Civil Procedure – Second Appeal – High Court allowed second appeal without formulating a substantial question of law – Supreme Court held that formulation of substantial question of law is a sine qua non for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC – Judgment of High Court set aside for non-compliance [Paras 8-17].

Substantial Question of Law – Necessity – High Court must formulate substantial question of law before hearing and deciding second appeal – Jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC restricted to such questions – Non-compliance renders judgment unsustainable [Paras 9-11].

Precedents – Jurisdictional Constraints – Reiterated long line of decisions emphasizing mandatory requirement for formulation of substantial question of law – High Court’s decision without such formulation patently illegal [Paras 10-11].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment set aside – Second appeal restored for fresh consideration in accordance with law – No order as to costs [Paras 16-17].

Statutory Interpretation – Advocates' Right to Practice – Advocates Act, 1961 grants statutory and fundamental right to practice law – Section 129(6) of Customs Act imposes restriction on former members of CESTAT from appearing before it – Supreme Court held that such restriction is reasonable and does not violate Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 – Intended to maintain judicial integrity and public confidence in tribunal’s impartiality [Paras 1-20].

Reasonableness of Restrictions – Court analyzed restrictions under Article 19(6) – Found restriction on former CESTAT members' practice reasonable and aimed at preventing potential bias – Emphasized public interest and need for maintaining standards in legal profession – Distinguished between absolute and partial restrictions, deeming Section 129(6) as partial and reasonable [Paras 7-11, 16-20].

Legislative Competence – No challenge to legislative competence of Parliament to amend Customs Act – Emphasis on harmonious construction of statutes – Bar on practicing before CESTAT does not conflict with right to practice law generally – Advocates free to practice in other forums and tribunals [Paras 20-23].

Judicial Precedents – Reference to various cases upholding similar restrictions in different professions and contexts – Reiterated principle that right to practice is subject to reasonable restrictions – Cited judgments illustrating balance between individual rights and public interest [Paras 21-23].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – High Court’s decision upheld – Restriction under Section 129(6) of Customs Act deemed reasonable and valid – No costs awarded [Paras 53].

Criminal Law – Conviction based on Dying Declaration – Appellant convicted for murder of wife based on dying declaration – Deceased alleged that appellant poured kerosene and set her ablaze – Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC – High Court affirmed – Supreme Court upheld conviction – Dying declaration found reliable and corroborated by medical and circumstantial evidence [Paras 1-24].

Evidence – Dying Declaration – Reliability – Dying declaration recorded by Executive Magistrate and witnessed by doctor – No substantial infirmity found – Consistent statements by deceased in multiple dying declarations – Admissible under Section 32 of Evidence Act – Statements made in extremity considered truthful [Paras 5-16].

Hostile Witnesses – Evidentiary Value – Prosecution witnesses turned hostile – Court relied on part of their testimony supporting prosecution – Consistent with other reliable evidence – Hostile witnesses' statements can be partially relied upon if corroborated [Paras 19-22].

Defense – False Affidavit – Defense presented an affidavit allegedly sworn by deceased – Court found affidavit unreliable and possibly fabricated – Discrepancies and contradictions in defense witnesses’ statements – Defense failed to discredit dying declaration [Paras 23-24].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence of life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC upheld – Dying declaration considered truthful, voluntary, and corroborated by medical and circumstantial evidence [Para 24].

Contracts – Memorandum of Understanding – Appellant and State Government entered into MOU on May 15, 2002, for setting up a steel plant – State Government's later demand for a fresh MOU deemed arbitrary – Original MOU acted upon by both parties – High Court's ruling requiring fresh MOU set aside [Paras 1-24, 30-34].

Administrative Law – Legitimate Expectation – State Government's requirement for a fresh MOU during subsistence of original MOU arbitrary and unreasonable – Appellant altered position to detriment based on original MOU – Legitimate expectation of the appellant to be recommended for mining lease upheld [Paras 31-34].

Mining Law – Rule 59 MC Rules – Application for mining lease made under Rule 59(2) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 – State Government's rejection of application and recommendation of other applicants in violation of Rule 59(1) – Appellants entitled to similar benefits as other applicants [Paras 28, 33-34].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment and State Government's decision rejecting appellant's application for mining lease set aside – State directed to act in accordance with MOU dated May 15, 2002, and recommend appellant for grant of mining lease to Central Government [Para 34].

Criminal Law – Compounding of Offences – Petitioners sought quashing of criminal proceedings on basis of a compromise reached with complainant banks – Supreme Court held that non-compoundable offences could not be quashed merely due to settlement – Emphasis on the criminal intent of petitioners rather than the civil aspect of dues – Writ petition dismissed [Paras 1-22].

Inherent Powers – Scope of Section 482 CrPC and Article 142 – Powers to quash proceedings are not restricted by the non-compoundable nature of the offence but should be used sparingly – Precedents indicate that such powers must be exercised only in special circumstances to prevent abuse of process of law [Paras 9-18].

Judicial Precedents – Application and Interpretation – Reference to prior cases like Nikhil Merchant, B.S. Joshi, and Manoj Sharma where criminal proceedings were quashed due to settlements – Distinction made between cases involving primarily civil disputes with criminal aspects and cases with predominant criminal intent [Paras 10-17].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – High Court’s decision upheld – Emphasis on the criminal intent of the petitioners and the lack of sufficient grounds to quash proceedings despite the compromise – No costs awarded [Paras 21-22].

Criminal Law – FIR and Delay – The promptness in lodging the FIR provides assurance of the informant's version – Delay can introduce colored versions and concocted stories – FIR lodged promptly within two hours in this case considered reliable [Paras 11-12].

Bail – Anticipatory Bail – Distinction between regular bail (Section 439) and anticipatory bail (Section 438) – Anticipatory bail is an extraordinary privilege and should be granted only in exceptional cases – Court must ensure compliance with the conditions laid down in Section 438 CrPC [Paras 7-8, 13-14].

Judicial Discretion – Exercise of Discretion – Judicial discretion must be guided by law and cannot be arbitrary or fanciful – High Court's discretion in granting anticipatory bail was deemed improper due to the gravity of the offense and lack of proper application of mind [Paras 13, 21].

Judicial Discipline – Parameters for Anticipatory Bail – Court emphasized that anticipatory bail can only be granted where the applicant is falsely implicated and will not misuse the liberty – High Court failed to consider the gravity of the offense and the spontaneous nature of the FIR [Paras 17-18, 21].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court's orders granting anticipatory bail set aside – Anticipatory bail granted to respondents canceled – High Court to consider any future bail applications in accordance with law [Para 22].

Habeas Corpus – Custody Disputes – Writ petition by husband for custody of minor son – Habeas corpus writ should not be issued in such matters – Supreme Court held that non-bailable warrant against wife was uncalled for and illegal – High Court's order quashed [Paras 1-16].

Judicial Discretion – Exercise of Habeas Corpus – Court emphasized that habeas corpus should not be issued as a matter of course, particularly in custody disputes involving parents – High Court's issuance of non-bailable warrant against the wife found to be without proper justification [Paras 15-16].

Address Discrepancies – Misleading the Court – Husband provided different addresses for wife in simultaneous petitions before different courts – Supreme Court found this as misleading the court to obtain ex parte order – Allegations of illegal detention by mother deemed unfounded [Paras 13-15].

Legal Principles – Custody and Welfare of Child – Emphasis on the welfare of the minor child – Court considered the continuous residence of the child with the mother and found no evidence of illegal detention [Paras 13-16].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's order issuing non-bailable warrant quashed – Habeas Corpus Writ Petition withdrawn from Allahabad High Court and dismissed – No costs awarded [Paras 16].

Arbitration – Post-Award Interest – Arbitrator did not exercise discretion on post-award interest – High Court awarded 18% p.a. interest from the date of award until the date of actual payment – Supreme Court held that deposit of the award amount in the High Court constitutes payment, ceasing liability for post-award interest from that date – High Court's order modified accordingly [Paras 1-12].

Statutory Interpretation – Definition of Payment – Term 'payment' construed in context of Section 31(7)(b) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act – Payment signifies satisfaction of award – Deposit of award amount in court held as payment extinguishing liability for post-award interest [Paras 10-11].

Judicial Precedents – Application – Reference to precedent case State of Haryana Vs. S.L. Arora and Company emphasizing mandatory statutory rate of 18% p.a. interest in absence of arbitrator's discretion – Applied principle to determine cessation of interest liability upon deposit in court [Paras 8-9].

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – High Court's order modified – Appellants liable to pay 18% p.a. interest from date of award until May 24, 2001 – No liability for interest post-May 24, 2001 – High Court to re-determine due amount and facilitate refund of any excess withdrawal by respondent [Paras 12-13].

Employment Law – Back Wages – Appellant awarded back wages by School Tribunal – High Court set aside the award – Supreme Court considered precedents on back wages entitlement even without specific assertion of non-employment – Settlement reached between parties for payment of Rupees one lakh towards back wages in full and final settlement [Paras 1-7].

Judicial Precedents – Application – Reference to U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Udai Narain Pandey, Reetu Marbles Vs. Prabhakant Shukla, and Metropolitan Transport Corporation Vs. V. Venkatesan – Contention that back wages could be awarded without specific assertion of non-employment during the period out of service – Settlement based resolution, no detailed judgment on merits [Paras 3-4].

Settlement – Amicable Resolution – Parties agreed to settle the claim for back wages for Rupees one lakh – Court endorsed settlement as basis for appeal disposal – Payment to be made within three months, failing which interest @ 10% p.a. applies [Paras 5-7].

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – High Court's order modified – Appellant to be paid Rupees one lakh by respondents jointly and severally as full and final settlement for back wages – Payment within three months or with 10% p.a. interest thereafter – No costs [Paras 6-7].