Compassionate Appointment – Eligibility Criteria – The Supreme Court held that compassionate appointment cannot be granted merely on the death or incapacitation of an employee – It must be in accordance with the scheme framed by the employer, which may include financial criteria to determine the indigence of the family – The Court emphasized that the aim of compassionate appointment is to tide over immediate financial crises, not to provide employment irrespective of financial condition [Paras 1-24].

Suppression of Material Facts – The Court noted that the respondent suppressed the fact that he was employed with ICICI Bank at the time of applying for compassionate appointment – Such suppression of material facts disqualifies the respondent from being considered for compassionate appointment – The High Court erred in ignoring this suppression and the financial criteria of the scheme [Paras 23-24].

Decision – Appeal allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court – Held that the respondent's application for compassionate appointment was liable to be rejected on the ground of suppression of material facts and the financial condition of the family not meeting the criteria under the scheme – No order as to costs [Para 25].

Civil Procedure – Declaration and Possession – The Supreme Court held that an order or decree passed without jurisdiction is a legal nullity – The deficiency of jurisdiction cannot be cured by the consent of the parties – The Deputy Commissioner (DC) lacked inherent jurisdiction to either entertain the appeal or endorse the compromise during the suspension of the Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, 1972 – Consequently, the compromise being unregistered cannot confer title on the respondent – The decree in favor of the respondent is set aside [Paras 18-32].

Deficiency of Jurisdiction – Legal Nullity – The Court reiterated that any order passed by an authority without jurisdiction is a nullity and can be challenged whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced or relied upon [Paras 20-30].

Registration Requirement – The Court emphasized that the compromise and the consequent order required registration under the Registration Act, 1908, and the Jammu and Kashmir Transfer of Property Act, 1920, for it to have any legal effect – Without registration, the compromise could not confer title on the respondent [Paras 22-28].

Decision – Appeal allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the decree in favor of the respondent concerning the land measuring 11 Kanals and 15 Marlas – Parties to bear their own costs [Para 34].

Service Tax – Composite Works Contracts – The Supreme Court held that service tax could not be levied on composite works contracts prior to the introduction of the Finance Act, 2007, which amended the Finance Act, 1994, to introduce Section 65(105)(zzzza) – The Court found that the Finance Act, 1994, contained no charge or machinery to levy and assess service tax on indivisible composite works contracts – Consequently, any exemption regarding service tax 'levied' did not arise at all [Paras 2-5, 13].

Reconsideration of Precedent – Principle of Stare Decisis – The Court refused to reconsider the decision in the case of Larsen & Toubro Limited, which held that no service tax was leviable on works contracts prior to the 2007 amendment – Emphasized the importance of consistency, certainty, and uniformity in judicial decisions, following the principle of stare decisis – Highlighted that the decision in Larsen & Toubro Limited had been consistently followed by various High Courts and Tribunals since 2015 [Paras 10-12].

Decision – Appeals allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgments and orders passed by the respective High Courts/Tribunals, holding that service tax was not leviable on composite works contracts for the period prior to the 2007 amendment – Consequently, the respective assessment orders levying service tax were also quashed – Civil Appeal No. 6792 of 2010 filed by the Revenue was dismissed [Paras 14-15].

Criminal Law – Interim Stay of Investigation – The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in granting an interim stay of investigation in the petitions seeking quashing of criminal complaints – Reiterated that such stays should be granted only in the rarest of rare cases and that the Investigating Officer's right to investigate should be respected – The High Court's order was found to be in contradiction to the principles laid down in M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. [AIR 2021 SC 1918] [Paras 1-8].

Exercise of Powers under Article 226 and Section 482 CrPC – The Court emphasized that the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 482 CrPC must be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, particularly in matters of staying investigations – The High Court must provide detailed reasoning for any such stay, and it must align with established judicial principles [Paras 6-7].

Decision – Appeals allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's interim order dated 14/02/2022, thereby lifting the stay on further criminal proceedings and investigation – Directed the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation within three months and file the appropriate report/charge sheet – The High Court was directed to consider the special criminal applications in accordance with law and on their own merits – The Court also permitted the accused to apply for anticipatory bail [Paras 8].

Retirement Age of College Teachers – The Supreme Court held that the enhancement of the retirement age of college teachers in Kerala to 65 years is within the domain of the State Government – The policy of the State Government mandating retirement at 56 years for teachers of aided affiliated colleges and at 60 years for university teachers is crystallized by enactments under Article 309 of the Constitution – The Court dismissed the plea for enhancing the retirement age to 65 years [Paras 1-34].

UGC Regulations and State Authority – The Court noted that while the UGC Regulations provide a framework for pay scales and other service conditions, including the retirement age, the State Governments have the discretion to implement these regulations – The State of Kerala adopted the UGC Regulations for pay scales but retained its statutory retirement age [Paras 6-22].

Policy Decision and Judicial Interference – The Court emphasized that the decision on the retirement age is a matter of policy that balances multiple factors, including employment opportunities for younger candidates and the experience of older teachers – Such policy decisions should be left to the law-making authorities and not be interfered with by the courts [Paras 17, 27, 29].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – The Supreme Court upheld the judgments of the Single Bench and Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala, which found no change in law post the judgment in Jagdish Prasad Sharma v. State of Bihar (2013) 8 SCC 633 – The concurrent findings of the High Court were upheld, and no grounds were found to interfere [Paras 30-34].

Res Judicata – Principles Applied – The doctrine of res judicata precludes the re-litigation of issues that have already been resolved between the same parties in previous proceedings. The Court emphasized that res judicata bars subsequent proceedings only if the same matter has been directly and substantially in issue previously, reaching finality in a competent forum [Paras 1-88].

Issue Estoppel – Application Distinguished – The Court distinguished between res judicata and issue estoppel, where the latter prevents a party from re-arguing a previously decided issue, while res judicata bars re-litigation of entire claims or causes of action [Paras 62-70].

Writ Proceedings – Res Judicata in Article 226 – The Supreme Court clarified that res judicata principles apply to writ proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, preventing re-litigation of issues previously adjudicated upon, even if not explicitly addressed in the judgment [Paras 57-61].

Reinstatement and Seniority – The Court upheld the reinstatement of the respondent with all consequential benefits, excluding back wages. It reinforced that reinstatement restores an employee to their previous position, affecting seniority and promotion rights, thus denying the appellant's argument against granting these benefits [Paras 34-48].

Back Wages – Denial Justified – The Court affirmed the Tribunal’s decision to deny back wages due to the respondent’s gainful employment during the period of wrongful termination, balancing the reinstatement with the financial relief already received [Paras 75-82].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the lower court’s judgment for reinstatement with continuity of service and seniority, but without back wages, providing the respondent with the right to be considered for promotion [Para 88].

Negotiable Instruments – Interim Compensation – An accused’s failure to deposit interim compensation under Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act does not justify depriving the accused of the right to cross-examine witnesses. Such a foreclosure exceeds the court's powers and is not supported by the statutory framework [Paras 1-88].

Section 143A – Enforcement and Limits – Section 143A provides for the recovery of interim compensation as a fine under Section 421 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, it does not sanction the denial of procedural rights, such as cross-examination, for non-compliance [Paras 62-70].

Right to Cross-Examine – Procedural Safeguards – The denial of the right to cross-examine due to non-payment of interim compensation results in significant prejudice to the accused, constituting a procedural violation that invalidates subsequent judgments based on such foreclosure [Paras 57-61].

Recovery Mechanism – Statutory Procedure – The Court emphasized adherence to the specific recovery mechanism prescribed by Section 143A, aligning with established legal principles that mandate compliance with statutory procedures for exercising judicial powers [Paras 34-48].

Judicial Precedents – Reference to established principles in cases such as Nazir Ahmad vs. King Emperor and State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Singhara Singh, reinforcing the doctrine that statutory powers must be exercised strictly as prescribed [Paras 75-82].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the decisions of the lower courts, reinstating the appellant's right to cross-examine witnesses in Complaint Case No. 244 of 2019. The case was remanded to the Trial Court for continuation in accordance with the directions, ensuring procedural compliance [Para 88].

Tenancy Rights – Illegal Transfer – The assignment of tenancy rights by the tenant to the appellant was found to be unlawful under Section 26 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Tenancy Act, 1999, which prohibits such transfers in the absence of a contract to the contrary [Paras 1-88].

Ratification – Landlord's Consent – The Court held that the landlord's actions did not constitute ratification of the illegal assignment. For ratification to be valid, the landlord must have knowledge of the tenant's actions and explicitly approve them, which was not the case here [Paras 62-70].

Lis Pendens – Application in Maharashtra – The bar of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, as amended in Maharashtra, was discussed. The appellant failed to prove that the necessary notice of pendency was registered, making the bar inapplicable [Paras 57-61].

Non-Registration of Lease – Under Section 55 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Tenancy Act, 1999, the responsibility for registering the lease lies with the landlord. The appellant’s reliance on an unregistered lease was insufficient to establish lawful possession [Paras 34-48].

Conflict in Possession Claims – The appellant's conflicting claims regarding possession by the tenant and the landlord on the same date were found untenable and legally inconsistent, undermining the appellant's case [Paras 75-82].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the decisions of the lower courts, and rejected the appellant's application under Order XXI, Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure [Para 88].

Murder – Culpable Homicide – Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC – The act of provocation and resultant loss of self-control must be both sudden and grave. The appellant's actions, leading to the death of his brother, were found to be under sudden and grave provocation, fitting within the ambit of Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC, thereby converting the conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part I IPC [Paras 1-88].

Evidence – Admissibility – The appellant's confession to the police is inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, but the discovery of the weapon and other materials is admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act [Paras 62-70].

Section 106 Evidence Act – Burden of Proof – The appellant's defense that a third party killed the deceased was rejected due to lack of evidence, and the burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act was not satisfactorily discharged [Paras 57-61].

Provocation – Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC – The Court found that continuous provocation by the deceased, coupled with a final act of grave provocation on the night of the incident, led to the appellant's loss of self-control, fitting the criteria for Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC [Paras 34-48].

Sentence – Modified – Considering the appellant's long incarceration of over 10 years, the sentence was modified to the period already undergone, with an additional fine imposed [Paras 75-82].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – The conviction was modified from Section 302 to Section 304 Part I IPC, and the sentence was modified to the period already undergone with an additional fine of Rs. 1000 [Para 88].