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Rule 5(3)(iv) (date of continuous appointment) of the 2010 Recruitment Rules – Court holds that 2003 Rules stood fully superseded by 2010 Rules and were not applicable [Paras 25.1, 30(i)]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.

Income Tax – Faceless Assessment Scheme – Reassessment – Petitioners challenged the jurisdiction of Jurisdictional Assessing Officers (JAOs) in issuing notices under Sections 148A(b), 148A(d), and 148 of the Income Tax Act after introduction of the “E-Assessment Scheme of Income Escaping Assessment, 2022” – Held: Section 151A mandates faceless mechanism for reassessment procedures – Notifications and statutory scheme leave no discretion to the Department – JAOs lack jurisdiction to issue such notices post 29.03.2022 – Impugned notices issued outside the scheme are void [Paras 3–7(E)]

Jurisdiction – Interpretation of Section 151A and Notification – High Court followed binding precedents including Bombay High Court’s decisions in Prakash Pandurang Patil v. ITO and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. ACIT – Supreme Court’s dismissal of SLP confirms finality of interpretation – Held: There is no concurrent jurisdiction between JAO and FAO – All reassessment-related notices must be through automated allocation under the faceless scheme [Paras 7(A)–7(D)]

Constitutional Law – Article 226 – Exercise of Writ Jurisdiction – Court reiterated that issuance of reassessment notices contrary to statutory scheme causes prejudice per se – No further proof of prejudice is required to invalidate notices issued by authorities lacking jurisdiction – Right to lawful assessment is protected under law [Para 7(A), 7(F)]

Decision: All writ petitions allowed – Notices and orders issued under Sections 148A(b), 148A(d), and 148 of the Income Tax Act set aside – Jurisdictional Assessing Officers had no authority to issue notices post-2022 Scheme – Consequential proceedings and orders, if any, also quashed – No order as to costs.

Civil Law – Delay in Filing Written Statement – Order VIII Rule 1 CPC – Not Mandatory in Non-Commercial Disputes – Trial Court struck off defence for non-filing of written statement within 120 days – Held: Provision is directory in non-commercial suits – Delay not inordinate and was justified due to pending Section 8 application – Striking off of defence unsustainable [Paras 41–49].

Arbitration – Application under Section 8 of Arbitration Act – Timing – Written Statement – Filing of application before submission of first substantive statement is valid – Mere delay in filing written statement during pendency of Section 8 application cannot be penalized – Appellate Court erred in holding written statement should have been filed irrespective of Section 8 application [Paras 38–40].

Civil Litigation – Fair Trial – Ex Parte Decree – Repercussions of Striking Off Defence – Trial Court passed decree of ₹15.69 Cr ex parte – Appellate Court reduced amount but upheld procedural bar – Held: Courts must prefer decision on merits, especially in matters involving public funds – Matter remanded for fresh adjudication [Paras 49–55].

Civil Revision – Maintainability – When Trial Court Order Striking Off Defence is Erroneous – Revision against trial court order striking off defence dismissed relying on law applicable to commercial disputes – Held: Error apparent – SCG Contracts case applies only to commercial suits – Order liable to be set aside [Paras 45–46].

Remand – Suit Remitted to Trial Court – In absence of written statement, no adjudication on merits possible – Additional evidence cannot be allowed without pleadings – Matter remanded to trial court for fresh trial from stage of written statement – Trial to be concluded within one year [Paras 52–56].

Decision: RSA-305-2021 allowed – RSA-199-2021 dismissed – CR-4288-2019 disposed of – Judgments and decrees set aside – Order striking off defence quashed – Matter remanded to trial court for fresh decision after permitting written statement [Paras 54–56].

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 – Assault – Acquittal Reversed – Respondents alleged to have assaulted complainant and his wife with broken glass bottle – Trial Court acquitted accused under Section 324/34 IPC holding prosecution evidence unreliable – High Court finds complainant’s testimony consistent and corroborated by medical evidence and arrest memos – Held: Testimony of PW1 supported by MLCs proves infliction of simple injuries beyond reasonable doubt – Acquittal order set aside – Conviction recorded under Section 323/34 IPC [Paras 5, 18–27, 30–31].

Appreciation of Evidence – Testimony of Injured Witness – Complainant’s version of events remained consistent with FIR and deposition – Minor inconsistencies regarding site plan and signatures on police documents do not justify rejection of entire testimony – Failure to examine second injured or IO not fatal as primary evidence sufficient – Trial Court erred in disbelieving complainant in toto [Paras 20–27].

Weapon – Dangerous Weapon – Section 324 IPC – Burden of Proof – Complainant claimed injuries caused by broken bottle – Medical report showed sharp injuries to complainant and blunt injuries to wife – No glass shards recovered – Held: In absence of recovery or clarity about nature of glass, prosecution failed to prove use of dangerous weapon – Conviction sustainable only under Section 323 IPC [Para 28].

Decision: Impugned judgment dated 11.09.2018 set aside – Respondents convicted under Section 323/34 IPC.

Civil Law – Specific Performance – Interim Injunction – Reversal Upheld – Plaintiff-petitioner filed suit for possession based on agreement to sell, alleged earnest money paid and possession delivered – Trial Court granted interim injunction restraining alienation of land – Appellate Court reversed the order noting lack of prima facie evidence, disputed signatures, absence of valid service and alleged collusion in attempt to forcibly take possession – High Court upheld Appellate Court's order holding no prima facie case, irreparable injury, or balance of convenience in petitioner’s favour – Dismissal of revision petition [Paras 1–3, 8–15]

Injunction – Fraudulent Agreement – Plaintiff’s Conduct – Defendant denied execution of agreement and receipt of cheque – Handwriting expert reports were conflicting – Photograph on agreement not a passport-sized image, signatures and phone number issues raised doubts – Petitioner attempted withdrawal of case after failing to produce documents – Counsel's statement contradicted pleadings – Held: No injunction warranted where petitioner's conduct questionable and claim unsupported by reliable evidence [Paras 5, 8–12]

Service of Summons – Validity of Ex Parte Order – Process Server report showed refusal but no affixation as required – Defendant learned of proceedings only after incident and lodged police complaint – Ex parte order passed without proper service found invalid – High Court took note of First Appellate Court's findings on improper service and lack of due process [Paras 2, 8–9]

Lis Pendens – Applicability – Though injunction refused, Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act held to protect petitioner from third-party alienation during pendency of suit – No prima facie evidence to support actual risk of sale – Photograph relied upon did not establish connection to suit property or defendant [Paras 12–13]

Decision: Revision petition dismissed – No prima facie case or balance of convenience in favour of plaintiff-petitioner – Appellate Court order upheld – Injunction rightly vacated – Observations not to influence final adjudication of suit [Para 15]

Banking Law – Guarantee and Mortgage by Power Agent – Co-extensive Liability – Power of Attorney – Respondent No. 7 executed General Power of Attorney in favour of wife authorising her to mortgage, guarantee and receive consideration – Power agent executed mortgage in favour of Axis Bank to secure loan granted to borrowers (Respondents 1–6) – Upon default, DRT decreed recovery only against borrowers, holding mortgage by power agent as invalid – DRAT confirmed order citing lesser culpability of guarantor and lapses on part of bank – Held: Both Tribunals misread the power of attorney and erred in interpreting its recitals – Power agent had express authority to mortgage, guarantee and bind principal – Findings of DRT and DRAT contrary to Section 128 of the Indian Contract Act which provides for co-extensive liability of guarantor – Power of attorney was not disputed, and its express language authorised the act – Guarantor bound by execution through duly authorised agent – Orders of DRT and DRAT set aside – Claim against guarantor restored [Paras 13–27].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition allowed – Orders of DRT and DRAT insofar as they dismiss the bank’s claim against the seventh respondent (guarantor) set aside – Axis Bank’s claim against the guarantor allowed – No order as to costs.

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].

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.