SARFAESI Act – Post-13(4) Challenge – Scope of DRT’s Jurisdiction – Borrower’s Right to Challenge – Held: DRT has jurisdiction to examine not just the legality of action under Section 13(4) but also subsequent measures, including sale of secured assets – Tribunal empowered under Section 17(3) to declare bank’s actions invalid and restore possession to borrower – Amended scheme of Sections 13 and 17 supports wider jurisdiction – Borrower's application maintainable even after possession taken and sale initiated – No limitation on timing of DRT scrutiny under amended provisions [Paras 14–24].

SARFAESI Act – Section 36 and Limitation – Action Under Section 13(4) – Held: No specific limitation prescribed for steps post demand under Section 13(2) – Enforcement of security interest not time-barred merely because sale or other measures taken long after notice – Section 36 must be read to relate to enforceability, not procedural timing of steps like sale or possession [Para 10].

Civil Procedure – Appeal from Review Order – Maintainability – Appellants who themselves invoked appellate jurisdiction cannot subsequently question maintainability – Held: Having filed the appeal, appellants estopped from objecting to its maintainability under Order 47 Rule 7 CPC [Para 25].

Judicial Review – Writ Jurisdiction vs Statutory Remedy – SARFAESI Act provides statutory remedy under Section 17 – Borrowers who fail to approach DRT within prescribed period and challenge measures later are not barred from relief if DRT satisfied cause of action persists – Multiple causes including sale notice may give rise to independent right of challenge [Paras 3, 12–13].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – DRT has jurisdiction to entertain borrower’s challenge to sale notice and actions post-possession – Liberty granted to borrower to contest all issues before DRT – No interference with High Court’s order – No costs [Paras 26–27].

Labour and Industrial Law – Retrenchment – Violation of Section 25F – Reinstatement vs. Compensation – Appellant daily wager engaged for less than a year – Termination found violative of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act – Labour Court ordered reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages – High Court set aside reinstatement – Held: Reinstatement with full back wages is not automatic even if termination violates Section 25F – In cases of short, irregular, or daily-wage employment, monetary compensation serves ends of justice – Order of High Court upheld in principle but modified to award compensation of ₹50,000 to the appellant [Paras 7–8, 15–16].

Industrial Disputes – Relief in Lieu of Reinstatement – Judicial trend established that reinstatement with back wages not proper for daily wagers whose appointments were not made through statutory process or who worked for short periods – Compensation may be substituted considering nature, duration, and legality of employment – Principles reiterated from U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. v. Udai Narain Pandey; M.P. Administration v. Tribhuban; Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Ashok Kumar; Sita Ram v. Moti Lal Nehru Farmers Training Institute; Mahboob Deepak v. Nagar Panchayat Gajraula [Paras 8–14].

Judicial Discretion – Appropriate Relief – Court emphasised that relief under Section 11A must be exercised judiciously considering the nature of appointment, length of service, delay in raising dispute, and statutory compliance – Payment of compensation of ₹50,000 directed in lieu of reinstatement – To be paid within six weeks, failing which it shall carry 9% interest p.a. [Paras 15–16].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Award of reinstatement set aside – Appellant to be paid ₹50,000 as compensation by Respondent No. 1 within six weeks, failing which interest at 9% p.a. shall apply – No order as to costs [Paras 16–17].

Service Law – Promotion – Disability – Section 47(2) of Persons with Disabilities Act – Colour Perception – Medical Standards – Denial of Promotion Not Discriminatory – Respondent, an employee in the Research Designs and Standards Organisation (RDSO), was denied promotion to the post of Chief Research Assistant for not possessing B1 medical fitness, which required normal colour perception – High Court held that such denial violated Section 47(2) of the Act – Supreme Court held that Section 47(2) prohibits denial of promotion merely on ground of disability – However, where the disability impairs performance or compromises safety, promotion can be withheld – Colour perception, being essential to the duties of the promotional post, justified the B1 medical requirement – Lack of colour perception is not recognized as "disability" under Section 2(i) of the Act – Denial of promotion on medical grounds does not violate Section 47(2) [Paras 8–9, 12–16].

Medical Fitness – Prescription of Higher Standards for Promotional Post – Validity of Revised Medical Criteria – Revised medical classifications issued by RDSO in 1990 were based on expert recommendations – Prescription of B1 category for higher posts made in interest of public safety and administrative efficiency – Respondent, who did not meet B1 standards, could not claim automatic entitlement to promotion – Held: Revision of medical categories by competent authority, even if it results in disqualification, does not violate rights under Disabilities Act [Paras 3, 16–17].

Judicial Review – New Ground Raised for First Time in Writ Petition – Procedural Impropriety – Respondent had not raised any contention based on Section 47(2) before the Tribunal – High Court entertained this ground during oral arguments without giving proper opportunity to appellant to respond – Held: Procedurally improper – High Court erred in relying on Sanjay Kumar Jain without examining its limited ratio [Paras 6–7, 11].

Statutory Interpretation – Beneficial Legislation – Limits of Protection Under Disabilities Act – While the Disabilities Act is a welfare legislation, its provisions cannot be applied in a mechanical or expansive manner – Minimum performance or safety standards required for public employment cannot be diluted under the guise of disability rights – Section 47(2) protects only against discrimination arising solely due to disability, not against legitimate eligibility criteria [Paras 12–13, 18–19].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment set aside – Order of Central Administrative Tribunal restored – Respondent not entitled to promotion without meeting B1 medical fitness standard – Section 47(2) not violated where disability affects functional suitability for higher post [Para 20].

Criminal Procedure – Section 167(2) CrPC – Default Bail – Cognizance under TOHO – Appellants arrested in connection with organ transplant racket – CBI filed complaint under Section 22 of the Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994 – Appellants claimed entitlement to statutory bail as no chargesheet (police report) was filed within 90 days – Held: CBI, though having powers of investigation under the CrPC, was precluded from filing a chargesheet in view of the special procedure prescribed under TOHO – Cognizance could only be taken on a complaint filed by an authorized officer under Section 22 TOHO – Therefore, complaint is not a police report – Section 167(2) CrPC not attracted [Paras 5–6, 19–20, 24].

Special Law vs. General Law – TOHO is a special statute with overriding effect over CrPC – Section 4(2) CrPC makes CrPC applicable only to the extent not inconsistent with special laws – TOHO mandates exclusive procedure for investigation and cognizance – Complaint filed under TOHO within 90 days satisfies legal requirements – Indefeasible right to default bail under CrPC does not survive after such complaint is filed [Paras 13–16, 24–25].

Complaint vs. Police Report – Statutory Interpretation – Under Section 2(d) CrPC, a complaint excludes police report – Section 2(r) defines police report as one filed under Section 173(2) CrPC – CBI complaint under TOHO is not such a report – Filing of FIR and use of CrPC powers during investigation does not convert a TOHO complaint into a police report – Cognizance must be based only on complaint under TOHO [Paras 11, 19–22].

Remand Powers – Pre-cognizance vs Post-cognizance – Detention before cognizance governed by Section 167 CrPC – Post-cognizance remand governed by Section 309(2) – Once cognizance is taken on a valid complaint, remand continues lawfully under Section 309 – No procedural illegality [Paras 26].

Held: Complaint by CBI under TOHO is valid and within time – No entitlement to bail under Section 167(2) CrPC – Appeal dismissed [Paras 24–25, 30].

Criminal Law – Cheating and Criminal Breach of Trust – Civil Dispute vs. Criminal Offence – Allegation that appellants failed to execute sale deed or refund consideration under agreement for sale – FIR registered under Sections 406 and 420 IPC – Held: Mere breach of contract or failure to return advance money does not constitute cheating or criminal breach of trust unless fraudulent or dishonest intention exists at the inception of the transaction – Intention to cheat must be present at the time of making promise or representation – Dispute arising out of contract essentially civil in nature cannot be given colour of criminal offence [Paras 10–12].

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of Proceedings – Section 482 CrPC – Principles Reiterated – High Court can quash FIR only when, even if allegations are taken at face value, no cognizable offence is made out – Power to be exercised sparingly and judiciously – High Court erred in refusing to quash FIR without examining whether ingredients of Sections 406 or 420 IPC were disclosed – Matter remitted for fresh consideration [Paras 12–15].

Mens Rea – Requirement for Cheating and Criminal Breach of Trust – To establish offence under Section 420 IPC, prosecution must show deception and fraudulent intention at inception – For Section 406 IPC, entrustment and dishonest misappropriation must be proved – Absence of such elements reduces matter to civil breach of contract [Paras 10–12].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of the High Court set aside – Matter remitted to High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law [Paras 14–15].

Judicial Appointments – Article 217(1) & (2) – Eligibility vs. Suitability – Scope of Judicial Review – Petition challenging appointment of Dr. Satish Chandra as Additional Judge of the Allahabad High Court on grounds of lack of ten years’ actual practice and ineffective consultation – Held: A clear distinction exists between eligibility (objective fact under Article 217(2)) and suitability (subjective assessment under Article 217(1)) – Judicial review confined only to (i) lack of eligibility and (ii) lack of effective consultation – Fitness or desirability of candidate not justiciable [Paras 10–12, 30–31].

Constitutional Law – Interpretation of Article 217(2)(b) and Explanation (aa) – Meaning of “Advocate of a High Court” – Enrolment under the Advocates Act, 1961 gives an advocate the right to practice in all courts – Actual practice not a constitutional prerequisite for eligibility – “Right to practice” or “entitlement to practice” sufficient to constitute qualification – Explanation (aa) widens eligibility by including service as Member of a Tribunal or in a post requiring special knowledge of law – [Paras 16–23].

Legal History – 1879, 1926 and 1961 Acts – Evolution of “Right to Practice” – Comparative study of Legal Practitioners Act, 1879; Bar Councils Act, 1926; and Advocates Act, 1961 reveals consistent focus on entitlement to practice – After 1961, distinction between “advocate of a High Court” and “advocate” ceased to exist – [Paras 17–23, 28–29].

Appointment Process – Collegium System – Effective Consultation – Consultation under Article 217(1) is a participatory, integrated process involving the Chief Justice of India, the Governor, and the Chief Justice of the High Court – The Supreme Court Collegium does not sit in appeal over the High Court Collegium – Effective consultation implies participation of all constitutional functionaries; its content is beyond judicial review – [Paras 31, 34–35].

Facts Applied – Eligibility of Respondent No. 3 – Respondent enrolled as Advocate in 1975; served as Member, ITAT (1997–2008); period computable under Explanation (aa) to Article 217(2)(b) – Held: Respondent possessed requisite eligibility; consultation process duly complied with – No lack of eligibility or consultation established – [Paras 32–35].

Judicial Review – Quo Warranto – Limited Scope – In proceedings under Article 226 seeking quo warranto, court examines only legality of appointment, not merits – Allegations of fraud or misrepresentation rejected – Institutional “trust” and continuity in judicial appointments reaffirmed – [Paras 12, 30–36].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Appointment of Dr. Satish Chandra as Additional Judge of the Allahabad High Court upheld – No infirmity in eligibility or consultation – [Para 37].

Criminal Law – Section 498A IPC – Quashing of Proceedings – Absence of Statutory Ingredients – Held: FIR and charge sheet alleged non-cohabitation and emotional neglect after marriage – No allegation of conduct likely to cause suicide or grave injury – No harassment for unlawful demand made out – Allegations insufficient to constitute cruelty under either Explanation (a) or (b) to Section 498A IPC – FIR and charge sheet quashed [Paras 21–25].

Criminal Procedure – Inherent Powers – Quashing under Section 482 CrPC – Principles Reiterated – Power to quash should be used sparingly to prevent abuse of process or secure ends of justice – When FIR and charge sheet do not disclose a cognizable offence, continuation of criminal proceedings is unjust – High Court erred in rejecting petition without notice or proper reasoning [Paras 9, 13, 18, 26].

Family Law – Marital Discord – Dowry Allegation – FIR filed nearly 5 years after marriage – Rs. 5 lakh allegedly given at time of marriage, but no subsequent demand or coercion alleged – Alleged mental harassment due to lack of communication or affection not covered under ‘cruelty’ as defined in Section 498A – Proceedings amount to misuse of process [Paras 22–25].

Decision: Appeal allowed – FIR and charge sheet under Section 498A IPC quashed – Proceedings terminated [Paras 27–28].

Criminal Law – Attempt to Murder (Section 307 IPC) – Right of Private Defence – When accused fired two gunshots at complainants during a family dispute, plea of self-defence rejected – Evidence proved that complainants had only come to remonstrate about accused’s conduct – No aggression or provocation by complainants – Held: Plea of private defence unsustainable [Paras 12–14, 16].

Arms Act, 1959 – Section 27 (Unamended) – Possession and use of licensed gun for unlawful purpose – Even lawful possession of arms becomes punishable when weapon is used for “unlawful purpose” – Conviction under Section 27 valid; amendment to Section 27 subsequent to incident inapplicable [Paras 17–19].

Probation and Leniency – Sections 360 & 361 CrPC and Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 – Relief not automatic – Not applicable in cases of grave offence involving gunfire causing multiple injuries – High Court already reduced sentence from 3 years to 1 year – Held: No further leniency warranted [Paras 21–24].

Sentence – Reduction and Concurrency – Sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 IPC and one year under Section 27 of Arms Act to run concurrently – Fine enhanced from ₹1,500 to ₹15,000 with default sentence of one year [Paras 5, 15].

Result: Both appeals dismissed – Conviction and sentences upheld – Bail cancelled [Paras 25–26].

Constitutional Law – Scheduled Tribes – Land Restoration – Validity of Repealing Act – Kerala Act 12 of 1999 challenged for overriding Kerala Act 31 of 1975 which provided for restoration of alienated tribal land – High Court held 1999 Act to be colourable and struck it down – Supreme Court reversed – Held: 1999 Act enacted under Entry 18, List II; hence within State legislative competence – Doctrine of colourable legislation inapplicable as motive irrelevant when legislative competence exists [Paras 65–77].

Fundamental Rights – Article 14 – Allegation that 1999 Act was arbitrary and discriminatory by excluding restoration of non-agricultural land and limiting restoration to land above two hectares – Rejected – Held: Legislature had broad policy objective in enacting beneficial provisions like allotment, housing, and grant-based support instead of restoration – Classification between agricultural and non-agricultural land upheld as valid [Paras 136, 191–192].

Fundamental Rights – Article 21 – Right to habitat and rehabilitation – Argument that denial of restoration violated right to life and culture of tribals – Rejected – Held: No absolute right to original land – Benefits under 1999 Act ensured alternate land and housing, thus satisfying rehabilitation standards – Right under Article 21 not violated [Paras 153–169].

Interpretation of Statutes – Repeal and Revival – Section 22 of 1999 Act repealed the 1975 Act – High Court held repeal invalid and ordered restoration of the earlier Act – Reversed – Held: When repealing statute is constitutionally valid, earlier law does not revive automatically – Section 6 of the General Clauses Act applies – 1999 Act contains saving clauses – Only inconsistent provisions stood repealed [Paras 173–190].

Mandamus and Legislative Override – High Court directions for implementing 1975 Act not equivalent to conferring a vested right – Held: Issuance of writ of mandamus directing implementation of law cannot create an indefeasible right immune from legislative repeal – Mandamus in this case merely directed statutory compliance – Distinguished from Madan Mohan Pathak case [Paras 92–117].

Vested Rights – Restoration of Tribal Land – Held: Right of restoration under 1975 Act not a vested or constitutional right – Such right was conditional on completion of process including compensation – Absence of payment or final orders meant right was inchoate – State could validly modify or extinguish it by enacting new legislation [Paras 118–127, 135].

Beneficial Legislation – Comparison of 1975 and 1999 Acts – 1999 Act provides broader welfare measures including land allotment, housing, grants instead of loans, and legal aid – Held: While restoration to original land was curtailed, overall scheme of 1999 Act was more beneficial to tribal population when seen holistically [Paras 143–152].

International Law – Tribal Rights – Reference to ILO Convention 107 and UN Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples – Held: Though not binding, international norms inform constitutional values – However, State action in providing alternate land and benefits was within permissible limits – No violation of international obligations [Paras 155–157].

Decision: Appeals allowed in part – Judgment of High Court set aside to the extent it invalidated 1999 Act – Kerala Act 12 of 1999 held constitutionally valid except in regard to non-agricultural lands – Earlier 1975 Act not revived – State directed to provide suitable agricultural land to tribals in line with legislative promise – Allotments must be of similar quality and completed expeditiously [Paras 193–194].