Right to Notice – Mandatory Nature – Appellant challenges the grant of bail to the first respondent on the grounds that mandatory notice under sub-sections (3) and (5) of Section 15A of the SC/ST Act was not issued – Supreme Court emphasizes the mandatory nature of these provisions, ensuring victims' right to notice and to be heard – The failure to issue notice invalidates the bail proceedings [Paras 1-18].

Procedural Safeguards – Compliance at Each Stage – Court highlights that compliance with the principles of natural justice must be observed at every stage, including the initial grant of bail – Subsequent compliance in cancellation proceedings does not cure the initial defect – Stresses the importance of issuing timely notice to allow victims to effectively participate and oppose bail [Paras 19-21].

Judicial Accountability – Reasoning for Bail – Supreme Court criticizes the High Court's lack of reasoning in granting bail, noting that recording of reasons is a judicial duty ensuring accountability and transparency – High Court's order merely recorded submissions without assessing relevant factors like the gravity of the offence and the accused’s role [Paras 22-24].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's order granting bail to the first respondent set aside – Respondent to surrender by 7 November 2021 – Observations made are limited to bail considerations and do not affect the merits of the case [Paras 25-27].

Abolition of Post – UGC Tenth Plan – Appellant challenges the termination of his services as an Assistant Professor, arguing that the post was sanctioned and financially supported by the UGC under the Tenth Plan and should not have been abolished – Supreme Court finds termination illegal, noting that the University had the power to abolish a department but not a post sanctioned by the UGC – Orders reinstatement with benefits for pension and retiral purposes [Paras 1-28].

Contractual Nature of Appointment – University’s Actions – Appellant's appointment was not contractual, as evidenced by the regular payment of increments – Supreme Court observes that the University misrepresented the status of the Department and the post to the UGC – Notes that the University had requested continued funding for the post under the Eleventh Plan, contradicting their claim of abolition [Paras 14-24].

UGC Expert Committee – Recommendations – Supreme Court relies on the findings of the UGC’s Expert Committee, which recommended the appellant's reinstatement, describing his termination as "perverse and incorrect" – Emphasizes the absence of any objections from the University to the Committee’s recommendations [Paras 21-26].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment set aside – University directed to reinstate the appellant as Assistant Professor with continuity of service for pension and retiral benefits – No back pay awarded due to the principle of "no work, no pay" – Appellant entitled to notional salary fixation and benefits if similarly situated individuals received them [Paras 27-28].

Conviction under Section 397 IPC – Requirement of Use of Deadly Weapon – Appellants challenge their convictions for not personally using deadly weapons during the commission of the robbery – Supreme Court upholds the need for the individual offender to have used the deadly weapon to be convicted under Section 397 IPC – Convictions under Section 397 IPC set aside, appellants convicted under Section 391 IPC punishable under Section 395 IPC instead [Paras 1-18].

Evidence and Identification – Procedural and Evidentiary Issues – Court analyzes the credibility and consistency of witness testimonies, including identification and the non-conduct of a Test Identification Parade (TIP) – Holds that despite procedural lapses, the identification by witnesses and corroborative evidence suffices to maintain convictions under Section 395 IPC [Paras 6-12].

Impact of Acquittal of Co-Accused – Argument for Benefit of Acquittal – Appellants argue for acquittal based on the subsequent acquittal of a co-accused tried separately – Supreme Court rejects this argument, emphasizing independent assessment of each case based on its evidence and findings – Acquittal of one accused does not automatically benefit others when evidence against them is strong [Paras 17-18].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – Convictions under Section 397 IPC set aside – Appellants convicted under Section 391 IPC punishable under Section 395 IPC, sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000/- each, with an additional six months rigorous imprisonment in default of payment [Para 18].

Bail under UAPA – Mens Rea Requirement – Appellant challenges the denial of bail, arguing that mere association with a terrorist organization is insufficient for offenses under Sections 38 and 39 of UAPA without proving intent to further terrorist activities – Supreme Court agrees, emphasizing that the accused must have associated with the organization with the intention to further its activities – Mere possession of materials related to CPI (Maoist) does not automatically imply such intent [Paras 1-34].

Stringent Bail Conditions – Section 43D(5) UAPA – The court reiterates that the stringent conditions for bail under Section 43D(5) apply only to offenses under Chapters IV and VI of UAPA – Since the accused was charged under Sections 13, 38, and 39, normal bail provisions apply for Section 13, and the prosecution must demonstrate reasonable grounds for believing the accusations under Sections 38 and 39 are prima facie true [Paras 17-21].

Procedural Lapses and Timely Communication – The importance of timely communication and consideration of bail applications, especially under preventive detention laws, is underscored – The court notes procedural lapses in the case and emphasizes the need for expeditious handling of such matters to uphold the rights of the accused [Paras 23-24].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court's judgment set aside – Special Court's order granting bail to the accused restored – Accused to complete bail formalities within one week – Observations made are limited to bail considerations and do not influence the trial [Paras 40-42].

Cheque Issued as Security – Legal Enforceability – Appellant challenges the High Court's discharge of the respondent under Section 420 IPC while maintaining the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act – Supreme Court emphasizes that a cheque issued as security can still be presented for payment if the debt becomes due and is not repaid by other means – Court distinguishes between cheques issued as security and those for discharge of legally recoverable debt [Paras 1-18].

Discharge from Criminal Proceedings – Section 420 IPC – Supreme Court agrees with the High Court's conclusion that mere dishonour of a cheque issued as security does not constitute cheating under Section 420 IPC, as there is no sufficient evidence of mens rea – Upholds the discharge under Section 420 IPC [Para 11].

Maintainability under Section 138 of NI Act – Security Cheque – Court clarifies that the issuance of a cheque as security does not preclude its presentation for payment once the debt is due – Cites previous judgments to support that a security cheque can attract Section 138 of the NI Act if the loan remains unpaid and the cheque is dishonoured [Paras 12-22].

Decision: Appeals allowed in part – High Court's order discharging the respondent under Section 420 IPC upheld – Order setting aside the proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act reversed – Complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act restored for trial – Trial court to consider the evidence independently without being influenced by observations in this judgment [Paras 23-24].

Rectification of GST Returns – Mechanism and Restrictions – Appellant challenges the High Court's decision allowing the rectification of Form GSTR-3B for past periods – Supreme Court emphasizes that the law permits rectification of errors and omissions only at the initial stages of Forms GSTR-1 and GSTR-3 but in a specified manner – Once Form GSTR-3B is submitted, any changes thereto may have a cascading effect, and thus unilateral rectification by the assessee is not permissible [Paras 1-50].

Impact of Auto-Populated Records – Changes from Pre-GST Period – Court notes that the GST regime introduced auto-populated records and entries, a different dispensation from the pre-GST period which did not have such provisions – Allowing changes contrary to the statutory mandate would lead to chaotic situations and collapse of the tax administration of Union, States, and Union Territories [Paras 39-50].

Procedural Safeguards – Judicial Accountability – Supreme Court criticizes the High Court's decision for not adhering to the statutory provisions – Holds that the stipulations in the Circular No. 26/26/2017-GST dated 29.12.2017 are consistent with the provisions of the CGST Act and the Rules framed thereunder – No necessity of reading down paragraph 4 of the Circular as done by the High Court [Paras 50-52].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment and order set aside – Writ petition filed by the respondent dismissed – No order as to costs – Applications disposed of [Para 52].

Senior Advocate Designation – Withdrawal of Privilege – Petitioner challenges the withdrawal of his Senior Advocate designation by the Gujarat High Court, arguing that the decision was disproportionate and failed to consider his long-standing service and contributions – Supreme Court notes the petitioner’s history of transgressions and balances the need for maintaining decorum with giving one final chance for redemption [Paras 1-13].

Contempt of Court – Repeated Misconduct – Petitioner made serious allegations against the judiciary and circulated them publicly, leading to contempt proceedings and withdrawal of his Senior Advocate designation – Supreme Court observes that the petitioner’s actions showed a pattern of misbehavior, but still grants a conditional restoration of designation for a limited period to test his conduct [Paras 2-10].

Restoration of Designation – Conditional Grant – Court decides to temporarily restore the petitioner’s Senior Advocate designation for two years starting from January 1, 2022 – During this period, the Gujarat High Court will monitor his conduct and has the discretion to withdraw the designation permanently if any misconduct is observed – Emphasizes that the petitioner’s future conduct will determine the final decision on his designation [Paras 11-13].

Decision: Writ petition disposed of with directions – Temporary restoration of Senior Advocate designation for two years from January 1, 2022 – Gujarat High Court to monitor and decide on permanent restoration based on petitioner’s conduct – No costs awarded [Para 13].

Waqf Act – Jurisdiction of Civil Court – Suit for Permanent Injunction – High Court’s decision that civil courts can entertain suits for permanent injunction even if they pertain to waqf properties challenged – Supreme Court holds that as per Section 85, any dispute related to waqf properties falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of Waqf Tribunals – High Court’s ruling set aside – Appeal allowed [Paras 1-24].

Section 83 of Waqf Act – Tribunal’s Authority – It is well established that Section 83(1) mandates Waqf Tribunals to determine any disputes, questions, or matters related to waqf properties – Civil courts do not have jurisdiction to entertain such matters – Clarifies scope of Tribunal’s authority and exclusivity [Paras 25-30].

Precedent and Statutory Interpretation – Examination of historical legislative amendments and prior case law affirming Tribunal’s jurisdiction – Noted that any decision regarding waqf property disputes must be directed to the Waqf Tribunal – Emphasis on consistent statutory interpretation to avoid jurisdictional conflict [Paras 31-35].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Held – Judgment of High Court reversed – Suit for permanent injunction to be tried by Waqf Tribunal – Civil court’s jurisdiction barred in matters involving waqf properties as per Section 85 of the Waqf Act [Para 36].

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Termination of Daily Wagers – Appellants employed on daily wage basis terminated without compliance with Section 25F – Industrial Tribunal declared termination void and ordered reinstatement with 50% back wages – High Court set aside the Award, holding appointments were irregular and not entitled to protection under Section 25F – Supreme Court held termination of workmen, despite irregular appointments, is retrenchment under Section 2(oo) and requires compliance with Section 25F – Reinstatement not automatic; reasonable compensation awarded [Paras 1-32, 36-42].

Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act – Conditions Precedent to Retrenchment – Mandatory compliance required for workmen in continuous service for over 240 days – Non-observance renders termination void – Relief not automatically reinstatement but can be monetary compensation based on case facts [Paras 22-25, 30-31, 33-34].

Compensation in Lieu of Reinstatement – Considering nature of service and duration, Supreme Court awarded Rs. 2,50,000/- as lump sum compensation to each appellant instead of reinstatement with back wages – Compensation deemed just and reasonable given the circumstances [Paras 42-44].

Decision – Appeals partly allowed – Impugned judgment of High Court set aside – Award of Industrial Tribunal modified to grant lump sum compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- to each appellant within three months [Para 44].