Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Onerous Conditions – The High Court granted anticipatory bail to the appellant with the condition to file a joint affidavit with the complainant, undertaking to fulfill all physical and financial requirements of the complainant – The Supreme Court criticized the imposition of such impractical and onerous conditions, stating they could be counterproductive and undermine the purpose of ensuring a fair trial – The Court reiterated that conditions imposed during bail should be practical, ensuring the presence of the accused while preserving human dignity [Paras 4-9].

Constitutional Law – Personal Liberty – Article 21 – The Court emphasized that the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be encumbered with unreasonable and impracticable conditions, as these could make the grant of bail illusory – Such conditions must be proportionate and directly related to the need for ensuring the presence of the accused and the smooth conduct of the investigation [Paras 5-7].

Decision: The appeal was allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the specific conditions imposed by the High Court, making the grant of bail absolute and subject to standard conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

Taxation Law – VAT and Taxable Turnover – Appeal concerning the computation of taxable turnover under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (GVAT Act) – Dispute over whether VAT paid and purchases on which no tax credit was claimed should be included in the taxable turnover – High Court and Tribunal ruled in favor of excluding these amounts – Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts’ decisions, holding that the purchase price, as defined under Section 2(18) of the GVAT Act, is exhaustive and does not include VAT unless expressly provided – Emphasized strict interpretation of tax statutes under Article 265 of the Constitution, which prohibits taxation without clear legislative authority [Paras 1-20].

Interpretation of Statutes – Definition of ‘Purchase Price’ – Definition under Section 2(18) of GVAT Act held to be exhaustive – Purchase price includes only the amounts specifically enumerated in the statute, excluding VAT – Courts cannot expand the scope of taxation by interpretation – Principles of strict interpretation of taxing statutes applied [Paras 11-17].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Tribunal and High Court judgments upheld – VAT and unclaimed tax credits excluded from taxable turnover – Transfer Cases allowed in light of the decision [Paras 18-21].

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Imposition of Onerous Conditions – The High Court granted provisional pre-arrest bail with a condition that the appellant must file an affidavit undertaking to fulfill all physical and financial requirements of the complainant-wife to enable her to lead a dignified life without interference from his family members – Supreme Court held that such a condition is impractical and counter-productive, likely to exacerbate discord rather than promote reconciliation – The Court stressed that conditions imposed while granting bail should be reasonable and not infringe upon the accused's right to a dignified life [Paras 1-9].

Matrimonial Disputes – Role of Courts in Facilitating Reconciliation – The Court emphasized the importance of creating a conducive environment for reconciliation in matrimonial disputes, where both parties should regain mutual respect and affection – Onerous conditions like fulfilling all physical and financial requirements of the spouse might only worsen the situation and hinder any chance of reconciliation [Paras 8-9].

Decision:

Appeal allowed in part – The onerous conditions imposed by the High Court for the grant of provisional bail were set aside – Bail made absolute on the same terms stipulated by the High Court, except for the disputed condition – The matter will continue to be subject to the final outcome of the pending complaint case.

Criminal Law – Vicarious Liability – Complaint Quashing: Complaint filed by National Housing Bank alleging violations under Section 29A of the National Housing Bank Act against the company and its directors – High Court quashed the complaint for non-compliance with the requirements similar to those in Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act – Supreme Court held that the complaint lacked specific averments regarding the directors’ responsibility for the company’s conduct, as required under Section 50 of the National Housing Bank Act – Complaint quashed against directors but maintained against the company and its managing director [Paras 1-9].

Interpretation of Statutes – Section 50 of the National Housing Bank Act – Pari Materia with Section 141 of the NI Act: Court emphasized that specific averments must be made in the complaint to establish that directors were responsible for the conduct of the business at the time of the offence – Absence of such averments renders the complaint insufficient to attract vicarious liability [Paras 4-7].

Managing Director’s Liability: Complaint upheld against the managing director based on his position and inherent responsibilities for the company’s business – Managing director’s role assumes responsibility, thereby meeting the statutory requirements [Para 8].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Complaint quashed against directors (third to seventh accused) but maintained against the company and its managing director (first and second accused) – Complaint to proceed according to law against the remaining accused [Para 9].
 

Compassionate Appointment – Fraudulent Documents – Appointments on compassionate grounds obtained through forged and fabricated documents – Disciplinary authority’s decision to terminate services upheld by Tribunal – High Court’s order reversing Tribunal quashed – Supreme Court reiterates the principle that fraud vitiates all proceedings, including appointments based on compassionate grounds [Paras 1-16].

Natural Justice – Show Cause Notice and Opportunity to Respond – Adequate opportunity provided to respondents – Respondents’ failure to produce genuine documents or satisfactorily respond to show cause notices – Supreme Court finds no violation of principles of natural justice [Paras 7-10].

Fraud – Effect on Legal Proceedings – Fraudulent conduct leading to appointments on false grounds – Supreme Court emphasizes that fraudulent actions nullify any benefits obtained – Reiterates that persons obtaining employment through fraud cannot claim constitutional protections under Article 311 [Paras 13-15].

Disciplinary Proceedings vs. Criminal Proceedings – Departmental and criminal proceedings can proceed simultaneously – Observations in the present judgment are specific to the service dismissal and do not influence the criminal proceedings pending in relevant courts [Paras 12, 15].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Orders of the High Court set aside – Tribunal’s dismissal of respondent-employees’ applications restored – No bearing on ongoing criminal proceedings – Costs made easy [Paras 15-17].

Compassionate Appointment – Fraudulent Documents – Appointments on compassionate grounds obtained through forged and fabricated documents – Disciplinary authority’s decision to terminate services upheld by Tribunal – High Court’s order reversing Tribunal quashed – Supreme Court reiterates the principle that fraud vitiates all proceedings, including appointments based on compassionate grounds [Paras 1-16]. 

Natural Justice – Show Cause Notice and Opportunity to Respond – Adequate opportunity provided to respondents – Respondents’ failure to produce genuine documents or satisfactorily respond to show cause notices – Supreme Court finds no violation of principles of natural justice [Paras 7-10]. 

Fraud – Effect on Legal Proceedings – Fraudulent conduct leading to appointments on false grounds – Supreme Court emphasizes that fraudulent actions nullify any benefits obtained – Reiterates that persons obtaining employment through fraud cannot claim constitutional protections under Article 311 [Paras 13-15]. 

Disciplinary Proceedings vs. Criminal Proceedings – Departmental and criminal proceedings can proceed simultaneously – Observations in the present judgment are specific to the service dismissal and do not influence the criminal proceedings pending in relevant courts [Paras 12, 15]. 

Decision: Appeals allowed – Orders of the High Court set aside – Tribunal’s dismissal of respondent-employees’ applications restored – No bearing on ongoing criminal proceedings – Costs made easy [Paras 15-17]. 

Criminal Law – Vicarious Liability – Complaint Quashing: Complaint filed by National Housing Bank alleging violations under Section 29A of the National Housing Bank Act against the company and its directors – High Court quashed the complaint for non-compliance with the requirements similar to those in Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act – Supreme Court held that the complaint lacked specific averments regarding the directors’ responsibility for the company’s conduct, as required under Section 50 of the National Housing Bank Act – Complaint quashed against directors but maintained against the company and its managing director [Paras 1-9]. 

Interpretation of Statutes – Section 50 of the National Housing Bank Act – Pari Materia with Section 141 of the NI Act: Court emphasized that specific averments must be made in the complaint to establish that directors were responsible for the conduct of the business at the time of the offence – Absence of such averments renders the complaint insufficient to attract vicarious liability [Paras 4-7]. 

Managing Director’s Liability: Complaint upheld against the managing director based on his position and inherent responsibilities for the company’s business – Managing director’s role assumes responsibility, thereby meeting the statutory requirements [Para 8]. 

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Complaint quashed against directors (third to seventh accused) but maintained against the company and its managing director (first and second accused) – Complaint to proceed according to law against the remaining accused [Para 9]. 

MSME Restructuring Obligations – Notification Compliance – Appellants, registered MSMEs, challenged the High Court’s ruling which stated that Banks/NBFCs were not obliged to follow restructuring processes as per the Notification dated 29^th May, 2015, unless MSMEs applied for it – Supreme Court held that the Notification and RBI Directions have statutory force, requiring compliance before classifying MSME accounts as NPAs [Paras 1-19].

Banking Regulation Act and SARFAESI Act Interplay – Directions issued by RBI under Sections 21 and 35A of the Banking Regulation Act are mandatory – Banks must follow the RBI’s Directions and the MSMED Act Notification for MSME account classification and restructuring before initiating actions under the SARFAESI Act [Paras 13-19].

Notification and MSME Rights – Notification dated 29^th May, 2015 mandates banks to identify stress in MSME accounts and follow specific procedures for revival and rehabilitation – MSMEs must provide authenticated documents to avail benefits [Paras 10-17].

High Court Decision Overturned – High Court’s order dismissing writ petitions without addressing merits and factual aspects is set aside – Appellants may pursue alternative legal remedies [Paras 18-19].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court’s order set aside – Appellants granted liberty to seek alternative legal remedies.

Criminal Law – Vicarious Liability – Complaint Quashing: Complaint filed by National Housing Bank alleging violations under Section 29A of the National Housing Bank Act against the company and its directors – High Court quashed the complaint for non-compliance with the requirements similar to those in Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act – Supreme Court held that the complaint lacked specific averments regarding the directors’ responsibility for the company’s conduct, as required under Section 50 of the National Housing Bank Act – Complaint quashed against directors but maintained against the company and its managing director [Paras 1-9].

Interpretation of Statutes – Section 50 of the National Housing Bank Act – Pari Materia with Section 141 of the NI Act: Court emphasized that specific averments must be made in the complaint to establish that directors were responsible for the conduct of the business at the time of the offence – Absence of such averments renders the complaint insufficient to attract vicarious liability [Paras 4-7].

Managing Director’s Liability: Complaint upheld against the managing director based on his position and inherent responsibilities for the company’s business – Managing director’s role assumes responsibility, thereby meeting the statutory requirements [Para 8].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Complaint quashed against directors (third to seventh accused) but maintained against the company and its managing director (first and second accused) – Complaint to proceed according to law against the remaining accused [Para 9].