LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Gajanand Sharma vs Adarsh Siksha Parisad Samiti & Ors.

Civil Appeal · 2023 INSC 58Decided 19 Jan 2023
Civil Appeal Nos. 100-101 of 2023
M.R. Shah · C.T. Ravikumar · Hima Kohli

Background

Gajanand Sharma worked for a private school run by the Adarsh Siksha Parisad Samiti in Rajasthan. After a disciplinary enquiry on charges including misbehaving with the Principal and embezzling school funds, his services were terminated on 6 August 1998, without obtaining prior approval of the Director of Education. The Education Tribunal set aside the termination for breach of Section 18 of the 1989 Act, and a Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court agreed. But in May 2022 a Division Bench of the High Court reversed this, relying on a Larger Bench ruling of that High Court (Central Academy Society) which had "read down" Section 18 to say no prior approval is needed when termination follows a disciplinary enquiry, and declined to follow the Supreme Court's decision in Raj Kumar vs Director of Education (2016) on the ground that it had not considered T.M.A. Pai Foundation.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court allowed the employee's appeals. It found the Division Bench "factually incorrect": Raj Kumar had discussed T.M.A. Pai in eight or nine paragraphs, and held it was impermissible for a High Court to refuse to follow a binding Supreme Court decision on such a basis; judicial discipline requires reading Supreme Court judgments thoroughly. On the merits, Section 18 draws no distinction between terminations after an enquiry and terminations without one: its proviso plainly says no final order of removal, dismissal or reduction in rank can be passed without prior approval of the Director of Education. The Larger Bench ruling in Central Academy Society was declared not good law to that extent. The termination was quashed, the Tribunal's order restored, and the appellant ordered to be reinstated with 50% back wages and notional continuity of seniority and other benefits, given that the school is unaided and the termination dated back to 1998. The connected appeal on his equal-pay claim was remanded to the High Court to be decided on merits.

Lesson Learnt

A recognised private school in Rajasthan cannot dismiss, remove or demote an employee, even after a full disciplinary enquiry, without the Director of Education's prior approval; and lower courts must follow binding Supreme Court precedent rather than sidestepping it.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Tax & Customs Law

Tax & Customs LawSupreme Court of India

Mepco Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld treatment of this subsidy as a taxable revenue receipt. It applied the purpose test: the scheme had to be read as a whole to determine whether the assistance supported capital investment or the running of an established business. Here, payment tracked actual electricity charges incurred in production and was not earmarked for plant, machinery, factory construction or repayment of capital borrowing. The scheme's broad aim of industrial development did not override those operative features, and payment after production began was relevant to the overall scheme rather than decisive by itself.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Tax & Customs LawDelhi High Court

M/S Kuku Overseas vs. Commissioner of Customs & Anr.

The Court found the petitioner's non-disclosure of the earlier adjudication order was material, since the core premise of the petition (indefinite non-finalisation) no longer held true once formal orders existed. It held the petitioner now had an effective alternate remedy, a statutory appeal under Section 128(1) of the Customs Act, to raise all its arguments, including about delay, and declined to keep the writ petition pending just because a related Supreme Court case on delay in adjudication was ongoing. The writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable in its present form, with liberty to appeal.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Tax & Customs LawDelhi High Court

M/s Aparna Collection vs. Union of India & Ors. and connected matters

The Court rejected the argument that limitation under Section 74(2) must be measured from the date on Form GST DRC-01, because DRC-01 is only a summary of the show cause notice. On Section 74(10), the Court held that the statute requires the order, not the DRC-07, to be issued within the prescribed period, and that DRC-07 is a summary uploaded later under Rule 142. Because the petitioner had a statutory alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107, and the questions raised needed factual findings, the Court declined to decide the merits in writ jurisdiction. The petitions were disposed of, with liberty to appeal under Section 107 and to raise all contentions there, including limitation and exclusion of the time spent in these proceedings.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Tax & Customs LawSupreme Court of India

Additional Commissioner, Commercial Tax & Others v. Cadila Health Care Ltd. & Another

The Supreme Court dismissed the authorities' appeals and upheld the classification accepted by the High Court. It held that, under the statutory entries at issue, classification depended on the goods' form when sold, rather than what customers might later prepare with them. The beverage entry grouped beverages with syrups, cordials, juices and other liquid preparations, and did not expressly include powders used to make drinks. Packaging instructions and general tests of popular meaning or function could not expand that clear statutory description. Because the products did not fit the specific beverage entry, they belonged in the residual category; precedents involving differently worded entries or liquid products did not change that result.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Tax & Customs LawDelhi High Court

Zoom Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 25(1) & Anr.

The Court dismissed the writ petition. Except for the assessment year, the facts were identical to the earlier case, and the Court held that judicial discipline required it to follow the Coordinate Bench's decision in the petitioner's own case. The Court did not accept the petitioner's reliance on an interim order in another company's case, and noted that the earlier judgment in the petitioner's own case was final. The earlier judgment also left it to the Assessing Officer to examine, after the notice is answered, whether the Rs 82 lakh amount is a spurious transaction.

Decided 1 Oct 2026Read case
Tax & Customs LawDelhi High Court

Ms Devi Electronics Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner CGST Delhi South & Ors.

The High Court dismissed the petition. It held that the Commissioner could validly invoke Section 54(11), because an anti-evasion investigation was already underway when the impugned order was passed and the Commissioner had formed an opinion of fraud or malfeasance based on contemporaneous material. The Court held that the power to withhold refund is distinct from the adjudication and appellate scheme under Sections 73, 74 and 107, and that the absence of a statutory appeal does not bar judicial review. However, an appeal had already been filed before the GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), so the Court declined to decide disputed factual questions and left all issues open before the GSTAT.

Decided 1 Oct 2026Read case