Service Law – Dismissal – Respondent driver dismissed for causing an accident resulting in four deaths due to rash and negligent driving – Industrial Tribunal ordered reinstatement without back wages but with continuity of service, citing disproportionate punishment – High Court dismissed writ petition challenging Tribunal's order and directed back wages and retiral benefits – Supreme Court held that the acquittal in criminal proceedings does not impact disciplinary proceedings – Upheld dismissal as proportionate to misconduct [Paras 1-14].

Disciplinary Proceedings vs. Criminal Proceedings – Court emphasized the distinction between criminal acquittal and disciplinary proceedings – Acquittal due to lack of evidence does not negate established misconduct in departmental enquiry – Supreme Court reiterated that disciplinary action can be justified despite acquittal in criminal court [Paras 10.3-10.4].

Assessment of Proportionality – Consideration of past conduct – Court noted respondent's previous punishments during short tenure – Reinstatement deemed inappropriate given gravity of misconduct and past record – Supreme Court emphasized the need for proportionality in disciplinary actions considering overall conduct [Paras 10.5-11].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Reinstatement order by Industrial Tribunal and back wages order by High Court quashed – Original dismissal order by Labour Court reinstated – No costs awarded [Para 14].

Service Law – Assured Career Progression (ACP) Benefits – Respondents refused offered regular promotions due to personal reasons – Subsequently, ACP benefits were wrongly granted and later withdrawn based on clarificatory O.M. dated 18.7.2001 – Tribunal upheld withdrawal of ACP benefits, but High Court reversed the decision, restoring ACP benefits – Supreme Court held that refusal of regular promotion disqualifies employees from ACP benefits – Appeal allowed [Paras 1-21].

Refusal of Promotion – Impact on ACP Eligibility – Supreme Court emphasized that refusal of regular promotion offered before eligibility for ACP benefits precludes grant of financial upgradation – Clarified that such refusal indicates absence of stagnation, disqualifying employees from ACP benefits under O.M. dated 9.8.1999 [Paras 13-16].

Distinction between Regular and Officiating Promotions – Court differentiated between refusal of regular promotion and conditional officiating promotion – Held that refusal of conditional officiating promotion does not impact ACP eligibility – Allowed ACP benefits to employees offered only officiating promotions [Paras 19-20].

Decision – Appeals concerning refusal of regular promotions (Civil Appeal Nos. 7027-7028 of 2009) allowed – Appeals concerning refusal of officiating promotions (Civil Appeal Nos. 7150-7151 of 2009) dismissed – No order as to costs [Para 21].

Contract Law – Claim for Interest on Delayed Payment – Bonds issued by defendant SIDBI were transferred to plaintiff SIBCO during "suspect spell" – RBI directives and ongoing liquidation proceedings against CRB Capital influenced withholding of payment – Plaintiff accepted principal and accrued interest without protest, later demanded additional interest for delayed payment – Supreme Court held that withholding was justified and defendant acted in compliance with statutory directives – Claim for additional interest akin to Shylockian demand, rejected [Paras 1-15].

RBI Directives – Statutory Force – RBI’s directive dated 09.06.1997 issued in public interest to prevent alienation of assets by CRB Capital under liquidation – SIDBI’s compliance with directive upheld as statutorily binding – Plaintiff’s claim for delayed interest dismissed as defendant acted within legal framework and public policy considerations [Paras 8-8.14].

Fraudulent Preference – Suspect Transactions – Bonds transferred during suspect spell raised concerns of fraudulent preference under Section 531 of Companies Act – Defendant’s actions to withhold payment until clearance by Company Court deemed reasonable – Transfer to SIBCO cleared only on 17.12.2004, payment made promptly thereafter [Paras 9-9.8].

Constructive Res Judicata – Plaintiff’s failure to claim interest during writ proceedings or at time of initial payment acceptance without protest bars subsequent claim – Principle of waiver/acquiescence applied – Subsequent suit barred by constructive res judicata [Paras 14-14.1].

Decision – Appeals allowed, judgment of Trial Court dismissing the suit restored – Plaintiff’s cross-appeal for pendente lite interest rejected – No order as to costs [Paras 15.5-15.6].

Arbitration – Remittal to Arbitrator – Section 34(4) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act – Court's discretion to remit matter to arbitrator to fill gaps in reasoning or provide additional reasons – Not obligatory to remit in cases of patent illegality or absence of findings on contentious issues – High Court dismissed motion for remittal as arbitral award lacked findings on key issue of abrupt and illegal termination of contract – Appeal dismissed [Paras 17-22].

Patent Illegality – Arbitrator’s Award – Arbitral award challenged for lacking findings on contentious issue – Respondent claimed accord and satisfaction evidenced by documents not considered by arbitrator – Remittal inappropriate where award is per se illegal or findings ignore material evidence – Arbitrator cannot alter award under guise of providing additional reasons [Paras 18-21].

Discretionary Power – Section 34(4) of Arbitration Act – Court’s discretion to remit matter based on appropriateness – Factors include grounds in application under Section 34(1), grounds for remittal, and responses thereto – Not obligatory for Court to remit merely on application – Remittal intended for cases with inadequate reasoning, not for altering findings [Paras 20-21].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – High Court order upheld – Remittal not appropriate due to absence of findings on key issue and potential alteration of award – No order as to costs [Para 22].

Income Tax – Deductible Expenses – Section 40(a)(iib) – Gallonage fee, licence fee, and shop rental (kist) paid by appellant with respect to FL-9 and FL-1 licences fall within purview of Section 40(a)(iib) – Surcharge on sales tax and turnover tax not considered as 'fee' or 'charge' under Section 40(a)(iib), disallowance of these amounts rightly set aside by High Court [Paras 14-16].

Statutory Interpretation – Fee vs. Tax – Distinction between 'fee' and 'tax' maintained in Section 40 – Surcharge on sales tax and turnover tax are outside scope of Section 40(a)(iib) – Principle of ejusdem generis applied to interpret scope of 'fee' or 'charge' [Para 14.3-14.5].

Legislative Intent – Section 40(a)(iib) – Intended to prevent diversion of profits from State-owned undertakings to State treasury under guise of fees and charges – Levy considered exclusive if imposed on State-owned undertakings irrespective of number of entities holding licences [Para 14.1-14.2].

Decision – Appeals filed by the revenue partly allowed – Appeal filed by appellant dismissed – Assessments for 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 to be revised as per directions – Assessing officer to pass revised orders within two months from receipt of judgment [Paras 16-17].

Disability Rights – Disciplinary Proceedings – Appeal against disciplinary proceedings initiated due to appellant's mental disability – High Court’s Division Bench set aside the enquiry report and restored the proceedings to evidence stage – Appellant’s mental disability not the sole cause of alleged misconduct, considered indirect discrimination – Section 47 of PwD Act mandates protection and reasonable accommodation for disabled employees – RPwD Act’s Section 20 further reinforces these protections – Orders set aside; Appellant entitled to reassignment or supernumerary position [Paras 1-14, 99-101].

Indirect Discrimination – Mental Disabilities – Appellant’s mental disability considered a significant factor in misconduct – Disciplinary proceedings against mentally disabled employees as indirect discrimination – Disability impairs compliance with workplace standards, leading to disproportionate disadvantage – Protection under RPwD Act affirmed – Court mandates individualized assessment for reassignment without control over hazardous equipment [Paras 98-102].

Reasonable Accommodation – Section 20(4) RPwD Act – Requirement for reassignment to suitable post with same pay and benefits – Supernumerary post provision if reassignment not feasible – Affirmed principles of non-discrimination and reasonable accommodation for disabled employees – Ensuring safety and inclusion within CRPF framework [Paras 100-101].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Disciplinary proceedings quashed – Appellant entitled to protections under disability legislation – CRPF directed to reassign appellant or place in supernumerary post as per Section 20(4) of RPwD Act [Para 102].

Insolvency Law – Commercial Wisdom of CoC – NCLAT's interference with CoC's decision challenged – CoC approved Ngaitlang Dhar’s resolution plan through transparent and equitable procedure – NCLAT erred in setting aside CoC’s decision – Adjudicating and Appellate Authorities should not interfere with CoC’s commercial decisions except on limited grounds under Sections 30(2) or 61(3) of IBC – Appeal allowed; NCLAT’s order set aside [Paras 1-38].

Judicial Review – Material Irregularity – No material irregularity in CoC and RP’s procedure – RP acted transparently, giving equal opportunity to all bidders – NCLAT’s interference based on alleged procedural irregularities not justified – Judicial review limited to ensuring no procedural impropriety under IBC framework [Paras 20-34].

Commercial Wisdom – Scope and Limits – CoC’s decision based on commercial wisdom non-justiciable except on specified grounds – Dominant purpose of IBC is revival and continuation of the Corporate Debtor as an ongoing concern – Ensuring adherence to timelines critical to CIRP’s success [Paras 31-37].

Decision: Appeals allowed – NCLAT’s order quashed – CoC’s approval of Ngaitlang Dhar’s resolution plan reinstated – No order as to costs [Para 38].

Dowry Death – Circumstantial Evidence – Conviction under Sections 304B and 201 read with Section 34 IPC – Prosecution's case based solely on circumstantial evidence – No eye-witness testimony on how the deceased's body was found on the riverbank – Two hypotheses: (1) deceased killed within the home and body disposed in the river; (2) deceased taken to the river alive and drowned – Second hypothesis supported by post-mortem showing no ante-mortem injuries – Evidence suffices to convict husband but not mother-in-law – Conviction of husband upheld, mother-in-law acquitted [Paras 1-23].

Dowry Death – Legal Presumptions – Sections 304B IPC and 113B Indian Evidence Act – Establishing dowry death requires showing cruelty/harassment related to dowry soon before death – Presumption of guilt against husband and in-laws if dowry demands and cruelty are proven – Presumption rebuttable by the accused [Paras 12-17].

Reasonable Doubt – Mother-in-law's Acquittal – Omnibus allegations against mother-in-law insufficient – No specific evidence or testimony implicating her directly – Conviction of mother-in-law set aside – Husband's conviction maintained based on consistent evidence of dowry demands and harassment [Paras 18-23].

Decision: Appeal of husband (A-1) dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld – Appeal of mother-in-law (A-3) allowed; conviction set aside, directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case [Para 23].

Service Law – Pay Parity – Daily rated employees not entitled to higher pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 with consequential benefits upon completion of 10 years – Board's adoption of State Government resolutions crucial for applicability – Financial viability and economic capacity significant factors in wage determination – Posts and salary complex matters best left to expert bodies – Appeals dismissed; pay parity claims rejected [Paras 1-18].

Doctrine of Equal Pay for Equal Work – Limitations on applicability – Court intervention in pay scales to be cautious – Economic viability of the employer paramount – Daily rated employees of statutory boards not on par with state government employees – Policy decisions on pay scales subject to board’s discretion [Paras 13.4-13.7].

Judicial Review – Discrimination Claims – Article 14 does not support claims to perpetuate mistakes – Board’s error in extending benefits inadvertently corrected – Financial implications and cascading effect considered – High Court's decision to set aside Single Judge’s ruling upheld [Paras 15-17].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Judgment of Gujarat High Court's Division Bench upheld – Daily rated employees not entitled to benefits from 1991 and 1992 Government Resolutions – Benefits under parent Resolution of 1988 to continue [Para 18].