Matrimonial Law - Divorce on grounds of cruelty – Supreme Court examines the sufficiency of a false criminal complaint as grounds for matrimonial cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Confirms that even a single false accusation by a spouse involving serious criminal charges can constitute matrimonial cruelty sufficient for divorce – High Court's failure to acknowledge this in reversing the Family Court's decision is rectified - Appeal allowed, marriage dissolved. [Paras 1-8]

Legal Assessment of False Complaints – Supreme Court underscores that a false complaint leading to arrest and subsequent acquittal of the accused family members should have been considered by the High Court as indicative of cruelty – Acquittal of husband and his family was due to lack of credible evidence, which pointed to the contrived nature of the criminal charges filed by the wife. [Paras 4-6]

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Discussion on the non-statutory acceptance of irretrievable breakdown as a ground for divorce in India, despite suggestions by the Law Commission and partial legislative progress – Court highlights ongoing legislative considerations but confines ruling to grounds of cruelty. [Para 3]

This judgment reasserts the Supreme Court's stance on matrimonial cruelty arising from false criminal complaints, emphasizing that even a single false complaint can suffice for divorce under cruelty grounds, thus providing significant jurisprudential clarity on handling such allegations in matrimonial disputes.

Referred Cases:

K. Srinivas Rao vs. D.A. Deepa, (2013) 5 SCC 226:

Misconduct and Disciplinary Action – Dismissal converted to compulsory retirement – Employee, P. Gunasekaran, initially dismissed for misconduct including falsification of attendance records and unauthorized actions as a Central Excise Officer, which involved impersonation and threatening a bus passenger - Following acquittal in criminal proceedings, Central Administrative Tribunal and later Madras High Court reviewed punishment, leading to reinstatement with back wages by High Court – Supreme Court restored compulsory retirement, emphasizing restricted scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters and upheld findings on misconduct. [Paras 1-27]

Judicial Review – Scope and Limitations – High Court exceeded its supervisory jurisdiction by reassessing factual determinations made in disciplinary proceedings – Supreme Court clarified appropriate standards for interference in administrative decisions, stressing non-applicability of criminal standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings and importance of respecting established findings unless there is evidence of procedural defects, bias, or irrational conclusions. [Paras 13, 14, 19-25]

Proportionality of Punishment – High Court's intervention in proportionality of punishment critiqued – Supreme Court held that High Court should not interfere with proportionality unless the punishment shocks the conscience, which was not the case here – Emphasized integrity and honesty required in service, especially in sensitive positions. [Paras 19-20]

Referred Cases:

Management of Coimbatore District Central Co-operative Bank Vs. Secretary, Coimbatore District Central Co-operative Bank Employees Association and Another, (2007) 4 SCC 669

State of Andhra Pradesh and Others Vs. Chitra Venkata Rao, (1975) 2 SCC 557

State of Haryana and Another Vs. Rattan Singh, (1977) 2 SCC 491

State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Sree Rama Rao, AIR 1963 SC 1723

B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India and others, (1995) 6 SCC 749

Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and Others Vs. T.T. Murali Babu, (2014) 4 SCC 108

Om Kumar and Others Vs. Union of India, (2001) SCC(L&S) 1039

Union of India and another Vs. G. Ganayutham (Dead) by LRs., (1997) 7 SCC 463

Chairman cum Managing Director, Coal India Limited and Another Vs. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri and Others, (2009) 15 SCC 620

Criminal Law - Dowry Death - Appeal against High Court's affirmation of conviction under Section 304B IPC for dowry-related death - Evidence indicated appellant demanded dowry ("gold karra") approximately four months before death, not proximately linked to the victim's demise - Lack of continuous cruelty or harassment related to dowry "soon before her death" leads to setting aside of Section 304B conviction - Appeal results in conviction under Section 498A for demonstrated cruelty related to dowry demands, with sentence limited to time already served by appellant, acknowledging elapsed time and appellant's personal circumstances [Paras 1-23]

Investigative Flaws - Highlighted deficiencies in police investigation, particularly failure to focus on alleged dying declaration about poisoning, compromising the credibility and thoroughness of the investigation, thus impacting the administration of justice [Paras 8-10].

Referred Cases:

Kamesh Panjiyar @ Kamlesh Panjiyar v. State of Bihar, AIR 2005 SC 785

Hira Lal and Others v. State (Govt. of NCT) Delhi, AIR 2003 SC 2865

Thakkan Jha and Others v. State of Bihar

Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 2009 SC 913

Urban Land Regulation - Effects of non-impleading legal heirs - The Supreme Court examines the impact of not formally bringing on record the legal heirs in proceedings related to the declaration of surplus land under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 - Held that despite the non-impleading, the full participation of the heirs in the proceedings negates any prejudice that may have been caused by the procedural oversight, as the heirs were substantially represented and participated in the hearings through counsel. [Paras 14-17]

Applicability of Repeal Act, 1999 - The court considers whether the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, applies to lands already vested in the government and allotted to the appellant society - It finds that the lands specifically allotted and in possession of the society before the repeal act came into effect are not affected by the repeal, thus not applicable to the extent of the land occupied based on prior agreements, emphasizing the distinction between land where possession was taken versus merely vested land. [Paras 24, 33-34]

Remand for determination of outstanding issues - The Supreme Court remands the case for fresh consideration on specific unresolved issues including the determination of sale consideration and the applicability of the repeal act to certain parcels of the land, directing the High Court to allow the parties to submit additional evidence and arguments. [Para 36]

Referred Cases:

State of U.P. Vs. Hari Ram, (2013) 6 AD 266 : AIR 2013 SC 1793 : (2013) 4 JT 275 : (2013) 2 RCR(Civil) 499 : (2013) 3 SCALE 348 : (2013) 4 SCC 280 : (2013) AIRSCW 1683

Maharaj Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, AIR 1976 SC 2602 : (1977) 1 SCC 155 : (1977) 1 SCR 1072

Trade Union Law – Challenge of registration cancellation by Registrar due to alleged fraud and misrepresentation by the Trade Union in its application – Appellant, a former Union President, expelled due to internal disputes, claims Trade Union's registration was fraudulently obtained – Registrar initially cancelled registration, but reinstatement by Industrial Court and subsequent affirmation by High Court on appeal [Para 2-5].

Locus Standi & Legal Proceedings – High Court held appellant lacked locus standi to seek cancellation of Trade Union's registration – Appellant argued misrepresentations in Trade Union's application regarding industry details and union objectives [Para 6-8].

Interpretation of Legal Requirements – Court examined requirements under Trade Unions Act for registration, focusing on whether "any" industry could suffice for "all" industries in registration applications – High Court found registration did not suffer from legal infirmities as alleged [Para 18].

Decision: Supreme Court affirms lower courts' decisions, dismissing the appeal based on lack of substantial grounds to challenge the registration's legitimacy and procedural correctness in handling the registration and its challenge [Para 19].

Referred Cases:

B.P.L. Group of Companies Karmikara Sangha (Registered), Bangalore vs. The Commissioner of Labour, Government of Karnataka, Bangalore and Others, (2001) 2 KarLJ 329 : (2000) 1 LLJ 71

Maharashtra Engg. Plastic and General Kamgar Union vs. Chamundi Petroleum and Others, (2007) 113 FLR 156 : (2007) 2 LLJ 779

Indian Express Newspapers (Bom) Employees Union Vs. K.M. Desai and Others, (1995) 71 FLR 54

Forbes Forbes Campbell and Co., Ltd. Vs. Engineering Mazdoor Sabha, AIR 1978 SC 340 : (1978) LabIC 171 : (1979) 1 SCC 14

Property Law - Adoption and inheritance rights – Civil appeal challenging the High Court decision on property share entitlement after adoption – Trial and subsequent appellate courts confirmed no partition of property, hence no succession opened on death of Babusaheb Mane in 1906 – High Court held properties were undivided joint family assets, with Lalubai having only maintenance rights, not succession rights – Supreme Court affirmed lower courts' decisions, upheld that adoption of Ramchandra relates back to the death of the adoptive father, thereby entitling him to 50% share of the joint family property along with co-heir Baburao Mane – Appeal dismissed, no costs awarded. [Paras 2-8]Principle of Relating Back in Adoption – Examination of legal principle where adoption relates back to the date of adoptive father's death concerning rights in ancestral property – Supreme Court finds no merit in appellant's contention that this principle does not apply to collateral's property when there was no evidence of partition – Upheld that both branches of family entitled to equal share of undivided property. [Paras 6-7]

Referred Cases:

Bhubaneshwari Debi v. Nilkomul Lahiri [1885 (12) IA 137]

Shrinivas Krishnarao Kango v. Narayan Devji Kango and Others, AIR 1954 SC 379: (1955) 1 SCR 1

Krishnamurthi Vasudeorao Deshpande and Another v. Dhruwaraj, AIR 1962 SC 59: (1962) 2 SCR 813

Govind Hanumantha Rao Desai Vs. Nagappa alias Narahari Laxman Rao Deshpande and Seven Ors., AIR 1972 SC 1401: (1972) 1 SCC 515: (1972) 3 SCR 200: (1972) 4 UJ 635

Termination of Services - Appellant's termination by U.P. State Road Transport Corporation deemed void ab initio due to non-compliance with mandatory provisions of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - High Court erred in awarding only consolidated damages/compensation instead of reinstatement - Supreme Court sets aside High Court judgment, orders reinstatement with 50% back-wages from date of termination to date of Labour Court Award and 100% back-wages thereafter until reinstatement [Paras 17, 27-31].

Employment Law - Misapplication of contractual employment terms - Labour Court correctly found that appellant was not a contractual employee; termination lacked procedural due process required under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - High Court's reliance on Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi incorrectly applied [Paras 7, 18-20].

Disability Rights - Appellant, having sustained injuries in service leading to disability, was entitled under Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 to alternative employment equivalent to his original position if reinstatement to the original post was not feasible - Respondent Corporation directed to provide equivalent alternative employment [Paras 30-31].

Referred Cases:

Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi and Others, AIR 2006 SC 1806 : (2006) 6 CompLJ 1 : (2006) 4 JT 420 : (2006) 2 LLJ 722 : (2006) 4 SCALE 197 : (2006) 4 SCC 1 : (2006) 3 SLJ 1 : (2006) AIRSCW 1991 : (2006) 3 Supreme 415

Chief Conservator of Forests and another, Vs. Jagannath Maruti Kondhare, etc. etc., AIR 1996 SC 2898 : (1995) 9 JT 465 : (1996) 1 LLJ 1223 : (1995) 7 SCALE 101 : (1996) 2 SCC 293 : (1995) 6 SCR 259 Supp : (1996) 1 UJ 484

Haryana State Electronics Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Mamni, AIR 2006 SC 2427 : (2006) 11 JT 232 : (2006) 2 LLJ 744 : (2006) 5 SCALE 164 : (2006) 9 SCC 434 : (2006) SCC(L&S) 1830 : (2006) 1 SCR 638 Supp : (2007) 1 SLJ 158 : (2006) AIRSCW 2979 : (2006) 5 Supreme 56

Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. Vs. Shambhu Nath Mukherji and Others, AIR 1978 SC 8 : (1977) 35 FLR 353 : (1978) 1 LLJ 1 : (1977) 4 SCC 415 : (1978) 1 SCR 591 : (1977) 1 SLJ 628 : (1977) 9 UJ 673

The New Maneck Chowk Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd., Ahmedabad and Others Vs. The Textile Labour Association, Ahmedabad, AIR 1961 SC 867 : (1961) 1 LLJ 521 : (1961) 3 SCR 1

Bhagwan Dass and Another Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board, AIR 2008 SC 990 : (2008) 2 CLT 233 : (2008) 116 FLR 627 : (2008) 1 JT 240 : (2008) 1 LLJ 696 : (2008) 1 SCALE 64 : (2008) 1 SCC 579 : (2008) 1 SCC(L&S) 242 : (2008) 3 SLJ 1 : (2008) 1 UJ 148 : (2008) AIRSCW 5142 : (2008) AIRSCW 534 : (2008) 1 Supreme 75

The State of Mysore Vs. The Workers of Gold Mines, AIR 1958 SC 923 : (1958) 2 LLJ 479 : (1959) 1 SCR 895

Kunal Singh Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, AIR 2003 SC 1623 : (2003) 96 FLR 990 : (2003) 2 JT 132 : (2003) 2 LLJ 735 : (2003) 2 SCALE 78 : (2003) 4 SCC 524 : (2003) SCC(L&S) 482 : (2003) 1 SCR 1059 : (2003) 2 SLJ 365 : (2003) 1 UJ 733 : (2003) AIRSCW 1013 : (2003) 2 Supreme 102

Harjinder Singh Vs. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, AIR 2010 SC 1116 : (2010) 124 FLR 700 : (2010) 1 JT 598 : (2010) 2 LLJ 277 : (2010) 1 SCALE 613 : (2010) 3 SCC 192 : (2010) 1 SCC(L&S) 1146 : (2010) 1 SCR 591 : (2010) 2 SLR 15

The Bharat Bank Ltd., Delhi Vs. Employees of the Bharat Bank Ltd., Delhi and The Bharat Bank Employees' Union, Delhi, AIR 1950 SC 188 : (1950) 1 LLJ 921 : (1950) 1 SCR 459

L. Robert D'souza Vs. Executive Engineer, Southern Railway and Another, (1982) 1 LLJ 330 : (1982) 1 SCALE 466 : (1982) 1 SCC 645 : (1982) 3 SCR 251 : (1982) 14 UJ 344

Hari Nandan Prasad and Another Vs. Employer I/R to Management of FCI and Another, AIR 2014 SC 1848 : (2014) AIRSCW 1383 : (2014) 3 JT 415 : (2014) 2 LLJ 54 : (2014) 2 SCALE 399 : (2014) 7 SCC 190 : (2014) 3 SCJ 451 : (2014) 2 SLJ 231

Deepali Gundu Surwase Vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D. Ed.) and Others, (2013) 6 ABR 304 : (2013) 10 AD 89 : (2013) 139 FLR 541 : (2013) LabIC 4249 : (2013) 4 LLN 417 : (2013) 11 SCALE 268 : (2013) 10 SCC 324 : (2013) 4 SCT 716

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Another Vs. Casteribe Rajya P. Karmchari Sanghatana, (2009) 123 FLR 136 : (2009) 11 JT 609 : (2009) 4 LLJ 286 : (2009) 12 SCALE 25 : (2009) 8 SCC 556 : (2009) 13 SCR 937 : (2010) 3 SLR 588 : (2009) 9 UJ 4242

Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. D.J. Bahadur and Others, AIR 1980 SC 2181 : (1980) LabIC 1218 : (1981) 1 LLJ 1 : (1981) 1 SCC 315 : (1981) 1 SCR 1083

U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and Another Vs. Bijli Mazdoor Sangh and Others, (2007) 113 FLR 821 : (2007) 5 JT 611 : (2007) 2 LLJ 832 : (2007) 5 SCALE 732 : (2007) 5 SCC 755 : (2007) 2 SCC(L&S) 258 : (2007) 6 SCR 256

Criminal Law – Conspiracy and Murder – Balkar Singh (A-10), convicted by lower courts for murder under IPC 120B, 302 read with 34, alongside co-accused A1-A4 – Primary evidence against A-10 was circumstantial – Supreme Court re-evaluates the chain of circumstantial evidence. [Paras 1-36]

Circumstantial Evidence Assessment – Supreme Court revisits and scrutinizes each link of the presented circumstantial evidence – Findings indicate insufficiency in establishing A-10's direct involvement or leadership in the conspiracy – Key evidence such as procurement of murder weapons and vehicle for crime deemed unproven. [Paras 6, 18-19, 28-32]

Conspiracy Theories – Analysis of alleged conspiracies amongst groups of accused – Court finds insufficient evidence supporting the existence of a cohesive conspiracy involving A-10, especially after acquittal of other closely linked accused A-11 and A-14 – Questions adequacy of evidence proving essential conspiracy elements like the place and specific agreement. [Paras 14, 33-35]

Decision – Acquittal of Balkar Singh (A-10) – Given the breakages in the chain of necessary circumstantial evidence and lack of clear, unerring links leading only to the guilt of A-10, the Supreme Court sets aside his conviction and sentence, allowing the appeal. [Para 36]

Referred Cases:

Shanti Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2012) 12 SCC 158

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

Arvindkumar Anupalal Poddar Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2012) CriLJ 4007

The appellant, a partnership firm engaged in the manufacture and sale of hot re-rolled products, challenged an order by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs re-fixing their annual capacity of production and duty liability. The Tribunal initially remanded the matter back to the Commissioner, who reaffirmed the original order. The appellant's subsequent appeal to the Tribunal was dismissed for want of prosecution due to their non-appearance, and a restoration application was also dismissed. The High Court of Bombay dismissed the appellant's appeal, stating no substantial question of law arose for consideration.

The Supreme Court considered whether the Tribunal had the power to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. Section 35C(1) of the Central Excise Act mandates that the Tribunal must pass orders on the merits of the case and does not allow for dismissal due to non-appearance. Rule 20 of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules cannot override this statutory requirement. The Court referenced Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras vs. S. Chenniappa Mudaliar, where it was held that appeals must be decided on merits and not dismissed solely for non-appearance.

The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the appeal and the High Court erred in upholding this decision. The Tribunal should have decided the appeal on merits regardless of the appellant's absence. The Court set aside the orders of both the High Court and the Tribunal, directing the Tribunal to decide the appeal on its merits, and awarded costs of Rs. 25,000/- payable by the respondent.

Referred Cases:

Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras vs. S. Chenniappa Mudaliar, AIR 1969 SC 1068

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

BALAJI STEEL RE-ROLLING MILLS — AppellantVs.C.C.E. AND CUSTOMS — Respondent

( Before : R.K. Agrawal, J; Kurian Joseph, J; Anil R. Dave, J )

Civil Appeal No. 10265 of 2014 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 8738 of 2014)

Decided on : 14-11-2014

Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1946 - Rule 24

Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 - Section 31, Section 35C, Section 35C(1), Section 66

Customs, Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982 - Rule 20

Income Tax Act, 1922 - Section 33, Section 33(4)

Cases Referred

Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras Vs. S. Chenniappa Mudaliar, AIR 1969 SC 1068 : (1969) 74 ITR 41 : (1969) 1 SCC 591 : (1969) 3 SCR 818