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.

Facts:

The Government of Kerala constituted a Committee named "Private Hospital Industrial Relation Committee" under Section 9 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, to revise minimum wages for employees in private hospitals and allied institutions.

The constitution of the Committee was challenged in the High Court of Kerala by certain private hospital owners, contending that employees nominated as employers' representatives were not appropriate as they were employees themselves.

Issues:

Whether the composition of the Committee, including the nomination of employees as employers' representatives, was in accordance with Section 9 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.

Whether the High Court erred in upholding the constitution of the Committee.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the constitution of the Committee, including the nomination of employees as employers' representatives, was in accordance with Section 9 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The Court reasoned that employees nominated to represent their employers' interests could adequately defend their employer's interest in the Committee. The Court emphasized that such representation was a well-accepted practice and cited precedent in support of its interpretation. As equal representation was provided to both employers and employees in the Committee, and the nominated employees were well-versed in the subject matter, the Court found no flaw in the constitution of the Committee. Accordingly, the appeal challenging the constitution of the Committee was dismissed.

Facts:

The respondents, M. Mani and T.A. Mathivanan, were employees of BHEL working as Driver Grade II.

They were accused of unauthorizedly removing a heavy machine from the plant premises.

BHEL conducted a departmental enquiry, which found both respondents guilty and dismissed them from service in 1991.

The respondents challenged their dismissal in Labour Court cases, arguing that the departmental enquiry was not conducted properly.

The Labour Court initially ruled in favor of the employees, ordering their reinstatement with back wages.

Upon appeal, the Single Judge of the High Court set aside the Labour Court's decision and remanded the case back to the Labour Court for fresh consideration.

The Division Bench of the High Court allowed the respondents' appeals, directing their reinstatement but denied them back wages.

Issues:

Whether the departmental enquiry conducted by BHEL was legal and proper.

Whether the criminal court's acquittal of the respondents invalidated the findings of the departmental enquiry.

Whether the punishment of dismissal imposed by BHEL was commensurate with the gravity of the charge.

Held:

The Court held that the departmental enquiry conducted by BHEL was legal and proper. (Para. 16)

The criminal court's acquittal of the respondents did not invalidate the findings of the departmental enquiry. (Para. 21)

The punishment of dismissal imposed by BHEL was commensurate with the gravity of the charge of theft, if proven in the enquiry. (Para. 28)

An act of theft committed by an employee while on duty is a serious charge, justifying dismissal from service. (Para. 29)

The appeals were allowed, and the Division Bench's judgment was set aside. The dismissal orders of the respondents were held to be legal and proper. (Para. 33)

Facts:

NIMS applied for land allotment in Jaipur but later encroached upon Khasra No. 526 without proper authorization.

Various legal proceedings ensued, including appeals and writ petitions, regarding the encroachment.

Ramgarh Dam, once a significant water source for Jaipur, suffered due to encroachments and construction in its catchment areas.

Issues:

Whether NIMS's encroachment on Khasra No. 526 was legal.

What actions should be taken regarding the unauthorized constructions on the encroached land.

The broader issue of enforcing laws regarding land use and encroachment, especially in cases affecting critical resources like water.

Held:

The Court held that NIMS had encroached upon Khasra No. 526 without proper authorization, violating relevant laws. The Court dismissed NIMS's petitions and directed the demolition of unauthorized constructions on the encroached land. NIMS was ordered to pay a substantial cost of Rs. 10 lakhs per petition. The Court emphasized the importance of enforcing the rule of law, particularly concerning unauthorized constructions and encroachments, even if carried out by influential entities like NIMS. Additionally, the Court prioritized resolving water scarcity issues over NIMS's interests, highlighting the broader public interest at stake.

Facts:

The case involved a challenge to the policy decision of the Government of India regarding diesel pricing, brought by the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation. The corporation argued that the decision was arbitrary, illegal, unjust, unconstitutional, and violated Articles 12 and 14 of the Constitution of India. They sought relief from the dual pricing policy of diesel and reimbursement of excess charges.

Issues:

The validity of the government's policy decision on diesel pricing and subsidy for bulk consumers.

Held:

The Court held that the grant of subsidy is a matter of privilege, not a right, and can be withdrawn at any time by the government. Such decisions are not subject to judicial review.

The Court emphasized that while public service corporations like the State Road Transport Corporation render essential services, they cannot claim subsidy as a matter of right.

The Court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the policy decision and disposed of the appeals and transferred cases accordingly.

Facts:

The case involved a dispute between the Union of India (lessee) and Bengal Shrachi Housing Development Limited (lessor) regarding the liability to pay service tax for commercial premises under clause 6 of the lease deed.

Issues:

Determination of the liable party for paying service tax in the lease agreement.

Interpretation of relevant sections, acts, rules, and articles in deciding the liability.

Held:

The Finance Act, 1994, and Service Tax Rules, 1994 govern the liability of service tax payment. (Para 12)

As per Rule 2(1)(d) of the Service Tax Rules, the lessor is liable for paying service tax in cases where the service of renting immovable property is agreed to be provided by the lessor. (Para 13)

The taxable event is the provision of the service (renting out immovable property), and the liable person is the service provider (lessor). (Para 18, 21)

The expression "primarily leviable upon" in clause 6 of the lease deed refers to the taxable person, i.e., the person liable to pay the tax, which in this case is the lessor. (Para 24)

Despite legal provisions, the Court considered the sanction letter from the Government of India and a subsequent letter indicating the Union of India's acknowledgment of liability to pay service charges. (Para 34, 35)

Consequently, while legally, the lessor is primarily liable for paying service tax, the Court declined to exercise discretion in favor of the Union of India, upholding the judgment based on factual grounds. (Para 36)

Decision: The judgment of the High Court was set aside on legal grounds but upheld on factual grounds, considering the express acknowledgment of liability by the Union of India.