Service Law – Appointment in General Category – Two reserved category candidates having more marks than the general category candidates appointed were entitled to the appointment in the general category – Seats reserved for OBC category were required to be filled from and amongst the remaining candidates belonging to the OBC category – Exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India observed and directed that on reshuffling, two candidates belonging to the general category shall not be removed from service as they are working since long [Paras 7-11].

Reservation Policy – Vertical and Horizontal Reservations – Distinction between vertical (social) and horizontal (special) reservations – Reserved category candidates securing higher marks than the last of the general category candidates are entitled to get seats/posts in unreserved categories – If candidates belong to reserved categories and have secured higher marks or are more meritorious, they must be considered against seats meant for unreserved candidates [Paras 8.1-8.6].

Judicial Review – Balance and Equity – Ensuring no disruption in the service of existing general category employees while accommodating eligible reserved category candidates – Adjusting seniority and service benefits accordingly [Para 9].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court judgment upheld – Directed that reserved category candidates having more marks than the general category candidates appointed are entitled to the appointment in the general category – Observed that on reshuffling, two candidates from the general category already appointed shall not be removed from service – Respondent No.1 entitled to seniority from the date the general category candidates having lesser marks than the aforesaid two reserved category candidates were appointed [Paras 11-12].

Municipal Corporation Act – Land Acquisition – Appellant challenged notices for land acquisition under Section 299 for road widening – Claimed previous compensation not paid, lack of Central Government sanction, and procedural non-compliance under Section 297 – High Court upheld notices, confirmed regular line fixed in 1988 – Supreme Court dismissed appeal, upheld High Court's decision, directed compensation processing if not already paid [Paras 1-15].

Section 299 – Sanction Requirement – Appellant, a public limited company, not entitled to Central Government sanction – Distinction between corporations established by law and incorporated under the Companies Act emphasized – Appellant not covered under Section 299(2) for requiring sanction [Paras 10-11].

Section 297 – Regular Line of Street – High Court found regular line fixed in 1988 after following procedure – Appellant's earlier land surrender consistent with established line – Argument on procedural lapse not supported [Paras 12-13].

Public Interest – Traffic Management – Importance of maintaining regular street line for public interest and traffic management in congested areas highlighted – No interference warranted in municipal body's action [Paras 13-14].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court judgment upheld – Appellant's claim for unpaid compensation to be processed if application filed within one month – No order as to costs [Para 15].

Arbitration – Group of Companies Doctrine – Non-signatory company within a group of companies bound by arbitration agreement – Factors considered: mutual intent of the parties, relationship of non-signatory to signatory, commonality of subject matter, composite nature of transaction, and performance of contract – Non-signatories may be bound on consensual theory (agency, assignment) or non-consensual basis (estoppel, alter ego) [Paras 1-33].

Arbitration Agreement – Binding Non-signatories – Sections 7, 8, 16 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Group of companies doctrine applied – Interim award of Arbitral Tribunal dismissed for not considering discovery and inspection application essential to establish group of companies doctrine [Paras 27-32].

Judicial Review – Standard – Review of interim arbitral award under Section 37(2)(a) – Importance of evidentiary foundation to justify jurisdictional claims and application of doctrines binding non-signatories [Paras 34-35].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court judgment and Arbitral Tribunal's interim award set aside – Matter remanded to Arbitral Tribunal for reconsideration with directions to allow discovery and inspection application [Para 36].

Criminal Law – Bail – Organized Smuggling and Terrorism – Petitioner denied bail in case involving smuggling of 236.622 kg of Heroin – Prosecution's case based on interception of Pakistani boat and involvement of petitioner as recipient – Appeal against High Court order denying bail dismissed – Supreme Court emphasized seriousness of offenses and prima facie evidence against petitioner [Paras 1-11].

Unlawful Activities – Terrorism Funding – Smuggling of narcotic drugs to generate funds for terrorism – Court noted severity of offenses under IPC, UAPA, and NDPS Act – Sufficient material on record against petitioner to deny bail – Investigations revealed clandestine operations involving international waters and coordination with Pakistani entities [Paras 2-9].

Appeal – Denial of Bail – High Court's decision upheld – Supreme Court found no grounds to interfere with denial of bail at this stage – Emphasized that observations limited to bail decision, not on merits of the case [Paras 10-11].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No interference with High Court's order denying bail – Observations limited to bail decision and not on merits of the case [Para 11].

Service Law – Regularization – LIC as a statutory corporation bound by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution – Ensuring fair and open recruitment process – Supreme Court emphasized that allowing back-door entries into service negates equal opportunity and fairness – LIC cannot be directed to carry out mass absorption without following a fair recruitment process [Paras 1-31].

Industrial Disputes – Srivastav Award – Directed absorption of temporary/badli/part-time workers – LIC's objections to the Dogra Report on verification of workers' claims – Supreme Court upheld Srivastav Award, emphasizing adherence to constitutional principles [Paras 12-31].

E Prabavathy Group – Workers governed by a scheme approved in 1992 by Supreme Court – Srivastav Award excluded these workers from absorption – Supreme Court reaffirmed that such workers are governed by the scheme approved in E Prabavathy [Paras 28-30].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Upheld Srivastav Award with directions for LIC to absorb eligible workers as per verified claims – Directed payment of compensation in lieu of reinstatement for eligible workers – No mass absorption without adherence to fair recruitment principles [Paras 31-33].

Insolvency and Bankruptcy – Moratorium – Exclusion of Time – Section 60(6) of the IBC provides for the exclusion of the entire period during which the moratorium was in force in respect of a corporate debtor in regard to a proceeding as contemplated therein – Proceedings by the corporate debtor during the moratorium period are also covered under this exclusion – Interpretation aims to fulfill the object of the IBC and provide a 'calm period' for the revival or resolution of the corporate debtor [Paras 1-28].

Arbitration – Limitation – Impact of Moratorium – Application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, by corporate debtor – Moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC does not bar such applications – Exclusion of moratorium period for limitation purposes is valid – Corporate debtor entitled to benefit from the exclusion provided under Section 60(6) of the IBC [Paras 18-28].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Section 60(6) of the IBC contemplates the exclusion of the moratorium period for proceedings by the corporate debtor – Application under Section 11(6) not barred by limitation considering the exclusion – No orders as to costs [Para 29].

Stamp Duty – Deed of Assignment – Applicability – Appellant challenged demand for additional stamp duty under Article 45(f) of the Gujarat Stamp Act, 1958 – High Court held the deed of assignment chargeable to stamp duty as both a conveyance under Article 20(a) and a power of attorney under Article 45(f) – Supreme Court overturned High Court decision – Deed of assignment already charged under Article 20(a), further duty under Article 45(f) not permissible – Notifications under Section 9(a) reduced duty on securitization or assignment of debt – Revenue cannot split instrument for additional duty once correctly charged under primary provision [Paras 1-16].

Notification – Reduction in Stamp Duty – Government notifications reduced stamp duty on instruments of securitization or assignment of debt with underlying securities – Cap of Rs. 100,000 applied – Additional duty under Article 45(f) deemed inappropriate [Para 15].

Judicial Review – Interpretation of Taxing Statutes – Once charged under correct provision, instrument cannot be subject to additional duty under another provision – High Court's focus on Article 45(f) without addressing Section 9(a) notifications rendered decision unsustainable [Para 16].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court order set aside – Demand by Chief Controlling Revenue Authority quashed – No order as to costs [Para 16].

Criminal Law – Definition of Gang and Gangster – Appellant accused of being part of a conspiracy involving a single crime – Court held that even a single crime committed by a 'Gang' suffices under the Gangsters Act – Definitions under Section 2(b) (Gang) and Section 2(c) (Gangster) of the Act are inclusive and broad, encompassing those who abet or assist in gang activities – Statutory provisions do not require multiple offences for prosecution under the Gangsters Act [Paras 1-11].

Gangsters Act – Application in Single Offence – Unlike other preventive statutes like MCOCA and Gujarat COTOC, the Gangsters Act does not necessitate multiple offences for prosecution – A single FIR/charge sheet sufficient for invoking the Act if anti-social activities defined under Section 2(b) are present [Paras 10-11].

Conspiracy and Pecuniary Benefit – Appellant involved in conspiracy to commit murder for pecuniary benefit due to property dispute – Other co-accused already prosecuted under the Gangsters Act – Appellant and co-accused required to be prosecuted similarly [Para 11].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – High Court's refusal to quash criminal proceedings upheld – Prosecution under the Gangsters Act valid even for a single offence if conditions of the Act are met [Paras 12].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Complaint – Pre-trial Stage – Appellant sought quashing of the summoning order under Section 482 CrPC on the grounds that the cheques were issued as security and not for a legally enforceable debt – Supreme Court held that quashing of complaints at a pre-trial stage should be approached with caution – Legal presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act favors the complainant when cheque and signature are undisputed – Balance of convenience favors allowing the trial to proceed [Paras 1-19].

Negotiable Instruments – Legal Presumption – Sections 138 and 139 NI Act – When cheque and signature are not disputed, legal presumption of debt or liability arises in favor of the holder – Accused must rebut presumption during the trial – High Court correctly denied quashing based on factual defences that need to be adjudicated during the trial [Paras 11-13].

Factual Defences – Security Cheques – Appellant claimed cheques were security for a share buyback agreement – Court emphasized that such defences must be evaluated during trial, not at quashing stage – Quashing proceedings should not prematurely extinguish cases supported by legal presumptions [Paras 7-10, 13-14].

Judicial Review – Limited Scope – Section 482 CrPC – High Court's power to quash complaints should be exercised sparingly – Premature quashing can result in grave and irreparable consequences by denying parties the opportunity to adduce evidence in trial – Proper forum for weighing evidence is the trial court [Paras 14-17].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – High Court judgment upheld – Trial to proceed with opportunity for appellant to adduce evidence to rebut presumption – Observations limited to quashing stage and should not influence trial court's determination on merits [Paras 18-20].