Service Law – Post-Retirement Departmental Proceedings – Jurisdiction – Corporation initiated departmental enquiry and passed recovery order of ₹18,09,809/- against appellant nearly a year after his superannuation – No provision under 1992 Service Regulations permitting such enquiry post-retirement – High Court upheld action relying on Rule 110 of 1992 Regulations and Rule 27 of 1982 Pension Rules – Supreme Court held that Rule 110 is residuary and does not ipso facto adopt State Pension Rules – No conscious decision of Board shown adopting 1982 Rules for departmental action post-retirement – Held: Corporation lacked jurisdiction to initiate or continue disciplinary enquiry against retired employee [Paras 15–24, 26–30].

Pension Law – Withholding of Retiral Benefits – Rule 27(2)(b)(i), 1982 Pension Rules – Sanction Mandatory – No sanction of State Government obtained before initiating departmental proceedings post-retirement – Plea of general sanction due to prior approval of service regulations rejected – Held: Prior sanction for each case is mandatory and safeguard cannot be bypassed on basis of general approval – Recovery and withholding of retiral dues without compliance of Rule 27(2)(b)(i) held illegal [Paras 24, 26–27].

Retirement Benefits – Entitlement – Appellant’s gratuity, PF, and leave encashment withheld – Supreme Court quashed entire disciplinary proceedings and directed refund of recovery already made – Corporation directed to release full retiral dues within 8 weeks [Paras 31].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court judgment and departmental proceedings quashed – Retiral benefits to be released within 8 weeks – Any recovery already effected to be refunded [Para 31].

Education Law – Issuance of Degree and Marksheets – Clerical Error – MB University Investigation – Appellant completed BA.LLB. (2017–2022) at Manav Bharti University and passed all exams – University failed to issue marksheets for 5th to 10th semesters and degree due to mismatch in admission disclosure list, despite appellant’s name being in internal green register – Disclosure list erroneously carried another student's name against her admission number – Supreme Court held: Appellant was bona fide student – Denial of documents caused grave hardship – Delay of over two years unjustified – Appellant cannot be punished for University's error – High Court erred in relegating her to alternative remedy [Paras 2–21].

University Accountability – Duty to Maintain Accurate Records – University admitted clerical error and submitted affidavit acknowledging mistake – Held: Since facts were undisputed and supported by affidavit and internal records, relegation to civil remedy unnecessary – Supreme Court directed University to issue pending documents within four weeks [Paras 16–22].

Decision: Appeal allowed – MB University directed to issue marksheets for 5th to 10th semesters, degree, and all relevant documents to appellant within four weeks [Para 22].

Motor Accident Claim – Compensation – Assessment under Section 166 MV Act – Appellant injured in a motor accident originally claimed under Section 163A – Tribunal and High Court awarded Rs.2,12,800 and Rs.2,23,000 respectively – Supreme Court held that despite reference to Section 163A, pleadings and claim amount established the claim was under Section 166 – Hence, just compensation principles to apply [Paras 2, 5].

Income Computation – Minimum Income – Appellant claimed Rs.8,000/month as a salesman but failed to produce proof – Court relied on Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram to fix income at Rs.5,000/month for 2005 accident, considering inflation and self-employment – Future prospects at 40% and multiplier of 17 (age 27) applied – Total loss of income recomputed accordingly [Paras 3, 6, 8].

Disability Assessment – Improper Reduction by High Court – Disability assessed at 60% by medical expert and accepted at 50% by Tribunal – High Court reduced to 40% without appeal by Corporation – Supreme Court held reduction unjustified and restored 50% disability as assessed by Tribunal [Para 7].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Compensation recomputed to ₹7,14,000 for loss of income – Additional conventional heads as per Tribunal/High Court upheld – Interest at 7.5% p.a. – Respondent to pay within 3 months [Paras 8–10].

Criminal Law – Corruption – Disciplinary Proceedings and Criminal Prosecution – Independence of Proceedings – Allegation of demand and acceptance of bribe by Executive Engineer – Successful trap laid by ACB – Departmental enquiry ended in exoneration – High Court quashed criminal proceedings relying on Radheshyam Kejriwal – Held, disciplinary proceedings and criminal prosecution are independent and parallel – Exoneration in disciplinary enquiry does not ipso facto bar criminal prosecution [Paras 2, 9, 13].

Service Law – Standard of Proof – Distinction Between Departmental Enquiry and Criminal Trial – Departmental enquiry governed by preponderance of probabilities – Criminal trial requires proof beyond reasonable doubt – Failure to prove charge in departmental proceedings does not automatically negate criminal culpability – Evidence in each proceeding must be assessed independently [Paras 2, 9–10].

Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Limits of High Court’s Power – Criminal proceedings quashed solely on basis of disciplinary exoneration held unsustainable – Criminal prosecution cannot be terminated by presuming insufficiency of evidence before trial – Anticipated failure of prosecution cannot be a ground for quashing [Paras 16–19].

Precedent – Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of W.B. – Scope Explained – Principle that criminal prosecution cannot continue after exoneration on merits applies only where adjudication and prosecution arise under same statute by same authority and substratum of allegation is found non-existent – Not applicable to disciplinary enquiry and corruption prosecution conducted by different authorities [Paras 6–8, 13–14].

Precedent – State (NCT of Delhi) v. Ajay Kumar Tyagi – Applicability Affirmed – Held, Ajay Kumar Tyagi correctly lays down law that exoneration in departmental proceedings does not automatically warrant quashing of criminal case – No conflict with Radheshyam Kejriwal – High Court erred in treating Ajay Kumar Tyagi as per incuriam [Paras 10–13].

Departmental Enquiry – Nature and Evidentiary Value – Enquiry Officer’s report is not conclusive – Disciplinary Authority alone decides guilt or exoneration – Appointment of retired judicial officer as Enquiry Officer does not elevate evidentiary value of report – Enquiry report cannot bind criminal court [Paras 14–15].

Corruption Trap Case – Appreciation of Enquiry Findings – Enquiry exoneration based on non-examination of trap officer and witnesses standing outside office – Held, not an exoneration on merits – Evidence of complainant and independent witnesses sufficient even on preponderance of probabilities – Enquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority applied incorrect standard of proof [Paras 16–18].

Role of Investigating Agency and Criminal Court – Criminal court has coercive powers to secure presence of witnesses – Failure of witness to appear in departmental enquiry cannot be equated with failure in criminal trial – No presumption of prosecutorial laxity permissible [Paras 16–18].

Effect of Departmental Exoneration on Service – While disciplinary proceedings cannot be reopened due to criminal court findings – Conviction in criminal case would entail service consequences as per applicable rules, expressly reserved by disciplinary authority [Para 19].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of High Court quashing criminal proceedings set aside – Criminal prosecution directed to continue in accordance with law.

Customs Law – Classification – Aluminium Shelving – CTI 76109010 vs. CTI 84369900 – Appeal Allowed – The Supreme Court held that aluminium shelving imported for mushroom cultivation is classifiable as 'Aluminium Structures' under CTI 76109010, not as 'Parts of Agricultural Machinery' under CTI 84369900 – The CESTAT's classification under CTI 84369900, relying on the goods being "parts" of agricultural machinery and known in "trade parlance" as "mushroom growing apparatus," was set aside – The Court found that the goods are structures made of aluminium and do not qualify as 'machinery' or 'parts' of machinery, as individual machines in the mushroom cultivation process are self-contained and the shelves merely serve as a supporting surface – The Court emphasized that classification must adhere to the objective characteristics and properties of the goods at the time of import, and the common parlance test is applicable only in the absence of explicit statutory guidance – The non-sequential application of General Rules for Interpretation (GRIs) by CESTAT was deemed an error [Paras 1, 116, 121, 130, 136, 137, 140, 145, 146, 147, 152, 156, 157, 158].

Customs Law – General Rules for Interpretation (GRIs) – Sequential Application – The Supreme Court reiterated that GRIs 1-4 must be applied sequentially – GRI 1 establishes the primacy of headings and notes – GRI 2 extends headings to incomplete/unassembled goods – GRI 3 is a tie-breaker for goods classifiable under two or more headings – GRI 4 is a last resort – The Court criticized the CESTAT for non-sequential application of GRIs, specifically invoking GRI 3(a) without first determining prima facie classification under GRI 1, and for failing to consider Section Notes that exclude goods classifiable under Section XVI from Section XV [Paras 28, 36, 146].

Customs Law – Common Parlance Test – Applicability – The Supreme Court clarified that the common or trade parlance test must be applied restrictively, only when the statute (including tariff headings, Section Notes, Chapter Notes, or HSN Explanatory Notes) does not provide explicit definitions or clear criteria, or when terms are not used in a specialized, technical context – The test cannot contradict the statutory framework or override clear statutory mandates – It is used to determine the scope and meaning of terms in the absence of statutory guidance, not to reclassify goods that clearly fall under a statutory heading based on marketing or trade names – Evidence is required to support claims of specialized commercial identity, which must involve substantial transformation, not mere incidental modification [Paras 40, 41, 48, 54, 56, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 144, 145, 149].

Customs Law – Consideration of 'Use' in Classification – The Supreme Court held that 'use' can be a relevant classification factor only if the tariff heading explicitly or inherently refers to 'use' or 'adaptation' – This includes cases where the language of the heading or supporting notes indicates use (e.g., 'refrigerating equipment') or where the common/commercial meaning of an eo nomine term inherently includes use as a defining aspect – Actual use is generally irrelevant; only intended use, discernible from objective characteristics (function, design, composition), is considered – The importer must demonstrate that the intended use aligns with the standard of use (e.g., 'principal use', 'sole use') stipulated or implied by the statute – The Court noted that the Indian approach is a hybrid of US and EU methods, focusing on inherent characteristics and properties [Paras 69, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 103, 150].

Customs Law – HSN Explanatory Notes – Binding Guidance – The Supreme Court affirmed that HSN Explanatory Notes provide binding guidance for interpreting the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, provided there is alignment between the domestic tariff entry and the corresponding HSN heading, and no explicit contrary legislative intent is found in the Act – In the present case, such alignment was found, making the Explanatory Notes binding [Paras 37, 38, 39].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The impugned Judgment and Final Order No. 55604/2024 dated 19.04.2024 passed by the CESTAT in Customs Appeal No. 50542 of 2021 is hereby set aside [Para 159].

Industrial Law – New Industrial Unit – Industrial Policy of 1989, Clause 2.7 – MM Plant unit qualifies as a new industrial unit – The MM Plant unit, established by Indo Flogates, made fixed capital investment after the effective date of the 1989 policy, was separately registered, independently powered, and commenced independent commercial production in 1992 – It constituted a physically and functionally distinct industrial undertaking, not merely an expansion of an existing unit – The respondents' classification of it as a new industrial unit in 1998 was upheld – The High Court's finding that benefits could only be granted once was incorrect as it applied to expansion/modernisation/diversification, not new units – The MM Plant unit satisfies the definition of a "new industrial unit" under Clause 2.7 of the Industrial Policy of 1989 [Paras 50-85, 135(i), 135(ii)].

Industrial Law – Capital Investment Subsidy & DG Set Subsidy – Industrial Policy of 1989, Clauses 4.1, 5.1, 11.4.4 – Rejection of subsidy based on overall financial limit for existing units is inapplicable to new industrial units – The instruction letter dated 28.10.1994 and the amended notification dated 30.10.2008, which introduced an overall financial limit, apply only to expansion/modernisation/diversification of existing units, not to new industrial units – New industrial units are governed by Clause 4.1 and are entitled to all incentives, including fresh subsidy, subject to unit-wise caps specified in Clauses 5.1 and 11.4.4 – The respondents were wrong to reject the subsidies on the ground that Indo Flogates and the appellant had already exhausted maximum limits under previous policies – The MM Plant unit, being a new industrial unit, was entitled to fresh subsidies under the 1989 policy [Paras 86-91, 135(iii)].

Promissory Estoppel – State Action & Policy Commitments – Industrial Policy of 1989 – State authorities are bound by unequivocal promises and assurances – The respondents made clear and unequivocal representations by sanctioning the subsidies through various communications (05.11.1998, 10.04.2003, 19.04.2003, 24.03.2007, 23.08.2007) – The appellant company acted upon these promises, setting up and continuing production in the MM Plant unit, incurring substantial expenses – The non-disclosure of amalgamation was not a valid ground for rejection as the respondents were aware of it before sanctioning, and all rights including subsidies transferred to the appellant upon amalgamation – The State cannot arbitrarily resile from its solemn promises, especially when the promisee has altered its position in reliance thereon – The doctrine of legitimate expectation, rooted in fairness and non-arbitrariness under Article 14, also applies, compelling public authorities to honour their policy statements – The bureaucratic lethargy and subsequent volte-face by the respondents were unfair and untenable – The appellant is entitled to the disbursement of sanctioned subsidies [Paras 92-134, 135(iv)].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The impugned judgment and order of the High Court are set aside – Respondents are directed to disburse Rs. 11,14,750/- along with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of sanction of respective subsidies towards capital investment and DG Set for MM Plant unit, in favour of the appellant company, within 3 months from the date of this judgment – Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of [Paras 136-138].

Public Auction – Highest Bid – Arbitrary Cancellation – Impermissibility – Industrial plot measuring 3150 sq. mtrs auctioned by Ghaziabad Development Authority through two-bid system – Appellant’s technical and financial bids accepted – Appellant declared highest bidder with bid 15.23% above reserve price – Auction subsequently cancelled on ground that higher prices were fetched for smaller plots in same scheme – Held, cancellation based on irrelevant and extraneous considerations – Expectation of a higher price cannot justify cancellation of an otherwise valid auction [Paras 23–28, 32].

Administrative Law – Article 14 – Arbitrariness in State Action – State instrumentality cancelling auction without fraud, collusion or illegality in process – Comparison of bid for large plot with bids of much smaller plots held arbitrary, irrational and discriminatory – Action violates Article 14 – State authorities must act fairly, transparently and consistently in auction matters [Paras 27–29].

Public Auction – Reserve Price – Sanctity of Process – Uniform reserve price fixed for both smaller plots and subject large plot owing to lower demand for large plots – Bid higher than reserve price crystallises rights and obligations of parties – Once highest bid accepted and no infirmity found, authority under legal obligation to proceed with allotment [Paras 25–27].

Tender Conditions – Rewriting After Bid Opening – Prohibited – Ground of “low bid compared to smaller plots” not mentioned in auction brochure – Introducing new criteria after opening of bids amounts to rewriting tender conditions – Such post-auction benchmarking held impermissible in law [Paras 11–14, 23].

Legitimate Expectation – Right to Fair Treatment – Though no indefeasible right to allotment arises merely by being highest bidder – Highest bidder has right to non-arbitrary, fair and reasonable treatment – Cancellation without notice or hearing and on irrelevant grounds defeats legitimate expectation [Paras 14, 21, 29].

Natural Justice – Cancellation Without Notice – Financial bid cancelled behind the back of the appellant – Mere refund of earnest money does not cure illegality – Absence of show-cause notice and opportunity of hearing reinforces arbitrariness [Paras 14, 28–29].

Judicial Review – Auction / Tender Matters – Scope – Courts ordinarily show restraint and give “fair play in the joints” to State in contractual matters – However, where decision is arbitrary, irrational or based on irrelevant considerations, judicial interference warranted – Present case falls within exception justifying interference [Paras 16–18, 28].

Precedent – Eva Agro Feeds Applied – Reaffirmed principle that mere expectation of securing a higher price in re-auction is no ground to cancel a valid auction – Arbitrary cancellation erodes sanctity and credibility of auction process [Paras 22, 28, 32].

High Court – Error in Dismissing Writ Petitions – High Court erred in holding that appellant had no enforceable right merely because allotment letter was not issued – Failed to distinguish between absence of indefeasible right and right to fair, non-arbitrary treatment – Impugned orders unsustainable [Paras 19, 27–29].

Relief – Directions Issued – Cancellation of auction quashed – High Court orders set aside – Appellant directed to re-deposit earnest money – GDA directed to issue allotment letter and conclude auction process within stipulated time [Paras 32–33].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Impugned orders of Allahabad High Court dated 24.05.2024 and 15.07.2024 set aside – Cancellation of appellant’s bid quashed – GDA directed to allot plot to appellant upon re-deposit of earnest money.

Criminal Law – Quashing - Multiple FIRs – Civil Dispute Given Criminal Colour – Petitioners accused of misappropriation of refund amount – Three separate proceedings initiated on identical facts – Two proceedings either stayed or withdrawn – Final report in FIR No. 396/2025 concluded no evidence against petitioners – Held: Initiation of multiple criminal cases on same cause of action impermissible – Proceedings except Tajganj FIR closed [Paras 1-7].

Quashing of FIR – Final Report Filed – No Arrest – Chargesheet in Agra case (FIR 396/2025) concluded allegations not substantiated – Petitioners not to be arrested – Directed to appear before jurisdictional court and be granted bail on same day – Recognized that continuation of prosecution cannot result in custodial harassment in absence of incriminating material [Paras 5-8].

Corporate Insolvency – Complainant Representation – Complainant company undergoing insolvency – Interim Resolution Professional impleaded – IRP permitted to represent complainant and summon former officials for trial if required [Paras 4, 9].

Judicial Comity – Proceedings in Different Jurisdictions – Parallel complaints in Delhi and Agra – Delhi proceedings stayed or treated as not pressed – Court directed closure of Karkardooma proceedings and disposal of pending criminal revision as not pressed – Upheld principle that litigants should not harass opponents through multiple jurisdictions [Paras 6-7].

Decision: Special Leave Petition disposed of – Petitioners granted protection from arrest – Directed to appear before jurisdictional court and be granted bail – All other criminal proceedings on same facts closed – IRP allowed to participate in proceedings [Paras 7-10].

Criminal Law – Bail – PMLA – Prolonged Incarceration – Appellant accused of orchestrating massive bank fraud and money laundering of ₹673.35 crores – Arrested on 09.07.2024, prosecution complaint filed on 06.09.2024 – Out of 28 individuals, only appellant was arrested – Trial yet to commence – No cognizance taken – Court held that continued detention without trial violated Article 21 of Constitution – Appellant entitled to bail despite gravity of economic offence [Paras 6-12, 15-19].

Right to Speedy Trial – Delay in Trial – High Court proceedings initiated by ED caused 8-month stay on trial – Appellant in custody for 16 months and 20 days – Court held that State’s inability to conduct timely trial cannot justify indefinite pretrial detention – Bail granted due to violation of fundamental right under Article 21 [Paras 18-19, 21].

Witness Tampering Allegation – Credibility – Allegation that appellant influenced witness Ms. Anuradha Kapur was rejected – Court found appellant had been in custody even before she was named as witness – Allegation deemed “wholly incredulous” [Para 20].

Economic Offences – Bail Jurisprudence – Court reiterated that not all economic offences can be grouped as a single class to deny bail – Cited various precedents including P. Chidambaram, Senthil Balaji, and Manish Sisodia – Held: Bail can be granted where investigation is complete, evidence is documentary, and trial is delayed [Paras 15-18].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment of Delhi High Court dated 19.08.2025 set aside – Appellant granted regular bail with conditions to be fixed by Trial Court – Directed to surrender passport and remain available on phone – Not to leave India without permission [Paras 23-25].