(A) Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Capital Investment Subsidy - For Construction/ Expansion/ Modernization of Cold Storages/Storage of Horticultural Produce - Claim for - Appellant was Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC) - NABARD took decision to withdraw subsidy from APMCD and recover amount already paid - Record showed that efforts were indeed made by appellant through its bank to have money released, as per Scheme's requirement, but same was to no avail - Had inspections requested been carried out or money as requested released, dispute would not have dragged - When matter stood at stage of exchange of letters, fire took place and, thereafter, NABARD issued instructions to withdraw subsidy amount from appellant - Stand of NHB that appellant 'miserably failed' to establish any efforts made by it after first joint monitoring visit and that deficiencies pointed out in Report of such visit were never cured and so appellant was ineligible was not proper - Order of Single Judge that no reasons stood assigned by authorities for withdrawing subsidy to appellant particularly, when its eligibility had never been questioned and direction to release remaining 50% in favour of appellant after verification of compliance with Scheme was proper. (Para 9, 10)

(A) Environment Protection Act (29 of 1986), S.3 - Constitution of India, Art.142 - Wild Life (Protection) Act (53 of 1972), S.29 - Destruction of wildlife habitat - Illegal sand mining operations - Two forest Guard were brutally killed while discharging his official duties during an anti-illegal mining operation - Large-scale and systematic illegal sand mining operations were being carried out in close proximity of a bridge and its pillar - Mining directly under and around the pillars led to the formation of large cavities, some filled with water, thereby compounding the structural vulnerability of the bridge and posing additional risks - Unregulated and indiscriminate extraction of sand and other minor minerals led to severe disruption of riverine and ecological systems by altering natural flow patterns, degrading riverbeds, destabilizing sediment composition, and depleting groundwater reserves - Directions were issued to States of Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh to ensure installation of high-resolution, Wi-Fi enabled CCTV cameras mounted on appropriately elevated poles/masts at all routes for surveillance and monitoring framework and installation of GPS tracking machine in all vehicles so as to enable real-time monitoring, effective surveillance and constitution of dedicated and fully operational and well-equipped joint patrol teams. (Para 18)

(A) Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), O.14, R.1(6), O.14, R.6, O.20, R.4, O.20, R.4 - Ex-parte suit - Essential requirements of a valid judgment - Suit for specific performance for agreement to sell - In ex-parte suit court is not bound to frame issues under O.14, R.6 - Yet Court is required to frame points for determination and proceed to construct ex parte judgment dealing with the points at issue one by one - Though framing of issues, is not mandatory yet, if omission to frame same causes prejudice to parties, then same can vitiate trial - In present case, dismissal of suit for specific performance, on ground of want of title without framing issue or affording opportunity to lead evidence prejudiced appellant i.e. vendee - Order dismissing suit ex-parte , was set aside - Matter was remanded. (Para 26, 27, 28, 31, 32, 33)

(A) Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974), S.125 - Maintenance to wife - Enhancement of - Entitlement - Within year of their marriage, wife was forced to leave matrimonial home and return to her parental residence - Since then, she had been residing separately - Wife had no independent source of income for her sustenance - Husband was employed as Manager in Bank and was drawing gross monthly income of Rs.1,15,670/- - There were certain deductions from said income, including repayments towards loans - Such financial commitments, being voluntary in nature, could not be accorded precedence over statutory and legally enforceable obligation of maintenance - Obligation of husband to maintain his spouse was primary and continuing duty - Maintenance awarded must enable her to sustain herself with dignity, consistent with status of parties - Maintenance awarded by High Court was enhanced from Rs.15,000 / to Rs.25,000 . (Para 14, 15, 16, 17)

(A) Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), O. 2, R. 2(2), O. 2, R. 2(3), O. 2, R. 1 - Frame of Suit - Suit to include whole claim - Principles of - Discussed. (Para .)

(B) Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), O. 7, R. 11(d) , O. 2, R. 2 , O. 7, R. 13 - Rejection of plaint - Bar of law - Principles of - Discussed. (Para .)

(C) Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), O. 7, R. 11(d), O. 2, R. 2 - Rejection of plaint - Bar of law - Conjoint reading of O.2, R. 2 with O. 7, R. 11(d) of CPC shows that plea under O. 2, R. 2 of CPC cannot be a basis or a ground for rejection of plaint. (Para .)

(D) Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), O. 7, R. 11(d), O. 2, R. 2 - Rejection of plaint - Bar of law - Application filed by defendant in second suit on ground of bar of law was dismissed by trial Court - Civil revision against same before High Court - On conjoint reading of two plaints, High Court had observed that plaintiff in second suit was aware that properties in second suit were already given to share of defendant - High Court had further observed that plaintiff in second suit did not seek leave to file another suit and that there was omission to assail power of attorney in first suit and that there was no separate cause of action to file another suit - High Court held that Trial Court erred in concluding that cause of action for two suits was different and distinct - Said approach of High Court in analysing averments made in second suit as if it was evidence, in juxtaposition with averments made in first suit was improper - Order of High Court rejecting plaint in second suit was set aside. (Para .)

(A) Constitution of India, Art.22(5) - Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (52 of 1974), S.3(1) - Detention - Challenge against - On grounds of non-consideration of representation, non-supply of relied upon documents, improper communication by authority, and lack of subjective satisfaction - Detenu had allegedly facilitated disposal of consignments of foreign-marked gold bars on four different occasions along with co-detenu - Communication of rejection of representation by an authority other than Detaining Authority or Central Govt, does not vitiate detention where such authority merely conveyed decision taken by competent authority - Non-filing of affidavits by Detaining Authority or Central Govt. was not fatal, as, additional affidavit clarified that representations were duly considered by competent authorities and only communicated through an authority - Subjective satisfaction of Detaining Authority were based on prior instances and proximate link qua the present incident - Documents relied upon along with its translated copies had been duly furnished to detenu - Detention order, was proper. (Para 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36)

(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (46 of 2023), S.482 - Anticipatory bail - Refusal - Offences of criminal intimidation, rape, assault or force against woman and sexual harassment - Accused allegedly subjected complainant to rape and sexual assault for over a year - Accused stated that he was well reputed businessman and complainant and her husband had targeted him through scandalous and malicious messages by making false accusations about an illicit relationship between complainant and accused - Bail was refused on ground that allegations were of very serious nature and considering position of accused in the company and his affluence in society, there was high chance that he might influence witnesses or tamper with evidence - Complainant worked for accused in the company and resigned via e-mail but contents of e-mail did not indicate any kind of harassment - There was settlement meeting held between accused and complainant and her husband whereby accused was to pay certain amount to complainant - Interim protection was granted to accused for his cooperation in investigation - Interim order was made absolute - Refusal to grant anticipatory bail was held erroneous. (Para 21, 22, 23)

(A) Prevention of Corruption Act (49 of 1988), S.13(2) - Illegal gratification - Proof - Accused, Taluk Supply Officer demanded bribe of Rs.500/- to counter sign abstract register kept at complainant's ration shop - Acceptance of money was not only established but also admitted by accused - Further, false explanation given by accused regarding acceptance of money was another compelling circumstance pointing to guilt of accused - Fact that demand was raised was proved as a complaint before vigilance and the statements to that extent made by complainant before the Vigilance Officer in the presence of independent witnesses were affirmed by complainant when he was examined as witness which the independent witness fully corroborated - Complainant's case was further corroborated by Vigilance Officer, lead trap officer, who wrote down allegations on oral complaint of complainant - Vigilance officer deposed that complaint was read over to complainant who confirmed it to himself - Scribe, and independent witnesses were present at that time - Guilt of accused was successfully established by prosecution - Order of acquittal was set aside. (Para 16, 18)

(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act (26 of 1996), S.2(1)(e), S.34 - Arbitral award - Challenge against - Seat vs. venue - Respondent invoked arbitration for resolving disputes as to contractual claims between parties - Parties expressly agreed to designate Srinagar as seat of arbitration and New Delhi as venue - Arbitral proceedings were conducted and award was rendered at New Delhi - Contracts were executed in the State of J. and K. and works were to be carried out within said State - Arbitration proceedings were initiated in the State of J. and K. and High Court had appointed arbitrator - Plea that arbitral award recorded New Delhi as place of arbitration and was therefore determinative of seat cannot be accepted - As, seat of arbitration is governed by agreement of parties and not by any stray recital in award - Courts at Srinagar alone would have supervisory jurisdiction over arbitral proceeding - Approach of High Court holding that place of hearing or place where arbitral award is signed determines jurisdiction renders concept of juridical seat otiose and would be contrary to principles of party autonomy - Courts at Srinagar alone have jurisdiction to entertain challenge under S.34. (Para 20, 21, 23, 24, 25)

(A) Air Force Rules (1969), R. 6 - Air Force Act (45 of 1950), S. 19, S. 124, S. 191 - Dismissal from service - Choice between criminal court and court-martial - Authority, after considering fact that personnel had been discharged by criminal court, noted that administrative action can still be initiated against him since effect of discharge was that he was neither acquitted nor convicted - Once personnel has been discharged, he is entitled to avail all benefits that were otherwise available to acquitted person and cannot be placed in less advantageous position - Air Force upon electing to have alleged offence tried by criminal court, cannot fall back on either court martial or any disciplinary action - Initiation of administrative proceedings for disciplinary action against personnel were bad in law and non-est. (Para 17, 18, 27, 28)

(B) Air Force Rules (1969), R. 16(4) - Air Force Act (45 of 1950), S. 19, S. 121, S. 191 - Initiation of court martial - Limitation - Three-year period from date of alleged offence expired on 28.03.1990 - A day after expiry of limitation period, notice was served upon appellant calling upon him to show cause why he should not be dismissed/removed from service - R. 16(4) empowers Chief of Air Staff to initiate administrative action against officer where, upon consideration of material on record, he forms opinion that trial by court-martial is inexpedient or impracticable - Observation of Division Bench that limitation period mentioned in S. 121 pertained to commencement of "trial by court-martial", whereas R. 16 concerns power of Air Force to initiate administrative action and that disciplinary action against appellant were not time-barred was proper. (Para 22)

(C) Air Force Rules (1969), R. 6 - Air Force Act (45 of 1950), S. 19, S. 191 - Dismissal from service - Personnel was punished for relocating driver to desolate surroundings which he did while acting on instructions of his superior - There was no definite material to suggest that such relocation was made with any motive of harming him - Keeping driver away from next day's anticipated visit of AOC-i-C (so that driver does not create any ruckus) was real object intended to be achieved - Further, it was also evident that Wg. Cmdr. had given specific instructions, which later were even viewed as encouraging his subordinates to suppress truth - Personnel had no other option but to obey orders of his superior - Non-consideration of those circumstances in course of decision-making process being writ large together with absence of reasoning in order punishing personnel, rendered same arbitrary and unsustainable in law sufficient to vitiate entire proceedings against personnel - Moreso, when his superior officer was let off leniently and appellant was singled out for harsher punishment despite his discharge from criminal case. (Para 36, 37)

(A) Companies Act (1 of 1956), S.394, S.394A - Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act (22 of 1950), S.12, S.54 - Amalgamation of companies - Carrying forward of loss - After amalgamation, appellant/ amalgamated company claimed set-off of amalgamating company's losses under the Kerala Act based on a scheme clause treating such losses as its own, pleading that sanctioned scheme was binding for tax purposes - The Kerala Act contains no provision permitting such transfer or set-off of losses, unlike S.72A of the Income Tax Act - Tax liability must strictly flow from statute, not contractual arrangements - Losses were time-barred beyond permissible 8-year carry-forward period and it was not bound by scheme since no notice had been given to State during amalgamation proceedings - Private arrangements cannot override tax laws, losses were independently hit by limitation under the Act, and State could not be bound by a scheme approved without notice to it - High Court upholding Tribunal's order rejecting claim of appellant for set-off of amalgamating company's losses under the Kerala Act was proper. (Para 11,12,14,15)

(A) Contract Act (9 of 1872), S.125, S.126 - Arbitration and Conciliation Act (26 of 1996), S.36 - Deferment of enforcement of arbitral award - Legality - Dispute regarding professional services agreement between company and third party leading to consent award - As per clause in consent award, promoters of company would keep company indemnified and also ensure that in case any liability is confirmed by Highest Court of Appeal, the same would be discharged by them within a period of 30 days - Although Consent Award contained component of indemnity, Compromise deed clearly mandated immediate obligation - Literal construction of consent award indicated that by use of word "ensure", immediate obligation was created on promoters to insulate company from any liability arising from pending disputes - Thus, liability against company was crystallised when forum compelled deposit of sum as per clause of consent award - It was case of discharge of crystallised liability, and not case of indemnity that matures only upon confirmation by Highest Court of Appeal - Therefore, High Court, erred in treating clause of compromise award as "Contract of Indemnity" governed by Ss. 124 and 125 of Contract Act - High Court also erred in using purposeful interpretation" to conclude that promoters owed no financial duty until liability of third party was confirmed by Highest Court of Appeal - Consequently, deferment of enforcement of arbitral award by High Court was set aside - Promoters were directed to deposit sum for benefits of company - However, amount deposited by promoters shall be subject to outcome of pending proceedings between third party and promoters. (Para 19, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30)

(A) Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974), S.389 - Bail and suspension of sentence pending appeal - Entitlement - Sentence of accused was already suspended in earlier connected case, after remaining in custody for more than 4 yrs - He had undergone custodial incarceration of more than 10 months in instant case - Appeal was not likely to be heard in near future - Accused was directed to be released on bail by suspending substantive sentence subject to stipulated conditions. (Para 19, 20, 21)

(A) Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974), S.482 - Quashing of proceedings - Offence under Ss.420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of IPC - Allegation against accused persons made by NRI purchasers that layout where they had purchased plots ,known as "Athina Township" was trespassed upon, compound walls and other demarcations were demolished, and boards of an entity styled as "Cityscape Properties" were erected upon the land by accused - Allegations did not rest merely on physical acts trespass and destruction but extended to scheme involving fraud , fabrication of documents and unlawful interference with property rights - High Court quashed proceedings on ground that dispute was civil in nature and criminal proceedings could not be sustained unless registered sale deeds were first cancelled by resorting to proceedings under S.31 of Specific Relief Act - Proceedings were at a nascent stage - Magistrate had merely exercised jurisdiction under S.156(3) of CrPC and directed investigation by police - Magistrate was neither expected to undertake an exhaustive evaluation of evidence nor adjudicate upon merits of allegations - High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under S.482, cannot evaluate defence material - Mere existence of civil remedy does not by itself bar criminal proceedings where allegations prima facie disclosed commission of a cognizable offence - Order quashing proceedings were set aside - Proceedings were restored. (Para 52, 54, 56, 58)

(A) Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974), S.389 - Suspension of sentence - Grant of bail during pendency of appeal - Legality - Offence of murder - Deceased was allegedly shot dead by co-accused, while accused narrowly escaped; due to political rivalry relating to local elections - Parameters governing suspension of sentence post-conviction are qualitatively distinct from those applicable at the stage of pre-trial bail - Presumption of innocence no longer survives after conviction - Prosecution case was founded on ocular evidence, which had been duly appreciated and accepted by trial Court - Absence of specific overt act immaterial, as, conviction was based on common intention under S.34 of IPC - Criminal antecedents and conduct of accused i.e. his alleged attempt to intimidate informant by issuing threats and initiate false cases, were to be considered - Order granting suspension of sentence, was set aside. (Para 14, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25)

(A) Hindu Marriage Act (25 of 1955), S.13(1)(ia), S.13(1)(ib) - Grant of divorce - On ground of cruelty and desertion by wife - Husband pleaded that wife used abusive language towards his parents on several occasions and was also involved in disputes with landlord and he had been subjected to continuous mental and physical harassment over years and that matrimonial relationship between parties had irretrievably broken down - Parties had been living separately since 2018 - Prolonged separation indicated that matrimonial bond had broken down beyond repair and there was no possibility of resuming cohabitation - Conduct attributed to wife amounted to cruelty - She had withdrawn from society of husband without reasonable cause - Grant of divorce was proper. (Para 8, 9, 10)

(B) Hindu Marriage Act (25 of 1955), S.25 - Maintenance to wife - Quantum - Modification - Family Court at time of granting divorce, directed husband to pay lump sum of Rs.6,00,000/- as maintenance to wife - Considering the need to ensure continuous financial support to wife and in the interest of complete justice, direction was issued to husband to pay Rs.10,000/- p.m. to wife towards maintenance. (Para 11)

(A) Karnataka Rent Act (34 of 2001), S.46 - Revision - Interference with findings of fact recorded by trial Court - Revisional powers are confined to examining legality, correctness, or propriety and do not permit acting as an appellate court unless findings are perverse, illegal, or unsupported by evidence - For unlawfully subletting premises to third parties without consent of landlord, after appreciating facts and evidence, Trial court passed order of eviction against tenants - Findings of trial Court based on proper evaluation of oral and documentary evidence were neither perverse nor illegal - High Court undertook a fresh analysis of evidence and arrived at independent conclusions, which is impermissible - High Court exceeded its limited revisional jurisdiction by re-appreciating evidence and substituting its own factual findings by overturning eviction order in place of those of trial court - Therefore, interference by High Court was unsustainable as it effectively converted revisional jurisdiction into appellate jurisdiction. (Para 12,12.1,12.5,12.6,12.7,12.8,12.9)

(B) Karnataka Rent Act (34 of 2001), S.27(2)(b) - Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S.102 - Eviction - Ground of unlawful sub-letting - Burden of proof - In cases of unlawful sub-letting, initial burden lies on landlord to prove that tenant has parted with possession in favour of a third party - This burden is discharged by showing that a third party is in exclusive possession and original tenant is no longer occupying the premises, which raises a presumption of sub-letting - In the present case, landlord successfully established that third parties, who were not parties to lease, were in exclusive possession, thereby shifting the burden to the tenants - However, tenants failed to provide any credible evidence of a lawful arrangement or consent of landlord - Hence, unlawful sub-letting was proved. (Para 13,13.1,13.5,13.6,13.7,13.8)

(C) Karnataka Rent Act (34 of 2001), S.27(2)(b)(ii), S.27(2)(p) - Eviction - Ground of unlawful sub-letting - Tenants pleaded that there was no sub-letting, claiming it was only a reconstitution of partnership, with business continuing under same firm and no transfer of possession - Mere retirement of a partner and continuation of business by others does not amount to partnership reconstitution if original tenant has parted with legal possession and control - Original tenant failed to prove any valid retirement or genuine reconstitution of partnership, and no credible evidence showed continued control over premises - Instead, sub-tenants/third parties, who were strangers to the tenancy, were found in exclusive possession - Alleged partnership arrangement was a sham device to conceal unlawful sub-letting - Thus, that amounted to unlawful sub-letting/assignment under the Karnataka Rent Act - Order of High Court overturning eviction order was set aside, and Trial court's eviction order was upheld - Three months period was granted to tenants to vacate premises. (Para 14,14.3,14.4,14.5,14.6,14.7,14.8,14.9,14.10, 15)

(A) Constitution of India, Art.226, Art.14 - Dearness allowance/Dearness relief at differential rates - Grant of - Classification between serving employees and retired employees - Dearness relief for pensioners was enhanced at a lower rate than dearness allowance on serving employees - State contended that retired employees and serving employees constitute different classes and different rates for DA/DR qua two separate classes did not violate the right to equality under Art.14 of the Constitution - Object and purpose of dearness allowance/dearness relief is to mitigate the hardship faced by salaried employees/pensioners on account of inflation - Govt. Order increased the rate of DA by 14% and DR by 11% even though the increase was to serve common object - Inflation hits both serving and retired employees with equal force, differentiating the two qua the rate of increase of DA and DR, has no rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved - Since both were linked to inflation and serve a common object, it would be discriminatory if DA/DR were granted at differential rate - Differential rates of enhancement of dearness relief on pension and enhancement of dearness allowance on salary was violative of Art.14 of the Constitution. (Para 25, 26, 27, 28)

(A) U. P. Public Services (Reservation for Economically Weaker Sections) Act (10 of 2020), S. 7 - Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Appointment - Post of Health Worker (Female) - Rejection of candidature - For availing reservation under EWS category, income for financial year prior to year of application would be considered - Said position was reiterated in advertisement, which came after notification of Act of 2020, wherein, in appendix, prescribed form in which income and assets certificate was to be obtained was provided - There also, certificate was to be in respect of financial year - If EWS certificates relied upon by appellants/candidates were not in respect of financial year prior to year of application and were issued prior to even closure of relevant financial year, there was error apparent on face of those EWS certificates - Plea of appellants that State should not have issued EWS certificates concerning financial year which had not closed by date of issuance of those certificates was untenable, because those certificates were obtained even before date of publication of advertisement - Therefore, candidates could have applied for fresh certificates in terms of advertisement if their earlier certificates were not in conformity with advertisement - Appellants did not possess necessary EWS certificate in prescribed form by cut-off date - Rejection of candidature of appellants based on those certificates was justified. (Para 24, 25, 26, 27)

(A) Probation of Offenders Act (20 of 1958), S. 4, S. 3 - Release on probation - Benefit of - Is available to offender who has been sentenced only with payment of a fine, and not to any term of imprisonment - Accused persons committed assault upon persons belonging to same locality - Allegations against accused persons were proved and as such, trial Court as well as High Court did not award any imprisonment to accused persons and directed only payment of fine - Further, State in its affidavit had stated that only present criminal case has been registered against accused persons - Accused persons were employed with State Government in Public Work Department and as Assistant Teacher in Education Department respectively - Accused persons did not commit any offence of moral turpitude - Accused persons did not satisfy pre-requisite contained in S.3 - Therefore, accused were entitled to benefit of probation on entering into bond for one year within jurisdictional Trial Court with sureties.

(A) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (31 of 2016), S.61(2), S.9, S.16, S.17 - Appeal before NCLAT - Limitation - Appeal filed after admission of insolvency proceedings by a suspended director in name of corporate debtor - Maintainability - Upon admission, management of the corporate debtor vests exclusively in the Interim Resolution Professional under Ss.16 and 17, and therefore, suspended director had no authority to represent the company - Such appeal was not a mere procedural defect but fundamentally invalid from inception and could not be cured by amendment, especially after expiry of strict limitation period prescribed under S.61(2) of the Code - The NCLAT erred in permitting amendment and effectively allowing a time-barred appeal to proceed - Appeal filed before the NCLAT by a suspended director in the name of corporate debtor, after admission of insolvency proceedings under S.9 was wholly incompetent and not maintainable - Incompetent appeal cannot be converted into a maintainable one beyond prescribed limitation period. (Para 4,6,7,8,13)

(A) Rajasthan Tenancy Act (3 of 1955), S.88, S.227 - Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), O.41, R.23 - Remand of case - On ground of denial of opportunity and procedural irregularities - Plaintiff, through his mother as he was minor at time of institution of suit, sought declaration of khatedari rights and recovery of possession over agricultural land, alleging illegal encroachment by defendants on basis of fabricated sale deed - Suit was decreed in favour of plaintiff - Defendant's challenge to decree after an inordinate delay of 31 years was initially rejected, but Board of Revenue and High Court remanded the matter - Record clearly established defendant's participation in trial, including appearance through counsel, filing of applications, and examination of witnesses, thereby negating claims of lack of notice or fraud - Defendant had taken inconsistent pleas, failed to produce alleged sale deed, and could not substantiate possession or title, inviting an adverse inference - Plaintiff was not required to seek cancellation of a non-produced, allegedly fabricated sale deed and decree itself amounted to repudiation of such claim - Alleged sale involving a minor without court permission was legally invalid, and subsequent purchasers could not claim bona fide title due to absence of proper title recitals - Gross delay could not be condoned and remand after three decades would defeat finality and justice - Original decree was restored and remand order by High Court was set aside. (Para 15,16,17,18,19)

(A) M. P. Co-operative Societies Act (17 of 1961), S. 55 (1) - Constitution of India, Art. 226, Art. 14 - Prathmic, Krishi Saakh Sahakari Sanstha, Vrihattakar Saakh Sahakari Sanstha, Adim Jati Sewa Sahakari Sewa Sanstha, Krishak Sewa Sahakari Sanstha Karmchari Sewa (Niyojan, Nibandhan, Tatha Karya Stithi) Niyam, 2013, R. 19 - Promotion - To post of Society Manager - Request to relax educational qualification - Employee was denied promotion, primarily on refusal of relaxation of educational qualification, which resulted in alleged violation of his right to equality - Appellant was appointed in 1987 when requisite qualification was Higher Secondary - He was recommended for promotion by Board of Directors under new service Rules of 2013 which, while requiring graduation, empowered Board to grant relaxations for employees with over five years of service - Despite Board and General Body exercising their valid discretionary power, Registrar disapproved promotion, while simultaneously approving two similarly situated employees - Appellant belonged to a homogeneous class with the other promoted employees -Selective disapproval by Registrar constituted a discrimination and a direct violation of right to equality - Subsequent Service Rules of 2013 had lowered qualification requirements again and appellant had since acquired necessary computer diploma - Denial of equal treatment in matters of employment was legally unsustainable and was not a case of 'negative equality' since the appellant was eligible through the validly exercised relaxation clause - Right to promotion of appellant was restored. (Para 6 to 7.2, 8.1, 8.2, 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 10)

(A) Penal Code (45 of 1860), S.325, S.307 - Grievous hurt and attempt to murder - Conviction - Prayer for enhancement - Prosecution had proved, through consistent and reliable testimony of injured witnesses and supporting medical evidence, that accused caused serious injuries by stabbing victims - However, ingredients of S.307 IPC attempt to murder were not established, as incident arose out of a sudden quarrel without premeditation, weapon was not recovered, and medical evidence did not conclusively show injuries sufficient to cause death - Accordingly, Court refused to enhance conviction to S.307 IPC and affirmed conviction under S. 325 IPC. (Para 30, 31, 32)

(B) Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974), S.482 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (46 of 2023), S.528 - Quashing of FIR and proceedings - Prayer for - Offences under S.325and S.307 of the IPC - During pendency of appeals, accused and surviving injured victim entered into an amicable settlement, and victim expressed no desire to pursue case - Considering that incident arose from a sudden quarrel, accused was a first-time offender, and dispute was personal in nature, continued imprisonment would serve no useful purpose - While maintaining conviction under S.325 IPC and dismissing State's appeal for enhancement, benefit of probation was granted to accused for one year, subject to conditions including good conduct and payment of costs, thereby modifying sentence in light of compromise. (Para 33, 34, 35, 38, 39, 40, 41)

(A) Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S.16(c), S.20 - Specific performance - Agreement to sell agricultural land - Readiness and willingness - Defendants did not challenge finding regarding existence of agreement, same attained finality and cannot be reopened - Findings recorded by First appellate Court as to extension of time for execution of sale deed, cash payment of Rs.5,00,000/- and readiness and willingness of plaintiff, were not shown to be perverse in any manner - Material on record established that parties had mutually agreed for grant of extension of time to execute sale deed despite time being essence of agreement - Documents showing extension of time bore signatures of defendants and same was verified by handwriting expert - Defendant categorically stated to have accepted cash payment on behalf of company, as its Director - Defendants failed to discharge obligation that they were also ready and willing to execute sale deed on or before last extended date - Plaintiff attended office of Sub-Registrar on relevant date, submitted application, which reflected his readiness and willingness - Non-appearance of plaintiff in witness box may give rise to adverse inference, but said presumption was rebutted by cogent evidence of competent witness having personal knowledge - Sale deeds executed by defendants during pendency of suit were hit by doctrine of lis pendens and were non est - Decree of specific performance in favour of plaintiff, was proper. (Para 29, 30, 36, 37, 38, 39, 42, 46)

(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act (26 of 1996), S.11, S.7 - Appointment of arbitrator - Scope of interference by Court - Limited to prima facie existence of arbitration agreement - Dispute arose between parties, as, Work Order was not issued by appellant-tenderer ( MSEDCL) in favour of respondent - Respondent contended that arbitration clause contained in Clause of Special Conditions of Contract in Tender documents had been incorporated in contract which had been concluded by appellant's Letter of intent ( LOI ) - Pursuant to LOI and in terms of relevant clause, neither any work order was issued to respondent nor any formal agreement was entered into between parties - No admission of any concluded contract, much less an arbitration agreement between parties by appellant - LoI does not, in and of itself, create a legal relationship or contractual obligations until there is a clear, unambiguous final acceptance by parties - LOI in instant case was a promise to make a promise and not a promise itself - As LOI contemplated that a work order was to be issued at a subsequent stage - Respondent had submitted bank guarantees pursuant to LOI, which was a preliminary requirement as a precursor to Work Order being issued - Hence, LOI do not have effect of creating a binding legal relationship between parties - Prima facie, no existence of arbitration agreement - Order appointing Arbitrator, was set aside. (Para 27, 29, 31, 34, 36, 41, 42, 43)

(A) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (31 of 2016), S. 9 - Initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process - Pre-existing dispute - Appellant was corporate debtor - Respondent admitted that written correspondence commenced only after disputes arose, and first such written correspondence long prior to issuance of demand notice was sufficient in itself to show that there were pre-existing disputes between parties - When appellant sought reconciliation of accounts in that context and respondent failed to oblige, its demand for sum of money in excess of Rs. 1 crore would not be sufficient to meet threshold for maintaining application u/S. 9 - More so, when respondent raised demand just two months prior to issuance of demand notice and clarified same almost a month after issuance of demand notice - Confusion and lack of clarity on part of respondent in deciding as to what was amount allegedly due to it, clearly supported case of appellant that accounts required reconciliation - Further, respondent's belated reply followed by its multiple debit notes for interest in quick succession were just afterthoughts to build up case so as to file application u/S. 9 - Therefore, it was not for NCLAT to delve into appellant's dispute to decide whether it had actual merit - It was for adjudicating authority to satisfy itself as to existence of plausible pre-existing dispute, which was not spurious, hypothetical or illusory - Held, NCLT was correct in concluding that application filed by respondent u/S. 9 of Code did not merit consideration, owing to pre-existing disputes. (Para 17, 18, 21)

(A) Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974), S. 468 - Bar to take cognizance - Computation of period of limitation - Relevant date for purpose of reckoning limitation under S. 468 of Cr.PC is date of filing of complaint or date of initiation of criminal proceedings - Criminal proceedings can be said to be initiated in both categories of complaint when complaint is filed before Magistrate or FIR is lodged before police, as case may be. (Para 7.2, 7.3, 10)

(B) Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974), S. 482, S. 468 - Quashing of FIR - Bar of limitation - Relevant date for purpose of reckoning limitation under S.468, Cr.PC is date of filing of complaint or date of initiation of criminal proceedings - Order of High Court quashing FIR on ground of limitation by taking date of cognizance taken by Magistrate as relevant date was erroneous and set aside. (Para 10, 11)

Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), S. 47, O.23, R. 3 - Execution of compromise decree - Powers of Executing Court - Compromise decree clearly specified and delineated the respective portions of land allotted to each party and mandated execution of sale deed in terms thereof - No dispute as to identity of land - Executing Court, instead of executing the decree as it stood, varied and modified the terms of decree - Executing Court had no jurisdiction to go beyond or alter the terms of decree - It could only ensure compliance of obligations under decree and resolve issue of identity, if any - Grounds such as non-conformity with sanctioned map or inconvenience were immaterial - Orders modifying terms of decree was erroneous and liable to be set aside. (Para 29, 30)

(A) Limitation Act (36 of 1963), Art.65 - Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S.34 - Suit for declaration - On basis of possession - Plea of plaintiff his late father was title holder of suit property and same had been given to him by then ruler - Documentary evidence by plaintiff showed that his father was tenant in respect of suit property - Document in form of letter submitted on record, mentioned that father of plaintiff was directed to deposit arrears of rent - No document on record to show that plaintiff was granted ownership or title over suit property by then Ruler in any manner whatsoever - Also, issue of adverse possession was not raised by plaintiff initially and same was inserted in plaint by way of amendment - Mere long possession by itself cannot be treated as possession adverse to owner of property - Order dismissing suit was proper. (Para 8,10,13)