Facts:The appellants were initially engaged on a daily-wage basis in August 1993 and later appointed on a contractual basis in 1996. They were eventually appointed as regular employees on the minimum pay scale in 2000 and conferred temporary employee status with retrospective effect from October 1, 2002, in 2006. Despite a direction from the High Court to consider their regularization, their services were terminated in 2014.

Issues:

Whether the appellants' appointments were illegal or irregular.

Whether the appellants were entitled to regularization of their services.

Whether the termination of the appellants' services was justified.

Held:The court held that the appellants' appointments were irregular but not illegal. They were entitled to regularization as they had completed ten years of service, and temporary status had been conferred on them with retrospective effect. The court emphasized the need to adhere to fair employment practices and ordered the regularization of the appellants' services from October 2, 2002. The court also directed the payment of consequential benefits and arrears of pay within three months. The impugned judgment and the order terminating the services of the appellants were quashed, and the appeal was allowed.

Facts:

The State of Tamil Nadu sought clarification of an Order dated 11 July 2017 regarding directions issued in a judgment delivered on 15 December 2016. The directions aimed to regulate the sale of liquor along national and state highways, including stretches within municipal areas. Subsequently, modifications were made to allow a reduction in the distance for liquor shops in certain areas.

Issues:

The interpretation and implementation of the directions issued by the Supreme Court regarding the prohibition of liquor sale along highways and within municipal areas.

Held:

The Court clarified that its directions were aimed at restricting liquor sale along highways connecting cities, towns, and villages, not within municipal areas. It upheld the validity of the notification issued by the Chandigarh administration re-classifying certain roads within the city. The Court's observations emphasized that licensed establishments within municipal areas were not prohibited by the directions. This clarification applied to all municipal areas, not just Chandigarh. The Interlocutory Applications seeking clarification were disposed of accordingly.

Facts:

The incident involved a shooting on 12.12.1999, during a dispute over the sale of paddy.

Jairnail Singh allegedly shot and injured Akbar Ali.

The Trial Court convicted Jairnail Singh based on eyewitness testimony and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment.

The High Court reversed the Trial Court's decision, citing discrepancies and infirmities in the prosecution's case.

Issues:

Whether the High Court erred in reversing the Trial Court's decision.

Whether the discrepancies pointed out by the High Court were material and justified the acquittal.

Held:

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to acquit Jairnail Singh.

The High Court's reasoning, which highlighted significant infirmities in the prosecution's case, was deemed just and proper.

The Supreme Court emphasized that unless the appellate court's decision is based on no evidence or perverse reasoning, it would not interfere with the decision.

Since the High Court provided cogent reasons for reversing the Trial Court's decision and acquitted the accused after carefully considering the evidence, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the State, affirming the acquittal of Jairnail Singh.

Facts:

Union of India sought the transfer of Writ Petition (Civil) No. 15798 of 2009 from the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad to the Supreme Court under Article 139(A) of the Constitution.

The Writ Petition challenged the constitutional validity of The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act 2006 (Act No. 2 of 2007).

A similar Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 50 of 2008, was already pending before the Supreme Court, challenging the same Act.

Issues:

Whether the proceedings from the High Court should be transferred to the Supreme Court due to the similarity of issues raised in the pending Writ Petition.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that since there is already a substantive Writ Petition under Article 32 challenging the same Act pending before it, and considering the similarity of issues raised in both petitions, the proceedings from the High Court should be transferred to the Supreme Court.

This decision is based on the principle of judicial economy and avoiding conflicting judgments on the same issue. This is evident from para 5 of the judgment, where the Court states, "Since a substantive Writ Petition under Article 32 is pending before this Court where the vires of the same central statute is in issue, we accede to the prayer for transfer of the proceedings pending before the High Court to this Court." The Transfer Petition is accordingly disposed of.

Facts:

The matter was initially before a two-Judge Bench but was referred to a Constitution Bench.

The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) sought to be impleaded as a party respondent.

The Chief Justice of India constituted the Constitution Bench.

Reference was made to the principle established in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Prakash Chand, affirming the Chief Justice's authority in constituting benches and allocating cases.

Issues:

The authority of the Chief Justice of India in constituting benches and allocating cases.

Held:

The principle that the Chief Justice of India is the master of the roster, with the authority to constitute benches and allocate cases. It was emphasized that no bench, whether of two or three judges, could direct the composition of a bench or allocate a matter to itself. The importance of following established principles, rules, and conventions to ensure the smooth functioning of the court was stressed. Any orders contrary to this principle were deemed ineffective and not binding on the Chief Justice of India. The specific matter at hand was directed to be listed before an appropriate bench allocated by the Chief Justice of India.

Facts:

In the early hours of October 20, 2009, a police patrol party encountered a vehicle moving towards them. The driver fled upon seeing the patrol party.

During the subsequent search of the vehicle, contraband charas was found, along with the appellant's bank passbook.

The appellant was arrested and tried. The trial court acquitted him, but the High Court reversed the acquittal on appeal.

Issues:

The crucial issue revolved around the identification of the appellant as the driver who fled the scene.

The sufficiency of evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Concerns regarding the quality of the investigation.

Held:

The identification of the appellant as the driver who fled the scene was a sine qua non for proving the charge against him.

The evidence regarding identification was not deemed sufficient. Witness testimonies were not entirely convincing, and there was no test identification parade conducted. The recovery of the appellant's bank passbook from the vehicle was not deemed sufficient evidence to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The standard of proof required in criminal trials was emphasized. Mere suspicion cannot replace solid evidence, and the prosecution must prove its case convincingly.

The appellate court has the power to review and reconsider evidence, but it should respect the trial court's findings unless there are sound, cogent, and persuasive reasons to overturn them.

Concerns were expressed about the quality of the investigation, urging authorities to inquire into the lapses and take appropriate action to prevent similar shortcomings in the future.

Decision: The appeal was allowed, the appellant's acquittal was restored, and the concerns regarding the investigation were highlighted for further action.

Facts:

The case revolved around a notification dated April 25, 2007, which provided an exemption from excise duty for goods cleared from the north-eastern states. The notification specified that the assessee would be entitled to a refund of duty paid, except for the duty paid by utilizing CENVAT credit under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Education Cess and Higher Education Cess were imposed as surcharges on excise duty by the Finance Act, 2004.

Issues:

Whether Education Cess and Higher Education Cess were refundable along with excise duty as per the notification.

Held:

The court referred to Circulars dated August 10, 2004, and April 8, 2011, which clarified that when the entire excise duty or service tax is exempted, even the Education Cess and Higher Education Cess would not be payable. These circulars were deemed binding on the department. (Para 15-20)

The court found it more rational to accept the position clarified by the Ministry of Finance in the circulars. Since Education Cess is a surcharge on excise duty, if there is no excise duty payable due to exemption, then there should not be any Education Cess either. Education Cess is calculated as a percentage of the duties of excise, and if the basic duty itself is nil, there cannot be any surcharge. (Para 21-23)

Decision: The appeals were allowed, and it was held that Education Cess and Higher Education Cess were refundable along with the excise duty as per the notification.

Facts:The appellant, Rohit Tandon, was accused of conspiring with a bank manager and a Chartered Accountant to convert black money from old currency notes into new currency notes, thereby making illegal profits. The prosecution alleged offenses under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA Act, following an FIR registered under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant's initial bail application was rejected by both the Sessions Court and the High Court. Subsequently, a second bail application was filed before the High Court along with an application for interim release on the grounds of his mother's serious illness. The interim release application was granted, considering factors such as the appellant's cooperation with the investigation, his prolonged incarceration, and his mother's health condition. However, the regular bail application was later withdrawn.

Issues:

Whether the reasons considered for interim release apply to the merits of the bail application, and whether the appellant has provided sufficient grounds to warrant bail under the PMLA Act.

Held:

The observations made while allowing interim release would have no bearing on the merits of the controversy (Para 23).

The appellant has not succeeded in persuading about the inapplicability of the threshold stipulation under Section 45 of the PMLA Act. The appellant is reluctant in disclosing the source from where such a huge value of demonetized currency and also new currency has been acquired by him. The prosecution is relying on statements of 26 witnesses/accused already recorded, out of which 7 were considered by the High Court. These statements are admissible in evidence, in view of Section 50 of the PMLA Act of 2002. The same makes out a formidable case about the involvement of the appellant in the commission of a serious offense of money laundering (Para 27).

The possession of such huge quantum of demonetized currency and new currency in the form of Rs. 2000 notes, without disclosing the source from where it is received and the purpose for which it is received, the appellant has failed to dispel the legal presumption that he was involved in money laundering and the property was proceeds of crime. There is no reason to interfere with the well-considered opinion of the Sessions Court and the High Court rejecting the prayer for grant of regular bail to the appellant (Para 28-29).

Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed.

Facts:

Maj. Gen. Manomoy Ganguly, VSM, sought promotion to the rank of Lieutenant General in the Army Medical Corps.

Despite his commendable academic and service record, he was initially not empanelled for promotion.

After redressal of certain assessments in his Annual Confidential Report (ACR), his profile improved, necessitating a fresh screening by the Review Special Promotion Board (SPB).

The Review SPB also did not empanel him, prompting him to approach the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) for relief.

Issues:

Whether the Review SPB's decision to not empanel Maj. Gen. Ganguly was justified.

Whether the allocation of marks by the SPB members was fair and based on the overall profile of the officer.

Held:

The Supreme Court affirmed the AFT's decision, dismissing the appeal by the Union of India.

The Court held that the SPB members failed to properly exercise their discretion in awarding marks, relying solely on ACR marks rather than considering the overall profile.

Incorrect information presented to the SPB members led to an unjust assessment of the respondent's profile.

The AFT's decision to direct a re-evaluation of the respondent's promotion considering his improved profile was justified.

The appeal was dismissed, directing the appellant to proceed with the AFT's directives promptly.

The judgment emphasized the importance of considering the overall profile of officers in promotion decisions and upheld fairness and equality principles under Article 14 of the Constitution.