Excise Duty – Modvat Credit – The appellant claimed Modvat credit on 'Guide Cars' under Rule 57Q, asserting they were 'components' of Coke Oven Battery – The classification of 'Guide Car' by the supplier under Chapter sub-heading 8603.00 was upheld – 'Guide Car' found not to be an integral part of Coke Oven Battery but distinct equipment used for transporting hot coke – Appellant not entitled to Modvat credit on 'Guide Car' – Penalty imposed by Tribunal quashed due to the bonafide belief of the appellant [Paras 1-12].

Decision – Appeal dismissed regarding the denial of Modvat credit on 'Guide Car' – The demand of ₹4,586,664 as Modvat credit availed on 'Guide Car' upheld – Penalty of ₹100,000 imposed by the Tribunal quashed – No order as to costs [Para 12].

Stamp Duty – Agreement to Sell – Possession – The agreements in question did not convey possession of the immovable property, as the plaintiff was already in possession prior to execution – Entry No. 5 (cc) of Schedule 1-A applicable under Punjab Stamp Act requires stamp duty on agreements evidencing delivery of possession – The trial court and High Court's orders demanding deficient stamp duty and penalty were based on incorrect application of the law – Orders set aside [Paras 1-5].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court and Trial Court orders directing appellant to pay deficient stamp duty with penalty quashed – No costs [Para 5].

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.