Facts:

The action against the respondents was based on a 1986 order related to the Imports (Control) Order, 1986.

Import of goods by Obron Impex (Pvt.) Ltd. occurred in August 1997, after the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 came into effect.

The appellants sought to uphold the action based on the 1986 order, arguing for a savings clause under the 1992 Act.

Issues:

Whether the 1986 order could be sustained under the provisions of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992?

Whether the savings clause under Section 20 of the 1992 Act applies to the 1986 order?

Held:

The High Court correctly noted that the 1992 Act did not save the quasi-judicial order based on the 1986 order.

Any interpretation validating the 1986 order would be repugnant to the legislative intent of the 1992 Act.

The court concluded that the show cause notice issued against the respondents based on the 1986 order could not withstand judicial scrutiny.

Section 20 of the 1992 Act did not cover the 1986 order, and even the saving provision under the General Clauses Act was not applicable.

The quasi-judicial order passed under the repealed statutory order and act could not be saved, especially when it contradicted the spirit of the 1992 Act, which opened the import regime for the stated goods.

Facts:

The dispute involves two brothers, Suriaji and Gones, who were heirs to their grandfather's property. The grandfather had gifted one-half right in property 'M' to both Suriaji and Gones through a Gift Deed in 1913. The properties in dispute originally belonged to their grandfather, and subsequent transactions, including a sale deed in 1915 and a settlement deed in 1919, play a crucial role in the case. Gones, the appellant's predecessor, received his share until his death in December 1978.

Issues:

The appellants' claim for one-eighth share in property 'M' and one-fourth share in property 'B.' The exclusion of the appellants from a partition deed dated 13.03.1969 is challenged as null and void.

Held:

The court rejects the argument that Gones acquired title through the sale deed of 1915 and settlement deed of 1919, emphasizing his lack of objection during inventory proceedings and the absence of evidence regarding his receipt of income from the property (Para 50, 58, 61, 62, 63).

The court dismisses the appellants' claim, highlighting Gones' failure to raise objections during his lifetime and the absence of any challenge to the allotment of property to Shantibai (Para 64, 65, 67, 68).

The court discusses the concept of resulting trust and concludes that Gones did not become entitled as the owner under the documents of 1915 and 1919 (Para 64, 65, 67, 68).

The court considers the inventory proceedings, noting Gones' failure to protest or challenge the allotment to Shantibai, and suggests that Gones, by his conduct, acknowledged Shantibai's right to the property (Para 81, 82, 84, 85).

The court discusses legal principles related to abandonment, estoppel, and detrimental reliance, suggesting that Gones' conduct may be seen as abandonment, and there is no defense pleaded as to estoppel or abandonment (Para 87, 88).

Facts:

The appellant supplied commodities and rice bags to the respondent, who issued cheques subsequently dishonoured.

The appellant filed complaints under Section 138 alleging non-payment despite legal notices.

The trial court acquitted the respondent, finding the appellant's case inconsistent, and the High Court affirmed the acquittal.

Issues:

Whether the evidence presented is sufficient to raise the presumption under Section 139.

Whether the respondent successfully rebutted the presumption by evidence.

Whether the cheques were issued for a legally enforceable debt.

Held:

The evidence adduced by the complainant raised the presumption under Section 139.

The respondent's defense that cheques were not returned despite payment was unbelievable and unacceptable.

The High Court's decision to affirm acquittal was not sustainable.

The respondent was convicted under Section 138, and a fine of Rs. 2,97,150 was imposed.

Conclusion: The appeal was allowed, the respondent convicted under Section 138, and a fine imposed. The court emphasized the importance of the statutory presumption under Section 139 and the accused's responsibility to rebut it.

FACTS:

The appellant was removed from the position of Headmaster after allegations of misappropriation.

Two inquiries were conducted, and the High Court later quashed the removal order citing illegality in the second inquiry.

The appellant sought back wages, challenging the denial by the High Court.

ISSUES:

Legality of the termination.

Entitlement to back wages after reinstatement.

HELD:

The Court upheld the illegality of the second inquiry, emphasizing that reasons must be recorded for a fresh appointment of an inquiry officer. Citing CSHA University vs. BD Goyal, it stressed the duty to provide reasons in case of disagreement with the inquiry report.( Paragraph 8)

Referring to Hindustan Tin Works, the Court established the normal rule of granting full back wages in cases of wrongful termination. It acknowledged the financial situation of the Municipal Council but granted compensation of Rs 5 lakhs to the appellant in full and final settlement of his back-wages claim. It highlighted the discretionary power of the court to consider circumstances like length of service, nature of misconduct, and financial condition of the employer.( Paragraph 9-11)

Considering the impracticability of reopening proceedings after a long delay and the appellant's superannuation, the Court directed the payment of Rs 5 lakhs within two months. It clarified that this amount is in addition to the retiral benefits granted by the High Court.( Paragraph 12-14)

REFERRED CASES:

CSHA University vs. BD Goyal, (2010) 15 SCC 776

Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya ("Deepali Surwase"), (2013) 10 SCC 324

Hindustan Tin Works (P) Ltd vs. Employees ("Hindustan Tin Works"), (1979) 2 SCC 80

Indian Rly. Construction Co. Ltd. vs. Ajay Kumar, (2003) 4 SCC 579

P.G.I, of Medical Education & Research vs. Raj Kumar, (2001) 2 SCC 54

Surendra Kumar Verma vs. Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, (1980) 4 SCC 443

Susannah Sharp vs. Wakefield [(1891) AC 173

The State issued an advertisement for a departmental examination for the position of Land Records Inspector, and the dispute arose regarding the seniority of successful candidates. The appellants claimed their seniority based on the year in which the vacancies arose, leading to a legal challenge.

Facts:

The appellants appeared for the departmental examination on May 16, 2013.

Appointment orders were issued in 2012 for 80% seniority-cum-merit vacancies and in 2014 for the remaining 20% competitive exam vacancies.

A provisional seniority list issued on November 7, 2013, excluded the appellants.

Another seniority list on April 24, 2017, determined seniority as of April 1, 2014, placing the appellants below those promoted against vacancies arising after their promotional year.

The State ordered the removal of the appellants from the seniority list, treating them as appointed in 2014-15.

Issues:

The computation of seniority for Land Records Inspectors based on the year in which their vacancies arose.

Held:

The interplay between the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land Records) Rules 1957, particularly Rules 171-A, 347-A, and 347-B, with the Rajasthan Subordinate Services Rules of different years, is crucial. Rule 347-A indicates that conditions of service are governed by enumerated rules, including the 1960 Rules, unless otherwise provided in the 1957 Rules.( Para 24)

Rule 171-A(2) prior to its October 2014 amendment contemplated determining seniority based on continuous officiation. The amendment changed it to determine seniority based on the recruitment year of promotion.( Para 26)

Part V of the 2001 Rules does not comprehend a limited competitive examination for accelerated promotion. Rule 35, applicable to promotions, has no relevance in the context of accelerated promotion through a limited competitive examination.( Para 29)

The deeming fiction in Rule 35(6) of the 2001 Rules, applicable to promotions made under a departmental promotion committee (DPC), does not extend to candidates recruited through a competitive examination for accelerated promotion.( Para 30)

Retrospective seniority cannot be granted from a date when the employee was not borne on a cadre. Seniority must be counted from the date of initial entry into the grade.( Para 31)

The 1960 Rules give way to Rule 171-A(2) of the 1957 Rules, which determines seniority based on continuous officiation.( Para 34)

Rule 347-B of the 1957 Rules does not aid the appellants, and the 1972 Rules mentioned in Rule 347-B have no application to the present case governed by Rule 284 of the 1957 Rules.( Para 35)

Facts:

The first respondent joined the school on probation for one year on July 1, 2008, but continued as a probationer for almost five years until being discharged on June 30, 2013.

Issues:

Whether the words "by another year" appearing in Rule 105(1) limit the total duration of permissible probation to two years.

Whether the 1973 Rules require the issuance of an order of confirmation for a probationer to be confirmed in service.

Held:

Interpretation of Rule 105(1) – "by another year": 1.1 The words "by another year" imply an extension of the probationary period by one additional year over and above the mandatory year, making the total probationary period two years. 1.2 Rule 105(1) imposes a limitation on the total probationary period to two years, with the first proviso exempting minority institutions from the Director's prior approval. (Para 23-33)

Confirmation of Service and Rule 105(2): 2.1 Rule 105(2) stipulates that an order of confirmation may be issued if the work and conduct of the employee during the probationary period are found satisfactory. 2.2 The mere continuation of services beyond the probationary period does not lead to deemed confirmation. Confirmation requires the issuance of a formal order. (Para 35-38)

Decision and Award of Compensation: The High Court's decision of deeming confirmation was set aside. However, due to the prolonged probationary period, the court awarded ex-gratia compensation of Rs. 5,00,000 to the first respondent under its power under Article 142 of the Constitution. (Para 47-48)

Facts:

The Government of Kerala, in 1972, specified qualifications for the post of Health Inspector/Food Inspector Grade-II.

In 2014, KPSC advertised vacancies for Junior Health Inspector Grade-II, including the Sanitary Inspectors' Certificate. Candidates with a DHIC qualification were included in shortlists.

A Committee conducted a comparative study of DHIC and SIDC, concluding that DHIC is a higher qualification.

Tribunal and High Court held that there was a clear distinction between qualifications for the same post in different departments.

Issues:

Interpretation of Rule 10(a)(ii) concerning the recognition of DHIC as a higher qualification.

Whether DHIC presupposes the completion of the certificate course.

Held:

The Supreme Court observed that none of the conditions stipulated in Rule 10(a)(ii) were fulfilled. It emphasized the lack of a determination of equivalence by any executive order or standing order of the State Government and the absence of a finding that DHIC presupposes the acquisition of the lower qualification. The Court distinguished a previous case (Jyoti K K) and concluded that the judgment of the High Court did not suffer from error. The appeals were dismissed.

Facts:

The respondent, Dilip Mulani, was accused of offenses related to bribery and corruption, particularly involving SAD refund claim cheques and illegal gratification. The Trial Court had rejected Mulani's discharge application, finding a prima facie case against him. However, the High Court set aside this decision, stating there was no prima facie evidence of criminal conspiracy and insufficient proof against Mulani.

Issues:

The sufficiency of evidence for criminal conspiracy, illegal gratification, and bribery charges. The Trial Court found a prima facie case, while the High Court held that the evidence presented was insufficient.

Held:

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, deeming it unacceptable. It emphasized that the High Court failed to properly analyze the factual aspects and merely concluded that there was no evidence against Dilip Mulani. The case was remanded to the High Court for reconsideration on its merits, and the Supreme Court clarified that it did not express an opinion on the discharge application's merits.

The Supreme Court found the High Court's approach unacceptable and not meeting the standards of judicial scrutiny.( Paragraph No. 10)

The case was remanded to the High Court for reconsideration of the Criminal Revision Application on its own merits in accordance with the law.( Paragraph No. 11)

Facts:

The appellants, village assistants, were charged with demanding illegal gratification for facilitating the transfer of an electric connection.

P.W.2 filed a complaint against the village administrative officer for demanding Rs. 600 for signing necessary papers.

The money was allegedly handed over to one of the appellants on the village administrative officer's instruction.

Issues:

Whether the appellants were involved in the demand for illegal gratification.

Validity of the defense's claim that money was received in the belief it was payment for land tax arrears.

Held:

Sufficient evidence established a prima facie case against the appellants.

The appellants were in league with the village administrative officer.

The defense's claim of receiving money for land tax arrears was belied by canceled taxation for the relevant period.

Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act creates a presumption, and the acquittal under Section 7 is inconsequential.

The appeals were dismissed, and the appellants were directed to surrender for serving the remaining sentence.