Facts:

The appeals were initially filed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. However, with the enactment of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the focus shifted to seeking the lapse of acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

Issues:

The criteria for deeming an acquisition as lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, specifically concerning the passing of an award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act, possession of the land, and payment of compensation.

Held:

The court held that each appeal must satisfy certain criteria before a declaration of lapse under Section 24(2) can be made. These criteria include establishing the passing of an award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act at least five years before the commencement of the 2013 Act, and demonstrating that possession of the land has not been taken or compensation has not been paid by the acquiring authority.

The court disposed of the appeals with liberty given to the landowners to initiate appropriate proceedings seeking the benefit of Section 24 of the 2013 Act within eight weeks.

Additionally, the court granted interim protection for a period of 90 days and allowed parties to approach the court within 90 days of the passing of the High Court's orders to revive the appeals if necessary.

Facts:

The respondents, state employees in the Forest Department, claimed eligibility for certain benefits based on a letter dated 28.07.1983, which they interpreted as a promise by the state. They sought relief before the High Court, which allowed their writ petitions. The state appealed against this decision.

Issues:

Whether a promise was made by the state to the respondents,

Whether promissory estoppel was applicable in this case, and whether the respondents fulfilled the necessary qualifications under the statutory rules.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the letter in question did not contain a promise by the state to grant the reliefs sought by the respondents. It emphasized that service conditions of state employees are governed by statutory rules, and a plea of promissory estoppel against the state can only succeed if the promise is explicit, specific, and supported by adequate evidence. The Court distinguished this case from previous decisions on promissory estoppel, noting that those cases dealt with different factual scenarios and were not applicable to the present matter, which concerned service law.

Ultimately, the Court allowed the appeals filed by the state, set aside the judgment of the High Court, and upheld the decision of the Tribunal, which had dismissed the respondents' original applications. The Court clarified that the respondents could still be considered for promotion or benefits in accordance with the existing or amended rules, provided they meet the necessary qualifications.

Contempt of Court - Criminal contempt for derogatory speech against judiciary - Appellant made a public speech criticizing a High Court judgment, using terms deemed disrespectful towards the judges - Convicted under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, sentenced to six months imprisonment, reduced to four weeks by Supreme Court - Upheld importance of dignified discourse about judiciary without scandalizing or lowering its authority - Emphasized separation of powers and limits on free speech when it disrupts court's functioning [Paras 1-11].

Free Speech vs. Contempt - Balancing act between free expression and respect for judiciary - Appellant argued right to criticize under Article 19, but crossed boundaries into contempt - Supreme Court reiterated that criticism should be temperate and not obstruct justice [Paras 6-10].

Sentencing in Contempt - Initial sentence deemed excessively harsh; reduced considering overall context and absence of prior contempt - No apology from appellant, reflecting lack of remorse [Para 10].

Disposed off with modification in the sentence.

Referred Cases:

P.N. Dua Vs. P. Shiv Shanker and Others, AIR 1988 SC 1208

In Re: S. Mulgaokar, AIR 1978 SC 727

R v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Ex-parte Blackburn 1968 (2) All ER 319(CA)

Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, Entry 25's validity questioned following its previous invalidation by Karnataka High Court - processing and supply of photographs initially deemed a service contract without sale of goods component - High Court ruled lack of state competence to tax such contracts under Entry 25 as unconstitutional [Para 14-16].

Revisiting legislative powers post-46th Amendment, Supreme Court clarifies goods involved in execution of works contracts can be taxed - overrules previous decisions limiting state's power only to goods explicitly sold rather than incidental transfers [Para 11, 18-19, 21].

Supreme Court holds Entry 25 constitutionally valid from 1st July 1989, despite retrospective application - justifies re-enactment by the legislature following principles laid out in Builders Association and M/s. Larsen and Toubro cases which allowed splitting of contracts into goods and services for taxation purposes [Para 22-23, 28-29].

Argument against retrospective application under Entry 25 rejected - Legislature deemed competent to enact retrospective laws provided they do not violate constitutional principles or impose excessive burdens [Para 24-27].

Referred Cases:

Golden Colour Lab and Studio and Others Vs. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and Others, (2003) ILR (Kar) 4883

Keshoram Surindranath Photo-Mag (P.) Ltd. and Others Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (LR), City Division and Others, (2001) 121 STC 175

Gannon Dunkerley and Co. and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, (1993) 1 SCC 364

Builders Association of India and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, AIR 1989 SC 1371

M/s. Associated Cement Companies Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, AIR 2001 SC 862

M/s. Larsen and Toubro Limited and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Another, (2014) 1 SCC 708

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, AIR 2006 SC 1383

Telecom Law – Differential Tariffs and Non-Discrimination – Appeal against TRAI directive enforcing uniform tariff rates for calls to BSNL/MTNL compared to other private operators – Tribunal upheld TRAI’s order, finding the directive justified to prevent discriminatory tariffs as per amended license conditions – Appellants argued differential tariffs due to lack of direct connectivity with BSNL/MTNL which incurred additional charges – Supreme Court concurs with Tribunal that appellants had not made adequate efforts for direct connectivity and upheld the non-discrimination mandate under Telecom Tariff Order, 1999 – Appeal dismissed as discriminatory tariff practices could not be justified on technical grounds - [Paras 2-24]

Decision: Dismissed – The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision, emphasizing the regulatory framework against discriminatory practices among subscribers of the same class, enforcing tariff uniformity regardless of technical and operational challenges faced by service providers.

Referred Cases:

The State of West Bengal Vs. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75: (1952) CriLJ 510: (1952) 1 SCR 284

Judicial Review and Eligibility for Employment - Anganwadi Worker Selection - Appeal challenging the judgment of the Orissa High Court which set aside the appointment of the appellant, despite her scoring higher in the selection process and being eligible, due to alleged procedural errors in earlier phases of the selection - Supreme Court noted that the Division Bench focused improperly on mere technicalities rather than substantive facts such as the eligibility of the respondent - Held that the High Court Division Bench erred by disregarding the eligibility requirements and reinstating an ineligible candidate based on procedural adherence - The Court reinstated the appellant, emphasizing adherence to eligibility criteria over procedural technicalities - Court stressed that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not perpetuate illegality by overlooking essential eligibility - Impugned judgment and order dated 18.07.2011 set aside, appellant's appointment revived. [Paras 2-9]

Referred Cases:

None

Land Lease and Transfer of Interest - U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation leased industrial plots to various companies - Allegations arose that these companies, without the appellant's consent, had substantial changes in shareholding and directorship which, according to the appellant, constituted a transfer of interest requiring transfer levies - High Court had earlier held that mere changes in shareholders or directors do not constitute a legal transfer of the leased plot as the corporate entity remains unchanged - Appellant argued that such changes affect the lease agreements and the original intent of industrial plot allotments - Supreme Court set aside High Court judgments, upholding the appellant's demands for transfer levies.

Corporate Law - Interpretation of "transfer of interest" under lease agreements - Changes in shareholders or directors considered by the appellant as transfers of interest - High Court had contradicted this interpretation, leading to the setting aside of its judgments by the Supreme Court - Court emphasized that significant changes in shareholding and control impact lease terms and could trigger transfer levies.

Decision - Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court judgments, reinstating the demand for transfer levies from the respondent companies - Held that changes in shareholding and directorship affecting the control and management of leased entities amount to transfer of interest under the lease agreements.

Referred Cases:

Bacha F. Guzdar Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay, AIR 1955 SC 74: (1955) 1 SCR 876

Power of Attorney in Criminal Complaints – Validity and Scope – Supreme Court elaborates on the legal standing of Power of Attorney holders in filing complaints under Section 138 of the NI Act - The Court holds that Power of Attorney holders can indeed file complaints, provided they have personal knowledge of the transactions or are closely involved in the daily affairs of the principal - The necessity for explicit assertion of this knowledge in the complaint is emphasized - [Paras 13-14].

Procedural Aspects Under CrPC and NI Act – The Court discusses the procedures under Sections 200 and 145 of the CrPC and NI Act, respectively - It is not mandatory for the Magistrate to examine the complainant or witnesses if the complaint and supporting affidavit sufficiently establish the case - This supports the efficiency of legal processes in cases involving dishonored cheques - [Para 22].

Delegation of Powers by Power of Attorney Holders – The Court clarifies that Power of Attorney holders cannot further delegate their powers unless explicitly authorized by the original power of attorney - Issues related to sub-delegation are highlighted with reference to ensuring proper legal representation in criminal complaints - [Para 25].

The appeals are allowed - The Supreme Court sets aside the impugned judgments upholding the criminal complaints filed via Power of Attorney without proper verification of authority or knowledge of transactions, thereby emphasizing the necessity for complainants or their legal representatives to have direct knowledge of and participation in the disputed transactions.

Referred Cases:

M.M.T.C. Ltd. and Another v. Medchl Chemicals and Pharma (P) Ltd. and Another, AIR 2002 SC 182

Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani and Another v. Indusind Bank Ltd. and Others, AIR 2005 SC 439

Vishwa Mitter of Vijay Bharat Cigarette Stores, Dalhousie Road, Pathankot v. O.P. Poddar and Others, AIR 1984 SC 5

Bribery and Corruption - Allegations of demanding and accepting a bribe by a municipal employee for facilitating a license - Initial conviction by trial court and upheld by the High Court based on evidence of demand and acceptance through a middleman - Supreme Court revisits the evidence, focusing particularly on the chain of custody and recovery of bribe money - Inconsistencies in witness testimony and procedural errors in evidence handling lead to doubts about the direct involvement of the appellant. [Paras 1-10]

Evidence Review - Key witness (P.W. 3) turns hostile; contradictions in testimony regarding the recovery of bribe money - Lack of corroborative evidence from independent witnesses and procedural anomalies in the demonstration of the transfer of bribe money to the appellant - Supreme Court finds insufficient evidence of the appellant's direct receipt of bribe as alleged. [Paras 3-10]

Legal Analysis and Decision - Supreme Court finds that the prosecution failed to establish the fundamental criteria of demand, acceptance, and recovery of bribe money beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant - Convictions under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act set aside due to evidentiary deficiencies - Appellant acquitted and bail bonds discharged. [Para 11]

Referred Cases:

None