Criminal Law – Cheating and Breach of Contract: A mere breach of contract is not in itself a criminal offence and gives rise to the civil liability of damages. The distinction between a breach of contract and cheating, which is a criminal offence, is a fine one. Cheating involves fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of the contract, which must be prima facie established to proceed with criminal prosecution. The complaint filed by the respondent does not disclose dishonest or fraudulent intention of the appellants. The delay in filing the complaint (almost 4 years) and the identical nature of complaints filed in different jurisdictions indicate an attempt to harass the appellants rather than a genuine criminal grievance [Paras 1-36].

Forum Shopping and Abuse of Process: Filing multiple complaints in different jurisdictions based on the same facts is considered forum shopping and is an abuse of the process of law. The complaint in Kolkata was a reproduction of the complaint filed in Delhi, with only jurisdictional details changed. Such practices are condemned as they lead to harassment and unnecessary litigation [Paras 7-12].

Quashing of Proceedings – High Court's Role: High Courts should exercise their powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings when continuation of such proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. In this case, the High Court failed to appreciate the malafide intentions behind the complaints and the lack of prima facie evidence for criminal charges [Paras 13-20].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's order set aside – FIR No. 168 dated 28.03.2013 and proceedings in G.R. Case No. 1221 of 2013 quashed – No costs ordered [Para 44].

Land Acquisition – Lapse of Acquisitions – High Court erred in holding that acquisitions had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act – Trend of landowners seeking lapse based on interim orders of stay, resulting in delayed awards and compensation – High Court should consider interim orders' impact before applying Section 24(2) – Matter remanded for fresh determination [Paras 1-11].

Right to Fair Compensation – High Court’s Failure to Consider Other Issues – High Court only addressed the lapse issue under Section 24(2) without adjudicating other relevant issues – Courts must adjudicate all issues to avoid remand – Appeals allowed, High Court's judgment set aside, and matter remanded for fresh consideration on all issues [Paras 8-12].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court's judgment set aside – Matters remanded for fresh assessment of all issues except the lapse under Section 24(2) – High Court instructed to complete the re-evaluation within twelve months [Para 12].

Court Fees – Suit for Damages – High Court erred in holding that the respondent could pay court fees on a tentative amount, directing him to pay ad valorem court fees on the claimed amount of Rs. 20 lakhs – Supreme Court held that suits for damages or compensation falling under Section 7(i) of the Court Fees Act require payment of court fees according to the amount claimed – Liberty to value the relief as per Section 7(iv) is not applicable to suits under Section 7(i) – High Court's order set aside, Trial Court's direction restored, requiring respondent to make good the deficiency in court fees [Paras 20-37].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment set aside – Trial Court's order restored, directing respondent to pay court fees on the claimed amount of Rs. 20 lakhs within four weeks – Respondent also required to pay court fees in the appeal based on the relief sought [Paras 36-38].

One Rank One Pension – Implementation and Disparities – Petitioners challenged the deviation from the original definition of OROP, arguing the shift from automatic revision to periodic revision every five years created disparities among pensioners of the same rank – Supreme Court held the policy decision to revise pensions every five years was within the scope of policy choices available to the Union Government and did not violate constitutional principles of equality – The policy of revising pensions based on the average of minimum and maximum pension of 2013 retirees was upheld, as the decision lay within the domain of policy choices and did not warrant judicial interference [Paras 24-28].

Doctrine of Legitimate Expectations – Petitioners' reliance on the doctrine of legitimate expectations for automatic pension revisions rejected – Court held that ministerial statements and committee recommendations did not constitute binding policy decisions – The executive's final policy decision embodied in the 7 November 2015 communication governed the implementation of OROP [Paras 26-27].

Plea of Discrimination – Alleged inequalities due to the MACP Scheme and periodic revision – Court found no violation of Article 14, explaining disparities in pension due to different service lengths, MACP benefits, and the averaging method for pension calculation were reasonable – The differentiation based on dates of retirement did not create unconstitutional classification [Paras 29-32].

Decision – Writ petition dismissed – Supreme Court upheld the Union Government's policy on OROP as defined by the 7 November 2015 communication – The court directed that the government’s periodic revision of pension every five years did not breach constitutional mandates of equality [Paras 12-28].

Criminal Procedure – Summoning of Accused – Magistrate's Power – Whether a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on the basis of a police report under Section 190(1)(b) CrPC can issue summons to any person not arraigned as an accused in the police report – Supreme Court held that the Magistrate has the power to summon a person not named in the police report if there are materials on record revealing prima facie involvement in the offence – The jurisdiction to issue summons can be exercised even if the person's name does not feature in the FIR or police report [Paras 2-21].

Statement under Section 164 CrPC – Evidentiary Value – Statement made by the victim under Section 164 CrPC can be considered for summoning an accused not named in the police report – The Magistrate can act on such statements if satisfied with the involvement of the person in the offence [Paras 21-22].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the High Court, finding no error in the Magistrate's order summoning the appellant based on the victim's statement under Section 164 CrPC – Interim order dissolved [Paras 22-24].

Service Law – Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) – High Court erred in striking down the latter part of Rule 3A – Rule 3A must be read in conjunction with Rule 3, Note 2, and Ruling 3 – These provisions provide for the treatment of DCRG in case of disciplinary or judicial proceedings pending at the stage of retirement – Even in the absence of proceedings, amounts can be recovered from DCRG [Paras 27-37].

Disciplinary Proceedings – Withholding of DCRG – The principle that DCRG can be withheld during the pendency of disciplinary or judicial proceedings affirmed – Appeal is a continuation of proceedings, allowing for withholding of DCRG during such period – High Court’s order directing the release of DCRG to employees convicted in criminal cases (with appeals pending) set aside [Paras 28-41].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court’s judgment set aside – DCRG not to be released pending criminal appeals – Matter remanded for compliance with the provisions of Rule 3A of the KSR [Paras 42-43].

Service Law – Discharge of Judicial Officer – High Court erred in treating appellant's negligence as misconduct warranting discharge – No continuous illegal orders were passed, only one bail order involved – Enquiry officer improperly acted as a court of appeal, focusing on alleged errors in the bail order – Discharge order deemed punitive as it resulted from disciplinary enquiry and placed stigma on appellant's competence – Appellant entitled to protection under Article 311(2) – High Court's order of discharge quashed, appellant to be reinstated with 50% back wages [Paras 2-27].

Constitutional Law – Article 311(2) – Protection in Case of Punitive Action – Discharge not based on 'unsatisfactory performance' but on enquiry finding misconduct – Non-communication of ACRs to appellant arbitrary – Discharge constituted punitive action due to stigmatization – Appellant entitled to protection under Article 311(2) [Paras 28-37].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment set aside – Discharge order quashed – Appellant to be reinstated with all consequential benefits including continuity of service and seniority but entitled to only 50% back wages [Para 37].

Service Law – Seniority – Determination of Seniority among direct recruits and promotees under the Central Excise and Land Customs Group-C Recruitment Rules, 1979 – High Court upheld seniority list based on indents placed with the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) for direct recruitment – Supreme Court held that actual vacancies must be considered, not merely indented vacancies – Department’s failure to account for all direct recruit vacancies (including compassionate appointments and sports quota) led to erroneous seniority determination – Matter remanded for fresh consideration based on actual vacancies [Paras 1-62].

Promotion vs. Direct Recruitment – High Court erred in treating promotees as ad-hoc due to non-reporting of direct recruit vacancies – Promotions made within the quota should be treated as regular – Promotions and regularizations within the promotee quota during the ban on direct recruitment should be considered for seniority purposes – Supreme Court directed recalibration of seniority list in light of these findings [Paras 56-62].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court’s judgment set aside – CAT’s order restored – Matter remanded to determine seniority based on actual vacancies, including those filled under compassionate appointments and sports quota [Paras 60-62].

Trademark Infringement – Ad-interim Injunction – High Court Division Bench erred in allowing an appeal against a Single Judge’s order granting time for filing affidavits and postponing the hearing for ad-interim injunction – Order by Single Judge did not have finality traits, thus not appealable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent – Division Bench’s order granting injunction reversed [Paras 22-25, 35-38].

Civil Procedure – Appeal against Interlocutory Orders – Not every order passed by a trial judge constitutes a ‘judgment’ under Clause 15 – Only orders affecting vital and valuable rights, having traits of finality, are appealable – Appeal against Single Judge’s order was not tenable, as it merely postponed the injunction hearing and allowed filing of affidavits [Paras 15-21, 23-26].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Division Bench’s judgment set aside – Single Judge’s order reinstated, directing the matter for prompt resolution without influence from prior observations [Paras 38-40].