Army Law – Disability Pension – Administrative Discharge – Respondent discharged on administrative grounds under Rule 13(3) III(v) of Army Rules, 1954, not on medical grounds – Claim for disability pension filed 20 years after discharge not entertained – Tribunal erred in ordering Review Medical Board to assess disability [Paras 1-27].

Entitlement Rules – Conditions for Disability Pension – Rule 14(c) – For a disease to warrant disability pension, it must be shown that military service determined or contributed to the onset of the disease – Tribunal failed to establish that the respondent’s disability was attributable to or aggravated by military service – Resurvey Medical Board’s findings 20 years post-discharge not adequate for determining entitlement [Paras 11-24].

Presumption and Burden of Proof – Disability arising in service presumed under certain conditions but rebuttable – No presumption applicable where discharge is not due to medical reasons – Burden on claimant to establish service connection of disability [Paras 19-23].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Held – Judgment and order of Tribunal set aside – Respondent’s claim for disability pension dismissed as not justified under the rules and conditions governing such entitlements – No order as to costs [Paras 26-27].

NDPS Act – Post-Arrest Bail – Commercial Quantity – Respondent accused of trafficking 50,000 Tramadol tablets (20 kg) – High Court granted bail, ignoring the application of Section 37 of the NDPS Act – Supreme Court quashed the bail order, highlighting the importance of "reasonable grounds" for believing the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit an offence while on bail [Paras 1-19].

Section 37 of NDPS Act – Restrictions on Bail – Court must consider Public Prosecutor's opposition and establish reasonable grounds for non-guilt – “Reasonable grounds” require credible and plausible evidence beyond prima facie grounds – High Court's order failed to consider other circumstantial evidence beyond inadmissible confessional statements under Section 67 NDPS Act [Paras 10-18].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Held – High Court's order granting bail to the respondent set aside – Bail bonds cancelled – Respondent directed to be taken into custody [Paras 19].

Civil Procedure – Transfer Petition – Matrimonial Matters – Appellant sought transfer of F.C.O.P. No. 125 of 2020 from Family Court Vellore to Family Court Chennai due to her inability to travel and her dependency on aged parents – Supreme Court emphasized the principle of convenience of the wife and ordered the transfer to avoid multiplicity and conflict of decisions – High Court’s rejection of transfer petition set aside [Paras 1-12].

Section 24 CPC – Transfer of Proceedings – Convenience of Wife – Economic and social factors considered – Generally, the wife's convenience should be prioritized in matrimonial disputes – Need to consolidate related cases for uniformity in decision-making [Paras 9-11].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Held – High Court’s order set aside – F.C.O.P. No. 125 of 2020 transferred to Family Court Chennai – Cases to be clubbed for a common order – No order as to costs [Paras 12-13].

Constitutional Law – Article 279A – GST Council – Implementation of Document Identification Number (DIN) – Petitioner, a Chartered Accountant, sought directions for the implementation of a DIN system for all communications by State Tax Officers to ensure transparency and accountability – Supreme Court directed the GST Council to issue advisories to all States to implement the DIN system [Paras 1-7].

Public Interest – DIN System – Central Government implemented DIN for CBDT communications – Only Karnataka and Kerala implemented DIN for State Tax Officers – Court recognized the public interest in extending the DIN system nationwide for indirect tax administration [Paras 2-6].

Decision – Writ Petition Disposed – Held – Union of India/GST Council directed to issue advisory/instructions to States for implementing DIN system – States encouraged to adopt DIN for transparency and accountability in indirect tax administration – Registry to send order copies to Chief Secretaries of all States [Paras 7].

Criminal Law – Testimony of Eyewitness – Trustworthiness – Eyewitness testimony found trustworthy and reliable cannot be rejected due to minor contradictions – Conviction upheld despite minor inconsistencies in witness statements [Para 22].

Evidence – Non-Recovery of Weapon – Conviction can be based on ample ocular and medical evidence even if the weapon is not recovered – Prosecution case not materially affected by non-recovery of weapon [Para 24(ii)].

Penal Code – Section 302 – Murder – Broad daylight attack with direct evidence – Previous enmity established motive – Conviction under Section 302 IPC affirmed as prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 21-25].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Held – Trial Court and High Court judgments convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC upheld – No ground for interference found [Paras 24-26].

Insolvency and Bankruptcy – Operational Debt – Pre-existing Dispute – Appellant filed application under Section 9 of IBC for initiation of CIRP against HBL – NCLT admitted the application – NCLAT set aside the admission, citing pre-existing disputes between parties – Supreme Court upheld NCLAT’s decision, emphasizing that CIRP cannot be used for debt collection where disputes exist [Paras 1-35].

IBC Sections 8 and 9 – Conditions for Admitting Application – Adjudicating Authority must reject application if there is a pre-existing dispute – Existence of a dispute is sufficient to reject application – Adjudicating Authority not required to examine merits of the dispute [Paras 13-17].

Debt Collection vs. Insolvency Resolution – IBC not intended as debt collection mechanism – CIRP meant for genuine insolvency cases, not disputes over operational debts – Detailed correspondence indicated genuine pre-existing disputes [Paras 31-32].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Held – Application under Section 9 IBC rightly rejected due to pre-existing dispute – Appellant advised to seek other remedies including arbitration if applicable [Paras 30-35].

Criminal Procedure – Anticipatory Bail – Appeal challenging the High Court’s orders which inquired into unrelated matters during the consideration of an anticipatory bail application – High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by involving third parties and overstepping the scope of Section 438 CrPC – Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s orders, emphasizing that anticipatory bail proceedings must focus solely on matters pertinent to the applicant [Paras 1-13].

High Court Jurisdiction – Scope of Inquiry – High Court’s inquiry into matters beyond the anticipatory bail application held impermissible – The Supreme Court stressed that High Courts should exercise circumspection and limit their inquiry to relevant facts applicable to the concerned applicant – Directions issued by the High Court to third parties were annulled [Paras 5-12].

Civil Procedure – Application of CPC in Criminal Matters – Supreme Court clarified that the High Court cannot invoke powers under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC while dealing with anticipatory bail applications under Section 438 CrPC – Jurisdiction of the High Court to involve third parties in such proceedings was negated [Paras 11-12].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Orders by the High Court set aside – Supreme Court directed that all unrelated observations or directions by the High Court are to be expunged – Liberty granted to the State to pursue legal remedies for unrelated matters [Paras 13-15].

Constitutional Law – Habeas Corpus – Custody of Minor Children – Petitioner-mother filed writ seeking custody of minor children taken to India by respondent-father against US court orders – High Court issued notice and deferred hearing multiple times to explore amicable settlement – Supreme Court reiterated paramount importance of child's welfare and upheld inherent jurisdiction of Habeas Corpus writ for child custody cases – Directed return of children to USA [Paras 1-98].

Child Custody – Welfare Principle – Supreme Court emphasized that welfare of minor children is paramount in custody disputes – Natural guardianship rights of parents secondary to child's best interests – Custody to be determined by considering stability, security, and child's overall well-being [Paras 70-94].

International Custody Disputes – Comity of Courts – Supreme Court acknowledged principle of comity but stressed welfare of child over international jurisdiction conflicts – Directed adherence to US court custody orders while considering child's acclimatization and best interests [Paras 95-98].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Supreme Court directed respondent-father to return minor children to the USA – Emphasized compliance with US court custody orders – Ensured welfare and best interests of children were paramount [Paras 98-100].

Criminal Procedure – Appeal against Conviction – Appellant convicted under Sections 302 and 120B IPC and Section 27(1) of Arms Act – Appeal admitted for final hearing – High Court dismissed appeal for non-prosecution as appellant was absconding – Supreme Court set aside dismissal, holding appeal cannot be dismissed for non-prosecution once admitted for hearing – Appeal remanded to High Court for decision on merits [Paras 1-8].

Absconding Appellant – Impact on Appeal – High Court expressed frustration with appellant's absconding, seeing it as defiance of justice – Supreme Court noted absconding is not ground to dismiss appeal already admitted – Emphasized need to decide appeal on merits, ensuring proper administration of justice [Paras 6-8].

High Court Rules – Applicability – Patna High Court Rule requiring surrender of appellant before hearing appeal not applicable post-admission – Appeal admitted in 2009; rule not applicable to post-admission stage – Supreme Court clarified this distinction [Para 7].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's order dismissing appeal for non-prosecution set aside – Case remanded for hearing on merits – High Court directed to prioritize disposal of appeal, aiming for decision within six months – Appellant allowed to apply for suspension of sentence if appeal not heard within six months [Paras 8-14].