Assam Rifles – Discharge from Service – Appellant discharged based on four Red Ink entries during service – Regulations 107(c) and 108 of Assam Rifles Regulation 2016 not applicable as discharge order issued in 2004 – Supreme Court held discharge order unjustified due to lack of application of mind and failure to consider severity and nature of misconduct – Directed reinstatement for purpose of completing qualifying service for pension [Paras 1-41].

Administrative Law – Exercise of Discretion – Discharge not automatic on four Red Ink entries – Commandant must exercise discretion considering severity of misconduct and provide reasoning – Discharge order invalidated due to failure to record reasons and improper application of mind [Paras 8-12, 27-36].

Judicial Review – Scope and Grounds – Court can review administrative action for lack of evidence, improper purpose, irrelevant grounds, and failure to consider relevant factors – Supreme Court quashed discharge order for failing these standards [Paras 27-37].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Discharge order set aside – Appellant treated as in service till completion of qualifying period for pension – No back wages awarded, but continuity of service for pension and other benefits granted – Monetary benefits to be released within four months [Paras 39-41].

Evidence Act – Section 27 – Discovery of Weapon – Mere discovery cannot infer authorship of concealment by the person who discovered the weapon – Supreme Court emphasized the conditions under Section 27, including that the information must cause discovery and relate distinctly to the discovered fact [Paras A, C-D, 35-42].

Evidence Act – Sections 8 and 27 – Discovery of Weapon and Disclosure Statement – Evidence of discovery is admissible as conduct under Section 8, irrespective of admissibility under Section 27 – Court highlighted the necessity of establishing a direct connection between the information provided and the fact discovered [Paras B, 48-49].

Eyewitness Testimony – Assessment – Supreme Court outlined principles for assessing the value of eyewitness evidence, emphasizing the importance of determining the possibility of their presence at the scene and the reliability of their testimonies – Inconsistencies in minor details should not overshadow the core truth of their statements [Paras E, 25-33].

Judicial Review – Scope under Article 136 – Supreme Court reiterated its limited interference in concurrent findings of fact unless there are exceptional circumstances or manifest errors – Court emphasized the need for a thorough evaluation of the entire evidence to ensure just conclusions [Paras 20-24].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding the evidence of the eyewitnesses reliable and corroborated by medical and forensic evidence – Emphasized the need for careful evaluation of evidence in criminal cases [Paras 51-52].

Sugarcane Control Order – Extension of Time – Appellant sought extension of time for setting up a sugar factory under Clause 6C of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 – High Court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the IEM issued to the appellant – Supreme Court held that time extensions were justified due to litigation and environmental compliance issues – Emphasized that ultimate beneficiary is the farmer due to competitive service options [Paras 1-15, 50-51].

Environmental Compliance – High Court directed compliance with anti-pollution and ecological laws before setting up the factory – Supreme Court upheld this directive but emphasized that aerial distance certificate should not be reopened, adhering to previous High Court judgment – Extension granted due to unforeseen circumstances including litigation and environmental issues [Paras 10-14, 23-29].

Judicial Review – Scope of Interference – Supreme Court reiterated principles of judicial review, emphasizing restraint and non-interference in administrative decisions unless shown to be arbitrary, irrational, or unjust – High Court's order overturned as it failed to consider justified extensions and recommendations by State and Central Government [Paras 30-41].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court's order set aside – Writ petitions dismissed – Supreme Court directed exclusion of litigation period while determining compliance timeline for setting up the sugar factory – Emphasized competitive benefits for farmers [Paras 42-51].

Civil Procedure – Amendment of Plaint – Appellants challenged the High Court's decision to permit amendment of plaints to declare void ab initio mortgages created by the defendant hotel – Supreme Court held that allowing such amendments would change the nature of the suit and result in misjoinder of causes of action – Amendment not permissible as it alters the original cause of action from revocation of licenses to challenging mortgages [Paras 1-15, 8-10].

Civil Procedure – Impleadment of Parties – Application to implead mortgagee banks as defendants in the suit was granted by the High Court – Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs, as licensees, had no privity of contract with the mortgagee banks, and their rights were subject to existing mortgages – Impleadment inappropriate as it complicates the original suit on license revocation [Paras 3.3, 3.4, 5.5, 6.2, 9].

Arbitration – Applicability of Section 8 – Appellants argued that the suits should be stayed in view of the arbitration clause in the license agreement – Supreme Court noted that applications under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act were pending and should be decided first before any amendment or impleadment [Paras 5.2, 6.1].

Judicial Review – Scope of Amendment – Supreme Court emphasized that amendments changing the nature of the suit or resulting in misjoinder should not be allowed – Proper parties and causes of action must be maintained to avoid legal complications and ensure fair trial [Paras 8-10, 9.1, 10].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court's orders permitting amendment of plaints and impleadment of mortgagee banks set aside – Emphasized adherence to procedural propriety and original cause of action – No order as to costs [Paras 11].

Civil Procedure – Property Dispute – Suit filed in 1964 concerning possession of land resumed by the State – Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in its approach by relying on inadmissible evidence and not properly considering relevant materials – Directed fresh consideration by the High Court emphasizing correct application of burden of proof and scrutiny of evidence [Paras 1-15, 29].

Evidence Law – Burden of Proof – Supreme Court noted that the burden of proof was wrongly placed on the defendant-appellant – Highlighted the need for the plaintiff to prove resumption of grant and continuous possession, which was not adequately established [Paras 10-16, 22].

Admissibility of Evidence – The Supreme Court criticized reliance on questionable documents like the Muafiat Register with suspicious entries and a letter with disputed signatures – Emphasized the importance of credible and admissible evidence in judicial findings [Paras 15-17, 24-26].

Judicial Review – Scope and Standards – High Court's judgment set aside due to reliance on assumptions and inadmissible evidence – Supreme Court stressed proper judicial review of all evidence before arriving at conclusions [Paras 29-32].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment set aside – Matter remitted back to High Court for fresh consideration – Directed High Court to expedite the hearing and decide the appeal considering all relevant evidence and legal standards [Paras 30-33].

Criminal Law – Cheating and Criminal Breach of Trust – Appellants (bus conductors) convicted under various sections of IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act – Allegations included unauthorized printing and selling of bus tickets – Enquiry report by Inspection Committee not admitted as evidence due to lack of original documents – Recovery of tickets found invalid – Prosecution failed to prove possession and sale of tickets beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 1-8].

Secondary Evidence – Admissibility – Trial Court allowed secondary evidence of enquiry report subject to proof of original's existence and loss – State failed to prove existence and loss of original documents – High Court held enquiry report not a valid piece of evidence – Supreme Court upheld this view, emphasizing proper procedure for secondary evidence [Paras 6-13].

Burden of Proof – Incriminating Evidence – Seized tickets not sealed or connected to specific buses – Witnesses (PW-8 and PW-15) unable to verify tickets' relevance to appellants – Inspection Team's statements failed to validate ticket recovery – Supreme Court ruled evidence insufficient to support conviction [Paras 9-13].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Convictions and sentences set aside – Appellants acquitted of all charges – Bail bonds discharged [Paras 14-17].

Insolvency Resolution Process – Discretionary Power of NCLT – Section 7(5)(a) IBC – Appellant challenged the CIRP initiated by Axis Bank under Section 7 of IBC – NCLT and NCLAT held that once a debt and default were established, admission was mandatory – Supreme Court held that Section 7(5)(a) confers discretionary power on NCLT – NCLT should consider relevant factors including the financial health and viability of the corporate debtor – NCLT’s discretion should not be arbitrary and must be exercised judicially [Paras 56-88].

Award/Decree in Favor of Corporate Debtor – Effect on Admission of Application – Adjudicating Authority must consider the existence of an award or decree in favor of the corporate debtor, especially when the amount exceeds the debt claimed by the financial creditor – Example given where NCLT may keep the admission of the application in abeyance [Paras 88-90].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Orders of NCLT and NCLAT set aside – NCLT directed to reconsider the application for stay of CIRP on merits [Paras 91].

Culpable Homicide – Not Amounting to Murder – Section 304-II IPC – Appellants convicted for culpable homicide not amounting to murder – No premeditation to commit murder – Assault occurred during a sudden verbal altercation – Weapons (sticks and brick) were picked up from the scene – Single blow inflicted by each accused on the deceased – No unlawful assembly formed with a common object – Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside – Conviction under Section 304-II IPC and other sections maintained [Paras 21-23].

Injury and Weapon – Nature and Impact – Injuries inflicted with sticks and a brick during the altercation – Injuries on the vital parts (head and neck) sufficient in ordinary course to cause death but were unintentional – No repeated assault [Paras 19-21].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside – Appellants convicted under Section 304-II IPC – Sentence for the period already undergone – Appellants to be released forthwith unless required in any other case [Paras 24-25].

Environmental Law – Imposition of Damages – Section 33 Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 – Forest Department imposed damages of Rs. 10 Crores on respondents for discharging effluents causing environmental damage to the National Chambal Sanctuary – High Court set aside the order for violation of natural justice and lack of authority under Section 33 to impose damages – Supreme Court upheld High Court’s decision – Forest Department has wide powers under Section 33 to take steps for the security and preservation of wildlife and the sanctuary but cannot impose damages directly – Authority can seek closure of institution and other measures after following principles of natural justice – Appropriate proceedings must be initiated to determine damages [Paras 1-6].

Principles of Natural Justice – No Show Cause Notice – Order imposing damages found in violation of principles of natural justice – No show cause notice issued before imposing damages – High Court’s decision setting aside the damages upheld [Paras 3-4].

Decision: Appeals disposed of with observations – Authority may take necessary steps under Section 33 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 to stop effluent discharge and protect the environment and wildlife in accordance with law and principles of natural justice – No direct imposition of damages allowed [Paras 6-7].