Death Penalty – Mitigating Circumstances – The Supreme Court emphasized the need to frame guidelines for considering potential mitigating circumstances while imposing death sentences to ensure a uniform and fair approach. The court observed that in the current legal framework, convicts are at a disadvantage as aggravating circumstances are always on record as part of the prosecution's evidence, whereas mitigating circumstances are often not presented adequately due to the stage of their consideration being post-conviction [Paras 23-24].

Bifurcated Hearing – The court highlighted the importance of a bifurcated hearing as mandated by Section 235(2) of the CrPC, ensuring the accused has a real and meaningful opportunity to present mitigating circumstances. The court referred to various precedents emphasizing that sentencing is a crucial stage requiring due consideration of factors beyond the crime itself, including the convict's background and circumstances [Paras 2-13].

Referral to Larger Bench – Due to conflicting judgments on the application of Section 235(2) and the necessity of a bifurcated hearing for death sentence cases, the court referred the matter to a larger bench of five judges to provide clarity and ensure uniformity in the application of the law. The referral aims to address the issue of providing a fair and effective hearing to the convict before imposing a death sentence [Para 24].

Decision – Referred to Larger Bench – The court directed that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders to constitute a larger bench to frame guidelines regarding the consideration of mitigating circumstances in death penalty cases [Para 24].

Admissions – Merit-Based Allocation – The Supreme Court reiterated the principle that merit must be the primary consideration for admissions to medical colleges. It underscored the importance of following a fair procedure and adhering to the prospectus for counseling to ensure no meritorious student is denied admission due to administrative errors or misinterpretations [Paras 15-16, 18].

Interpretation of Prospectus – The court interpreted the relevant clauses of the prospectus, holding that clause 3, which pertains to the mop-up round, must be applied first before considering clause 4, which deals with converting management quota seats to state quota. The court found the appellants erred in upgrading students from the management quota to the state quota without considering higher-ranked students like the first respondent [Paras 16-18].

Compensation for Loss of Academic Year – The court acknowledged the hardship faced by the first respondent, who lost her rightful admission due to the appellants' error. While setting aside the High Court's direction for redrawing the merit list due to practical constraints, the court directed the appellants to pay Rs. 10 lakhs as compensation to the first respondent for the loss of one academic year [Paras 24-25].

Decision – Appeal Partially Allowed – The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's interpretation of the prospectus but set aside the direction to redraw the merit list. Instead, it directed the appellants to compensate the first respondent with Rs. 10 lakhs within one month [Para 25].

Taxation – Additional Duties of Excise – The Supreme Court examined whether 'Pan Masala' containing tobacco and gutka, which are covered by an entry in the First Schedule to the ADE Act, can be subjected to sales tax by the States under their respective sales tax laws. The court observed that once goods are chargeable under the ADE Act, they are exempt from State sales tax under the relevant State enactments [Paras 7-10].

Doctrine of Precedent – Numerical Strength of Benches – The court discussed the principle that a decision by a larger Bench prevails over that of a smaller Bench, regardless of the number of judges constituting the majority. This principle ensures consistency and stability in the law [Paras 1-4, 17-19].

Conflict in Judgments – The court addressed the conflict between the judgments in Kothari Products Ltd. v. State of A.P. and CST v. Agra Belting Works regarding the taxability of goods under the ADE Act and State sales tax laws. The court found no real conflict as the two lines of cases dealt with different aspects of the law – one with the exclusion of ADE Act goods from State sales tax and the other with the interplay between exemption under one section and taxability under another section of the same State Act [Paras 17-19].

Decision – Appeals Disposed Of – The Supreme Court held that the reference to the Constitution Bench was incompetent due to the lack of conflict between the lines of cases and directed that the cases be placed before the regular Bench for a decision on the merits [Paras 17, 19-20].

Service Law – Pension – The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision that the respondent’s past service with the Rajasthan Agriculture Engineering Board and the Rajasthan State Agro Industry Corporation should be counted for pension calculation. The Court emphasized that denial of pension is a continuing wrong, and financial rules capable of multiple interpretations should be interpreted in favor of the employee [Paras 16, 23, 28].

Continuing Wrong – Pension – The Court observed that pension is a lifelong benefit, and denial constitutes a continuing wrong. The Court also noted the financial difficulties faced by retired employees in approaching the Court, which should be considered while deciding such cases [Paras 27-28].

Rule 25(2) – Resignation and Past Service – The Court clarified that under Rule 25(2) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996, resignation does not entail forfeiture of past service if submitted with proper permission to take up another government appointment. The Court presumed prior permission was obtained due to the respondent’s selection through the RPSC and the nature of his employment [Paras 23-26].

Decision – Special Leave Petition Dismissed – The Supreme Court found no grounds to interfere with the High Court’s judgment, which was based on a purposive interpretation of Rule 25(2) favoring the respondent. The petition was dismissed [Paras 32-33].

Insider Trading – Price Sensitive Information – The decision by the Board of Directors of GIPL to terminate contracts was held to be price sensitive information under Section 2(ha) of the SEBI Regulations – The termination had the potential to place existing shareholders in an advantageous position – The sale of shares by the respondent before the information was made public, considering his financial distress, was not considered insider trading [Paras 1-45].

Distress Sale – The respondent’s sale of shares was due to compelling financial circumstances related to the Corporate Debt Restructuring (CDR) package for the parent company, Gammon India Ltd. – The sale occurred before the termination information could positively impact the share price, indicating no intent of making undue gains through insider trading [Paras 30-44].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – The Securities Appellate Tribunal’s decision to set aside the SEBI order for disgorgement of unlawful gains upheld – No costs awarded [Para 45].

Arbitration – Interim Measures – Section 9 confers wide powers on courts to secure the disputed amount before, during, or after arbitration but before enforcement under Section 36 – Court must assess if the applicant has a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and promptness in seeking relief [Paras 1-2].

Stay of Arbitral Award – Section 36(2) allows for stay of award subject to conditions imposed by the court, including security covering the entire award amount and interest – Court’s discretion emphasized, with necessity to provide reasons for granting stay [Paras 3-4].

Portuguese Civil Procedure Code – Inventory Proceedings – Sections 1369 to 1447 govern the process of inventorying and partitioning estates – Licitation involves a closed auction for heirs to bid for estate items – Successful bids and the obligation to pay owelty (excess payment) create inheritable rights, not merely personal ones [Paras 5-24].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – The court upheld the High Court’s decision that the right from a successful bid in inventory proceedings is inheritable and not extinguished upon the bidder’s death – Costs not awarded [Para 25].

Criminal Law – Circumstantial Evidence – Murder – The conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC requires the circumstantial evidence to form a chain so complete that it conclusively points to the guilt of the accused, excluding any other hypothesis – There was no direct evidence or last seen evidence linking the appellants to the crime – Prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of events leading to the conclusion that the appellants alone committed the murder – Conviction set aside – Accused acquitted [Paras 1-8].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Judgments of the Trial Court and High Court convicting the appellants under Section 302/34 IPC quashed – Appellants acquitted and ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case [Para 8].

Tax Law – Transfer to Defraud Revenue – Section 34 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act applies only if the transfer of immovable property occurs during the pendency of proceedings under the Act with the intent to defraud tax dues – The transfer in this case was made before the reassessment proceedings began – Consequently, Section 34 does not apply, and the transfer is valid – Tribunal and High Court orders setting aside the recovery certificate against the purchaser upheld [Paras 1-7].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Judgments of the High Court and Trade Tax Tribunal quashing the recovery certificate against the respondent affirmed – No costs [Para 7].

Employees' Compensation – Permanent Disability – Compensation – The appellant, who suffered a 60% permanent disability due to a fall while working, was initially awarded compensation by the Commissioner based on a medical certificate – The High Court set aside this award based on a subsequent medical examination conducted after nine years, which found no permanent disability – The employer did not request a timely medical examination by a Medical Board – The appellant is entitled to compensation, and the amount already withdrawn by the appellant is considered as full and final settlement [Paras 1-5].

Decision – Appeal partially allowed – The appellant is entitled to a total sum of ₹376,236 towards compensation with interest for the disability suffered, which has already been withdrawn – The balance amount in deposit with the High Court/Commissioner may be withdrawn by the respondent/employer if not withdrawn so far [Para 5].