Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent Powers - Transfer of Cases - High Court directed transfer of 864 land grabbing cases from Special Courts to jurisdictional Magistrates on 'special mentioning' after disposal of the original petition - Supreme Court held that the High Court, being functus officio, lacked jurisdiction to pass further orders in the disposed matter - Such orders were in the teeth of the Supreme Court's interim stay on the quashing of the Government Orders constituting Special Courts for land grabbing cases [Paras 1-6].

Inherent Powers - Suo Motu Exercise - High Court overstepped its jurisdiction by passing transfer orders suo motu in a sweeping manner - Powers under Section 482 CrPC cannot be exercised beyond the contours stipulated under the Section [Paras 4-7].

Decision - Appeals Allowed - High Court's orders dated 05.08.2019, 27.08.2019, and 29.08.2019 quashed and set aside - Orders passed subject to the final outcome of the pending Special Leave Petitions (Civil) Nos. 6050-6078 of 2015 [Para 6].

Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 - Section 14B - Imposition of Damages - Default or delay in payment of EPF contributions by the employer necessitates imposition of damages under Section 14B - Mens rea or actus reus not required for imposing penalty or damages for breach of civil obligations and liabilities - Judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka upheld, affirming the imposition of damages for delayed payment [Paras 3-18].

Mens Rea - Not Essential - Penalty for breach of civil obligations does not require proof of mens rea - Established principles from various judgments support that mens rea is not essential for civil penalties, reinforcing the obligation of employers to comply with EPF contributions without delay [Paras 11-17].

Decision - Appeals Dismissed - High Court's decision affirmed - Mens rea or actus reus is not essential for the imposition of damages under Section 14B of the EPF Act [Paras 18-19].

Service Tax - Renting of Immovable Property - Exemption - Market Committees under Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 - Appellants claimed exemption under Circular No. 89/7/2006 - Supreme Court held that the activity of renting/leasing shops/lands/platforms by Market Committees is not a mandatory statutory duty under Section 9 of the Act - Therefore, not exempt from service tax as per 2006 circular - Fee collected is not deposited into Government Treasury but Market Committee Fund - Activity not exempt from service tax prior to 01.07.2012 [Paras 7-11].

Statutory Obligation vs. Discretionary Function - Section 9(2) of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 uses "may" indicating discretionary function - Not a mandatory statutory duty to rent/lease shops/lands - Distinction between enabling provision (may) and mandatory duty (shall) emphasized [Para 9].

Circular No. 89/7/2006 - Interpretation - Exemption applies to mandatory statutory activities where fees are compulsory levies deposited into Government Treasury - Renting/leasing by Market Committees does not meet these criteria - Exemption denied [Paras 7-8].

Decision - Appeals Dismissed - Market Committees liable for service tax on renting of immovable property services prior to 01.07.2012 - No exemption under Circular No. 89/7/2006 [Para 12].

Employment - Back Wages - Reinstatement - Employee dismissed for allegedly securing employment through false caste certificate - Tahsildar's report found appellant did not belong to Scheduled Caste - High Court found Tahsildar incompetent and directed verification by appropriate authority - Verification confirmed appellant's Scheduled Caste status - Appellant reinstated without back wages - Supreme Court modified order to grant 75% back wages, recognizing appellant's lack of fault and long litigation [Paras 2-12].

Caste Verification - Competent Authority - Initial verification by Tahsildar found invalid - Correct authority confirmed caste status, leading to reinstatement - Importance of competent verification emphasized [Para 2].

Discretionary Relief - Back Wages - No work no pay principle not absolute - Exceptions for wrongful dismissal where employee not at fault - Courts can grant partial or full back wages based on circumstances - Appellant granted 75% back wages recognizing wrongful dismissal and prolonged litigation [Paras 9-12].

Decision - Appeals Partly Allowed - High Court's judgment modified - Appellant awarded 75% of back wages - Respondents to calculate and disburse within six weeks [Para 12].

Employment - Caste Certificate - Termination - Appellant's services terminated for not belonging to the Scheduled Tribe community as claimed - High Court upheld termination - Appellant contended termination was without notice and recovery of salary unjustified - Supreme Court upheld termination but provided relief from recovery of salary due to lack of fraudulent intent and principles of natural justice [Paras 2-19].

Karnataka SC/ST Reservation Act and Rules - Voidable Appointment - Appointment secured based on caste certificate found invalid - Appointments under Act are voidable, not void - Employer justified in terminating services upon discovering invalidity - Principles of natural justice adhered to despite appellant's claims [Paras 7-14].

Relief under Article 142 - Recovery of Salary - Appellant worked and earned salary without fraud - Considering financial hardship, Supreme Court exercised powers under Article 142 to prevent recovery of salary from appellant [Paras 19].

Decision - Appeal Partly Allowed - High Court order affirmed in terms of termination - No recovery of salary to be made from appellant - Appeal disposed of [Para 19].

Code of Civil Procedure - Order XLI Rule 5 - Stay of Execution - Rent Payment - High Court directed appellants to pay Rs. 18000/- per month as rent during the pendency of the second appeals - Appellants argued for lower rent as per lease agreement - High Court justified in directing higher rent based on prevailing market rate to balance interests of both parties during litigation [Paras 1-6].

Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 - Section 13 - Tenant's Protection - Tenant must deposit or pay rent as required under Section 13 to avail protection against eviction - Legislative intent to ensure regular payment of rent during litigation - Defaulting tenant's defence can be struck out if payment not made - Section 13 intended to balance interests of landlords and tenants by ensuring rent payment while protecting tenant from eviction [Paras 19-31].

Prevailing Market Rate - Rent Calculation - Rent Control Authority's report indicated prevailing market rate - Appellants claimed report was prepared without their input - Court emphasized need for fair market-based rent during litigation to prevent unjust enrichment or undue hardship [Para 32].

Decision - Appeals Dismissed - High Court's order upheld - Appellants directed to pay Rs. 18000/- per month as rent during pendency of appeals - Payment to ensure balance of interests and fair compensation [Paras 33-35].

Motor Vehicles - Taxation - Financier-in-Possession - U.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1997 - Financier took possession of vehicle upon default in loan payment - Liability to pay tax - Supreme Court upheld High Court's decision - Financier-in-possession considered "owner" under Section 2(h) of Act 1997 and Section 2(30) of Act 1988 - Tax payable even if vehicle not used, unless exempted under Section 12 - Refund possible if non-use proven and conditions met [Paras 1-12].

Use of Vehicle - Advance Tax - Transport vehicles require tax payment in advance - Operation contingent upon advance tax payment - Refund mechanism exists for non-use - Financier must secure necessary documents to claim refund [Paras 8-10].

Owner Definition - Hire-Purchase Agreements - Financier in possession under such agreements deemed "owner" - Legal obligations include tax payment [Para 8.3].

Decision - Appeal Dismissed - High Court judgment upheld - Financier liable to pay tax as "owner" under possession - Refund claims subject to compliance with Section 12 conditions [Para 12].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Dishonour of Cheque – Authorized Representation – Company filed complaint under Section 138 of NI Act through its General Manager (Accounting) – Requirement for complaint to be filed by the payee satisfied – Authorization by the company and knowledge of the transaction sufficiently demonstrated through affidavits and supporting documents – High Court erred in quashing the complaint on grounds of insufficient authorization and lack of explicit knowledge assertion [Paras 1-15].

Criminal Procedure Code – Section 482 – Inappropriate Invocation – High Court not justified in quashing cognizance order at threshold – Issues regarding authorization and knowledge to be determined during trial – Dismissal of complaint at preliminary stage held unjustified [Paras 17-18].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court judgment quashing the complaint set aside – Complaint restored to file of SDJM Jharsuguda – Direction for expeditious trial completion within six months [Para 18].

Income Tax – Deduction under Section 37(1) – Pharmaceutical companies' gifting freebies to doctors is "prohibited by law" and cannot be claimed as a deduction under Section 37(1) – Expenditure incurred by pharmaceutical companies for such freebies is inadmissible under the Income Tax Act – Court emphasizes the principle that no entity should benefit from an action prohibited by law [Paras 17-37].

Public Policy – Relationship between Doctors and Pharmaceutical Companies – Medical practitioners' acceptance of freebies constitutes professional misconduct – Gifting freebies drives up drug prices, adversely impacting public interest – Such activities fall within the scope of actions prohibited by law [Paras 27-28].

Interpretation of Statutes – Statutory Prohibition – Affirmative statutes imply prohibition of all other forms not expressly allowed – Interpretation of Explanation 1 to Section 37(1) should align with legislative intent to disallow deductions for illegal or prohibited activities [Paras 22-24, 35].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – High Court's decision upheld, prohibiting the deduction of expenses incurred on freebies given to doctors by pharmaceutical companies under Section 37(1) [Para 37].