Criminal Law - Preventive Detention – Validity of Ordinance – Section 88, Government of India Act – Detention Orders Upheld – The appellants challenged their detention under Ordinance IV of 1949, alleging lack of Governor’s competence under Section 88 and repugnancy with existing laws – Held: Satisfaction of the Governor under Section 88(1) is subjective and not justiciable – The Ordinance fell within Items 1 and 2 of Provincial List (public order and preventive detention) – No repugnancy with Criminal Procedure Code – Detention lawful [Paras 5-7, 10-16].

Legislative Competence – Public Order and Preventive Detention – Bihar Ordinance dealt exclusively with maintenance of public order, preventive detention, and ancillary provisions – “Public order” is a comprehensive expression – Offences created under the Ordinance and arrest powers under Section 21 incidental to competence under List II – No necessity to invoke Concurrent List – Pith and substance doctrine applied [Paras 12-15].

Repugnancy – Section 107, Government of India Act – No Conflict with Code of Criminal Procedure – Arrest without warrant under Section 21 and summary trials by Magistrates under Ordinance do not conflict with Sections 54 and 160 CrPC – Section 1(2) CrPC preserves special laws – In absence of repugnancy, Governor-General’s assent unnecessary [Paras 14-16].

Bona fides of Promulgation – Mala fides Allegation Rejected – Ordinance promulgated after earlier Act and extension notifications were declared ultra vires – Failure to prorogue legislature in earlier Ordinance was a mistake, not mala fide – Governor acted bona fide to preserve public order [Para 17].

Validity of Certain Provisions – Sections 23, 24, and Proviso to Section 4(1) – Section 23 (repeal of void laws) treated as superfluous – Section 24 (savings) irrelevant to present detentions, even if invalid not inseparably linked with Ordinance – Proviso to Section 4(1) permitting non-disclosure of all grounds upheld – Legislature competent to enact; courts cannot question policy once subject is within legislative competence – Preventive detention remains valid and not converted into arbitrary detention [Paras 19-24].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Ordinance within legislative competence – Detention orders valid – No violation of Section 88 or Section 107 of Government of India Act – No illegality in impugned provisions [Paras 25].

Civil Law - Transfer of Property – Part Performance – Section 53-A TPA – Unregistered lease agreement – Defence upheld – A permanent lease was negotiated between the Talukdari Settlement Officer (with Government sanction) and the predecessor of the defendant; though no formal registered lease was executed, the offer and acceptance were in writings signed by the parties and Government – The terms (permanent lease; rent Rs. 290; revision after 50 years) could be ascertained with reasonable certainty – The transferee took possession, erected a factory and paid rent to successive managers – Held, conditions of Section 53-A were satisfied and the transferor/plaintiff was debarred from enforcing ejectment – Assistant Judge’s decree dismissing the suit restored [Paras 3-6, 10-11, 15-18].

Evidence – Secondary evidence of contract – Government records – Admissibility and reliability – Exh. 181 (Government Resolution/letter reciting the correspondence, offer, acceptance and sanction) constituted reliable secondary evidence of the written and signed contract where the primary documents were in the possession/power of the plaintiff/talukdars and withheld despite notice – Adverse inference justified – High Court erred in discarding Exh. 181 as proof of contract and terms [Paras 4, 16-17].

Registration Act – Section 49 – Unregistered instrument as evidence of part performance – Even if a formal lease deed is unregistered or absent, a signed written agreement creating a present demise may be looked into as evidence of part performance; Section 49 permits use of such agreement for the limited purpose – Formal registered lease is not a precondition to invoke Section 53-A TPA [Para 18].

Specific Relief – Section 27-A (active equity in leases) – Scope and temporal reach – The equity of part performance is recognized as an active equity in lease cases under Section 27-A of the Specific Relief Act, but that provision applies only to contracts executed after 01/04/1930; nevertheless, Section 53-A TPA furnishes a complete statutory defence in the present case [Para 16].

Civil Procedure – Second appeal – Interference with concurrent/sustainable findings – Where the Assistant Judge’s conclusion is sustainable on the statutory defence under Section 53-A TPA on the proved record (including admissible secondary evidence), there existed no substantial ground for reversal in second appeal; High Court’s interference set aside [Para 15].

Landlord and Tenant – Plaintiff’s locus/notice – Questions on plaintiff’s title to sue and notice were raised but not decided as unnecessary in view of the success of the Section 53-A defence; High Court’s contrary view on standing does not survive [Paras 14-15].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Judgment of the High Court set aside; decree of the Assistant Judge restoring dismissal of the suit – Parties to bear their own costs throughout [Para 18 (concl.)].

Civil Law - Agency – Scope of Authority – Commission Note – Authority to Conclude Sale – Construed broadly – The commission note authorised the broker to “negotiate the sale” and “secure a buyer” with stipulations of title being free of encumbrances and good title – Held: Such language implied authority to conclude a binding contract of sale, not merely to introduce a prospective buyer – Subsequent conduct of parties confirmed this understanding – Broker’s acceptance of buyer’s firm offer for Rs. 1,10,000 created binding contract – Commission earned [Paras 7-8, 26-28, 44-46].

Agency – Right to Commission – Negotiating Sale and Securing Buyer – Whether dependent on actual completion at stipulated price – Not dependent – Once broker introduced buyers who made a firm offer at Rs. 1,10,000, and eventual sale was concluded with the same buyers, commission right crystallised on that basis – Principal’s unilateral reduction of price to Rs. 1,05,000 (suspected to deprive broker of dues) cannot defeat broker’s entitlement – Commission payable on Rs. 1,10,000 [Paras 5, 10-11, 22-23, 47-53].

Luxor (Eastbourne) Ltd. v. Cooper – Distinguished – Principle that commission contracts create purely contingent rights applies where commission expressly conditional upon completion – In present case, buyers actually completed purchase – Once event occurred, commission right vested – Principal cannot defeat it by lowering sale consideration – House of Lords case not applicable [Paras 11, 54-57, 59-60].

Contract Act – Sections 188, 219 – Interpretation – Section 188 permits agent to act within express/implied authority – Terms “secure a buyer” and “negotiate sale” imply power to bind principal where conditions of title and price are specified – Section 219 entitles agent to agreed remuneration upon completion of duty – Applied here in broker’s favour [Paras 26, 45-46, 51].

Evidence – Conduct of Parties – Silence as acquiescence – Respondent’s silence upon being informed of concluded bargain, coupled with subsequent clandestine sale to same buyers at reduced price, supported inference that agent acted within authority and that sale for lower figure was collusive to deprive agent of commission [Paras 20, 22, 28].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Judgment of High Court (awarding only Rs. 1,000 commission) set aside – Decree of trial Judge restored – Appellant entitled to full commission of Rs. 6,000 with costs throughout [Paras 12, 46, 65-66].

Limitation – Execution of Decree – Article 182(3), Limitation Act, 1908 – “Review” must be undertaken and decided – Application under Section 36, Bengal Money-Lenders Act dismissed for default – No review “undertaken” or “decision passed on the review” – Time not extended – Held: Art. 182(3) inapplicable [Paras 3-4].

Limitation – Article 182(2) – “Where there has been an appeal” – Must relate to the decree under execution – Appeal from dismissal under Order IX Rule 9 CPC in collateral Section 36 proceeding does not qualify – No extension of limitation – Held: Art. 182(2) inapplicable [Para 5].

Execution – Starting Point of Limitation – Application filed more than three years after final decree – Not saved by collateral proceedings or dismissed applications – Decree time-barred [Paras 2-3, 4-5].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – High Court upheld – Execution held barred by limitation; no costs interference warranted [Paras 6-7].

Cooperative Society Disputes – Executability of Decree – Plot Allotment – Merger/Identity – Constructions – Supreme Court upholds High Court’s refusal to treat decree as inexecutable – Photograph shows substantial open land; only a covered passage overlies Plot 5A – Passage directed to be removed and Plot 5A allotted with vacant possession – Intervening shop owners on Plots 4 & 4A protected – Appeals disposed of with directions [Paras 3.4–3.6, 7–13].

Cooperative Court Award – History of Proceedings – Member obtained award (31.03.2000) directing allotment of Plot 5A; Cooperative Appellate Court dismissed appeal (20.04.2002); High Court in W.P. No. 4441/2002 granted liberty to raise executability objections before the executing court (07.10.2006) [Paras 3.1–3.3].

Execution – Inexecutability Plea – Loss of Identity/Merger – The society’s objection that Plot 5A had merged with Plots 4 & 4A and that constructions/approvals made decree impossible was initially accepted by the executing court (27.04.2011) but reversed in appeal (16.10.2015) [Paras 3.4–3.5].

Execution – Appellate Findings – Objection untenable as (i) merger plea not raised before Cooperative fora; (ii) no competent approval of merger; (iii) constructions unauthorised; (iv) illegal structures liable to demolition and vacant possession of Plot 5A to be given [Para 3.5].

Civil Revision – High Court – Dismissal with Costs – High Court concurred with appellate court; dismissed revision with Rs 25,000 costs; conduct found frivolous/malicious [Paras 3.6–3.7].

Interventions – Third-Party Appeals/Applications – SLPs by a shop owner and intervention by other shop owners/members noted [Para 3.8].

Evidence/Fact Appreciation – Photograph – Court finds substantial portion open; only a covered passage over Plot 5A; its existence/nature undisputed; passage not integral to main building and to be removed; thereafter Plot 5A to be allotted and vacant possession handed to decree-holder [Paras 11–12].

Relief – Protection to Non-Parties – Intervening shop owners on Plots 4 & 4A unaffected; their occupation and enjoyment to remain undisturbed [Para 13].

Decision: Civil Appeals disposed of with directions; intervention applications rejected; no interference with High Court order [Para 14].

Criminal Law – Mistaken Identity – UAPA – Acquittal – Appellant, a Sri Lankan refugee residing in Trichy under the name "Ranjan", was convicted by the trial court and the conviction confirmed by the High Court, on the basis that he was the same person as absconding accused "Sri" (A-5), who allegedly handed over cyanide capsules and poisonous substances to co-accused Krishnakumar (A-1) in furtherance of a conspiracy to revive the banned LTTE — Held: Courts below erred in identifying the appellant with the absconding accused "Sri"; conviction based on flawed identification unsustainable; appellant acquitted [Paras 43, 62–64].

Witness Credibility – Material Improvement in Testimony – Identification in Police Custody – Key prosecution witnesses Balachandran (PW-8) and Kumar @ Dharma Kumar (PW-9) had not mentioned the name "Ranjan" in their earlier statements to police or in depositions in prior trials (S.C. No. 7/2016 and S.C. No. 15/2016); the identification of "Sri" as "Ranjan" was introduced for the first time in the present trial, only after the appellant's arrest, and was made during police custody without any Test Identification Parade — Held: Such belated and improved testimony constitutes a material improvement and not a mere lapse of memory; it has a debilitating effect on the credibility of the witnesses and cannot be brushed aside as inconsequential [Paras 47–49, 54, 56].

Witness Credibility – Unreliable Witnesses – Both PW-8 and PW-9 were Sri Lankan nationals illegally residing in India under fabricated identity documents; they sheltered the main accused Krishnakumar (A-1) and witnessed the alleged handover of poisonous substances yet remained silent and never informed the police; their conduct was unnatural, suspicious and sufficient to make them liable for prosecution — Held: Failure of investigating agency to take action against them casts serious doubt on the bona fides of the investigation [Paras 45–46, 61].

Evidence – Corroborative Witnesses – Misreading of Depositions – Courts below treated evidence of landlady Rasamalar (PW-25) and neighbours Indu (PW-17) and Latha (PW-18) as corroborating the prosecution case on identity — Held: A careful reading of their depositions reveals the contrary; PW-25 categorically stated there was no resident named "Sri" in her apartment and that she knew the appellant only as "Ranjan"; PW-17 and PW-18 confirmed only ordinary neighbourly interaction; their evidence, far from supporting the prosecution, establishes that the appellant was known only as "Ranjan" [Paras 50–53].

Identification – Absence of Test Identification Parade – Investigating Officer (PW-29) admitted that only the name "Sri" appears in earlier proceedings and that the name "Ranjan" does not find mention anywhere in the investigation records prior to arrest; no TIP was conducted; no contemporaneous documentary linkage connecting the appellant to accused "Sri" existed — Held: Applying principles in Vishwanatha v. State of Karnataka, 2024 INSC 482, the absence of reliable identification material and failure to establish how the appellant came to be implicated renders the case on identity wholly doubtful; unsafe to sustain conviction [Paras 54–56].

Conduct of Accused – Inconsistency with Prosecution Case – Appellant resided openly and continuously at a registered address in Trichy throughout the period he was allegedly absconding; he was simultaneously engaged with the Swiss Embassy for a visa and police clearance certificate to travel to Switzerland to join his wife and son — Held: Conduct of a person actively seeking police clearance is wholly inconsistent with that of an absconding accused in a serious UAPA matter and is entirely consistent with innocent conduct; investigating agency's failure to apprehend him for over five years from his known registered address further undermines the prosecution case [Paras 57–59].

Decision: Appeal allowed — Judgment of conviction dated 18.07.2024 passed by the trial court and impugned judgment dated 03.04.2025 passed by the Madras High Court set aside — Appellant acquitted of all charges — Directed to be released from Special Camp, Trichy forthwith — Liberty granted to pursue relocation to Switzerland in accordance with law [Paras 63–65].

Service Law – Dismissal without Departmental Inquiry – Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution – Appellant constable dismissed from service without conducting departmental inquiry on the ground that witnesses might be intimidated or influenced – Preliminary inquiry relied upon by disciplinary authority merely recorded a presumption that witnesses could be threatened due to alleged association with criminals – Held: No material on record showing actual threat, intimidation or inducement to witnesses – Mere presumption or belief cannot justify dispensing with a regular departmental inquiry – Invocation of Article 311(2)(b) unsustainable [Paras 27–31].

Article 311(2)(b) – “Not Reasonably Practicable to Hold Inquiry” – Scope – Power to dispense with inquiry is an extraordinary constitutional exception and cannot be invoked lightly or arbitrarily – Disciplinary authority must record cogent reasons in writing based on objective material demonstrating impracticability of inquiry – Satisfaction must be reasonable and subject to judicial review – Absence of material renders dismissal order invalid [Paras 16–20, 41].

Judicial Review – Satisfaction of Disciplinary Authority – Courts can examine whether reasons recorded are relevant, justified and supported by material – If reasons are irrelevant or based on conjectures, the order dispensing with inquiry and consequent penalty is liable to be struck down [Paras 18–19, 41].

Service Discipline – Custody of Employee – Relevance – Appellant was already in judicial custody when dismissal order was passed – No instance recorded showing intimidation or attempt to influence witnesses during custody – Therefore, the belief that inquiry could not be conducted due to witness intimidation was speculative and unsupported by evidence [Paras 34–35].

Relief – Reinstatement with Partial Back Wages – Dismissal order, CAT decision and High Court judgment set aside – Appellant directed to be reinstated with continuity of service and consequential benefits – Back wages restricted to 50% considering pendency of criminal case – Liberty granted to department to initiate departmental inquiry in accordance with law [Paras 42–43].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Orders of CAT and High Court set aside – Dismissal order quashed – Appellant reinstated with continuity of service and 50% back wages – Liberty granted to conduct departmental inquiry in accordance with law.

Sexual Harassment – Armed Forces – ICC Report – Appeal under POSH Act – Appellant, a Naval Commander, was proceeded against for alleged acts of sexual harassment based on an ICC report constituted under POSH Act – Report recommended action – Show Cause Notice for termination issued under Regulation 216 of the Navy Regulations read with Section 15(2) of the Navy Act – Held: Appeal lay under Section 18 of the POSH Act read with Section 14 of the AFT Act and could not be dismissed as premature merely because only a Show Cause Notice had been issued [Paras 4–6, 13–14, 21–26]

Jurisdiction – Armed Forces Tribunal – Scope under POSH Act – Tribunal wrongly refused to consider appeal on merits, treating it as premature – High Court also erred in holding that no statutory appeal lay against ICC findings – Held: Tribunal had jurisdiction under Section 14 of AFT Act and ought to have examined ICC report and recommendations, which formed basis of Show Cause Notice [Paras 22–26]

Interpretation of Statutes – Specific vs. General Law – Section 18 of POSH Act provides a specific right of appeal against ICC recommendations – Such right is enforceable before Armed Forces Tribunal when service matters are involved – Regulation 216 is general in nature and does not exclude operation of POSH Act – Tribunal’s jurisdiction not ousted [Paras 23–24]

Remand – Appeal Restored – Tribunal and High Court orders set aside – Original Appeal (OA No.1024/2025) restored before Tribunal – Tribunal directed to adjudicate appeal afresh on merits – Show Cause Notice not to be acted upon till final disposal [Paras 27–29]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Orders of High Court and Tribunal set aside – Original application restored before Tribunal – Tribunal directed to adjudicate matter afresh – Show Cause Notice dated 05.03.2025 not to be acted upon pending disposal.

Criminal Law – Quashing under Article 32 – Large-scale financial fraud allegations – OTS with banks – Petitioners voluntarily depositing entire settlement amount – State proposing full and final figure of ₹5100 crores – Consensus achieved – Held: In extraordinary and peculiar facts, upon full deposit, all FIRs, ECIRs, PMLA attachments, SFIO prosecutions, Black Money Act cases, and Fugitive Economic Offenders proceedings to be quashed – Directions issued for disbursement to banks – Order not to be treated as precedent [Paras 10–12].

Criminal Law – Article 32 – Quashing of FIRs – Extraordinary Jurisdiction – Held: Court may exercise plenary powers in exceptional cases to secure larger public interest where petitioners have agreed to deposit entire defalcated amount and settlement is reached with banks and agencies – Continuation of criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose after full restitution of public money [Paras 10–12].

Financial Fraud – OTS and Insolvency Proceedings – Computation of Dues – FIR alleged defalcation of ₹5383 crores – OTS amount across Indian and foreign entities aggregated ₹6761 crores – Petitioners deposited ₹3507.63 crores; banks recovered ₹1192 crores under IBC liquidation – Net unpaid amount computed at ₹2061.37 crores – Investigating Agencies, after consultation with banks, sought ₹5100 crores as full settlement – Petitioners consented to deposit entire amount [Paras 1–9, 10].

Settlement – Effect on Criminal Proceedings – Held: Given petitioners’ offer to deposit ₹5100 crores—exceeding assessed dues—Court satisfied that continuation of prosecution unnecessary; consensual full repayment ensures recovery of public funds – Criminal, civil, regulatory and attachment proceedings to be quashed upon deposit [Paras 10–12].

PMLA, SFIO, Black Money Act, FEPA – Quashing of Multiple Proceedings – FIRs, ECIRs, prosecution complaints, attachments, freezing orders, fugitive offender proceedings, and Company Act prosecutions – All such matters directed to be closed in entirety upon fulfilment of deposit condition [Paras 1, 12(i)].

Directions – Deposit and Disbursement – Petitioners to deposit ₹5100 crores on or before 17.12.2025 with Registry – Amount to be kept in short-term interest-bearing fixed deposit until disbursement – Registrar (Judicial–Administration) to proportionately distribute amounts to lender banks after verification – Registrar permitted to seek assistance or clarification from Bench [Paras 12(ii)–12(iv)].

Precedent – Limitation – Held: Directions passed solely in unique factual circumstances involving massive financial irregularity, OTS, and deposit of entire demanded amount – Order not to be treated as precedent [Para 12(vi)].

Decision: Writ petitions allowed – All FIRs, ECIRs, prosecution complaints, attachment and freezing proceedings under PMLA, proceedings under the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, SFIO prosecution under the Companies Act, and Black Money Act prosecutions against the petitioners directed to be quashed – Quashing to operate upon deposit of ₹5100 crores with the Supreme Court Registry on or before 17.12.2025, to be disbursed proportionately to lender banks – Directions passed in the peculiar facts of the case and not to be treated as precedent [Paras 10–12].