphasized the need for a clear distinction between breach of a promise and a false promise made with dishonest intent [Paras 10-14].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope – Supreme Court reiterated the cautious exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC – Interference warranted only when the FIR or charge-sheet does not disclose any cognizable offense or is manifestly attended with mala fide intentions [Paras 7-9].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's order set aside – Application under Section 482 CrPC allowed – Case Crime No. 11 of 2018, charge-sheet dated 23 April 2018, and the order taking cognizance dated 24 May 2018 quashed [Paras 15-16].

Land Acquisition – Compensation – The Union of India sought reduction of compensation, while the Company sought enhancement – Supreme Court upheld compensation for the land acquired, modifying the Reference Court’s award to Rs.19 per square feet – Compensation for severance of land awarded at Rs.9.5 per square feet for land on the eastern side, excluding statutory benefits under Sections 23(1-A) and 23(2) – Reference Court’s award for construction expenses maintained [Paras 1-30].

Land Utilization – Restricted Area – Compensation granted for land within 30 meters from the railway track – Compensation for land on the western side abutting the road denied as it could still be utilized for other purposes [Paras 14-20].

Market Value – Determination – Supreme Court emphasized using comparable sales and rejected reliance on developed land prices for determining undeveloped land value – Previous sales and specific local conditions considered for valuation [Paras 11-19].

Decision – Appeals partly allowed – Compensation determined as Rs.19 per square feet for acquired land, Rs.9.5 per square feet for severed land on the eastern side, and construction costs confirmed – Statutory benefits excluded for severance compensation [Paras 29-30].

Partition Suit – Ancestral Property – High Court dismissed the plaintiff's claim that properties at villages Pirangut and Nande were joint family ancestral properties – Supreme Court held that the property at Pirangut was indeed ancestral based on evidence including a written memorandum of settlement and mutation records – The property at Nande was held as self-acquired by the defendant – Equal shares granted to all legal heirs in the Pirangut property [Paras 2-15].

Family Settlement – Evidence – Memorandum of settlement dated 23.12.1961 and mutation entry demonstrated the joint family nature of the Pirangut property – Testimonies of family members supported the claim – High Court’s findings on gift by Raghunath to Pandurang found unsupported by evidence [Paras 8-14].

Judicial Precedents – Legal Principles – Reaffirmed principles regarding ancestral property and partition as established in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma & Ors. (2020) 9 SCC 1 and other relevant cases – Property distribution aligned with recent judgments ensuring equal rights to daughters in ancestral property [Para 15].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment set aside – Preliminary decree granted – All parties including daughters to receive equal 1/10th share in Pirangut property – Directions issued for final decree from competent court [Paras 15-17].

Constitutional Law – Right of Persons with Disabilities – The downgrading of seniority of a physically disabled candidate transferred to his home district was held to be arbitrary, unreasonable, and discriminatory – Supreme Court emphasized that any rule or executive instruction affecting seniority of disabled persons, when transferred for their benefit, would violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution [Paras 2-33].

Disability Rights – UNCRPD – The principles of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) ratified by India were reiterated – State obliged to give effect to UNCRPD, ensuring that disabled persons are not marginalized or excluded from mainstream society – Fundamental rights to equality, life, and dignity extended to disabled persons [Paras 27-31].

Employment – Seniority – Supreme Court held that the transfer of disabled persons under beneficial circulars should not affect their seniority at the State level – The explanation to Sub-Rule (10) of Rule 29 of the Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Services Rules, 1971, was held inapplicable to physically disabled candidates transferred under the circular [Paras 32-33].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Judgments of Single and Division Bench of High Court set aside – Office Order dated 11th September 2007, downgrading the appellant’s seniority, quashed – Respondents directed to restore the appellant’s seniority in the State list considering past service [Paras 34].

Industrial Disputes – Retrenchment – Principle of law that re-employment of retrenched workmen does not entitle them to claim continuity of service applies only to bona fide retrenchments – The retrenchment followed by an offer of re-employment on new terms and conditions found not bona fide – Tribunal and High Court set aside retrenchment orders and reinstated employees with continuity of service and 75% back wages [Paras 1-18].

Re-Employment – Continuity of Service – Tribunal held retrenchment not bona fide – Employees entitled to continuity of service once retrenchment orders are set aside – Applicable principles reaffirmed from Cement Corpn. of India Ltd. v. Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court and Anr. (2010) 15 SCC 754 and Maruti Udyog Ltd v. Ram Lal and Ors. (2005) 2 SCC 638 [Paras 16].

Back Wages – Proof of Unemployment – Tribunal and High Court correctly awarded 75% back wages based on the employees' consistent testimonies of being unemployed post-retrenchment – Employer failed to provide evidence of gainful employment for retrenched employees [Paras 17-20].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – High Court's judgment affirmed – Reinstatement with 75% back wages upheld – Parties to bear their own costs [Para 20].

Criminal Law – Conviction based on suspicion – An accused cannot be convicted on the basis of suspicion, no matter how strong – The prosecution must prove the guilt beyond a reasonable doubt – Conviction and sentence set aside due to lack of conclusive evidence and inconsistencies in the prosecution's case [Paras 1-21].

Extra-Judicial Confession – Caution in Acceptance – Extra-judicial confessions must be corroborated and treated with caution – The court highlighted the importance of not solely relying on such confessions for conviction without supporting evidence [Paras 15-16].

Circumstantial Evidence – Chain of Evidence – For a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of evidence must be complete and conclusive, excluding every other hypothesis except that of the accused's guilt – Prosecution failed to establish such a chain in this case [Paras 18-19].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence of the appellant set aside – Accused acquitted of all charges – Bail bonds discharged [Paras 22-23].

Urban Development – Building Plan Sanction – Fire Safety Regulations – Appellant purchased property and applied for building plan sanction – Initially sanctioned for 15 meters height – Later amendments to Master Plan allowed 17.5 meters with stilt parking – Revised plan submitted but not sanctioned due to lack of fire clearance – High Court dismissed appellant's writ – Supreme Court allowed appeal, finding inconsistency between Fire Service Rules and Master Plan – Directed SDMC to consider revised plan and mandated harmonization of conflicting regulations.

Constitutional Law – Right to Equality – Arbitrariness – Rule 27(2) of the Delhi Fire Service Rules, 2010 found to be inconsistent with the amended Master Plan for Delhi, thus violating Article 14 of the Constitution – Supreme Court emphasized the need for uniformity and non-arbitrariness in regulatory frameworks.

Judicial Review – Administrative Directions – Writ Jurisdiction – High Court's refusal to grant relief was erroneous due to lack of proper consideration of amendments to Master Plan – Supreme Court’s intervention justified to prevent miscarriage of justice and uphold statutory compliance.

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment set aside – SDMC directed to process and consider the revised building plan – Directed amendment of Fire Service Rules to align with the Master Plan for Delhi – No order as to costs