Civil Law - Land Reforms - Delhi Land Reforms Act 1954 - Section 51(2)(a)(ii) - Hindu Succession Act 1956 - Section 14 - Transformation of limited estate into absolute estate - Deceased Bhumidhar Khajano inherited land as a limited owner under the 1937 Act - Upon the enactment of the HSA 1956, her limited interest transformed into absolute ownership - Consequently the succession upon her death in 1973 is governed by Section 51(2)(a)(ii) read with Section 53 of the Act 1954 rather than Section 51(2)(a)(i) - The phrase personal law in Section 51(2) constitutes a general referential incorporation of the law as it exists at the time of the succession opening - Held - The High Court correctly held that the female Bhumidhar held the property as an absolute owner and the devolution follows the table under Section 53 - Appeal dismissed - [Paras 1-47].

Civil Law - Statutory Interpretation - Delhi Land Reforms Act 1954 - Section 51(2) - Literal interpretation and grammar - The use of simple present tense dies in Section 51(2)(a) indicates that the determination of succession is triggered at the time of the death of the Bhumidhar - The Act is a complete code but incorporates personal law to determine the nature of the estate held at the time of demise - Held - The law is progressive and looks to the personal law applicable on the date of succession - [Paras 32-43].

Civil Law - Land Tenancy - Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code 1954 - Section 151 - Referential Incorporation - General vs Specific reference - The principle of general referential incorporation implies that the adopting statute includes all subsequent amendments and modifications to the referred body of law - Held - The expression personal law in the Delhi Land Reforms Act 1954 includes the Hindu Succession Act 1956 in force at the time of death - [Paras 18-20, 39-40].

Decision: Civil Appeal is dismissed - No order as to costs - Pending applications stand disposed of.

Civil Law - Service Law - Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules 1955 - Rule 10(a)(i) - Seniority dispute between Direct recruits and temporary appointees - High Court in earlier proceedings directed inter se seniority to be fixed based on date of appointment for Compassionate appointees - Appellants and Respondents in present appeals challenged the determination of seniority by the High Court - Supreme Court analyzed the nature of ad hoc and temporary appointments vs regular selection - Held - Compassionate appointees and Special appointees appointed as temporary measures cannot claim seniority over Direct recruits selected through competitive examination - Direct recruits must rank higher - Ratio Decidendi - Ad hoc or temporary employees cannot claim seniority from the date of initial appointment as such appointments are stopgap arrangements not in accordance with regular procedure - [Paras 1-22].

Civil Law - Service Law - Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules 1955 - Rule 10(a)(i) - Inter se seniority between Compassionate appointees and Special appointees - Court examined whether past ad hoc or temporary services can be counted - Held - In absence of specific rules prescribing methodology for counting temporary service for seniority the date of regularisation should be the primary criterion - [Paras 23-24].

Decision: Civil Appeal No. 8755 of 2013 allowed to the extent that Compassionate appointees shall not rank above Direct recruits of 1983 batch - Civil Appeal Nos. 8756 and 8757 of 2013 disposed of with directions for fixing inter se seniority between Special appointees and Compassionate appointees - T.C.(C) Nos. 50, 51 and 52 of 2013 dismissed - Judgment dated 3rd April 2006 modified.

Criminal Law - POCSO Act - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012 - Section 6 - Sexual assault on minor - Prosecution failed to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt due to material infirmities - FIR lodged with 10 days delay without explanation - Inconsistency in relationship of accused with victim family - Non-examination of material witness (teacher) - Failure of victim to identify accused in Court - Accused set up a credible plea of alibi - Supreme Court held that conviction was unsustainable - Acquittal. [Paras 1-65].

Evidence Law - Credibility of Witness - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 3 - Tutored evidence - Victim (PW-4) failed to identify the accused during trial and admitted to being tutored by the Public Prosecutor - Witness testimony discarded as unreliable - [Paras 39-47].

Evidence Law - FIR - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 154 - Delay in lodging FIR - Unexplained delay of 10 days in lodging FIR and material improvements in prosecution story during trial casts doubt on the genuineness of the incident - [Paras 30-33, 54].

Evidence Law - Burden of Proof - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 106 - Last seen theory - Prosecution failed to establish that the accused and the victim were last seen together - Section 106 cannot be invoked to shift the burden of proof to the accused in the absence of clinching evidence - [Paras 49-50].

Evidence Law - Adverse Inference - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 114 - Withholding of material witness - Prosecution withheld the school teacher (Ms. Princely) who was the first person the victim allegedly disclosed the incident to - Adverse inference drawn against the prosecution for failure to examine the pivotal witness - [Paras 57-59].

Criminal Law - Cross-Examination - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Right to cross-examine - Trial Court failed to provide an effective opportunity to the accused to cross-examine medical witnesses (PW-3 and PW-8) - Testimony of medical jurists discarded as untested - [Paras 40-42].

Decision: Appeal allowed - Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07/12/2021 passed by Trial Court and 29/03/2022 passed by High Court set aside - Appellant acquitted of all charges - Appellant directed to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case.

Civil Law - Insolvency and Bankruptcy - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 - Sections 31, 240A - Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process - Appellant (Operational Creditor) claimed over 12 Crores but received 0.72% payment under approved resolution plan - Respondent (Corporate Debtor) underwent CIRP and erstwhile promoters returned as SRA - SRA initiated arbitration for claims under same contract - Appellant challenged on grounds of extinguishment and set-off - High Court appointed arbitrator - Supreme Court held that while SRA may pursue claims for the Corporate Debtor and the clean slate principle bars old claims against the CD the appellant is entitled to raise a counterclaim for the purpose of set-off to ensure equity in a two-way contractual dispute - Held - appeal disposed of with modification - [Paras 1-26].

Civil Law - Arbitration - Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 - Sections 7, 11, 16 - Doctrine of Separability - Dispute regarding claims arising from contract after CIRP approval - SRA seeks recovery - Appellant seeks set-off - Held - arbitral tribunal is the appropriate forum to decide on the merits of claims and the effect of the resolution plan - counterclaim for set-off is permissible as an equitable measure without allowing recovery of affirmative relief - [Paras 9-12, 19, 21-25].

Civil Law - Insolvency and Bankruptcy - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 - Section 31 - Clean Slate Principle - Application to SRA and set-off - While the resolution plan extinguishes claims against the Corporate Debtor the SRA is not prevented from pursuing claims on behalf of the CD - However to maintain equity where the SRA (erstwhile promoters) accepted the OC claim during CIRP and now raises a claim for the same contract the OC is entitled to use their extinguished claim as a set-off in the arbitration - [Paras 14, 22-24].

Decision: Appeal disposed of – Impugned order sustained with the modification that the appellant is entitled to raise a counterclaim for the purpose of set-off only – [Paras 25-26].

Civil Law - Land Acquisition - Land Acquisition Act 1894 - Section 54 - Interim order staying execution of award - Petitioner challenged High Court interim order requiring deposit of 50 percent of enhanced compensation in cash and security for remainder - Supreme Court noting pendency of appeals since 1987 directed petitioner to deposit entire enhanced sum with High Court Registry - Supreme Court ordered Registrar General to invest balance in interest bearing fixed deposits and release 8.33 percent of enhanced amount to claimants subject to future appellate orders - Held - Supreme Court directed High Court to expedite hearing of appeals preferably within six months - [Paras 1-11].

Civil Law - Practice and Procedure - Expedited hearing - High Court failing to prioritize land acquisition appeals involving long-pending matters - Supreme Court expressed regret over lack of alacrity in dealing with appeals concerning matters dating back to 1987 - Supreme Court reiterated request for High Court to decide the batch of first appeals on priority basis - Held - Supreme Court granted liberty to respondents to seek further release of funds if appeals are not disposed of within six months - [Paras 11-12].

Decision: Special Leave Petitions disposed of with directions for full deposit of enhanced compensation by the petitioner and partial release of 8.33 percent to respondents with a request for the High Court to expedite the final hearing of the appeals.

Criminal Law - Criminal Breach of Trust - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 409 - Appeal against conviction by High Court after reversal of trial court acquittal - Prosecution alleged temporary criminal breach of trust by a Cashier-cum-Counter Clerk for failing to credit government accounts - Trial Court acquitted due to lack of specific evidence and non-production of vital documents like cashbooks and audit reports - High Court reversed and convicted without hearing the appellant on sentence - Supreme Court held that in the absence of original records like cashbooks and audit reports the essential ingredient of entrustment was not proved - Held - Reversal of acquittal was unwarranted - Appeal allowed and acquittal restored - [Paras 1-26].

Criminal Law - Sentencing - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 386 - Duty of Appellate Court - High Court after reversing acquittal and convicting the accused for the first time failed to hear the appellant on the quantum of sentence - Held - Appellate court is duty-bound to hear the convict on the question of sentence before imposing punishment and cannot relegate the matter to the trial court - [Paras 21-23].

Evidence Law - Adverse Inference - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 114(g) - Non-production of documents - Prosecution failed to produce original cashbooks and audit reports despite court orders - Held - Trial Court correctly drew an adverse inference against the prosecution for withholding material documents essential to prove the charge of entrustment - [Paras 13-14].

Criminal Law - Seizure - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 100 - Compliance - Seizure witnesses turned hostile and IO failed to follow mandatory procedure - Held - Seizure of documents rendered doubtful and could not be relied upon as an incriminating circumstance against the appellant - [Paras 15-20].

Criminal Law - Burden of Proof - Standard of proof - Accused not required to prove case with same rigour as prosecution - Held - Accused only needs to provide a probable explanation to throw doubt on the prosecution case to entitle him to an acquittal - [Paras 24-25].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of the High Court set aside – Acquittal recorded by the Trial Court restored – Bail bonds cancelled.

Writ Law - Right to Health - Constitution of India - Article 21 - Regulation of pharmaceutical marketing practices - Petitioners alleged unethical practices by pharmaceutical companies including inducements to medical practitioners leading to over-prescription and irrational drug usage - Sought statutory force for Uniform Code for Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices - Union of India contended existing regulatory frameworks and recent introduction of UCPMP 2024 address concerns - Supreme Court observed that efficacy of regulations depends on implementation and oversight - Exercised jurisdiction under Articles 32 and 142 to direct constitution of a committee for comprehensive examination of existing framework and to ensure transparent and accountable practices - Held - Union of India directed to constitute committee and facilitate consultative process - [Paras 1-25].

Constitutional Law - Separation of Powers - Judicial restraint - Constitution of India - Article 32 - Policy formulation - Court noted that regulation of pharmaceutical industry entails executive policy and technical expertise - Court must remain mindful of separation of powers and not substitute its own policy for that of the executive while ensuring regulatory framework is consistent with constitutional guarantees of right to health - Held - Court role is to facilitate meaningful consultation and ensure accountability rather than entering into policy domain - [Paras 20-21].

Professional Ethics - Medical Misconduct - Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations 2002 - Regulation 6.8.1 - Restrictions on pharmaceutical industry relationship - Regulations prohibit acceptance of gifts and monetary benefits by medical practitioners from healthcare industry - Violation attracts disciplinary action including removal from medical register - Held - existing framework regulates professional conduct of doctors but does not cover pharmaceutical entities for facilitating such conduct - [Paras 9-10].

Decision: Petition disposed of with directions – Union of India directed to constitute a committee to examine pharmaceutical marketing practices and file a compliance affidavit within two weeks of the committee's exercise completion – Listed for further consideration on 29/01/2027.

Civil Law - Arbitration - Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 - Section 11 - Appointment of Arbitrator - Petitioners invoked arbitration under JVA and MoU - Respondents argued that disputes were inextricably linked to a prior License Agreement which contained an arbitration clause seating the seat in Seoul Korea - Court found that JVA and MoU contained independent dispute resolution clauses and superseded prior agreements per express 'entire agreement' and 'supersession' clauses - Referral Court duty bound to limit inquiry to prima facie existence of arbitration agreement - Minimal judicial intervention under Section 11(6-A) - Held - Disputes are amenable to arbitration clauses in JVA and MoU - Sole Arbitrator appointed - [Paras 18-23].

Civil Law - Arbitration - Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 - Section 11 - Non-signatory entity - Contention that subsidiary company is a non-signatory and not bound by arbitration agreement - Allegation that subsidiary was incorporated in derogation of JVA to compete with joint venture entity - Held - Issue regarding whether a non-signatory is bound is a contentious matter to be relegated to the arbitrator for adjudication - [Paras 21-22].

Decision: Arbitration petitions allowed – Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ramesh Deokinandan Dhanuka Former Chief Justice of Bombay High Court appointed as Sole Arbitrator – No order as to costs.

Civil Law - Election Petition - Representation of the People Act 1951 - Section 81 and 86 - Mandatory requirement of personal presentation - Petitioner sought to declare election void for corrupt practices - High Court dismissed petition at threshold for failure to present in person as per Rule 7 of Madras High Court Election Petitions Rules 1967 - Supreme Court held that Section 81(1) requires the petition to be presented by the petitioner - The requirement is not a mere procedural formality but a statutory mandate failure of which invites dismissal under Section 86(1) - The absence of express statutory provision identifying the officer to receive it does not invalidate High Court rules regulating ministerial functions - Petitioner failed to prove personal presentation - Appeal dismissed - [Paras 1-24].

Civil Law - Election Law - Representation of the People Act 1951 - Section 81 - Interpretation of "by" the petitioner - Legislative history shows omission of modes of presentation like registered post or authorized agent confirms strict requirement of personal presence - High Court rules regulating presentation are valid as incidental and ancillary powers - Practice of the court must not contradict legislative intent - Held - Non-compliance renders petition liable to dismissal - [Paras 9-18].

Civil Law - Election Law - Representation of the People Act 1951 - Section 83 and 86 - Distinction between procedural defects - Reliance on Dr. Vijay Laxmi Sadho v. Jagdish distinguished - Non-compliance with Section 81 is fatal and warrants dismissal in limine whereas Section 83 defects may not - Held - Present case involves Section 81 thus mandate for dismissal applies - [Paras 20-21].

Decision: Special Leave Petition is dismissed as it is devoid of merit – Impugned judgment of the High Court is affirmed.