Deputation Appointment and Repatriation - Challenging premature repatriation from a tenure deputation position, S.N. Maity was repatriated without stated reasons, violating Article 14 and 16 - High Court deemed repatriation arbitrary due to lack of reasonable grounds, setting it aside and ordering reinstatement - [Paras 4-5, 18].

Judicial Review of Administrative Action - Supreme Court reviewed High Court's decision to overturn tribunal's dismissal of Maity's application - Found High Court right in setting aside repatriation due to arbitrariness and lack of procedural fairness but altered remedy considering time lapse - [Paras 6, 19-25].

Employment Law - Interpretation of deputation terms - Supreme Court confirmed tenure nature of Maity's deputation, emphasizing that premature termination must be justified with valid reasons - Compensation awarded for salary loss due to arbitrary repatriation, calculated till the end of the original tenure - [Paras 7, 24-25].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed - High Court's order of reinstatement set aside due to impracticability after lapse of time - Directed compensation for lost salary plus interest - [Para 25]

Referred Cases:

Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. Shri Bhanwar Lal Mundan, AIR 2014 SC 776

Ashok Kumar Ratilal Patel Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, (2012) 7 SCC 757

Debesh Chandra Das Vs. Union of India (UOI), AIR 1970 SC 77

Sri Justice S.K. Ray Vs. State of Orissa and Others, AIR 2003 SC 924

Representing Advocates:

Tushar Mehta, ASG; Sushma Manchanda, Jetendra Mahapatra and B. Krishna Prasad for the Appellant

Colin Gonsalves, Sr. Adv.; P.K. Pattanaik, A.P. Mohanty, and Praveen Swarup for the Respondent

Property Dispute – Family settlement and consent decree – Civil suit concerning 52 kanals of land in Nizampur Majra, Sonepat, claimed under a family settlement – Consent decree passed admitting claim without contest – Subsequent suit by other family members contesting the decree as collusive and challenging under Registration Act - Held, consent decree not collusive as per first appellate court and upheld by High Court; requirement of registration discussed with respect to the creation of rights in immovable property. [Paras 1-33]

Registration Requirements – Interpretation of Section 17 of the Registration Act – Held, the gift of 20 kanals of self-acquired property by Bhagwana to Ram Singh requires registration, but the family settlement involving 32 kanals of ancestral land does not, under Section 17(2)(vi) – Supreme Court clarifies the application of registration requirements to family settlements and judicial decrees involving property transfer. [Paras 28-33]

Legal Standings – Challenge by daughters – Held, daughters had no locus standi to challenge the family settlement or the consent decree involving ancestral property, as the property was dealt with by their father Bhagwana of his own free will, acknowledging Ram Singh’s care as quasi-filial – No evidence presented by daughters in original suits. [Paras 17, 31]

Referred Cases:

K. Raghunandan and Others vs. Ali Hussain Sabir and Others, AIR 2008 SC 2337; (2008) 13 SCC 102

Ramachandra Ganpat Shinde and another vs. State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 1994 SC 1673; (1993) 4 SCC 216

Rup Chand Gupta vs. Raghuvanshi Private Limited and Another, AIR 1964 SC 1889; (1964) 7 SCR 760

Nagubai Ammal and Others vs. B. Shama Rao and Others, AIR 1956 SC 593; (1956) 1 SCR 451

Bhoop Singh vs. Ram Singh Major and others, AIR 1996 SC 196; (1995) 5 SCC 709

Phool Patti and Another vs. Ram Singh (Dead) through Lrs. and Another, (2009) 13 SCC 22

Urban Land Regulation - Dispute over compliance with floor space surrender requirements under Section 20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 - Initial exemption granted to retain part of the land and surrender specified percentage for government nominees - Discrepancies and changes in the percentage of floor space to be surrendered led to multiple legal queries and adjustments, including amendments to initially stated conditions and misunderstandings about retrospective application of judgments affecting such exemptions - Appellant challenged by subsequent demands from authorities claiming insufficient surrender of floor space, leading to the legal conflict - High Court upheld the demands, finding no retrospective application of the precedent affecting the appellant's obligations, which led to the present appeal [Paras 2-7].

Interpretation of Legal Amendments and Circulars - Examination of the legitimacy and impact of various circulars and corrigenda issued by the government altering the conditions of floor space surrender - Supreme Court finds no evidence supporting the reduction of surrender requirements from initial amendments, holding the appellant to originally amended conditions of 20% floor space surrender - Appeals court decision underlines the need for clear communication and legal adherence to initially stipulated conditions in property development exemptions [Paras 8-12].

Enforcement of Compliance - Supreme Court sets aside the High Court's order, modifying the directive of the lower administrative authority - Appellant directed to surrender an additional eleven flats to comply with the 20% floor space surrender requirement - Emphasis on the beneficiaries of surrendered flats being members of weaker sections of society, reinforcing the purpose of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 [Para 13].

Referred Cases:

M/s. Shantistar Builders Vs. Narayan Khimalal Totame and others, AIR 1990 SC 630 : (1990) 1 SCC 520

Employment Law – Government restructuring of Electronic Data Processing (EDP) posts – Appellants challenged orders by CAT and High Court that upheld the rights of respondents, originally appointed as Junior Machine Operators, to be re-designated as Data Entry Operators with corresponding pay scales backdated to their initial date of appointment - CAT and High Court ruled in favor of respondents, leading to appeal in Supreme Court - Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' decisions and confirmed the re-fixation of pay and designation to be effective from the respondents' initial dates of appointment [Paras 3-18].

Rationalization of Pay Scales – Directive from Office Memorandum No. F.7(1)/IC/86(44) dated 11th September 1989 by Ministry of Finance followed - Implemented restructuring and standardization of pay scales for EDP posts across ministries and departments [Para 12].

Judicial Assessment – Supreme Court finds no merit in appellants' contentions against the High Court's order affirming CAT's decision; appellants' arguments rejected on the basis that the adjustment of respondents to EDP posts was justified and required rectification from the date of their original appointments - High Court and CAT orders found consistent with principles for restructuring and rationalizing EDP cadre as per government policies- Appeal dismissed [Paras 16-18].

Referred Cases:

Secretary, Department of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension and Anr. v. T.V.L.N. Mallikarjuna Rao, C.A. No. 10862 of 2014

Employment Law - Definition of Workman - Appellate review of Industrial Tribunal decision by High Court - High Court allowed writ petition classifying respondent as a workman and quashed the order of termination - Supreme Court found that the High Court exceeded its writ jurisdiction by interfering with the factual findings of the Industrial Tribunal - High Court had erred in directing legislative changes to the definition of 'workman' under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act - Supreme Court restored the order of the Tribunal dismissing the respondent's claim as he was found not to be a 'workman' under the statutory definition. [Paras 1-18]

Decision: The appeal is allowed - The High Court's order is set aside and the Tribunal's order dismissing the respondent's claim as a 'workman' is restored - Respondent given liberty to challenge the termination order in an appropriate forum in accordance with law.

Referred Cases:

Birla Corporation Ltd. v. Rajeshwar Mahato and Others, (2001) 10 SCC 611

Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand and Others, (2014) 1 SCC 536

Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao v. Ashalata S. Guram, AIR 1987 SC 117

S.K. Maini v. M/s. Carona Sahu Company Limited and others, AIR 1994 SC 1824

Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distribution Company of India Ltd. v. The Burma Shell Management Staff Association and Others, AIR 1971 SC 922

U.P. Electric Supply Co., Ltd. v. The Workmen of S.N. Choudhary, Contractors and Another, AIR 1960 SC 818

Indian Overseas Bank v. I.O.B. Staff Canteen Workers' Union and Another, AIR 2000 SC 1508

Bhogpur Co-op Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Harmesh Kumar, AIR 2007 SC 288

Representing Advocates:

For the Appellant: C.U. Singh, Senior Advocate, Ashlesha Srivastava, and Dheeraj Nair

For the Respondent: Kavin Gulati, Sr. Adv., Avi Tandon, and Rohit Sthalekar, Advs. for T. Mahipal

Legal Proceedings and Property Dispute – The appeal by M/s. Swati Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd. challenges the High Court's decision dismissing their writ petition for the transfer of a leasehold plot from IDCO under Article 226 due to the presence of factual disputes – Supreme Court upholds High Court's decision, stating that factual disputes over property ownership and transactions cannot be settled under Article 226 and must be addressed in a civil court – Factual complexities involve multiple transfers and mortgage arrangements between entities, including changes in partnership and corporate structures - IDCO initially leased the property to M/s. Prachi Vanijya, which was then transferred to M/s. Eastern Fans with subsequent involvement of Swati Ferro Alloys, leading to various financial arrangements and disputes over the transfer and use of the property – Supreme Court suggests IDCO should investigate proper use of the property and the legitimacy of ongoing business activities thereon [Paras 1-19].

Decision: Dismissal of appeal - Supreme Court directs IDCO to conduct a detailed inquiry into the property's use and the series of transactions and corporate changes to determine proper utilization and ownership, reflecting concerns over potential misuse of assets for securing loans rather than legitimate business use.

Referred Cases:

None

Criminal Law - Conviction and Sentencing - Appellants convicted by trial court for offences under IPC Sections 302/149, 307/149, 147, and 148, and some under Section 27 of the Arms Act - Appeals dismissed by High Court - Appeals to Supreme Court result in confirmation of convictions for most appellants, with acquittals based on insufficient corroboration for five appellants - In-depth review of witness statements, FIR reports, and other evidence by Supreme Court - Convictions largely upheld due to consistency and credibility of eyewitness accounts, despite lack of independent witness testimony and minor inconsistencies regarding the participation of individual accused.

Identification of Accused - Issues raised about identification were dismissed, as all accused were named in FIR and known to witnesses as co-villagers - No challenge to identification at investigation or trial stages, substantiating their presence at crime scene - [Paras 6, 19].

Role of Unlawful Assembly and Common Object - Application of Section 149 IPC affirmed - Court finds that assembly of accused had the common object to commit murder and violence as evidenced by their collective actions at the scene - Detailed legal analysis on the role of each accused within the framework of an unlawful assembly [Paras 14-20].

Decision: Appeals of five appellants allowed on grounds of benefit of doubt due to lack of corroborative evidence for their specific roles in the unlawful assembly - Remaining appeals dismissed, affirming convictions and sentences - Convicted appellants to continue serving life sentences as prescribed, with immediate cancellation of bail bonds and orders for custody if on bail. [Paras 22-23]

Referred Cases:

Busi Koteswara Rao and Others Vs. State of A.P., AIR 2013 SC 515

Siri Kishan and Others Vs. The State of Haryana, (2009) 12 SCC 757

Kuldip Yadav and Others Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 2011 SC 1737

Khairuddin and Others Vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 2013 SC 2354

Masalti Vs. State of U.P., AIR 1965 SC 202

Roy Fernandes Vs. State of Goa and Others, AIR 2012 SC 1030

Lakshmi Singh and Others Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1976 SC 2263

Property Law and Evidence – Dispute over execution of Gift Deed – Appellant claims property ownership through a registered Gift Deed allegedly signed by the respondent – Gift Deed contested by the respondent alleging misrepresentation – Lower courts, including the High Court, supported the respondent, finding the Gift Deed not proven under Sections 68 and 69 of the Evidence Act. [Paras 2-4]

Legal Interpretation of Section 90, Evidence Act – Appellant's reliance on the presumption of due execution under Section 90 for a document older than thirty years – Supreme Court clarifies the calculation of the thirty-year period from the date of tendering in evidence, not from the date of registration – Gift Deed tendered five months short of thirty years, hence Section 90 presumption not applicable – Document's age crucial for presumption, which is discretionary and not automatic. [Paras 6, 9-11]

Attestation and Registration Requirements – Scrutiny of Sections 17 of the Registration Act and 123 of the Transfer of Property Act – Importance of attesting witnesses in proving the execution of the Gift Deed underscored – Registration does not substitute the need for proof of execution by at least one attesting witness if the execution is contested. [Paras 7, 8]

Final Decision – Supreme Court upholds lower courts' decisions dismissing the appeal – Gift Deed not proven as per legal requirements, and presumption under Section 90 not invoked due to document not reaching thirty-year threshold at the time of evidence presentation. Appeal dismissed. [Paras 12, 13]

Referred Cases:

Surendra Krishna Roy and Another vs. Mirza Mahammad Syed Ali AIR 1936 15 (Privy Council)

Employee Misconduct and Disciplinary Action – Appellant, a cashier at Life Insurance Corporation of India, failed to deposit a premium collected, leading to charges of temporary embezzlement and forgery for altering ledger entries – Initially removed from service, High Court modified the punishment to compulsory retirement considering the misconduct, despite the relatively small amount involved - High Court’s decision upheld, emphasizing loss of employer’s confidence rather than the amount misappropriated as the primary factor for the dismissal [Paras 3-12].

Quantum of Punishment – Discussion on proportionality of compulsory retirement for embezzlement of Rs. 533 - Supreme Court upholds High Court’s decision citing Rule 23 of the LIC Pension Rules, which entails forfeiture of pensionary benefits for such misconduct - Judicial precedence stresses strict action to maintain trust in public service roles [Paras 5-12].

Final Decision: Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs – High Court’s judgment in substituting removal with compulsory retirement affirmed, emphasizing stringent measures against misconduct involving financial integrity in public institutions.

Referred Cases:

Divisional Controller, KSRTC (NWKRTC) vs. A.T. Mane, (2005) 3 SCC 254

Municipal Committee, Bahadurgarh vs. Krishan Behari and others, (1996) 2 SCC 714

Rajasthan State TPT Corpn. and Another vs. Bajrang Lal, (2014) 4 SCC 693

Niranjan Hemchandra Sashittal and Another vs. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 4 SCC 642

Divisional Controller, N.E.K.R.T.C. vs. H. Amaresh, AIR 2006 SC 2730