Criminal Law – Permission to Travel Abroad – Right to Personal Liberty under Article 21 – Parameters for Judicial Discretion – Petitioner, facing trial for offences under Sections 420, 406, 409, 467, 468, 471, 474, 120-B, 380, and 34 IPC, sought permission to travel abroad for business purposes – Earlier permissions granted in 2023 and 2024 were duly complied with – Trial Court rejected latest application fearing abscondence – Held: Right to travel abroad is an integral facet of personal liberty under Article 21 – Restriction thereon must satisfy procedure established by law which is just, fair and reasonable – Courts must balance liberty of the accused with the administration of justice, ensuring presence during trial [Paras 7–10, 13].

Flight Risk – Interpretation of “Likely to Abscond” – Predictive Standard – The term “likely” must denote a reasonable or palpable probability, not a speculative possibility – Courts cannot deny liberty based on conjectural fears – Determination of flight risk must rest on tangible and cogent material [Para 11].

Judicial Discretion – Principles for Grant of Permission to Travel Abroad – Courts must consider gravity of allegations, antecedents, bona fides of travel, and safeguards ensuring return – No rigid formula can be laid down – Discretion must be exercised with fairness, equity, and good conscience [Paras 12–13].

Procedural Justice – Hypertechnical Approach Decried – Petitioner’s earlier itinerary had lapsed; remitting matter to trial court would serve no purpose – Procedural rules are handmaidens of justice, not its mistress – High Court permitted travel directly to avoid multiplicity of proceedings [Para 14].

Decision – Petition allowed – Petitioner permitted to travel abroad as per itinerary (15.10.2025–03.12.2025) subject to conditions imposed by trial court including furnishing of ₹10 lakh bank guarantee – Guarantee liable to forfeiture in case of non-return or violation of conditions [Para 15].

Service Law – Inter se Seniority – Assistant Commandants in SSB – Seniority lists issued in 2020 challenged by promotees, LDCE appointees, and direct recruits – Issue revolves around whether seniority should be fixed under Rule 5(2) (order of selection) or Rule 5(3)(iv) (date of continuous appointment) of the 2010 Recruitment Rules – Court holds that 2003 Rules stood fully superseded by 2010 Rules and were not applicable [Paras 25.1, 30(i)]

Statutory Interpretation – Supersession Clause – 2012 Recruitment Rules did not wholly supersede the 2010 Rules – Seniority clause (Rule 5) of 2010 Rules continued to apply – Use of phrase “method of recruitment” in preamble not wide enough to include provisions on seniority – 2010 Rules governed the issue of seniority post-2012 [Paras 25.5–25.9, 30(ii)–(iii)]

Seniority – Interpretation of “Order of Selection” – Rule 5(2) of 2010 Rules refers to “order of selection” but Rules do not define the term – Court holds that in absence of internal guidance, reliance on DOPT OM dated 24 June 1978 impermissible – OM held inapplicable as no recruitment roster exists in SSB – Seniority cannot be based on DOPT OM [Paras 28.1–28.4, 30(iv)–(v)]

Seniority – Applicable Rule – Where Rule 5(2) cannot be applied due to lack of definitional clarity, fallback is Rule 5(3)(iv) which mandates fixation of seniority based on date of continuous appointment – Held: Inter se seniority among all ACs (direct recruits, promotees, LDCE) must be determined under Rule 5(3)(iv) [Paras 27.4–27.5, 29.1–30(vi)]

Administrative Instructions – DOPT OMs & Parmar Case – Court rejects applicability of DOPT OMs dated 7 February 1986, 3 July 1986, 4 March 2014, and 13 August 2021, as well as Parmar judgment – Held: These are executive instructions and cannot override statutory rules – Not applicable where Rules exist [Paras 25.10, 30(vii)]

Seniority List – Validity – Final seniority lists dated 21 and 23 September 2020 quashed – Draft seniority list dated 5 June 2018 correctly applied Rule 5(3)(iv) for ACs appointed 2003–2012 – Court directs SSB to redraw seniority for all ACs including 2013–2016 appointees as per Rule 5(3)(iv) [Paras 29.2–29.3, 30(viii)]

Decision: Writ petitions allowed – Final seniority lists dated 21/09/2020 and 23/09/2020 quashed – SSB directed to reissue seniority lists applying Rule 5(3)(iv) of 2010 Recruitment Rules for all Assistant Commandants, irrespective of mode of recruitment or year of appointment – No costs.

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Companies Act Offences – Bail Granted – Chartered Accountants facing prosecution under Sections 143 r/w 147 and 448 of the Companies Act, 2013 and related provisions for allegedly auditing falsified financial statements of SRS Group companies and concealing related party transactions – Petitioners had not been arrested during investigation – Trial court had issued summons and later warrants, prompting petitions under Section 438 CrPC – High Court held there was no material to show petitioners received disproportionate payments or undue favors in lieu of favorable audit reports – No evidence of complicity in the loan fraud or siphoning of funds – Bail granted as custodial interrogation not required [Paras 1, 3, 24, 29, 30]

Companies Act – Section 212(6) – Twin Conditions for Bail – Applicability – Court held that in absence of prima facie material indicating conspiracy or intent to commit fraud, statutory rigors of Section 212(6) would not preclude grant of bail – Reverse burden clause under Section 212(6) must be triggered only after primary burden is discharged by the prosecution – Held: Petitioners satisfied both limbs of Section 212(6) – Not guilty of offence and unlikely to commit any offence while on bail [Paras 31-33]

Audit Practice – Professional Negligence vs. Criminal Conspiracy – Distinction Drawn – Allegations primarily relate to failure in following auditing standards and non-reporting of circular transactions and related party dealings – Court observed no direct evidence of quid pro quo, criminal intent, or conspiracy with SRS Group controllers – Case does not exceed beyond dereliction of duty – Held: Auditors’ acts, even if deficient, did not amount to criminal complicity in financial fraud [Paras 24, 28-30]

Bank Lending – Role of Auditors – Scope of Responsibility – Consortium of banks (led by SBI) granted large-scale loans to SRS Group – Court found that banks did not rely upon audited financial statements while sanctioning credit – Held: No causal link between auditors' conduct and grant of loans – Bail granted as no complicity established [Paras 26-27]

Decision:

Anticipatory bail granted to all petitioners – Conditions imposed to ensure presence before trial court – Court clarified that mere professional lapses without quid pro quo or mens rea do not satisfy threshold under Section 212(6) Companies Act, 2013.

Civil Law – Interim Injunction – Violation of Status Quo Order – Plaintiffs filed suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction with application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC – Trial Court granted injunction on 30.12.2019 directing parties to maintain status quo – Local Commissioner’s report confirmed ongoing construction by defendants in breach of order – Appellate Court partially allowed defendants’ appeal permitting them to complete construction on existing structure citing equity and investment – Held: Appellate Court erred in rewarding violation of trial court’s injunction by allowing construction completion – Such use of Local Commissioner’s report to justify continued breach undermines sanctity of interim orders – Appellate Court’s order modified – Respondents restrained from further construction, alienation, or creation of charge over suit land during pendency of suit – Trial Court’s interim directions restored [Paras 2-9].

Decision: Petitions allowed – Order of Appellate Court modified – Parties directed to maintain status quo regarding possession and nature of suit land – Respondents restrained from further construction, alienation, or creating any charge over the property without leave of the Trial Court.

Service Law – Refixation of Pay – Retrospective Promotion – Re-option for Pay Revisions – Retired Administrative Assistant granted retrospective promotion to Upper Division Clerk w.e.f. 01.11.1971 – Re-option request for 1973, 1978 and 1983 pay revisions rejected as delayed – Tribunal found re-option inadmissible due to absence of retrospective revision in pay scale – However, directed State to implement earlier order granting notional re-fixation of pay (Annexure A2) – Held: Tribunal justified in directing implementation of order already sanctioned but not acted upon [Paras 2, 3, 4, 13, 14]

Constitution of India – Article 227 – Scope of Supervisory Jurisdiction – High Court cannot sit in appeal over findings of Tribunal unless order is perverse, patently unreasonable or violates basic principles of justice – Tribunal’s direction found consistent with settled legal principles and not warranting interference – Petition dismissed [Paras 7–12, 14]

Decision: Original Petition dismissed – Tribunal’s direction to implement Annexure A2 upheld – No grounds for interference under Article 227.

Criminal Law – Bail – Financial and Document Forgery Allegations – Petitioner accused of fraudulently obtaining large sums of money and property from informant by exploiting spiritual influence – FIR alleges transfer of land through forged gift deed and adoption deed – Charge sheet filed under BNS – Petitioner in custody since May 2025 – High Court noted pendency of related civil suit seeking cancellation of adoption deed – Held: Dispute predominantly civil with criminal elements – Continued detention not warranted as investigation complete and no custodial interrogation required [Paras 1–6, 9]

Bail – Triple Test – Flight Risk – Tampering with Evidence – High Court found that with charge sheet filed and evidence primarily documentary, risk of witness tampering minimal – Flight risk to be mitigated through surrender of passport – Petitioner’s previous cases noted, but found distinguishable and insufficient to deny bail – Liberty cannot be curtailed solely on allegations without trial – Bail granted subject to strict conditions [Paras 7–8]

Criminal Law – Civil and Criminal Proceedings – Parallel Proceedings – Acknowledged that a civil suit was filed by informant prior to the FIR challenging adoption deed – FIR silent on civil suit – Court noted that both parties had prior relationship and transactions, which support existence of civil dispute – Held: Bail appropriate as allegations and defences are to be tested during trial, not at bail stage [Paras 5–6]

Decision: Bail Application Allowed – Petitioner Sambit Ray admitted to bail on execution of bail bond of Rs. 5,00,000 with two solvent sureties – Conditions imposed include surrender of passport, cooperation with investigation, regular appearance before trial court, and prohibition on leaving the country without permission – Court reserves liberty for cancellation of bail in case of violation of conditions.

Land Acquisition – Section 26 of 2013 Act – Average sale price method – No mandatory deduction unless Collector forms opinion under Explanation 4 – Reference Court’s 40% deduction set aside – Only 10% deduction permissible – Compensation enhanced [Paras 9–13].

Land Acquisition – 2013 Act – Determination of Market Value – Deduction Theory – Not Applicable Absent Collector’s Opinion – Court held that Section 26(1)(b) read with Explanation 2 mandates adoption of average sale price of highest exemplars and does not provide for deductions unless Collector forms an opinion under Explanation 4 that sale prices are inflated or unrepresentative – No such opinion existed – Hence the Reference Court erred in applying 40% deduction [Paras 9–11].

Sale Exemplars – Rejection of Low-Value Transactions – Market Rate Fixed by Collector Binding – Sale deeds Ex.R-1 to R-4 (≈₹1 crore/acre) rightly discarded as they were below the District Collector’s rate of ₹1.90 crore/acre and did not represent bona fide market value – Average of five highest exemplars in para 47 correctly adopted by Reference Court [Paras 8.1–8.2].

Smallness of Area – Already Neutralized – No Further Deduction – Five exemplars ranged from 4 to 27 kanals—Court held these were not “small parcels” when compared to the 132 kanals acquired; moreover, taking average of five highest exemplars already compensates for smallness factor; hence applying 40% deduction again was legally unsustainable [Paras 12–12.1].

Development Charges – Acquisition for Metro Rail – No Need for Infrastructure Deduction – Since land was acquired for Metro Rail Track and allied purposes, beneficiaries were not required to incur development expenditure or carve out internal amenities – At best, only 10% deduction justified for optimum land utilisation by acquiring body [Para 12.1].

Supreme Court Precedents Under 1894 Act – Not Applicable – Reliance by State on Kasturi, Kanta Devi, Karnataka Housing Board, Kapil Mehra and Madhukar Kamble rejected as these pertain to the 1894 Act where deduction theory governed valuation – Under 2013 Act, statutory scheme materially different and controlled entirely by Section 26 [Para 11].

Enhanced Compensation – Formula Applied – Market value reassessed at ₹3,06,04,239 per acre after applying 10% deduction to average of exemplars in para 47 – All statutory benefits and interest under the 2013 Act awarded [Para 13].

Decision: Appeals of landowners partly allowed – Cross-appeals of HSIIDC dismissed – Enhanced compensation granted with all consequential statutory benefits – Legal heirs permitted to move appropriate applications in case of deceased claimants [Paras 13–15].

Motor Accident – Compensation – Enhancement of Award – Claimant, a government employee, sustained grievous injuries including facial disfigurement and loss of teeth in a motor vehicle accident involving a Tata Truck – Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,27,160/- but granted only Rs. 2,160/- towards medical expenses despite documentary evidence of higher costs – On appeal, High Court found that medical bills and other heads of compensation were inadequately assessed – Held: Medical expenses enhanced based on admissible bills agreed upon by both parties – Compensation for pain and suffering, transportation, and diet also enhanced by consensus [Paras 2–9]

Motor Accident – Determination of Compensation – Judicial Review – Court noted that parties reached consensus on admissible medical bills and other heads – Award modified to grant enhanced compensation of Rs. 2,98,765/- in total – Interest awarded from the date of filing the claim with additional interest of 1% in case of delay in payment – Direction issued for insurer to deposit enhanced compensation within six weeks [Paras 10–12]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Total compensation enhanced to Rs. 2,98,765/- – Enhanced amount to carry interest from 03/11/2016 at FD bank rate – Additional 1% interest applicable if payment not made within stipulated time – Insurance company directed to deposit enhanced amount before Tribunal within six weeks.

Civil Procedure – Res Judicata – Suit for Injunction Barred by Prior Decree – Appellant-plaintiff, claiming as Karanavan of Kadapurathaillam Tarwad, filed suit for prohibitory injunction alleging unlawful possession by members of a Thavazhi – Trial Court dismissed suit as barred by res judicata based on earlier decisions (OS 47/1969 and OS 6/1975) – Held: Prior suit involved identical properties, parties, and reliefs including possession and injunction – Finding in Full Bench decision in AS 267/1979 upholding bar of res judicata operates against present claim – No new possession claimed after prior decision – Present suit not maintainable [Paras 12–13].

Civil Procedure – Preliminary Issue – Scope of Order XIV Rule 2 CPC – Trial Court decided res judicata as preliminary issue – Held: Where facts relevant to res judicata are undisputed, the issue may be determined as preliminary – Court not bound to proceed to full trial merely because mixed question of law and fact is raised – Reliance placed on Jamia Masjid v. K.V. Rudrappa (AIR 2021 SC 4523) [Paras 10–11, 13].

Customary Law – Marumakkathayam – Reversionary Rights – Plaintiff claimed reversion of thavazhi property (attalodukkam) on extinction of female line – Earlier judgments had already adjudicated on such reversionary claim – Re-litigation barred [Paras 2–6].

Civil Procedure – Fresh Suit on Possession – When Earlier Suit Involved Same Relief – Appellant contended that possession as on date of suit was not adjudicated earlier – Held: Prior suits involved claims for possession and injunction over same properties – No claim of fresh possession after previous decree – No ground to reopen issue – Suit barred [Para 13].

Decision:

Appeal dismissed – Trial court rightly held suit to be barred by res judicata – Res judicata can be determined as preliminary issue where relevant facts are undisputed – No interference warranted with judgment and decree of the District Court, Lakshadweep dated 05.06.2015 in OS No. 7 of 2012 [Paras 12–13].