MSME Act – Jurisdiction – Applicability – Agreement dated 24.08.2020 between appellant and respondent – Appellant registered as MSME on 28.08.2020 – Dispute arose post-registration – Agreement governed by laws prevailing at the time of execution – MSME Act not applicable as appellant was not MSME at the time of contract – Council lacks jurisdiction under Section 18 of MSME Act – [Paras 1-8].

Choice of Law – Contractual Terms – Agreement specifies governing law as prevailing laws of India at the time of execution – Registration of appellant as MSME post-execution does not confer MSME Council jurisdiction – [Paras 8.1-8.2].

Larger Legal Questions – Applicability of MSME Act to foreign buyers availing services in India and post-execution MSME registration kept open for future consideration – Reference to relevant judgments of Supreme Court – [Paras 8.3].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – High Court's judgment affirmed – MSME Council has no jurisdiction over disputes between appellant and respondent – No order as to costs – [Paras 8.3-9].

Service Law – Temporary Employment – Absorption and Regularisation – Respondents appointed on a fixed term for a specific project ("Post-Earthquake Redevelopment Programme") – High Court directed State to consider their regularisation after 17 years of service – Supreme Court finds respondents were appointed in a temporary unit and not on sanctioned posts in regular establishment – High Court's direction to create supernumerary posts for regularisation held unsustainable – [Paras 1-6].

Interim Orders – Continuation of Service – Respondents continued in service due to High Court's interim orders – Period of service under interim orders not to be considered for regularisation – High Court's consideration of continued service as basis for regularisation flawed – [Paras 6-7].

Judicial Precedent – Directions Not to Be Treated as Precedent – High Court's order to create supernumerary posts not to be treated as precedent – Supreme Court holds no such direction can be issued under Article 226 – [Paras 10-11].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's order quashed – Order of Single Judge dismissing writ petition restored – No costs – [Paras 11-12].

Arbitration – Jurisdiction – Section 11(6) – Application for appointment of arbitrator cannot be made in any High Court irrespective of its territorial jurisdiction – Section 11(6) must be harmoniously read with Section 2(1)(e) – High Court must have supervisory jurisdiction over a court which would have jurisdiction under Section 2(1)(e) – [Paras 27-28].

Territorial Jurisdiction – Development Agreement executed and registered in Bihar – Property situated in Muzaffarpur, Bihar – No part of cause of action arose within jurisdiction of Calcutta High Court – High Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 11(6) – [Paras 20-21].

Seat of Arbitration – Agreement specifying Kolkata as the venue for arbitration sittings does not confer exclusive jurisdiction to the Calcutta High Court – Venue of arbitration sittings distinct from the seat of arbitration – [Paras 33-46].

Previous Applications – Section 42 of the Arbitration Act – Once an application under Part I is made in a court, that court alone has jurisdiction over subsequent applications – Not applicable if initial application not made in a High Court – [Paras 29-32].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Orders of the Calcutta High Court appointing an arbitrator and dismissing the review application set aside – Justice Bhaskar Bhattacharya appointed as Sole Arbitrator – Status quo regarding property to be maintained for 15 days to allow parties to seek interim relief from the Arbitrator – [Paras 49-51].

Land Acquisition – Reservation Lapse – Statutory Timelines – Land reserved in Development Plan for playground in 2002 – No acquisition within ten years – Landowner issued purchase notice under Section 127 in 2016 – High Court declared reservation lapsed but granted one additional year for acquisition – Supreme Court holds additional period not contemplated by statute – Reservation lapsed as no acquisition within statutory period – [Paras 1-7].

Public Purpose and Use of Land – Statutory Restrictions – Land reserved for public purpose restricts landowner's use for other purposes – Once ten-year period plus one-year notice period lapses without acquisition, landowner cannot be deprived of use indefinitely – [Paras 7-9].

Judicial Precedent – Directions Not Binding Precedent – Directions for acquisition in previous cases not binding as law – Case-specific directions under Article 142 not general precedent – Statutory timelines must be adhered to – [Paras 7-8].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's direction for additional period of acquisition set aside – Land reservation declared lapsed as per statutory timelines – [Paras 8-9].

Military Law – General Court Martial – Sentence Reduction: The Armed Forces Tribunal reduced the sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment and cashiering to dismissal from service. The Supreme Court evaluates the tribunal's decision, considering the procedural and evidentiary aspects, including the proper constitution of the GCM and the alleged acts of the respondent [Paras 1-47].

Jurisdiction and Procedure – Composition of GCM: Respondent contended that GCM was improperly constituted as members were of lower rank. Supreme Court found that reasons recorded by the convening officer regarding the unavailability of officers of the respondent’s rank were valid under Rule 40(2) of Army Rules. Judicial review of such decisions is limited to checking for arbitrariness, irrationality, or unreasonableness [Paras 21-23].

Charges and Evidence – Standard of Proof: Supreme Court scrutinizes charges related to procurement decisions and alleged fraud. Tribunal found no evidence of actual fraud or wrongful gain, despite inference of attempts to cause wrongful gain. The court concludes that findings were based on conjectures and that the respondent did not commit any act resulting in actual loss or wrongful gain [Paras 24-45].

Decision:- Appeal dismissed.- Transferred Case (Criminal) No. 1 of 2017: Allowed. GCM’s order dated 18th February 2011 and AFT’s order dated 10th October 2013 set aside. Respondent acquitted of all charges. Entitled to all pensionary and consequential benefits with arrears to be computed and paid within three months [Paras 46-47].

Service Law – Suspension and Pay Allowances: Respondents were under suspension during disciplinary proceedings which did not result in their complete exoneration. Consequently, they fall outside the scope of Rule 54(2) of the Rajasthan Civil Services Rules, 1958. Supreme Court determines that exact pay and allowances should be less than full pay, but remitting the matter back would be inequitable. Orders payment at 50% of pay and allowances for the period in question [Paras 1-14].

Principles of Natural Justice: The disciplinary authority must provide notice to the employee before passing orders on pay and allowances during suspension. In this case, the failure to provide notice rendered the proceedings deficient. Supreme Court emphasizes the importance of hearing the employee before finalizing decisions on pay during suspension [Paras 12-13].

Equitable Relief: Given the long pendency and the age of the respondents, the Supreme Court adopts a middle path by directing payment of 50% of the entitled pay and allowances instead of full back wages, balancing fairness and practical considerations [Paras 13-14].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – Respondents to be paid 50% of the pay and allowances for the period of suspension – No order as to costs [Para 14].

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint: The plaintiff initially approached the Revenue Authority/Tehsildar, who rejected the application under Section 250 of MPLRC for lack of jurisdiction over title disputes. Upon filing a civil suit, the defendants took a contrary stance, leading to the rejection of the plaint by the High Court under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, citing Section 257 MPLRC. Supreme Court holds defendants cannot approbate and reprobate, taking contradictory stands before different forums. The suit should not be barred in this context, leaving the plaintiff remediless [Paras 1-5].

Jurisdiction – Revenue Authority and Civil Court: Supreme Court reinstates trial court’s rejection of the Order 7 Rule 11 application, emphasizing that defendants cannot object to jurisdiction in Revenue Authority and later in Civil Court for the same issue. The High Court erred in its decision to allow the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC based on Section 257 MPLRC [Paras 2.1-4].

Principle of Appropriation and Reprobation: Defendants cannot take mutually contradictory stands to prevent the plaintiff from seeking legal remedy. The Revenue Authority’s dismissal on jurisdiction grounds should have sufficed to allow the Civil Court to entertain the suit [Paras 2.4-4].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court order quashed – Trial Court’s rejection of the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC restored – Suit to proceed in accordance with law – No costs ordered [Paras 5].

Specific Relief – Agreement to Sell – Loan/Security Document: The appellants challenged the judgment of the High Court affirming the first appellate court's decree for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 11.02.2004, contending that the agreement was actually a loan/security document. Supreme Court observes that merely because the agreement mentioned that the sale proceeds were intended for marriage expenses, it does not transform a clear agreement to sell into a loan/security document. The court upholds the finding that the agreement was for the sale of property, not a loan agreement [Paras 1-6].

Concurrent Findings – Execution and Payment: Supreme Court notes concurrent findings by the trial court, first appellate court, and High Court confirming the execution of the agreement and receipt of part sale consideration by the vendor. The trial court's refusal to grant specific performance was solely based on its mistaken interpretation of the agreement as a security document [Paras 5-6].

Discretionary Relief – Section 20 of Specific Relief Act: Supreme Court clarifies that Sections 20(a) and 20(c) of the Specific Relief Act, which provide discretionary grounds for denying specific performance, are not applicable in this case. The respondent had always been ready and willing to perform their part of the agreement, and the courts below rightly granted specific performance [Paras 7-8].

Complete Justice – Additional Payment: To do complete justice under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court directs the original plaintiffs to pay an additional Rs. 350,000 to the appellants, over and above the balance sale consideration of Rs. 50,000 (to be paid with 6% interest from the date of the agreement). The original defendants are directed to execute the sale deed upon this payment [Para 7].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court and first appellate court's decree for specific performance affirmed – Plaintiffs directed to make additional payment – Defendants to execute the sale deed upon receipt [Para 8].

Service Law – Disciplinary Proceedings – Doctrine of Equality: The respondent, a Junior Engineer, faced disciplinary action for financial irregularities. The Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority found the charges proved. The Tribunal and High Court quashed the punishment by applying the Doctrine of Equality, noting that other officers involved were exonerated. Supreme Court holds that the Doctrine of Equality should not apply when charges are proven against an individual. The role of each officer must be considered individually, and exoneration of others does not justify quashing punishment if the individual's misconduct is proven. Negative equality claims are not valid in such cases [Paras 1-10].

Principles of Natural Justice – Violation – Remand for Fresh Enquiry: Tribunal found enquiry proceedings violated principles of natural justice as relevant documents were not supplied to the delinquent officer. Supreme Court reaffirms that when an enquiry is found to be vitiated, the case should be remanded to the Disciplinary Authority to proceed from the stage where the violation occurred, ensuring all necessary documents are provided and due process is followed [Paras 8-9].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court and Tribunal's findings quashing the punishment based on the Doctrine of Equality are set aside. Case remanded to the Disciplinary Authority to conduct a fresh enquiry from the stage of the issuance of the charge sheet, ensuring adherence to principles of natural justice. The enquiry to be completed within six months. No order as to costs [Para 10].