Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Section 14(1A) - Appointment of Advocate - District Magistrate (DM) or Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) can appoint an advocate to take possession of secured assets and documents - Advocate considered an officer of the court and subordinate to CMM/DM for the purposes of Section 14(1A) - Advocate Commissioner’s actions under Section 14(3) receive immunity - Appointment not restricted to officers on CMM/DM rolls or public service - Legislative intent supports such functional subordination [Paras 9-35].

Delegation of Powers - Functional Subordination - Appointment of advocate to assist in taking possession of assets as a ministerial act under CMM/DM's supervision - Advocates as officers of the court fit within the wide generality and context of "any officer subordinate" in Section 14(1A) - Practical necessity due to logistical constraints faced by CMM/DM [Paras 27-30].

Precedent and Statutory Interpretation - Consistency with previous High Court decisions in Kerala, Madras, and Delhi supporting the appointment of Advocate Commissioners - Legislative history and intent of SARFAESI Act facilitating efficient resolution and possession of secured assets without court intervention [Paras 19-25].

Decision - Appeals Allowed - High Court of Bombay's restrictive interpretation overruled - Advocates can be appointed by CMM/DM to take possession of secured assets under Section 14(1A) [Para 36].

Work and Contract - Blacklisting - Violation of Principles of Natural Justice - High Court quashed blacklisting order on grounds of pre-determination and violation of natural justice - Supreme Court held blacklisting followed due process with show cause notice and reply considered - Seriousness of contractor's lapse leading to collapse warranted blacklisting [Paras 8-8.7].

Blacklisting Period - First Offence - Contractor blacklisted permanently - Supreme Court reduced blacklisting period to five years considering gravity of the incident but finding permanent blacklisting too harsh [Paras 9-10].

Decision - Appeals Partly Allowed - High Court order quashing blacklisting set aside - Blacklisting period reduced to five years from date of original blacklisting order - Consequential appeal dismissed [Paras 10-11].

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Central Excise Act, 1944 - Confiscation of Properties - Rule 173Q(2) - SARFAESI Act 2002 prevails over Central Excise Act 1944 - Confiscation orders passed under omitted Rule 173Q(2) of Central Excise Rules 1944 lack jurisdiction - Secured creditors' dues have priority over central excise dues - Section 38A and Section 6 of General Clauses Act not applicable to omitted rules [Paras 32-47].

Confiscation Orders - Rule 173Q(2) Omitted - Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise lacked jurisdiction to pass confiscation orders under omitted Rule 173Q(2) - Orders dated 26.03.2007 and 29.03.2007 quashed - Confiscation provisions post-omission only applied to "goods" not immovable property [Paras 33-36].

Priority of Secured Creditors - Section 11E - Central Excise Act, 1944 - Absence of first charge provision prior to 08.04.2011 - Secured creditors under SARFAESI Act have priority over excise dues - Section 35 of SARFAESI Act provides overriding effect over other laws - SARFAESI Act provisions prevail even after Section 11E insertion in Central Excise Act [Paras 43-47].

Decision - Appeal Allowed - Confiscation orders dated 26.03.2007 and 29.03.2007 quashed - Secured creditors' dues prioritized over Central Excise Department's dues [Para 48].

Constitution of India - Article 14 - Compassionate Appointment - Child of Second Wife - Supreme Court held that compassionate appointment cannot be denied to the child of a second wife of a deceased employee solely on the basis of descent - Such exclusion violates Article 14 of the Constitution - Policy or rule that discriminates against legitimate children born from second marriages is arbitrary and ultra vires - Legitimate children must be considered for compassionate appointment irrespective of their mother’s marital status with the deceased employee [Paras 2-7].

Discrimination - Descent - Article 16(2) - Prohibition - Supreme Court emphasized that descent cannot be a ground for denying employment under compassionate appointment schemes - Discriminatory policies against children of second wives violate Article 16(2) of the Constitution - Children cannot be punished for circumstances beyond their control [Paras 9-10].

Decision - Appeal Allowed - High Court order set aside - Direction to consider appellant's application for compassionate appointment as per extant policy, fulfilling all other requirements of law - Process to be completed within three months [Paras 11-12].

Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Section 14 - Sub-letting - Eviction - Appellant sought eviction on grounds of sub-letting without landlord's consent - Additional Rent Controller dismissed eviction petition - Appellate Tribunal reversed decision and passed order of eviction - High Court quashed Tribunal's decision under Article 227, restored Rent Controller's order - Supreme Court held High Court overstepped its jurisdiction under Article 227 by re-appreciating evidence and acting as an appellate body - Tribunal's findings reinstated [Paras 1-14].

Sub-letting - Burden of Proof - Landlord must establish third party's exclusive possession and monetary consideration - Onus shifts to tenant to explain once parting of possession established - Evidence showed medical practitioners in exclusive possession of portions of premises with separate cabins and telephone connections - Appellate Tribunal correctly inferred sub-letting - High Court's interference unwarranted [Paras 8-13].

Decision - Appeal Allowed - High Court order set aside - Appellate Tribunal's findings restored - Respondents directed to vacate premises within 53 weeks with occupation charges payable until vacated [Paras 14-18].

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent Powers - Transfer of Cases - High Court directed transfer of 864 land grabbing cases from Special Courts to jurisdictional Magistrates on 'special mentioning' after disposal of the original petition - Supreme Court held that the High Court, being functus officio, lacked jurisdiction to pass further orders in the disposed matter - Such orders were in the teeth of the Supreme Court's interim stay on the quashing of the Government Orders constituting Special Courts for land grabbing cases [Paras 1-6].

Inherent Powers - Suo Motu Exercise - High Court overstepped its jurisdiction by passing transfer orders suo motu in a sweeping manner - Powers under Section 482 CrPC cannot be exercised beyond the contours stipulated under the Section [Paras 4-7].

Decision - Appeals Allowed - High Court's orders dated 05.08.2019, 27.08.2019, and 29.08.2019 quashed and set aside - Orders passed subject to the final outcome of the pending Special Leave Petitions (Civil) Nos. 6050-6078 of 2015 [Para 6].

Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 - Section 14B - Imposition of Damages - Default or delay in payment of EPF contributions by the employer necessitates imposition of damages under Section 14B - Mens rea or actus reus not required for imposing penalty or damages for breach of civil obligations and liabilities - Judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka upheld, affirming the imposition of damages for delayed payment [Paras 3-18].

Mens Rea - Not Essential - Penalty for breach of civil obligations does not require proof of mens rea - Established principles from various judgments support that mens rea is not essential for civil penalties, reinforcing the obligation of employers to comply with EPF contributions without delay [Paras 11-17].

Decision - Appeals Dismissed - High Court's decision affirmed - Mens rea or actus reus is not essential for the imposition of damages under Section 14B of the EPF Act [Paras 18-19].

Service Tax - Renting of Immovable Property - Exemption - Market Committees under Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 - Appellants claimed exemption under Circular No. 89/7/2006 - Supreme Court held that the activity of renting/leasing shops/lands/platforms by Market Committees is not a mandatory statutory duty under Section 9 of the Act - Therefore, not exempt from service tax as per 2006 circular - Fee collected is not deposited into Government Treasury but Market Committee Fund - Activity not exempt from service tax prior to 01.07.2012 [Paras 7-11].

Statutory Obligation vs. Discretionary Function - Section 9(2) of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 uses "may" indicating discretionary function - Not a mandatory statutory duty to rent/lease shops/lands - Distinction between enabling provision (may) and mandatory duty (shall) emphasized [Para 9].

Circular No. 89/7/2006 - Interpretation - Exemption applies to mandatory statutory activities where fees are compulsory levies deposited into Government Treasury - Renting/leasing by Market Committees does not meet these criteria - Exemption denied [Paras 7-8].

Decision - Appeals Dismissed - Market Committees liable for service tax on renting of immovable property services prior to 01.07.2012 - No exemption under Circular No. 89/7/2006 [Para 12].

Employment - Back Wages - Reinstatement - Employee dismissed for allegedly securing employment through false caste certificate - Tahsildar's report found appellant did not belong to Scheduled Caste - High Court found Tahsildar incompetent and directed verification by appropriate authority - Verification confirmed appellant's Scheduled Caste status - Appellant reinstated without back wages - Supreme Court modified order to grant 75% back wages, recognizing appellant's lack of fault and long litigation [Paras 2-12].

Caste Verification - Competent Authority - Initial verification by Tahsildar found invalid - Correct authority confirmed caste status, leading to reinstatement - Importance of competent verification emphasized [Para 2].

Discretionary Relief - Back Wages - No work no pay principle not absolute - Exceptions for wrongful dismissal where employee not at fault - Courts can grant partial or full back wages based on circumstances - Appellant granted 75% back wages recognizing wrongful dismissal and prolonged litigation [Paras 9-12].

Decision - Appeals Partly Allowed - High Court's judgment modified - Appellant awarded 75% of back wages - Respondents to calculate and disburse within six weeks [Para 12].