Service Tax – Exemption – Job Work vs. Contract Labour – Appellant entered into agreements to provide personnel for various activities, claiming exemption from service tax under Notification No. 25/2012-Service Tax dated 20 June 2012 – CESTAT held services were in the nature of contract labour and not job work – Agreement lacked specifications of job work and resembled contract labour agreement – Appeal dismissed – Exemption not applicable as services did not qualify as job work [Paras 3-7, 12-17].

Contract Interpretation – Nature of Agreement – Agreement between appellant and Sigma Electric Manufacturing Corporation Pvt. Ltd. involved supply of manpower rather than specific job work – Essential elements of a job work contract missing – Tribunal's interpretation upheld – Agreement primarily regulated manpower supply [Paras 12-17].

Legal Precedents – Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act – Definition of contractor includes job workers and manpower suppliers – Appellant’s role as manpower supplier upheld by Tribunal – Relevant CESTAT decisions distinguished based on facts [Paras 14-15, 17].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Tribunal’s judgment affirmed – Services categorized as contract labour not eligible for service tax exemption under Notification No. 25/2012-Service Tax [Paras 18-19].

Disciplinary Inquiries – Judicial Review – Scope – Judicial review of disciplinary inquiries conducted by departmental/appellate authorities is limited to correcting errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of natural justice principles – High Court's interference in domestic inquiry by setting aside punishment imposed on respondent for gross negligence in handling keys of cash/strong room unjustified – High Court's decision quashed – Disciplinary proceedings upheld [Paras 18-26].

Disciplinary Authority – Findings and Punishment – Inquiry officer found respondent guilty of negligence resulting in theft of Rs. 12 lakhs from the cash safe – Disciplinary authority imposed penalty of dismissal, modified by appellate authority to compulsory retirement and pay reduction – High Court’s intervention on factual inaccuracies deemed erroneous – Findings of inquiry officer supported by evidence [Paras 5-14, 19-25].

Procedural Fairness – Natural Justice – Respondent's claims of bias and non-supply of documents rejected – Inquiry officer provided relevant documents and allowed inspection of confidential records – No procedural lapses found – High Court's error in re-evaluating disciplinary findings without sufficient grounds highlighted [Paras 23-24].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment quashing disciplinary proceedings set aside – Disciplinary actions against respondent upheld – No costs [Paras 26-27].

Administrative Law – Judicial Review – Scope of Observations – High Court made general observations beyond the scope of the writ petition regarding wrongful evaluation of bids and discrimination against Indian bidders – Supreme Court advises restraint in making unwarranted general observations not directly related to the case – Observations regarding representation to PMO ordered to be expunged [Paras 3-4].

Public Interest Litigation – Nature of Proceedings – High Court’s observations resembled a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) despite not being one – Supreme Court emphasizes the need for judicial restraint in non-PIL cases – Courts should focus on the specific controversy at hand [Paras 3-4].

Decision – Appeals partly allowed – High Court’s observations directing petitioner to approach the Prime Minister’s Office expunged – High Courts advised to avoid making sweeping generalizations not warranted by the specific issues before them [Paras 4-5].

Constitutional Law – Policy Decision – Interference – Court would not interfere with policy decisions if the State demonstrates intelligible differentia in application and such differentia has a nexus with the object sought to be achieved – Policy of Rajasthan to restrict bonus marks to employees within the State upheld as non-arbitrary [Paras 16, 22-23].

Administrative Law – Bonus Marks – Experience in Different States – Policy restricting bonus marks to those with experience in Rajasthan justified by unique topographical and operational challenges within the State – Experience in NHM/NRHM schemes outside Rajasthan not equated with local experience – Policy does not violate Article 14 [Paras 14-15, 19-21].

Judicial Precedents – Policy Discrimination – Precedent supports State's right to grant weightage for local experience in public employment – References to cases upholding similar policies for local governance and employment criteria [Paras 17-18, 23].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Policy restricting bonus marks upheld – No interference with the High Court’s decision [Paras 24-25].

Consumer Protection – Jurisdiction – Telecom Services – Section 7B of the Telegraph Act provides for arbitration of disputes between telecom authorities and consumers – Consumer Protection Act, 1986, being a special and subsequent legislation, includes telecom services within its ambit – Existence of arbitration clause under the Telegraph Act does not oust the jurisdiction of the consumer forum – Consumer Protection Act aims to provide additional remedies for consumers [Paras 5-19].

Judicial Precedents – Interpretation of Statutes – Consumer Rights – Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and its successor, the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, intended to protect consumer interests – Remedies available under the Consumer Protection Act are additional and not in derogation of other laws – Telecom services fall within the definition of 'service' under both the 1986 and 2019 Acts [Paras 15-20].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Judgment of NCDRC affirmed – Consumer forums have jurisdiction to entertain complaints related to telecom services despite the provision of arbitration under Section 7B of the Telegraph Act [Paras 21-23].

Auction Sales – Setting Aside – Material Irregularity – Rule 107(14)(i) – Auction sale not to be set aside unless substantial injury due to irregularity, mistake, or fraud – Borrower did not seek setting aside within 30 days nor show substantial injury – High Court’s order setting aside sale on grounds of irregularity incorrect – Auction sale restored [Paras 7-7.2].

Statutory Interpretation – Rule 107(11)(f) – Auction Adjournment – No fresh proclamation required when sale adjourned due to court-ordered stay – Borrower’s action of obtaining stay and claiming fresh proclamation benefits cannot be rewarded – High Court’s interpretation reversed – Auction upheld [Paras 8-8.1].

Judicial Review – Conduct of Borrower – Borrower’s multiple litigations to stall recovery noted – No payment since 2010 – Efforts to delay auction despite substantial outstanding debt – Conduct considered in decision to uphold auction [Paras 11-12].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court’s judgment quashing auction set aside – Auction sale confirmed – Borrower’s writ petition dismissed [Paras 13].

Criminal Law – Murder – Common Intention – Section 34 IPC – Conviction of Krishnamurthy under Section 302 IPC upheld based on eyewitness testimonies and corroborating medical evidence – Assault on the deceased with the intent to cause death established – Other accused, Gopala and Thimmappa, given benefit of doubt regarding common intention – Their roles limited to holding and pulling the deceased before the assault by Krishnamurthy [Paras 3-7, 20-21].

Eyewitness Testimony – Reliability – Testimonies of eyewitnesses Channamma (PW-1) and Ramanjaneya (PW-4) found reliable – Specific acts attributed to Krishnamurthy corroborated by post-mortem report – Depositions of Dullaiah (PW-6) and Dodda Narasimha (PW-7) noted but partially accepted due to identical nature raising suspicion [Paras 3-7].

Medical Evidence – Cause of Death – Post-Mortem Report – Injuries inflicted by Krishnamurthy causing multiple fractures and internal injuries leading to death – Medical findings supported eyewitness accounts [Para 3].

Judicial Review – Sentencing – Life Imprisonment – Modification – Conviction of Krishnamurthy under Section 302 IPC modified to life imprisonment without stipulation of natural life term – Directions for non-premature release set aside as unjustified [Para 23].

Principles of Common Intention – Section 34 IPC – Liability – Co-perpetrators' intent and participation – Absence of premeditated intent by Gopala and Thimmappa to cause death as required under Section 34 IPC – Conviction converted to Section 323 IPC for causing hurt with common intention – Sentenced to one year [Paras 8-20].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Conviction of Krishnamurthy under Section 302 IPC confirmed with modification in sentence – Conviction of Gopala and Thimmappa modified to Section 323 IPC – All appellants to serve sentences concurrently – Surrender instructions issued for remaining sentence [Paras 21-24].

Debt Recovery – Interim Relief – Jurisdiction of High Court – High Court granted interim relief to auction purchaser during pendency of appeal before DRAT, effectively deciding the main issue – High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by making DRAT proceedings infructuous – Proper course was to allow DRAT to decide the appeal on merits – Impugned judgment and order of High Court quashed [Paras 3.2-3.3].

Procedural Law – Scope of Judicial Review – High Court’s Scope – High Court's review was limited to the non-grant of interim relief by DRAT – High Court erred in passing final orders affecting the merits of the case pending before DRAT – Appeals allowed and DRAT directed to decide the appeal on merits within four months [Paras 3.1-4].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court’s order granting interim relief set aside – DRAT to decide the appeal within four months from receipt of the present order [Paras 3.2-4].

Property Law – Lease Cancellation – Misrepresentation – Allotment of residential plot obtained by respondent through false affidavits – Lease cancellation justified as it was based on concealment of material facts and breach of allotment terms – High Court's order set aside – Respondent not entitled to equitable relief due to fraudulent conduct [Paras 3-7, 20-21].

Statutory Interpretation – Section 111(g) Transfer of Property Act – Determination of Lease – Lease cancellation due to fraudulent allotment does not require Chief Executive Officer’s prior permission – Any irregularity cured by subsequent approval of CEO [Paras 19-20].

Equity and Good Conscience – Filing False Affidavits – Respondent and wife filed false affidavits regarding non-ownership of other plots – Filing false affidavits disentitles the respondent to equitable relief – Lease cancellation upheld [Paras 20-21].

Judicial Precedents – Doctrine of Proportionality – Distinction from ITC Limited Case – Cancellation based on fraud vs. cancellation due to lease terms violation – Proportionality doctrine not applicable in fraudulent allotment cases [Paras 21-22].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment set aside – Respondent’s suit dismissed [Paras 23-24].