Service Law – Scheduled Tribe Claim – Invalid Caste Certificate – Appeal against High Court’s order protecting respondent’s employment despite invalid caste certificate – Supreme Court held that protection of service under invalid caste claims is not permissible – Appeal allowed [Paras 8-17].

Invalidation of Caste Claim – Supreme Court held that appointment based on a false claim to a reserved category renders the appointment void ab initio – Protection under the principle of prospective overruling not applicable – High Court's reliance on overruled Full Bench judgment in Arun Sonone was incorrect [Paras 7-9].

Administrative Circulars – Validity and Scope – Circulars cannot override constitutional or statutory principles – Supreme Court emphasized that administrative circulars protecting invalid caste claims are not legally sustainable [Paras 16-17].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s order set aside – Writ petition filed by the first respondent dismissed – No order as to costs [Para 18].

Service Law – Promotion – Temporary Charge – Appeal against the High Court’s direction to promote the respondent to the post of Assistant and thereafter to Section Officer under TBPS – Supreme Court held that merely assigning temporary charge does not constitute a promotion – Settlements between management and Employees' Association binding on employees – Respondent as an Electrician was not entitled to promotion under TBPS as per the settlements – Appeal allowed [Paras 6-9].

Settlement Agreements – Binding Nature – Respondent bound by the settlement agreements between the employer and Employees' Association – Settlements dated 10.01.1984, 02.08.1988, and 15.06.1991 did not confer promotion rights under TBPS to the post of Electrician – High Court’s judgment granting promotions quashed [Paras 6-7].

Temporary Charge vs. Promotion – Supreme Court clarifies that holding a temporary charge of a higher post does not amount to formal promotion – Respondent continued to be designated as Electrician despite temporary duties – Appeal allowed [Para 7].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment and order set aside – Respondent entitled to the same salary as Section Officers for the period he performed their duties on officiating basis, if not already paid – No costs [Para 9].

Criminal Law – Grant of Bail – NDPS Act – Appeal against the grant of post-arrest bail to accused under NDPS Act – Section 37 mandates that no person accused of certain offences under NDPS Act shall be released on bail unless the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application, and the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail – High Court’s liberal approach in granting bail without adhering to the conditions set out under Section 37 criticized – Appeals allowed, bail orders set aside [Paras 18-26].

Reasonable Grounds – Definition and Application – Section 37 of NDPS Act requires substantial probable cause for believing that the accused is not guilty – Reasonable belief necessitates the existence of facts and circumstances justifying satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence – High Court's oversight of these requirements noted and corrected by Supreme Court [Paras 21-23].

Judicial Discretion – Review and Limitation – Supreme Court emphasizes the necessity for compliance with statutory mandates in granting bail – Notes that the High Court failed to record findings mandated by Section 37 – Order of bail by High Court deemed erroneous and overturned [Paras 25-26].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Impugned order granting bail set aside – Bail bonds cancelled, accused directed to be taken into custody – Trial court instructed to expedite the trial [Paras 26-27].

Military Law – Dismissal from Service – Army Act – Appeal against the dismissal of the appellant from service by the Chief of Army Staff under Section 20 of the Army Act read with Rule 17 of the Army Rules – Supreme Court held that the dismissal was in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Rule 17, and did not violate the principle of double jeopardy – The punishment of reduction in rank by Summary Court Martial did not preclude the exercise of administrative powers under Section 20 – Appeal dismissed [Paras 6-10].

Double Jeopardy – Applicability – The principle of double jeopardy not violated by the dismissal under Section 20 of the Army Act as it involved independent administrative action based on the fraudulent nature of charges, distinct from the Summary Court Martial proceedings – Supreme Court upheld the dismissal, noting the proper procedure was followed [Paras 7-8].

Administrative and Disciplinary Proceedings – Independent Powers – Powers under Section 20 of the Army Act and Rule 17 of the Army Rules are independent and can be exercised notwithstanding the proceedings and punishment by Summary Court Martial – Such powers are administrative and separate from judicial proceedings of Court Martial [Para 6].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Dismissal of the appellant from service upheld – Supreme Court affirms that the administrative order of dismissal was legally valid and properly executed following due process [Para 10].

Motor Vehicle Insurance – Claim for Theft – Delay in Intimation – Appeal against rejection of claim due to delay in informing insurance company despite immediate FIR registration – Supreme Court held that mere delay in notifying the insurer cannot be a ground to deny the claim if the FIR is lodged immediately and the claim is verified as genuine by the investigator – Appeal allowed [Paras 16-20].

Interpretation of Insurance Contracts – Rule of Contra Proferentem – Insurance policies should be interpreted favorably towards the insured in cases of ambiguity – Consumer Protection Act emphasized as a beneficial legislation deserving liberal construction [Paras 10-11].

Duty to Co-operate – Assessment – Delay in informing the insurer about theft not prejudicial when FIR is promptly filed and the claim is verified as genuine – Rejection of claim on technical grounds discouraged to maintain trust in insurance industry [Paras 17-18].

Decision: Appeal allowed – National Commission’s order reversed – Orders of the District Forum and State Commission reinstated – Insurer directed to pay the claim amount with interest [Paras 22-23].

Facts:

The appellant-assessee had credits amounting to Rs. 2,26,000/- in declared income, which were added by the Assessing Officer based on the balance sheet and books of account.

The appellant's explanations and evidence regarding purchases from unregistered dealers were not provided during the assessment.

In penalty proceedings, the appellant produced affidavits of 13 unregistered dealers, with 12 of them being examined by the Officer and their statements not revealing any infirmities.

Issues:

• Whether the credits of Rs. 2,26,000/- added to the appellant's declared income were justified based on the evidence provided during the assessment?
• Whether the evidence produced in penalty proceedings by the appellant supports the genuineness of purchases from unregistered dealers?

Held:

The assessment order assumed the transactions as bogus due to the lack of evidence or explanation provided by the appellant during assessment.

In penalty proceedings, the appellant produced affidavits and statements of unregistered dealers, which were accepted by the CIT(A).

The appellate authority found that there was no concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, based on the evidence provided in penalty proceedings.

The addition of Rs. 2,26,000/- towards cash credit from unregistered dealers for the assessment year 1998-99 was set aside.

The rest of the assessment order remained undisturbed.

Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the addition of Rs. 2,26,000/- towards cash credit from unregistered dealers was set aside. The rest of the assessment order was upheld.

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – IPC Sections 418, 419, 420, 467, 468, and 471 – Appeal against the High Court’s refusal to quash criminal proceedings – Supreme Court held that with serious factual disputes of civil nature and pending civil suits, pursuing criminal proceedings is an abuse of process – Criminal proceedings quashed [Paras 8-9].

Concurrent Civil and Criminal Proceedings – Abuse of Process – Supreme Court emphasizes that when civil suits are pending to resolve the same factual disputes, concurrent criminal proceedings constitute an abuse of process – Criminal complaint filed long after the alleged incident seen as suspect – Appeal allowed [Paras 8-9].

Jurisdiction – Civil vs. Criminal – Civil court to decide issues on their merits without being influenced by criminal proceedings or Supreme Court’s observations in this context – Criminal proceedings quashed to prevent duplicative and potentially prejudicial litigation [Para 11].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s order set aside – Application under Section 482 CrPC allowed – Criminal proceedings in Complaint Case No. 708 of 2012 quashed – Civil court to decide pending suits independently [Para 10].

Unfair Trade Practice – Section 2(1)(r)(3)(a) – National Commission's finding that prize money for the HSHS contest was paid from increased SMS charges and that this fact was not disclosed – Supreme Court held that there was no cogent evidence to support the conclusion that the prize money was funded by SMS revenue – The conclusion was based on conjecture and uncorroborated newspaper reports – Appellants had no revenue-sharing agreement and complied with TRAI regulations regarding SMS charges for value-added services [Paras 9-14].

Jurisdiction – National Commission's Jurisdiction – Brief contention that the complaint should have been referred to the TDSAT under the TRAI Act – Not adjudicated as it was not seriously pressed by the parties – Question of law regarding maintainability of complaints by consumer organizations against telecom service providers before consumer fora remains open [Para 16].

Punitive Damages – Award of punitive damages by National Commission – Set aside due to lack of specific prayer for such damages in the complaint and absence of proof of actual loss to consumers [Paras 15-16].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Impugned judgment of the National Commission set aside – No unfair trade practice was found to be committed by the appellants [Para 17].

Customs Duty – Exemption and Withdrawal – Appellant imported chemical under an advance licence scheme allowing duty-free import – Exemption withdrawn by Notification No. 183/1993, later clarified by Notification No. 105/1994 allowing exemption for imports under advance licences issued before the amendment – Appellant's consignment cleared without duty initially, but later subjected to duty via a show-cause notice – Supreme Court held that the denial of exemption despite the clarificatory notification was unsustainable, as the consignment met the terms of the exemption [Paras 3-8].

State's Responsibility – Notification Awareness – State's duty to be aware of and apply its own notifications – Court emphasized that the State cannot rely on lack of awareness or failure to produce documents to deny relief – The State must act fairly and assist the court in the dispensation of justice [Paras 9-10].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Impugned orders set aside – Appellant entitled to duty exemption as per the clarificatory notification [Para 11].