Transfer of Matrimonial Case – Convenience of Wife – Appellant sought transfer of the matrimonial case filed by her husband from Etah to Mathura citing her inability to travel, financial dependence, and allegations of threats – Supreme Court reiterated that in matrimonial matters, the convenience of the wife is of paramount importance – Appeal allowed, case transferred [Paras 1-7].

Matrimonial Matters – Consideration for Transfer – Emphasis on the wife's convenience due to socio-economic factors – Court referred to principles laid down in N.C.V. Aishwarya vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, emphasizing the need to consider economic soundness, social strata, and the protective umbrella under which the wife is seeking sustenance [Para 4].

Decision – Appeal allowed – The case was transferred from the Principal Judge Family Court Etah, Uttar Pradesh, to the Principal Judge Family Court Mathura, Uttar Pradesh – High Court's order set aside – Directions issued for prompt transfer of case records [Paras 5-6].

Criminal Law – Sexual Harassment – The Supreme Court emphasized the duty of the police to register an FIR whenever a cognizable offence is made out – Highlighted the importance of courts dealing with complaints of sexual harassment in a sensitive manner – Directed investigation to be supervised by a woman officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police [Paras 1-37].

Investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC – Magistrate’s Discretion – The Court noted that the discretion granted to a Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC must be exercised judiciously, especially when there is evidence that can only be retrieved by the police – Directed the JMFC to order a police investigation in the case [Paras 19-28].

Sensitive Handling of Sexual Harassment Cases – The Court reiterated the need for sensitivity in handling cases of sexual harassment – Suggested measures for courts, including in-camera proceedings, installation of screens, and respectful cross-examination [Paras 25, 35].

Decision – Appeal allowed – The Supreme Court directed the JMFC Gwalior to order an investigation by the police under Section 156(3) CrPC – Investigation to be supervised by a woman officer nominated by the DIG – Emphasized the responsibility of trial courts to handle sexual harassment cases sensitively [Paras 29-38].

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].