Civil Law - Priority of Provident Fund Dues – Conflict between EPFO and Secured Creditors – Section 11(2) of PF Act vs. Section 35 of SARFAESI – Writ Petition Restored - EPFO sought recovery of statutory dues from auction proceeds of borrower’s properties sold by appellant (EARC) and Axis Bank – Appellant argued it already deposited ₹75 lakhs in proportion to sale value and balance recovery should be directed from Axis Bank which sold property for higher value – Held: Priority of charge under Section 11(2) of PF Act vis-à-vis Section 35 of SARFAESI requires determination – Writ petition restored to High Court for fresh adjudication after impleading Axis Bank – All parties free to raise contentions before High Court [Paras 2–13].

Civil Law - Partition Suit – Presumption of Valid Marriage – Evidence of Long Cohabitation – Appeal Dismissed - The plaintiffs claimed partition of ancestral properties as sons of the deceased Dasabovi from his first wife – Defendants denied the plaintiffs’ legitimacy and marriage between their mother and Dasabovi – The Trial Court dismissed the suit – The High Court reversed, relying on oral evidence and presumption of marriage based on prolonged cohabitation – Supreme Court affirmed High Court's decision – Held: Marriage can be presumed under Section 50 of the Evidence Act where cohabitation and social recognition exist; plaintiffs proved their status as legal heirs [Paras 1-2, 17-25, 34-42, 60-61].

Evidence – Section 50 of the Evidence Act – Oral Testimony of Long-Time Acquaintance – Valid Proof of Relationship - The only key witness (P.W.2 Hanumanthappa) had special means of knowledge and testified credibly to the marriage and relationship – His testimony was rooted in personal knowledge and consistent with the genealogical chart – Held: Evidence of a competent witness under Section 50 is sufficient to prove familial relationship in absence of documents [Paras 20-25, 28-33].

Presumption of Marriage – Long Cohabitation – Legal Recognition Favoured – Burden on Denier - Deceased Dasabovi was shown to have regularly visited and cohabited with plaintiffs’ mother – No contrary evidence was led by defendant – Held: Law presumes legitimacy from long-standing cohabitation – Burden to rebut lies on denier – Mere denial insufficient to dislodge presumption [Paras 34-42].

Adverse Inference – Defendant Failed to Enter Witness Box – Section 114(g) Evidence Act – Witness Avoidance Penalized - Defendant No.1, central to the dispute, failed to depose – Despite attending court, she didn’t enter the witness box or seek commission under Order XXVI Rule 1 CPC – Held: Adverse inference drawn against her – Her silence interpreted as evasion – Strengthened plaintiffs’ case [Paras 50-58].

Revenue Records – No Conclusive Proof of Title or Heirship – Mere Mutation Entries Irrelevant - Defendants relied on revenue entries excluding plaintiffs – Held: Such entries are for fiscal purposes and do not determine legal title or legitimacy – Only competent civil court can decide heirship – Reliance misplaced [Para 49].

Appeal – Dismissal Confirmed – High Court Decree Sustained – The Supreme Court upheld the decree of the High Court granting partition – Found no infirmity in reasoning or findings – Held: Plaintiffs proved their entitlement to half share – Appeal dismissed [Paras 60-61].

Criminal Law - Delay in Judgment – Non-Pronouncement After Hearing – Appeal Allowed - Criminal appeal heard and reserved for orders on 24.12.2021 was not decided even after over a year, causing prejudice and denial of justice to appellant – Supreme Court held that such delay is shocking and unacceptable – Highlighted systemic issue of judicial delay and absence of mechanism for litigants to seek redress for non-pronouncement – Directed urgent adherence to Anil Rai guidelines [Paras 1-7].

Judicial Discipline – Duty to Pronounce Judgments Timely – Guidelines Reiterated - Court reiterated guidelines from Anil Rai vs. State of Bihar requiring Chief Justices to monitor delays in reserved judgments – Reaffirmed that judgment should ideally be delivered within 2-3 months – Repeated inaction may warrant transfer of matter to another bench [Paras 8-11].

Litigant Rights – Right to Timely Justice – Mechanism for Relief Against Delay - Supreme Court acknowledged that delay in delivering reserved judgments erodes public confidence in judiciary – Directed all High Courts to implement a monitoring mechanism through Registrar General reporting delays to the Chief Justice – Held: Justice delayed in such cases amounts to justice denied [Paras 7, 10-12].

Relief – Directions Issued – Appeal Disposed - Directions issued for compliance by all High Courts – Registrar Generals to report monthly delays and escalate matters where judgments are not delivered within three months – Appeals disposed of with such systemic directions [Paras 10-12].

Arbitration Law - Arbitration Agreement – Validity of Unsigned Contract – Arbitration Clause Enforceable - The appellant sought reference to arbitration under Clause 32.2 of a contract which was not signed by respondent No.1 – Supreme Court held that the contract was nevertheless acted upon: goods were supplied, Letters of Credit issued, and email confirmation exchanged – Held: Arbitration clause valid and binding – Signature is not mandatory when conduct establishes mutual consent [Paras 5-21, 29-30].

Prima Facie Standard – Section 45 of the Arbitration Act – Court Must Refer to Arbitration - Reaffirming Shin-Etsu and Govind Rubber Ltd., Court held that referral courts under Section 45 are required only to make a prima facie determination of the existence of an arbitration agreement, not conduct a mini-trial – Delhi High Court erred in delving into factual analysis and rejecting the arbitration clause on lack of signature [Paras 24, 28-30].

Email Communication – Formation of Contract – Implied Acceptance - Email exchanges between the parties clearly showed ad idem – Respondent proposed a price revision which was accepted and incorporated into the formal contract – Conduct of parties including furnishing of Standby Letters of Credit and acceptance of deliveries confirmed agreement to contractual terms including arbitration clause [Paras 6-13, 18-21].

Relief – Orders Set Aside – Matter Referred to Arbitration - Supreme Court set aside orders of both Single Judge and Division Bench of Delhi High Court – Application under Section 45 allowed – Disputes to be referred to arbitration under LCIA Rules with seat at London, as per Clause 32.2 of contract [Paras 29-30].

Electricity Act - Power Purchase Agreement – Delay in Transmission Infrastructure – No Automatic Relief – Appeal Allowed - Appellant invoked bank guarantee for delay in project commissioning by Respondent Developer due to non-readiness of transmission lines by KPTCL – Held: Contractual provisions require formal extension request under Article 5.7 or Force Majeure notice under Article 14.5 – No such compliance by Developer – Hence, invocation of bank guarantee by CESC valid and lawful – Delay attributable to KPTCL does not qualify as Force Majeure under the PPA [Paras 36-40].

Force Majeure Clause – Notice Mandatory – Delay Not Covered – Finding Reversed - Supreme Court held that Article 14.5 of the PPA mandates a Force Majeure notice within 7 days – No such notice was issued – Delay in transmission readiness does not fall within defined Force Majeure events – Developer’s plea rejected – APTEL and State Commission erred in granting relief despite non-compliance [Paras 39-40].

Jurisdiction of State Commission and APTEL – No Power to Rewrite Contract – Appeal Allowed - Held: Regulatory authorities cannot alter risk allocation, renegotiate tariffs, or order refund of performance guarantees outside contract – Interpretation must follow express terms of the PPA concluded through competitive bidding – Equity or fairness cannot override commercial contract [Paras 42-43].

Contingent Contract – Completion of Transmission Work Not Condition Precedent – Developer Obligated – Developer’s failure to commission project due to KPTCL’s delay does not convert PPA into a contingent contract – Relief lies only through mechanisms provided in PPA – Not availed – No exemption from obligation [Paras 41-42].

Judgment – Relief – APTEL and State Commission Orders Set Aside - Supreme Court set aside orders granting extension, restoring bank guarantee and allowing tariff renegotiation – Held: Invocation of performance guarantee by CESC was in line with Article 4.4 of PPA – Appeal allowed [Paras 44-45].

Forest Service Law – Promotion to IFoS – Interpretation of Rule 2(g), IFS Recruitment Rules, 1966 – FROs as State Forest Service – The appellant, a Forest Range Officer (later promoted as Assistant Conservator of Forests), claimed that FRO service constituted part of “State Forest Service” and thus entitled to consideration for promotion to IFoS – Held: Approval under Rule 2(g) relates to the service as a whole and not individual posts – Andhra Pradesh Forest Service Class A, including FROs and ACFs, being a gazetted cadre connected with forestry, qualifies as “State Forest Service” subject to approval – Members eligible for consideration if substantive and with 8 years’ service [Paras 6-13].

Delay and Laches – Relief Denied for Past Exercises – The appellant completed 8 years of service in 2014 but made representation only in 2021 – Held: Though legal position clarified in his favour, he cannot claim retrospective consideration for earlier recruitment years – Relief confined to future selection exercises – Reliance placed on P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of T.N., (1975) 1 SCC 152 [Paras 18-20].

Promotion – Zone of Consideration – Seniority to be Respected – Though declaration obtained, appellant not entitled to bypass senior officers in zone of consideration – Claim restricted to participation in future selection processes as per rules [Paras 16-20].

Decision – High Court Judgment Set Aside – Tribunal’s View Restored in Principle – Appeal allowed partly – Held: Andhra Pradesh Forest Service (Class A, including FROs) constitutes “State Forest Service” – FROs eligible for promotion to IFoS if otherwise qualified – However, appellant’s claim for earlier years rejected – Authorities directed to treat FROs as State Forest Service in future IFoS selection exercises [Paras 21-23].

Environmental Law - Environmental Clearance – Sand Mining – District Survey Report – Supreme Court reiterated that replenishment studies are mandatory for valid DSRs and therefore essential for granting Environmental Clearance (EC) – Following Deepak Kumar v. State of Haryana (2012) 4 SCC 629, and reaffirming Satendra Pandey v. MoEFCC, 2018 SCC OnLine NGT 2388, the Court held that no mining activity can be permitted without prior scientific appraisal – The Court also relied on State of UP v. Gaurav Kumar, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1069, to stress strict adherence to environmental safeguards – Appeals filed by UT of J&K, NHAI and Project Proponent dismissed – NGT’s order setting aside the EC upheld – Held: A DSR without replenishment study is untenable in law – All parties directed to bear own costs [Paras 15-16, 29-33, 35-39, 44].

Role of Appraisal Committees – Regulatory Failure – J&K Expert Appraisal Committee and SEIAA erred in proceeding with environmental clearance despite recording absence of replenishment data – Restriction of mining depth to one metre in absence of replenishment study is no substitute for mandatory scientific assessment – Such conditional ECs amount to abdication of statutory responsibility [Paras 35-37].

Breach of EC Conditions – Use of Heavy Machinery – Project Proponent violated Condition 53 of the Environmental Clearance prohibiting JCBs and heavy excavators – Tribunal rightly directed J&K Pollution Control Board to take action – Direction upheld [Paras 41-42].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – NGT order sustained – Mandatory requirement of replenishment study reinforced as integral to lawful grant of environmental clearance – Supreme Court emphasised that effective environmental protection cannot be compromised by administrative convenience [Paras 39, 44].

Election Petition – Defect in Form 25 Affidavit – Maintainability Challenged – Curable Defect – The appellant objected to the maintainability of the election petition on grounds of a defective or absent affidavit in Form 25 supporting allegations of corrupt practices – High Court allowed the respondent to cure the defect post-filing – Supreme Court held that while substantial compliance is sufficient, the High Court failed to analyse whether such compliance existed or whether defect could be cured beyond limitation – Held: Matter remanded to High Court to decide afresh after examining nature and curability of defect [Paras 12–24].

Substantial Compliance – Filing of Affidavit – Proviso to Section 83(1)(c), RP Act – Not Mandatory in Rigid Sense – The affidavit accompanying allegations of corrupt practices must substantially conform to Form 25 – Absence of precise format is not fatal if substantial requirements are met – Court clarified that even if defective, opportunity must be granted to cure defects before trial – Held: Strict compliance not mandatory – Liberal interpretation preferred as per evolving jurisprudence [Paras 15–18].

Scope of Rejection – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Rejection at Threshold Not Justified – Where the affidavit, though not in strict format, indicates intention and substance of compliance, rejection of petition under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is unwarranted – Allegations of corrupt practices and electoral irregularities must be tried if they disclose triable issues – Held: High Court was justified in not rejecting the petition outright, but must apply proper scrutiny [Paras 6–8, 22–24].

Procedure and Scrutiny – High Court Rules and Affidavit Examination – Rules 7 and 21, Chapter XXXIII – Affidavit and petition to be scrutinised by designated officer before admission – Court noted that it was unclear whether proper scrutiny and defect-notification took place at time of filing – Held: High Court must consider if initial scrutiny was conducted and if curative opportunity was rightly given before limitation expired [Paras 20–21].

Direction for Remand – High Court to Determine Preliminary Issues – Supreme Court remitted matter to High Court with specific directions to (i) identify defects in the affidavit, (ii) decide whether they were curable, and (iii) assess whether curative action beyond limitation is permissible – Held: High Court to also strike out pleadings agreed by parties and proceed on merits thereafter [Para 24].

Decision – Appeal Disposed – Matter Remitted to High Court – Parties allowed to amend pleadings post deletion – All pending applications also disposed of – Directions issued for efficient disposal of election dispute [Paras 24–26].

Civil Law -  – Additional Evidence – Order XLI Rule 27(1) CPC – Mandatory Pleading Requirement – High Court’s Error – High Court reversed the Trial Court’s decree for specific performance by accepting additional evidence submitted by the defendant – However, the Supreme Court held that before allowing additional evidence, the Appellate Court must examine whether such evidence is supported by pleadings in the written statement – Held: Failure to undertake this threshold scrutiny invalidates the appellate judgment – High Court erred in admitting evidence not grounded in defendant’s pleadings [Paras 5.5, 6, 8, 9].

Contract Law – Specific Performance – Agreement of Sale – Pleading and Proof of Readiness and Willingness – Trial Court rightly decreed specific performance based on plaintiffs’ evidence and performance under the contract – The High Court wrongly reversed this without properly assessing the defendant’s pleadings and the legality of admitting new evidence – Held: Matter remanded for fresh consideration [Paras 2.5, 2.6, 5.3, 10].

Evidence – Signature Dispute – Section 73, Indian Evidence Act – Improper Use by High Court – The High Court erred in comparing signatures under Section 73 without proper foundation and contrary to the Trial Court's factual findings – Held: Comparison of signatures was not permissible in the manner adopted – Judgment vitiated [Para 4].

Decision – Judgment Set Aside – Matter Remanded – Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court dated 30.12.2008 and remanded the matter for fresh consideration – Clarified that it had expressed no opinion on merits – Requested High Court to decide the matter expeditiously considering the long pendency since 1997 [Paras 10-12].