Industrial Law - Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act - Jurisdiction of BIFR - Civil Suit Challenging Jurisdiction - Appellant contended BIFR retained jurisdiction over the company until it formally discharged it after confirming positive net worth - Respondent argued positive net worth discharged BIFR’s jurisdiction automatically - Supreme Court held jurisdictional issues and positive net worth determination are within BIFR’s exclusive domain - Civil court lacked jurisdiction to decide BIFR’s jurisdiction - Suit for recovery of money without BIFR's consent deemed incompetent - Order of injunction by civil court set aside - J.K. Jute Mill to remain under BIFR’s jurisdiction until formal discharge - BIFR directed to determine net worth and take appropriate action within two months - Costs of Rs. 5 lacs imposed on original plaintiff for non-disclosure of material facts - Payment to be made to Supreme Court Legal Services Authority within three months - Validity and necessity of property sale by company to be assessed by BIFR - Transferee of property to be issued due notice by BIFR for appropriate assessment - BIFR to consider necessity and adequacy of sale value, with the option to confirm or void the sale depending on adequacy of consideration and compliance with procedural requirements [Paras1−34].

Referred Cases:

Raheja Universal Limited v. NRC Limited and Others, AIR 2012 SC 1440

M.D., Bhoruka Textiles Limited v. Kashmiri Rice Industries, (2009) 7 SCC 521

Negotiable Instruments Act - Section 138, Dishonor of Cheque - Criminal appeal against High Court's decision remanding case for retrial - Complainant alleged that accused borrowed Rs. 14 lakhs in cash and issued a post-dated cheque for Rs. 29,12,000/- which was later replaced by another cheque for Rs. 73,83,552/- - Cheque dishonored

- Supreme Court restored trial court's acquittal, finding no legally enforceable debt established by complainant - Appeal allowed. [Paras 1-12]

Referred Cases:

Rangappa Vs. Sri Mohan, AIR 2010 SC 1898 : (2010) 11 SCC 441

Plaintiff filed suit for specific performance of agreement dated 27.5.1978 - Trial Court dismissed suit, ordered refund of Plaintiff’s money with interest - High Court reversed dismissal, decreed specific performance - Appellant, purchaser in a court auction, challenged High Court's decision - Facts revealed property initially mortgaged and subsequently auctioned - Plaintiff contended right to specific performance despite auction sale and confirmation - High Court's judgment based on allegations of fraud and collusion without pleadings or framed issues - Supreme Court emphasized finality of court auction and confirmation orders - Held High Court erred in disregarding principles of res judicata and collateral challenge - No sufficient grounds to overturn confirmed auction sale or grant specific performance - Restored Trial Court's decision dismissing suit for specific performance - Appeal allowed, High Court’s decree set aside [Paras 1-27].

Referred Cases:

Mathura Prasad Bajoo Jaiswal v. Dossibai N.B. Jeejeebhoy, AIR 1971 SC 2355

Union of India v. Major S.P. Sharma, (2014) 6 SCC 351

Sri Ranga Nilayam Rama Krishna Rao v. Kandokori Chellayamma, AIR 1953 SC 425

Pandurang Dhoni Chougule v. Maruti Hari Jadhav, AIR 1966 SC 153

P.K. Unni v. Nirmala Industries, AIR 1990 SC 933

Mhadagonda Ramgonda Patil v. Shripal Balwant Rainade, AIR 1988 SC 1200

Maganlal v. Jaiswal Industries, AIR 1989 SC 2113

Dadi Jagannadham v. Jammulu Ramulu, AIR 2001 SC 2699

V.S. Subramania Asari v. Ramaswami Pillai, AIR 1937 Mad 560

Gour Chand Mullick v. Pradyumna Kumar Mullick, AIR 1945 Cal 6

The Supreme Court addressed appeals by Union of India challenging the High Court's order quashing the search and seizure conducted on 16.2.2000 at Agarwal Iron Industries' factory - The factory had filed income-tax returns under the Income Tax Act - During the search at the residential premises of the proprietor, the son was informed of the simultaneous search at the factory but was not allowed to leave - The High Court quashed the search and seizure citing lack of information and non-application of mind in issuing the warrant of authorization - The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred by not examining whether the competent authority recorded reasons for the search and seizure as required under Section 132 of the Act - It noted that the High Court's reliance on Order 8 Rule 5 of CPC to infer admission by non-denial in the counter affidavit was misplaced in the context of writ proceedings - The Supreme Court emphasized the procedural safeguards in Section 132 and the requirement for reasons to be recorded - The appeals were allowed, the High Court's order was set aside, and the matter remanded for fresh disposal with directions to review the relevant files - [Paras 1-10]

Referred Cases:

Dr. Nand Lal Tahiliani Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and Others, (1988) 69 CTR 91

AJIT JAIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA and Others, (2000) 159 CTR 204

L.R. Gupta and Others Vs. Union of India and Others, (1992) 101 CTR 179

Commissioner of Income Tax, Allahabad and Others Vs. Vindhya Metal Corporation and Others, (1997) 224 ITR 614

Distt. Registrar and Collector, Hyderabad and Another Vs. Canara Bank Etc., AIR 2005 SC 186

M.P. Sharma and Others Vs. Satish Chandra, District Magistrate, Delhi and Others, AIR 1954 SC 300

Pooran Mal Vs. The Director of Inspection (Investigation), New Delhi and Others, AIR 1974 SC 348

Land Acquisition – Determination of Market Value – Appeals arise from the High Court's judgment enhancing the compensation for land acquired by the State for the establishment of a Medical Research Centre by ICMR – High Court enhanced compensation from Rs. 7,000/- per gunta to Rs. 99,000/- per gunta – ICMR contended the enhancement was excessive and unsupported by evidence – High Court relied on a sale deed (Ex-P-10) of a small, developed plot to determine the market value – Supreme Court acknowledged the principles for determining compensation, emphasizing deductions for undeveloped land – Court referred to precedents on deductions for development costs ranging from 20% to 75% – Supreme Court held that the fair market value should be Rs. 70,000/- per gunta, instead of Rs. 99,000/- – Adjustment accounts for location, potentiality, and required development – Directed recalculations of compensation including statutory benefits – [Paras 1-27]

Referred Cases:

Lal Chand v. Union of India (2009) 15 SCC 769

A.P. Housing Board v. K. Manohar Reddy (2010) 12 SCC 707

Special Land Acquisition Officer v. M.K. Rafiq Saheb (2011) 7 SCC 714

Brig. Sahib Singh Kalha v. Amritsar Improvement Trust (1982) 1 SCC 419

Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer (1988) 3 SCC 751

Kasturi v. State of Haryana (2003) 1 SCC 354

Chandrashekar v. Land Acquisition Officer (2011) 13 SCALE 48

Recruitment and Criminal Antecedents - Assessment of Acquittal:The Appellant, Joginder Singh, applied for the post of Constable in 1997. During the verification process for a subsequent recruitment in 2001, it was found he was involved in a criminal case (FIR No. 200 dated 14.04.1998) under Sections 148, 149, 323, 325, 307 IPC - Acquitted on 04.10.1999 by Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani - The Appellant sought a directive for appointment from the CAT which was granted, but the High Court set aside the CAT’s order citing unsuitability based on antecedents - The Supreme Court assessed whether the acquittal was “honourable” and the impact of rules governing police recruitment. [Paras 1-25]

Acquittal and Suitability for Police Service: CAT directed appointment based on acquittal - High Court ruled CAT’s decision illegal, emphasizing character suitability despite acquittal - Supreme Court held the acquittal was honourable as prosecution failed to prove charges - Rejected High Court’s reliance on Delhi Administration v. Sushil Kumar as distinguishable due to non-concealment of facts by the appellant - Noted CAT’s observation that prosecution witnesses turned hostile undermining prosecution’s case - Highlighted the distinction between “mere acquittal” and “honourable acquittal” critical for recruitment suitability - Held Appellant’s antecedents were clean per Punjab Police Rules emphasizing character and absence of conviction. [Paras 5-22]

Precedents and Legal Principles: Referred decisions in The Deputy Inspector General of Police v. S. Samuthiram, Secy. Deptt. of Home Secy. A.P. v. B. Chinnam Naidu, Commissioner of Police, Delhi v. Dhaval Singh, and Jagtar Singh v. Director, CBI, to underscore principles distinguishing honourable acquittal from mere procedural acquittal - Supreme Court found Appellant’s acquittal aligned with principles of honourable acquittal and entitled him to the post without prejudice from past criminal allegations. [Paras 14-22]

Decision:The appeals were allowed - High Court’s order set aside - CAT’s directive for appointment upheld - Respondents directed to issue appointment letters to the Appellant within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order. [Para 23-24]

Referred Cases:

Delhi Administration v. Sushil Kumar (1996) 11 SCC 605

The Deputy Inspector General of Police v. S. Samuthiram AIR 2013 SC 14

Commissioner of Police, Delhi v. Dhaval Singh AIR 1999 SC 2326

Jagtar Singh v. Director, CBI (1993) 3 SCC 49 Supp

Secy. Deptt. of Home Secy. A.P. v. B. Chinnam Naidu (2005) 2 SCC 746

Industrial Law - Proportionality of Punishment - Appeal against the dismissal from service - Appellant, a semi-skilled workman at L.M.L. Ltd., Kanpur, dismissed after being found guilty of throwing jute/cotton waste balls at a foreman and allegedly using abusive language - Labour Court and High Court upheld the dismissal - Supreme Court considered if the punishment was disproportionate.

Facts - Appellant admitted to throwing jute balls accidentally in an apology letter but did not admit to using abusive language - The Enquiry Officer and courts below relied heavily on the apology letter, treating it as an admission of all charges - The Supreme Court observed that the apology letter admitted only to throwing jute balls mistakenly, not to using abusive language - The act of throwing jute balls, weighing 5 to 10 grams, was minor and did not justify dismissal.

Assessment - The Supreme Court highlighted the principle of proportionality in judicial review, emphasizing that the punishment should correspond to the gravity of the misconduct - Found the punishment of dismissal to be harsh and disproportionate - Noted the long service of the appellant and the elapsed time since dismissal - Instead of reinstatement, awarded lump sum compensation.

Decision - The punishment of dismissal from service was set aside - Appellant awarded Rs. 5,00,000 as compensation in lieu of reinstatement, back wages, and other benefits - Compensation to be paid within six weeks, failing which interest at 9% per annum would apply.

Referred Cases:

Davalsab Husainsab Mulla vs. North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation, (2013) 10 SCC 185

Ex-Naik Sardar Singh vs. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 213

Ved Prakash Gupta vs. Delton Cable India (P) Ltd., (1984) 2 SCC 569

Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. vs. N.B. Naravade, (2005) 3 SCC 134

Ram Kishan vs. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 157

Jai Bhagwan vs. Commissioner of Police, (2013) 11 SCC 187

Rama Kant Misra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1982) 3 SCC 346

Dev Singh vs. Punjab Tourism Development Corporation Ltd., (2003) 8 SCC 9

Om Kumar vs. Union of India, (2001) SCC(L&S) 1039

Union of India vs. G. Ganayutham, (1997) 7 SCC 463

Criminal Law - Concurrent vs. Consecutive Sentences – Appeal against High Court judgment upholding the trial court’s direction for consecutive sentences for convictions under Sections 498A and 306 IPC – Prosecution established that appellant’s ill-treatment led to the victim’s suicide – Appellant employed abroad, visited India intermittently – Supreme Court examined Section 31 CrPC discretion on concurrent sentences – Referenced cases showed concurrent sentencing favored for single transactions – Held: Considering the appellant’s intermittent presence in India and efforts for mediation, sentences to run concurrently – Appeal allowed in part – Sentences under Sections 498A and 306 IPC to run concurrently [Paras 1-24].

Referred Cases:

Mohd. Akhtar Hussain alias Ibrahim Ahmed Bhatti v. Assistant Collector of Customs (Prevention), Ahmedabad, AIR 1988 SC 2143

Ramesh Chilwal @ Bombayya v. State of Uttarakhand, (2012) 11 SCC 629

V.K. Bansal v. State of Haryana, (2013) 7 SCC 211

Manoj @ Panu v. State of Haryana, (2014) 2 SCC 153

Duryodhan Rout v. State of Orissa, (2014) 8 JT 273

The appeal challenges the conviction of Nar Singh for murder under Section 302 IPC and unlawful possession of a firearm under Section 25(1B) of the Arms Act - The prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence, including motive, witness testimonies, recovery of a firearm, and ballistic expert opinions - Conviction was initially upheld by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana - Appellant's main contention was the non-compliance with mandatory provisions of Section 313 CrPC, arguing the failure to question him on vital evidence (Ex P-12 FSL report) prejudiced his defense - Supreme Court reiterated the importance of Section 313 CrPC, emphasizing it ensures the accused has the opportunity to explain incriminating evidence - Not all omissions to put questions under Section 313 CrPC automatically vitiate the trial unless substantial prejudice is demonstrated - In this case, the omission was seen as prejudicial, necessitating a remand for retrial from the stage of Section 313 CrPC examination - Conviction and sentence were set aside, directing the trial court to re-examine the accused and afford him an opportunity to defend afresh - The matter to be expedited and disposed of within six months - Appellant given liberty to apply for bail.

Referred Cases:

Asraf Ali v. State of Assam, (2008) CLT 1053

Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab

Kuldip Singh v. State of Delhi, (2003) 12 SCC 528

State of Maharashtra v. Sukhdeo Singh, AIR 1992 SC 2100

Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, AIR 1992 SC 1701

Usha K. Pillai v. Raj K. Srinivas, AIR 1993 SC 2090

State of U.P. v. Kapil Deo Shukla, AIR 1973 SC 494

State of Punjab v. Hari Singh, AIR 2009 SC 1966

Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 2622

Jai Dev v. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 612

Ganeshmal Jashraj v. Government of Gujarat, AIR 1980 SC 264

Machander v. State of Hyderabad, AIR 1955 SC 792

State (Delhi Administration) v. Dharampal, AIR 2001 SC 2924

Chajoo Ram v. Radhey Shyam, AIR 1971 SC 1367

Bhoor Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1974 SC 1256

Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622

S. Veerabadran Chettiar v. E.V. Ramaswami Naicker, AIR 1958 SC 1032

Basavaraj R. Patil v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2000 SC 3214

Paramjeet Singh @ Pamma v. State of Uttarakhand, AIR 2011 SC 200

Santosh Kumar Singh v. State thr. CBI, (2010) 9 SCC 747

Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2013 SC 3802

Wasim Khan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1956 SC 400