Service Tax – Sale of Software – The Supreme Court held that once a lumpsum has been charged for the sale of a CD containing antivirus software and sales tax has been paid, the Department cannot levy service tax on the entire sale consideration on the ground that updates are provided – The Court emphasized that the transaction in question amounted to the transfer of the right to use the software, which is deemed a sale and not a service [Paras 1-57].

Transfer of Right to Use Goods – Deemed Sale – The Court reiterated that the transfer of the right to use goods is a deemed sale under Article 366(29A)(d) of the Constitution – The agreement between Quick Heal and its customers indicated a transfer of the right to use the software, thereby making it a sale of goods and not a service [Paras 42-54].

Composite Transactions – The Court rejected the artificial segregation of the transaction into two components: sale of CD and supply of updates – It held that the transaction is a single sale of software, and once software is classified as goods, there cannot be a separate service element [Para 55].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision that the antivirus software sold by Quick Heal Technologies Limited is goods and not a service – Consequently, no service tax is leviable on the sale consideration [Paras 56-57].

Industrial Disputes – Recovery of Wages – The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in not discussing the merits of the Labour Court’s order dismissing the application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Emphasized the necessity for the High Court to provide specific findings on the Labour Court's order – The case was remitted back to the High Court for fresh consideration and decision within six months [Paras 4.2-5].

Procedural Requirement – Merits Discussion – The Court stressed the importance of detailed discussion and reasoning when overturning lower court orders, ensuring that justice is not only done but seen to be done – Highlighted procedural fairness and judicial thoroughness [Para 4.2].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – The Supreme Court quashed the High Court’s order allowing the workman’s writ petition and remitted the matter back to the High Court for fresh adjudication on merits – Directed the High Court to decide within six months – The appeals arising out of the writ petition filed by the management were dismissed [Para 5].

Criminal Law – Conviction for Attempt to Murder – The Supreme Court set aside the conviction under Section 307 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act due to the lack of independent evidence corroborating the complainant's statements and the failure of the prosecution to link the recovered items to the alleged incident – Emphasized the importance of proper examination under Section 313 CrPC to provide the accused an opportunity to explain adverse circumstances [Paras 1-32].

Section 313 CrPC – Examination of Accused – Purpose and Scope – The Court underscored that Section 313 CrPC ensures the accused can explain the adverse evidence against them – Highlighted the necessity for courts to question the accused fairly, ensuring all adverse evidence is presented for explanation, and stressed that this process is a vital aspect of a fair trial [Paras 20-29].

Assessment of Evidence – The Court found discrepancies in the testimonies of witnesses and noted that no independent witness corroborated the prosecution's case – Criticized the lower courts for not adequately considering the defence's alternative version and alibi, and for failing to apply judicial scrutiny to witness statements [Paras 9-31].

Decision – Appeal allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the conviction and sentence – The appellant was discharged from bail bonds [Paras 31-33].

Criminal Procedure – Revision Petition by Private Complainant – The Supreme Court held that a private complainant can file a revision petition under certain circumstances, including when the trial court wrongly excludes evidence that the prosecution wishes to produce – Emphasized the importance of revisional jurisdiction in ensuring justice and correcting manifest illegality or preventing gross miscarriage of justice [Paras 14-16].

Interlocutory Orders – Definition and Scope – The Court clarified that the term 'interlocutory order' under Section 397(2) CrPC should be interpreted narrowly, referring to orders of a purely interim or temporary nature – Orders affecting substantial rights or crucial aspects of the trial are not 'interlocutory' and can be challenged through revision petitions [Paras 12-13].

Decision – Appeal allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's decision dismissing the revision petition on the ground of maintainability – Directed the trial court to allow the prosecution to mark the statement of the appellant recorded on 26 December 2016 as an exhibit – Directed the trial court to conclude the trial by 31 March 2023 [Paras 16-17].

Limitation Act – Effect of Acknowledgment in Writing – The Supreme Court held that Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, stipulates that if an acknowledgment of liability in writing is made before the expiration of the prescribed period, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time the acknowledgment was signed – The Court emphasized that an acknowledgment must be within the period of limitation to be valid for extending the limitation period [Paras 17-18].

Execution of Decree – Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 – The Court observed that the provisions of the Limitation Act do not apply to the execution of decrees under the Special Court Act, 1992, based on the decision in L.S. Synthetics Ltd v. Fairgrowth Financial Services Ltd – Held that the execution application by the Custodian was not barred by limitation, and the acknowledgment by the appellant on 22 February 2018 was valid [Paras 15-19].

Decision – Appeal disposed of – The Supreme Court upheld the directions for the disclosure of assets issued by the Special Court – Granted the appellant four weeks to file the disclosure of assets and directed the Special Court to dispose of the Execution Application within two months – Conditional stay on the application for arrest of the appellant until the Execution Application is decided [Paras 19-21].

Service Law – Reinstatement – The Supreme Court noted that the original writ petitioner, Sandeep Kaushik, would be approximately 49 years of age, and the retirement age for drivers is 55 years – Given the changes in circumstances and that the original petitioner would need to clear a driving test, the Court held that actual appointment was not feasible – Directed the payment of compensation instead of reinstatement [Paras 5-6].

Compensation in Lieu of Appointment – The Court awarded the original writ petitioner a sum of Rs. 7.5 lakhs as compensation, with 6% interest from September 2013 onwards until the actual payment is made – Emphasized that this would meet the ends of justice considering the impracticality of actual reinstatement after 14 years [Paras 5-6].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – The Supreme Court modified the High Court's judgment, directing the appellant to pay the specified compensation within eight weeks – It also allowed the appellant to recover the amount from respondent No.2, but held the appellant initially liable for the payment – No order as to costs [Paras 5-6].

Civil Procedure – Abatement of Appeal – The Supreme Court held that the Second Appeal did not abate upon the death of one of the respondents, as the right to sue survived against the surviving respondents – Highlighted that abatement occurs only when the cause of action does not survive upon or against the surviving party – The High Court's dismissal of the appeal and the application to set aside abatement was found to be erroneous [Paras 5-10].

Order XXII Rule 2 CPC – Survival of Right to Sue – The Court noted that where there are multiple plaintiffs or defendants and one of them dies, the right to sue survives to the surviving plaintiffs or defendants – Applied to appeals by virtue of Order XXII Rule 11 CPC, ensuring the continuation of proceedings against surviving parties [Paras 7-9].

Decision – Appeals allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and decree dismissing the Second Appeal and the order dismissing the application to set aside abatement – Remanded the Second Appeal back to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits – Directed the High Court to expedite the hearing and decision within six months [Paras 11-12].

Compassionate Appointment – Eligibility Criteria – The Supreme Court held that compassionate appointment cannot be granted merely on the death or incapacitation of an employee – It must be in accordance with the scheme framed by the employer, which may include financial criteria to determine the indigence of the family – The Court emphasized that the aim of compassionate appointment is to tide over immediate financial crises, not to provide employment irrespective of financial condition [Paras 1-24].

Suppression of Material Facts – The Court noted that the respondent suppressed the fact that he was employed with ICICI Bank at the time of applying for compassionate appointment – Such suppression of material facts disqualifies the respondent from being considered for compassionate appointment – The High Court erred in ignoring this suppression and the financial criteria of the scheme [Paras 23-24].

Decision – Appeal allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court – Held that the respondent's application for compassionate appointment was liable to be rejected on the ground of suppression of material facts and the financial condition of the family not meeting the criteria under the scheme – No order as to costs [Para 25].

Civil Procedure – Declaration and Possession – The Supreme Court held that an order or decree passed without jurisdiction is a legal nullity – The deficiency of jurisdiction cannot be cured by the consent of the parties – The Deputy Commissioner (DC) lacked inherent jurisdiction to either entertain the appeal or endorse the compromise during the suspension of the Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, 1972 – Consequently, the compromise being unregistered cannot confer title on the respondent – The decree in favor of the respondent is set aside [Paras 18-32].

Deficiency of Jurisdiction – Legal Nullity – The Court reiterated that any order passed by an authority without jurisdiction is a nullity and can be challenged whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced or relied upon [Paras 20-30].

Registration Requirement – The Court emphasized that the compromise and the consequent order required registration under the Registration Act, 1908, and the Jammu and Kashmir Transfer of Property Act, 1920, for it to have any legal effect – Without registration, the compromise could not confer title on the respondent [Paras 22-28].

Decision – Appeal allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the decree in favor of the respondent concerning the land measuring 11 Kanals and 15 Marlas – Parties to bear their own costs [Para 34].