Civil Law - Letters Patent Appeal – Scope of Interference – Writ Court’s Order under Article 226 – Clause 15, Letters Patent of Madras High Court – Capsule: A Letters Patent Bench cannot interfere with a just and reasonable writ Court decision merely because it takes a different view – Interference is permissible only where the findings are demonstrably erroneous and the mistake is glaring on the face of the record – Held: Division Bench erred in reversing the writ Court’s well-reasoned order [Paras 1, 28-30].

Letters Patent Appeal – Powers of Letters Patent Bench – Clause 15 Appeal – A Letters Patent Appeal is not equivalent to a Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC and lies on questions of law and fact – The Bench can review even findings of fact – However, this power is not unfettered – It should be slow to interfere with the discretion exercised by the writ Court – It can interfere only on cogent grounds and not on minor errors – Where the writ Court’s decision furthers justice, equity and good conscience and is not against public policy, the Letters Patent Bench cannot interfere [Paras 24-29].

Service Law – Removal from Service – Domestic Inquiry – Natural Justice – Appellant (Deputy Registrar) was removed from service on Charge Nos. 1, 4 and 10 on the report of a One-man Commission headed by a retired Judicial Officer – Memorandum of charges was served, 22 witnesses were examined in his presence and he participated in the proceedings – Held: Inquiry was conducted per the T.N. Service Rules, and constitution of the One-man Commission was valid under Rule 17(g) – Only substantive violations, not technical infringements, vitiate an inquiry, and prejudice must be shown [Paras 8-12].

Service Law – Perverse Findings – Inquiry Officer’s Duty – The Commission held Charge No. 1 proved because the appellant “could have” influenced the Authority – Charge No. 4 proved on the appellant’s failure to produce the mother’s title deed – Charge No. 10 proved on the lack of University permission for the car – No incriminating material was found against the appellant – The Inquiry Officer is not a prosecutor and cannot base findings on assumptions, suppositions, surmises and conjectures – The standard is preponderance of probability – A finding without any material on record is perverse [Paras 13-17, 23].

Writ Jurisdiction – Article 226 – Certiorari – Perversity – “No Evidence” – A finding based on no evidence is an error of law correctable by certiorari – Lack of evidence is distinct from re-appraisal of evidence – A decision is perverse if it defies logic or rests on impermissible inferences – Certiorari may issue for jurisdictional error, breach of natural justice, violation of rules, irrelevant or omitted considerations, or Wednesbury unreasonableness [Paras 18-21].

Writ Jurisdiction – Alternate Remedy – Rule 19, T.N. Service Rules – Exhaustion of the statutory remedy is a rule of convenience, not of rigid application, and is a self-imposed limitation – Removal from service is the harshest punishment – The writ Court should not be a mute spectator in appropriate cases [Para 22].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Division Bench judgment dated 29.08.2019 in W.A. No. 2329 of 2018 set aside – Writ Court’s decision in W.P. No. 23936 of 2013 restored – No order as to costs [Paras 30-32].

Constitutional Law - Affirmative Action and Reservation - Constitution of India - Articles 14 15(4) and 16(4) - Tamil Nadu Backward Class Muslims (Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions including Private Educational Institutions and of Appointments or Posts in the Services under the State) Act 2007 - Tamil Nadu Backward Classes Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions and of Appointments or Posts in the Services under the State) Act 1993 - Section 3(a) - Entitlement of proselyte to Backward Class Muslim status - Respondent born to Hindu parents converted to Islam and sought community certificate as Muslim Labbai - Revenue authority rejected application on ground that conversion was only to religion and not to caste - Respondent filed writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution - State issued G.O.(Ms.) No. 31 dated 09.03.2024 based on Tamil Nadu Backward Class Commission recommendation permitting converts from BC MBC DNC and SC to obtain BC Muslim certificates under seven recognised communities - High Court suo motu impleaded State and declared the G.O. unconstitutional while sustaining rejection of certificate - State appealed contending High Court travelled beyond pleadings and that G.O. merely preserved pre-conversion backwardness - Supreme Court affirmed High Court ruling - Held - A person who converts from the Hindu social order to Islam or any other non-Hindu social order cannot claim affirmative action under Article 16(4) merely on the basis of antecedent social backwardness - Antecedent backwardness cannot be carried forward to confer status of a backward class in the new religion - Distinct Muslim communities are historically constituted social groups and conversion alone does not confer membership of a notified community referable to lineage or descent - Special Leave Petition dismissed - [Paras 1-64].

Constitutional Law - Judicial Review - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Scope of adjudication beyond formal prayers - High Court examined and invalidated executive order relied upon by writ petitioner after issuing notice and affording opportunity of hearing to State - State contended court exceeded pleadings - Held - Principle of fairness requires parties must know the case to meet - Principle does not impose a mechanical prohibition upon a Constitutional Court examining an instrument whose validity becomes inseparable from the relief claimed - State was specifically impleaded and heard on merits - High Court did not err in testing the validity of the G.O. - [Paras 15-18].

Constitutional Law - Scheduled Caste Status - Constitution of India - Article 341 - Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order 1950 - Paragraph 3 - Effect of conversion on Scheduled Caste status - Absolute bar on professing religion other than Hindu Sikh or Buddhist - Held - Conversion to a non-Hindu religion results in immediate and complete cessation or eclipse of Scheduled Caste status - State executive fiat cannot treat a person as continuing to belong to a Scheduled Caste or transpose such status into a backward class category post-conversion without satisfying independent constitutional requirements - [Paras 40-41, 49-51, 61].

Constitutional Law - Community Verification and Public Functions - Verification of Caste Status - Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 16(4) - Delegation of statutory determination to private religious bodies - State contended Revenue Authority must accept Jamath determination regarding entry of convert into a Muslim community - Held - Issuance of a community certificate is a sovereign public function governed by public law - Private religious bodies like a Jamath have no authority to make binding or conclusive determinations on statutory community status or eligibility for affirmative action - Competent public authority cannot abdicate verification duty to a private body - [Paras 55-58].

Constitutional Law - Community Certificates - Nature and Legal Effect - Declaratory Character - Distinction between preservation of disadvantage and acquisition of community membership - Executive order allowing converts to claim membership in notified backward class communities - Held - A community certificate is merely declaratory of existing status and does not confer or create status - Executive instructions cannot dispense with substantive constitutional and statutory conditions governing membership of a notified backward class - Pre-conversion backwardness unique to Hindu social order cannot establish present membership in an endogamous and historically distinct Muslim community - G.O.(Ms.) No. 31 dated 09.03.2024 rightly declared invalid - [Paras 42-48, 52-54, 61-63].

Decision: Special Leave Petition dismissed - Judgment of the High Court declaring G.O.(Ms.) No. 31 dated 09.03.2024 unconstitutional and sustaining rejection of the community certificate affirmed - Pending applications disposed of.

Consumer Law - Unjust Enrichment and Consumer Protection - Consumer Protection Act 1986 - Section 23 - Indian Contract Act 1872 - Sections 64 65 70 and 72 - Tripartite housing loan arrangement - Failure of builder to deliver possession - Refund of consideration - Complainant-borrower booked residential flat with builder financed partly through own funds of Rs.5111576 and balance through housing loan sanctioned by bank directly disbursing Rs.16880531 in tranches - Borrower paid Rs.7623150 towards interest and part-repayment to bank - Builder failed to deliver timely possession or obtain requisite occupancy and fire clearances - Borrower filed consumer complaint seeking refund with interest and compensation - NCDRC directed builder to refund entire amount of Rs.21992107 with 9% interest to borrower and directed bank to pay Rs.200000 for deficiency in verifying construction progress - Bank challenged refund to borrower via review which was dismissed - Bank also filed commercial suit for loan recovery which was dismissed as not maintainable and carried in appeal to High Court - Builder deposited Rs.44324510 before NCDRC - Supreme Court held that ordering refund of entire amount to borrower where major component was disbursed by lender bank and remained unpaid violates doctrine of unjust enrichment - Nemo debet locupletari ex aliena jactura - Deemed disbursal fiction under tripartite agreement fastens repayment liability on borrower but does not convert borrowed unpaid money into borrower's own money - Borrower entitled only to refund of amount paid from his own pocket totaling Rs.12734726 with 12% simple interest per annum as stipulated in agreement for sale - Balance deposit to be retained in interest-bearing account subject to final adjudication of bank's pending appeal before High Court - Held - NCDRC order modified by restricting borrower refund to Rs.12734726 with 12% interest and leaving balance deposit subject to lender recovery appeal - [Paras 1-32 and 45-48].

Civil Law - Measure of Compensation and Alternative Remedies - Consumer Protection Act 1986 - Section 14(1)(d) - Indian Contract Act 1872 - Section 73 - Claim for rent reimbursement and compensation for delay - Borrower claimed reimbursement of house rent paid during delay period in addition to full refund with interest - NCDRC omitted to award compensation or rent reimbursement against builder - Supreme Court held that consumer fora cannot award double compensation for the same default - Award of interest on refund compensates for deprivation of capital which could have secured a home - Awarding both rental reimbursement and interest on full purchase price amounts to duplicative compensation - Borrower exercised election under agreement for sale to terminate and seek refund with 12% interest rather than staying in project with delay compensation - From date of election to terminate agreement cost of alternative housing is not a consequence of breach - A party cannot seek rent indefinitely based on claims raised for the first time in rejoinder affidavit without proof - Having regard to fifteen years delay and loss of capital appreciation lump-sum compensation of Rs.1500000 awarded towards full and final satisfaction of rent mental agony and litigation expenses - Held - Borrower entitled to Rs.1500000 as composite compensation but cannot claim open-ended house rent reimbursement alongside interest on refunded consideration - [Paras 33-41].

Civil Law - Deficiency in Service by Lending Financial Institution - Consumer Protection Act 1986 - Section 2(1)(g) - Disbursement of home loan without verifying stage of construction - Sanction letter and tripartite agreement obligating bank to disburse loan tranches commensurate with construction progress - Bank disbursed 95% of consideration while builder lacked fire NOC and project was incomplete - Bank failed to produce inspection reports or lead evidence before NCDRC despite borrower's prior communications questioning progress - Burden of proof shifted to bank regarding facts especially within its knowledge - Held - Finding of deficiency recorded by NCDRC was supported by record and not perverse - Direction requiring bank to pay Rs.200000 compensation to borrower affirmed - [Paras 42-44].

Civil Law - Non-Adjudication of Inter Se Recovery Claims in Consumer Complaints - Consumer Protection Act 1986 - Section 23 - Bank recovery against borrower under tripartite agreement - Commercial suit filed by lender bank dismissed on maintainability due to pending consumer complaint and pending in appeal before High Court - Supreme Court held that recovery claims of lending bank against borrower arising from tripartite agreement cannot be conclusively determined in consumer complaint proceedings instituted by flat purchaser - All rights and contentions regarding loan liability left open for adjudication on merits in pending first appeal before High Court - Remaining deposited amount to abide by outcome of said appeal - Held - Consumer forum jurisdiction cannot be used to determine lender recovery rights against borrower - [Paras 45 and 47-48].

Decision: Appeals disposed of – NCDRC order modified – NCDRC directed to release Rs.1,27,34,726/- to the Borrower with interest at 12% per annum from date of respective deposits until payment – Additional Rs.15,00,000/- awarded to Borrower as full and final compensation – Remaining deposited amount to be retained in an interest-bearing account subject to final decision of Bank's appeal pending before the High Court – Finding of Rs.2,00,000/- deficiency against Bank affirmed.

Banking Law - Reconstruction of Banking Company - Banking Regulation Act 1949 - Section 45 - Master Circular on Basel III Capital Regulations - Yes Bank Limited Reconstruction Scheme 2020 Clause 6 - Writing down of Additional Tier 1 (AT-1) Bonds - Administrator appointed under Section 36ACA of Banking Regulation Act 1949 wrote down AT-1 Bonds after notification of final Reconstruction Scheme - Draft Scheme had contained an express write down clause which was deliberately dropped in the final notified Reconstruction Scheme after objections from bondholders - High Court set aside the write down order of Administrator as ultra vires and unauthorised - Supreme Court examined whether Administrator could unilaterally write down bonds post-reconstruction without sanction in the Scheme - Held - Validity of administrative action must be tested on the date it occurred - Dropping of write down clause in final Scheme signified conscious decision of Central Government to leave bonds untouched - General savings clause preserving contracts does not implicitly confer specific authority to extinguish bonds - Administrator acted under erroneous belief and ultra vires the Master Circular read with the Reconstruction Scheme - High Court judgment affirmed and appeals dismissed - [Paras 4-42, 80].

Banking Law - Powers of Administrator - Banking Regulation Act 1949 - Section 36ACA - Scope and limitations of Administrator appointed upon supersession of Board - Administrator substituted the Board of Directors and is bound to function strictly within four corners of statutory powers - Master Circular and Information Memoranda mandated that write down at Point of Non-Viability (PONV) is exercisable exclusively at the option and determination of Reserve Bank of India - Administrator cannot assume regulatory mantle of Reserve Bank of India - Held - Act of Administrator writing down AT-1 Bonds was wholly unauthorised illegal and void - [Paras 43-45, 65-73].

Banking Law - Basel III Capital Regulations - Master Circular - Annex 16 Clause 2.15 - Point of Non-Viability (PONV) Trigger - Phrase 'before amalgamation / reconstitution' construed - Contention that reconstruction is an ongoing process lasting years until all obligations discharged rejected - Word 'before' signifies prior to the Reconstruction Scheme coming into force - Write down cannot be executed subsequent to reconstitution taking effect - Held - Master Circular requires conversion or write down to occur before the initial step of reconstruction becomes effective - Administrator possessed no authority to write down bonds post notification of Scheme - [Paras 56-64].

Administrative Law - Judicial Review - Legality of Executive Action - Relevant point in time for assessing validity - Challenge to decision of Administrator writing down bonds tested against circumstances on date of order - Held - Validity of administrative action must be judged on the basis of facts and law existing on the date of the impugned action - Subsequent revival of bank infusion of equity by State Bank of India or profit on sale of shares cannot cure or influence the illegality of the action - [Paras 13-16].

Commercial Law - Investor Protection - Master Circular on Basel III Capital Regulations - High-risk hybrid securities - Offering of AT-1 Bonds to retail individual investors - Yes Bank directly lured private individual investors into purchasing AT-1 Bonds without necessary risk disclosures in violation of regulatory norms restricting them to institutional investors - Held - Investors cannot be made to suffer at the receiving end of administrative lapses and regulatory negligence - Annual coupon rate payment directed to be honored in accordance with Information Memoranda - [Paras 78-81].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Bombay High Court judgment setting aside the Administrator's decision writing down AT-1 Bonds affirmed – Annual coupon rate payments directed to be made in terms of Information Memoranda – Interim orders vacated.

IBC - Insolvency Law - Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 - Section 7 - Admission of CIRP application - Financial Creditor extended credit facilities including term loans and ECLGS facilities to corporate debtors - Credit facilities assigned to assignee under assignment agreement - Default occurred on 15.11.2022 and four Form-D filings were authenticated with Information Utility NeSL - Corporate debtors challenged assignment agreement before High Court which dismissed challenge and Supreme Court dismissed SLP - Financial Creditor recalled facilities and filed Section 7 petitions - Adjudicating Authority admitted petitions but Appellate Tribunal remanded for fresh consideration of Cash Management Agreement and Debt Service Reserve Account and alleged excess withdrawals - On remand Adjudicating Authority re-admitted petitions finding subsisting debt and default exceeding Section 4 threshold - Appellate Tribunal affirmed admission - Appellants contended that default was curable via DSRA and CMA and that corporate debtors were profit-earning entities with positive EBITDA - Supreme Court held that challenge to assignment agreement was barred by issue estoppel - Held - Occurrence of default is a static historical event and Adjudicating Authority at Section 7 stage is not required to conduct forensic reconciliation of accounts to the last rupee - Summary standard of preponderance of probabilities satisfied by Information Utility records and contemporaneous admissions - Profitability is legally irrelevant to debt servicing capacity - Concurrent findings of fact not perverse - CIRP initiation upheld - Appeals dismissed - [Paras 1-73].

Insolvency Law - Evidentiary Threshold of Default - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 - Sections 3(12) and 7 - Admission standard - Statutory definition of default under Section 3(12) satisfied by non-payment of whole or any part or instalment of debt when due and payable - Distinction between occurrence of default and dynamic quantum of debt outstanding - Section 7(4) fourteen-day window contemplates summary determination of historical fact rather than full ledger reconciliation - Role of Resolution Professional under Section 18(b) to collate and verify claims during CIRP confirms threshold enquiry is limited - Held - Evidentiary threshold under Section 7 is a summary prima facie threshold discharged upon preponderance of probabilities from documentary material - Quantification disputes do not negate default or arrest admission so long as threshold under Section 4 is crossed - [Paras 34-47].

Insolvency Law - Information Utility Records - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 - Sections 7(3)(a) and 7(4) - Evidentiary value and hierarchy of proof - Information Utility mechanism incorporates robust notice and opportunity for debtor to verify default - Authenticated record of default creates high presumption of evidentiary value - Operation of admission and estoppel under Indian Evidence Act 1872 Sections 31 and 115 - Clarified under amended Section 7(5) Explanation II - Hierarchy of proof establishes Information Utility record at first tier as self-sufficient basis for default - Other documentary evidence under Part V of Form 1 operates at second tier taken collectively - Held - Authenticated Information Utility record of default is sufficient standing alone to prima facie establish default and can only be displaced by clear cogent credible and compelling material and not bare denials - [Paras 48-58, 67-70].

Insolvency Law - Profitability and Solvency - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 - Sections 3(12) and 7 - Relevance of EBITDA and balance sheet solvency - Corporate debtors claimed profitability with positive EBITDA and challenged initiation of insolvency against running hotels - EBITDA computed before interest and amortisation does not demonstrate debt servicing capability - Debt Service Coverage Ratio of 0.12 revealed acute cash deficiency - IBC adopts default under Section 3(12) as trigger rather than balance sheet insolvency - Objective is early preventive intervention to preserve enterprise value rather than terminal collapse - Held - Profitability is legally irrelevant to default and economically unreliable as proxy for solvency - Presence of positive EBITDA cannot arrest CIRP where default exists - [Paras 20, 65-66, 71].

Civil Law - Issue Estoppel - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 - Section 5(7) - Challenge to legal assignment - Corporate debtor previously challenged validity of debt assignment agreement before High Court in writ proceedings which was dismissed on merits and upheld by Supreme Court - Debtor raised identical challenge before NCLT under Section 7 - Requisite conditions of issue estoppel satisfied including identity of issue finality of decision on merits and identity of parties - Adjudicating Authority lacks jurisdiction to sit in appeal over competent constitutional courts - Held - Prior judicial determination upholding assignment agreement operates as issue estoppel barring corporate debtor from reopening status of assignee as financial creditor under Section 5(7) - [Paras 30-33, 71].

Civil Law - Abatement of Appeal - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order 22 Rule 6 CPC - Death of appellant after conclusion of hearing - Appellant died after hearing concluded and judgment was reserved - Application for substitution rendered redundant - Non-existent AI generated authorities cited by counsel - Exemplary costs contemplated but dispensed with due to death of appellant - Held - Under Order 22 Rule 6 CPC appeal does not abate by reason of death of appellant after conclusion of hearing - [Paras 74].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Orders of NCLT Mumbai Bench admitting Section 7 petitions and judgments of NCLAT affirming admission upheld – CIRP against both corporate debtors directed to proceed in accordance with law – No order as to costs.

Arbitration Law - Award of Interest - Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 - Section 31(7)(a) read with Section 28(3) Sections 34 and 37 - Contractual bar on pre-reference and pendente lite interest - Appellant was awarded sub-contract by respondent NBCC for flooring and cladding works - Contract was wrongfully terminated by respondent and bank guarantees encashed - Sole Arbitrator held termination illegal and awarded executed works extra items bank guarantee extension charges and refund of encashed bank guarantee along with 10% per annum interest from 22.09.1992 until actual payment covering pre-reference pendente lite and post-award periods - Single Judge of High Court under Section 34 upheld substantive claims but set aside pre-reference and pendente lite interest holding Clause 26 of Special Conditions of Contract operated as an absolute bar - Division Bench in Section 37 appeal affirmed Single Judge ruling - Supreme Court examined whether Clause 26 operated as a contractual bar under Section 31(7)(a) - Clause 26 provided that no claim for interest will be entertained in respect of balance payments or deposit held up due to any dispute or delay in making monthly or final payments or otherwise - Held - Section 31(7)(a) gives paramount importance to contract and restricts arbitrator from awarding pre-award or pendente lite interest contrary to agreement - Arbitrator being a creature of contract acted beyond jurisdiction in granting pre-reference and pendente lite interest - High Court rightly set aside award to that extent while maintaining substantive claims and post-award interest - Appeal dismissed - [Paras 1-19].

Arbitration Law - Interpretation of Contract - Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 - Section 31(7)(a) - Contractual bar on interest - Residuary phrase 'or otherwise' - Applicability of ejusdem generis and noscitur a sociis - Appellant contended 'or otherwise' in Clause 26 of Special Conditions of Contract must be read down to take colour from preceding expressions regarding delayed monthly or final payments - Held - Ejusdem generis applies only where general words follow a specific class forming a genus - Preceding expressions in Clause 26 do not constitute a single narrow genus as they cover balance payments withheld deposits and dispute-related withholdings disjunctively joined by conjunction 'or' - Expression 'or otherwise' is residuary in nature and words of extension rather than limitation - Clause 26 operates on identical footing with expressions like 'in any other respect whatsoever' - Pre-reference and pendente lite interest completely barred by contract - [Paras 11-16].

Arbitration Law - Award of Interest - Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 - Section 31(7)(a) and Section 31(7)(b) - Distinction between pre-award and post-award interest - Scope of party autonomy - Held - Pre-award interest under Section 31(7)(a) is expressly subject to agreement between parties and subordinated to contractual prohibitions - Post-award interest under Section 31(7)(b) is a statutory consequence that cannot be contracted out of - Words 'unless the award otherwise directs' in Section 31(7)(b) relate only to the rate of interest and not to the entitlement - High Court correctly maintained post-award interest while setting aside pre-reference and pendente lite interest - [Paras 9-10, 17-18].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Impugned judgment dated 20.03.2026 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in FAO(OS) (COMM) No. 18 of 2026 affirmed – High Court order setting aside arbitral award to the extent of pre-reference and pendente lite interest upheld.

Civil Law - Execution Proceedings - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order 21 Rule 35, Rule 58, Rule 97, Rule 99 and Rule 101 - Appellant filed a Claim Petition under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC resisting delivery of possession to the Decree Holder claiming independent title as Waqf property - Executing Court and High Court dismissed the petition holding that it was not maintainable as the decree was for possession and not attachment and that the petitioner failed to prove title - Supreme Court held that the rejection of a claim on the ground of wrong provision is illegal and that the Executing Court is duty-bound under Order 21 Rule 97 to conduct a full-fledged inquiry into the rights and titles of parties including third-party objectors - Held - Impugned orders set aside and matter remanded for fresh inquiry - [Paras 7-12].

Civil Law - Procedure - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order 21 Rule 97 and Rule 101 - Duty of Executing Court - Where a stranger to the decree resists execution the Decree Holder's remedy lies under Order 21 Rule 97 - The Court must conduct a detailed inquiry into all questions including right title or interest in the property arising between the parties - Held - Dismissal of petition without such inquiry is illegal - [Paras 7-10].

Civil Law - Execution Proceedings - Burden of Proof - The decisive factor is the identity of the property in old and contemporaneous revenue or municipal records rather than an adversarial burden of proof on the objector - Held - Court must verify the correlation of the schedules in the title documents and the decree - [Paras 10.1-11].

Decision: Civil Appeal allowed - Impugned judgments set aside - Matter remanded to the VII Senior Civil Judge City Civil Court at Hyderabad for fresh inquiry and disposal in accordance with law.

Civil Law - Contempt Jurisdiction - Contempt of Courts Act 1971 - Section 19 - Intra-court appeal - Appellant challenged High Court Single Judge order in contempt proceedings involving rejection of compliance affidavit and directions on merits - Appellant contended that contempt court cannot adjudicate merits of original dispute and that order was not passed in exercise of jurisdiction to punish for contempt - Apex Court observed that though contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature they are not criminal proceedings - Court held that an intra-court appeal is maintainable if permitted by High Court Rules or Letters Patent where the Single Judge traverses beyond contempt jurisdiction to decide merits or substantive rights - Court made a reference to a larger Bench regarding correctness of Ram Kishan Fauji regarding interpretation of criminal jurisdiction in Article 226 matters - Held - Matter left open for adjudication in Special Appeal - Contempt petition before Single Judge stayed for two months - [Paras 1-57].

Civil Law - Appellate Jurisdiction - Letters Patent - Special Appeal - Contempt of Courts Act 1971 - Section 19 - Maintainability of intra-court appeal - Where a Single Judge in a contempt proceeding issues directions relating to merits of the dispute or travels beyond the contempt jurisdiction the order is not passed in exercise of jurisdiction to punish for contempt - Such orders are not appealable under Section 19 of the 1971 Act but are open to challenge in an intra-court appeal if allowed by relevant High Court Rules or Letters Patent - Held - Appeal against order not punishing for contempt is maintainable provided it falls within the tests of a judgment - [Paras 10-45].

Civil Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Criminal Jurisdiction - Distinction - Ram Kishan Fauji - Apex Court expressed respectful disagreement with the enunciation in Ram Kishan Fauji that writ proceedings originating from criminal matters necessarily constitute exercise of criminal jurisdiction barring intra-court appeals - Court held that Article 226 confers a sui generis constitutional jurisdiction and nomenclature of the lis does not convert it into ordinary criminal jurisdiction - Held - A reference to an appropriate Bench is required to revisit the binding precedent of Ram Kishan Fauji - [Paras 46-57].

Decision: Appeal disposed of - Appellant granted liberty to file a Special Appeal within a fortnight - Contempt petition before High Court stayed for two months - Reference made for consideration by an appropriate Bench - [Paras 54-57].

Civil Law - Limitation - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 - Sections 61 and 62 - Appellant challenged NCLAT order dated 02/08/2023 by filing an appeal on 21/11/2023 - Respondent raised preliminary objection that the appeal is barred by limitation as it exceeded the 60-day absolute ceiling - Appellant argued that the limitation period should be reckoned from the date of receipt of the certified copy on 11/10/2023 - Court held that the IBC is a self-contained code with strict timelines to ensure speedy resolution - Pronouncement of order in open court constitutes notice and limitation commences therefrom - Application for certified copy does not suspend the limitation clock indefinitely - Appellant failed to file within the aggregate of the 45-day statutory period and 15-day condonable grace period - Held - Appeal is barred by limitation and the Court lacks jurisdiction to condone delay beyond the 60-day window - [Paras 1-18].

Civil Law - Limitation - Limitation Act 1963 - Section 12 - Exclusion of time requisite - Appellant applied for certified copy on the 35th day after pronouncement - Period of inaction before applying for copy cannot be excluded under Section 12(2) and Explanation - Failure to act with due diligence cannot be compensated by excluding time taken to obtain documents - Held - Initial period of 35 days of inaction counts against the statutory window - [Paras 8-10, 15].

Decision: Preliminary objection sustained – Civil Appeal dismissed as barred by limitation – No order as to costs – [Paras 18-19].