Service Law - Family Pension – Death in Harness of Substitute Railway Employee – Completion of One Year’s Service – Pension Entitlement Recognized – Appeal Allowed – The Appellant, widow of a substitute railway employee who died after 9 years and 8 months of service, was denied family pension by Railway Authorities citing non-regularisation and less than 10 years of service – Supreme Court held that under Rule 75(2)(a) read with Rule 18(3) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, family pension is payable to the family of a temporary railway servant who dies after completing one year of continuous service – Observed that the deceased had obtained temporary status and was eligible for family pension on par with temporary employees – Held: Denial of family pension unsustainable, appeal allowed [Paras 1-12].

Qualifying Service for Family Pension – 10-Year Minimum Tenure Not Applicable for Temporary Status – Clarification Issued – Supreme Court clarified that the 10-year qualifying service rule is applicable for superannuation pension, but in the case of death in harness after one year of service, family pension cannot be denied to dependents – Held: Disqualification based on the three-month shortfall from ten years violates the beneficial scheme of pension rules, purpose being to protect the deceased’s dependents [Paras 10-11].

Relief under Article 142 – Award of Ex-Gratia Compensation – Supreme Court invoked powers under Article 142 to award additional ex-gratia amount of ₹5,00,000 to the appellant in view of prolonged litigation and hardship faced by the widow after death of breadwinner – Directed payment of arrears of pension along with regular monthly pension within four months [Paras 13-14].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Orders of Tribunal and High Court Set Aside – Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside decisions of Central Administrative Tribunal and Patna High Court, directed immediate disbursal of pension benefits to the appellant along with ₹5 lakh ex-gratia compensation [Paras 14-15].

Criminal Law – Criminal Review Jurisdiction –Abuse of Investigative Process – Review Jurisdiction – Interference by High Court – Appellant challenged the Division Bench’s order dated 13th May, 2025, passed on review petitions that were filed against the dismissal of writ appeals – Despite earlier finding no ground for review on 8th May, 2025, the Division Bench proceeded to pass substantive directions amounting to interference in the investigation process – Held: Division Bench’s order indefensible as it exceeded its jurisdiction and invoked review power without fulfilling conditions under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC – Such action amounted to reopening concluded proceedings under the guise of “interest of justice” without any legal justification [Paras 2, 4, 5(d), 7–9].

Criminal Writ – Improper Transfer of Investigation – CID Involvement Set Aside – On basis of impugned review order, investigation in FIR No. 588/2024 was transferred to CID – Supreme Court, noting the review order as invalid, directed restoration of investigation to original Investigating Officer – Evidence collected by CID to be handed over – Investigation to proceed uninfluenced by superior officers and in accordance with law [Paras 10–11].

Writ Jurisdiction – Intra-Court Appeal in Criminal Writ – Improper Relief by Single Judge – Court expressed doubt whether intra-court appeal was maintainable in a criminal writ under Article 226 in light of Ram Kishan Fauji v. State of Haryana – Even if maintainable, Division Bench should have confined itself to examining interim order, not expanded into review of investigation – Also held: Single Judge wrongly restrained holding of EGM in a criminal writ despite no such prayer by petitioner – Relief not sought should not be granted, as reiterated in Bharat Amratlal Kothari v. Dosukhan Samadkhan Sindhi [Paras 6, 12–14].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court’s order dated 13th May, 2025 set aside – Investigation restored to original Investigating Officer – Interim injunction against company meetings not to apply to future meetings – Appellant may approach appropriate forum if affected by future decisions [Paras 9, 11, 14–15].

Section 13(2), 13(4), 14, 17(4A), 18 and 35 of the of the SARFAESI Act - SARFAESI Proceedings – Tenant’s Rights and Restoration of Possession – Unregistered Lease – Appeal Allowed - The appellant, a secured creditor, took possession of a secured asset under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act following borrower’s default – Respondent claimed tenancy under unregistered lease from 1987 – High Court restored possession to respondent citing tenancy rights under rent laws – Held: High Court erred in entertaining challenge under Article 227 of Constitution despite availability of statutory remedy under Section 18 SARFAESI; tenancy claims must be adjudicated by DRT as per amended Section 17(4A) – Appeal allowed, possession retained by secured creditor pending DRT decision [Paras 11-13, 26].

Tenant Claims – Requirement of Documentary Evidence – Protection Limited for Unregistered Lease – The respondent failed to produce rent receipts, tax records, or electricity bills prior to issuance of demand notice under Section 13(2) SARFAESI Act – Reference to tenancy in sale deed or attornment letter insufficient without corroborative evidence – Citing Bajarang Shyamsunder Agarwal v. Central Bank of India, held unregistered tenancy not protected beyond one year from notice under SARFAESI – Mandatory order restoring possession unjustified – Appeal allowed [Paras 23-25].

High Court Jurisdiction – Alternate Remedy and Misapplication of Pre-Amendment Law – Error Noted – The High Court misapplied the ratio of Harshad Govardhan Sondagar v. International Assets Reconstruction Co. Ltd., which was based on pre-2016 SARFAESI Act and did not consider introduction of Section 17(4A) post-amendment – SARFAESI provides complete statutory remedy, writ jurisdiction not to be invoked – Appeal rightly entertained and allowed [Paras 11-13].

Non-Obstante Clause in SARFAESI – Applicability over Rent Control Act – Clarified – Following Bajarang Shyamsunder Agarwal, Court reiterated non-obstante clause under Section 35 SARFAESI overrides inconsistent tenancy claims unless validly established – Precedents in Vishal N. Kalsaria and V. Dhanapal Chettiar limited to legally protected tenancies and do not protect unregistered undocumented occupation in secured assets recovery proceedings [Paras 17-19, 23].

Conduct of Respondent – Delay in Asserting Rights – No Equitable Relief – Respondent failed to contest symbolic possession despite newspaper notice in 2021, approached DRT only after physical possession in 2023 – Collusive litigation with borrower not ruled out – Absence of proactive assertion of rights bars relief under equitable jurisdiction – Appeal allowed, possession retained by secured creditor [Paras 24-25].

Decision of the Case – Appeal Allowed – High Court’s direction restoring possession set aside – Status quo maintained with secured creditor till DRT adjudication within two months – No costs awarded [Paras 26-27].

Criminal Procedure – Scope of Review – Order 47 Rule 1 CPC – Review Order Set Aside – Division Bench of High Court recorded no ground for review but proceeded to issue investigative directions – Supreme Court held such directions unjustified and beyond review jurisdiction – Held: Review power cannot be used to rehear matter or interfere with investigation without satisfying legal criteria [Paras 7-9].

Investigation – Interference by Superior Officer – Restraint Imposed – Letter by IG (Police) restraining arrests despite anticipatory bail rejection deemed unauthorized – Investigation restored to original officer after CID involvement based on invalid order – Held: Investigating Officer to proceed uninfluenced by superior authority and conclude probe under law [Paras 4-5, 10-11].

Writ Appeal – Maintainability of Intra-Court Appeal in Criminal Writs – Doubt Expressed – Referring to Ram Kishan Fauji v. State of Haryana, Court noted uncertainty on maintainability of intra-court appeals in criminal writs – Division Bench should have limited scope to what was pleaded – Held: Broader directions beyond scope of appeal unwarranted [Para 6].

Extraordinary General Meeting – Interim Restraint Without Plea – Disapproved – Single Judge restrained company’s meeting though no such relief was claimed – Supreme Court held such injunction in a criminal writ unjustified – Held: Injunction not to apply to future meetings, liberty granted to appellant to approach appropriate forum [Paras 12-14].

Final Decision – Impugned Order Set Aside – Investigation Restored – Appeals Allowed – CID-initiated investigation reversed, original officer reinstated – Liberty granted to challenge future developments before competent forum [Paras 9-11, 15].

Criminal Law - Cancellation of Bail – Sections 6, 10 and 17 of the POCSO Act - Sections 120B, 323, 328, 354, 354D, 376, 376(C), and 506 of the IPC - Grant of Bail in Serious Offences – Inadequate Reasoning – Order Set Aside – The Supreme Court examined a challenge by the complainant-father of a minor victim to the Delhi High Court's order granting bail to the accused under serious charges including rape and abetment under IPC and POCSO Act – The Court found that while the High Court narrated submissions of parties, it provided reasoning only in Paragraph 11, which lacked sufficiency in view of the gravity of the offences – Held: High Court’s order granting bail set aside and matter remanded for reconsideration [Paras 4-12].

Minor Victim – Contradictions in Testimonies – Insufficient Basis for Bail – The High Court relied on apparent contradictions between the victim’s complaint and her Section 164 CrPC statement, particularly concerning the timeline of alleged incidents – Supreme Court held such discrepancies required careful judicial scrutiny rather than forming the sole basis for bail, especially in sensitive offences involving minors – Reconsideration directed [Paras 8-10].

Reconsideration by High Court – Time-bound Direction – Pending bail applications to be heard afresh by the High Court within one month – Till such reconsideration, no coercive steps to be taken against the accused, who shall continue to cooperate with the Sessions Court – The bonds executed by the accused to remain in force until decision [Paras 13-16].

Final Decision – Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s bail order and remanded the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits – Directions issued for early disposal and interim protection continued for accused [Paras 12-16].

Specific Performance – Agricultural Land – Specific Performance Upheld with Additional Payment – Dispute arose from Agreement to Sell dated 08.10.2001 concerning over 9 acres of agricultural land where seller failed to execute sale deed – Plaintiffs claimed readiness and willingness but faced challenge from third party alleging fraud and possession – Trial Court, First Appellate Court, and High Court concurrently decreed specific performance, Supreme Court upheld the decree with modification directing plaintiffs to pay additional ₹25,00,000/- in view of land appreciation while nullifying subsequent sales by seller and third party objectors – Specific performance with possession decreed after balancing equities [Paras 1-21].

Readiness and Willingness – Proof of Financial Standing – Section 22 Specific Relief Act – Readiness of Plaintiffs Affirmed – Supreme Court reiterated readiness to perform need not involve production of sale consideration but can be established through conduct and financial position – Trial and Appellate Courts rightly relied on bank accounts and assets of plaintiffs to hold them ready and willing to perform contract despite lapse of time – Specific performance decree upheld [Paras 6-13].

Doctrine of Lis Pendens – Subsequent Transfers Declared Void – Section 52 Transfer of Property Act – Sale Deeds During Suit Hit by Lis Pendens – Seller executed two sale deeds during pendency of suit and purchaser sold it further – Supreme Court ruled these transactions invalid being hit by Section 52 and collusive attempt to defeat plaintiffs’ rights – Transfers during pendency of litigation held unenforceable [Paras 9-15, 21].

Possession – Relief Granted Despite Omission in Pleadings – Section 22 Specific Relief Act – Court Empowered to Grant Possession Without Specific Plea – Plaintiffs did not seek possession in original plaint but Court granted possession relying on power under Section 22 – Supreme Court held such relief permissible in interest of justice even without formal amendment in pleadings [Paras 16-17].

Escalation of Land Prices – No Ground to Deny Specific Performance – Appreciation in land value since 2001 cited by seller to resist decree – Supreme Court held that price rise alone is insufficient to deny equitable remedy of specific performance where readiness and willingness established – However, to balance equities, plaintiffs directed to pay ₹25,00,000/- in addition to original consideration to protect fairness [Paras 18-20].

Decision – Appeals Partly Allowed – Supreme Court confirmed specific performance and delivery of possession subject to additional payment – Sale deeds executed by seller and subsequent purchasers declared null and void – Registry directed to inform Sub-Registrar for cancellation of illegal transactions – No costs awarded [Paras 20-21].

Civil Law - General Power of Attorney (GPA) – Validity of Registration – Sections 32, 33, 34, and 35 of the Registration Act, 1908 – Appeal Allowed for Reconsideration - The appellants challenged the validity of the General Power of Attorney dated 15.10.1990 and the sale deeds executed by the attorney-holder on behalf of the original owners – The Supreme Court examined whether a power-of-attorney holder becomes an “executant” under Section 32(a), thereby bypassing the authentication requirements of Section 33 – Held: The power-of-attorney holder signs documents on behalf of the principal and remains an agent, not an executant under Section 32(a) – Therefore, the statutory requirements of authentication under Sections 32(c), 33, 34, and 35 are mandatory for valid registration [Paras 1-17].

Interpretation of Executant – Distinction between Agent and Executant – Clarification Made - The Court disapproved the interpretation laid down in Rajni Tandon v. Dulal Ranjan Ghosh Dastidar, (2009) 14 SCC 782, which held that a power-of-attorney holder executing a document becomes the “executant” under Section 32(a) – Held: Such an interpretation is erroneous as it overlooks statutory safeguards requiring verification of the agent’s authority and identity – Such power-of-attorney holders continue to fall under Section 32(c), necessitating adherence to authentication procedures [Paras 12-18].

Reference to Larger Bench – Conflict in Precedent – Matter Referred - Noting a direct conflict with previous binding precedent and its significant implications on property registration practices, the Court referred the matter to a larger bench to conclusively settle the legal position concerning the status of power-of-attorney holders under the Registration Act [Para 18-19].

Decision – Appeals Listed Before Larger Bench - The Supreme Court directed the Registry to obtain necessary orders from the Hon’ble Chief Justice for expeditious listing of these appeals before an appropriate larger bench for authoritative adjudication [Para 19].

Divorce – Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Dissolution of Marriage Granted under Article 142 of the Constitution – Appellant-husband filed for divorce citing cruelty but failed to establish the allegations before the Family Court and High Court – Supreme Court, considering 16 years of separation, cessation of cohabitation, and acquittal of appellant in related criminal cases, held marriage had broken down irretrievably – Exercised power under Article 142 to dissolve marriage in interests of justice [Paras 1-27].

Cruelty Allegations – Failure to Prove Cruelty by Husband – Dismissal of Divorce on Ground of Cruelty – Appellant-husband alleged physical abuse by wife towards himself and his ailing mother and illicit relationships – Family Court and High Court found allegations unsubstantiated and unworthy of acceptance – Supreme Court did not interfere with these concurrent findings but granted divorce on broader equitable grounds [Paras 4-10, 17].

False Criminal Proceedings – Impact on Matrimonial Relationship – Husband Acquitted under IPC Sections 498A/406/34 – Supreme Court observed appellant and his family members’ acquittal in dowry harassment case established falsity of allegations – Contributing factor for irretrievable breakdown and hostile matrimonial environment – Considered relevant while granting divorce under Article 142 [Paras 15, 21, 24].

Lengthy Separation – Prolonged Estrangement Indicative of Dead Marriage – Court noted couple had lived separately since 2009 for over 16 years with no cohabitation, making marriage dysfunctional – Cited multiple precedents recognizing long separation as valid consideration for granting divorce – Marriage held defunct for all practical purposes [Paras 13-16, 22-25].

Maintenance – Enhanced Maintenance Directed – Wife Taking Care of Minor Child – Considering the financial condition of parties and child’s welfare, Supreme Court enhanced maintenance amount to ₹15,000 per month payable by appellant towards wife and child – Previous maintenance under Section 125 CrPC revised to ensure adequate support for wife and child post-dissolution [Paras 19, 26-27].

Decision – Divorce Granted – Marriage Dissolved under Article 142 – Maintenance Enhanced – Supreme Court allowed appeal, set aside High Court judgment, dissolved marriage, and directed enhanced monthly maintenance to respondent-wife and child – No order as to costs [Paras 27-30].

Family Law - Child Custody Dispute – Review Jurisdiction – Welfare of Child Paramount – Judgment Recalled - The petitioner-mother sought review of Supreme Court judgment transferring permanent custody of the minor child to the biological father, citing drastic deterioration in child’s mental health supported by psychological evaluations post-decision – The Court acknowledged the post-decision change in circumstances adversely affecting the child’s well-being, and held such new developments to be valid grounds under Article 137 for reviewing its judgment, thereby recalling the previous judgment and restoring permanent custody with the mother [Paras 1-25].

Child Custody – Psychological Welfare – Stability in Environment – Child’s Welfare Upheld - Expert reports from Clinical Psychologists at CMC, Vellore confirmed high levels of anxiety and separation distress in the minor child due to impending change of custody – Court emphasized the child's continued attachment to the mother and settled family environment with her current family – Held, child's stability and psychological well-being necessitate continuance of custody with mother while providing gradual reconnection with father through structured visitation [Paras 18-29].

Parens Patriae Doctrine – Balancing Statutory Finality with Child’s Welfare – Flexible Approach Adopted - Supreme Court reiterated limited scope of review jurisdiction but carved an exception in custody matters where dynamic child welfare needs demand judicial flexibility – Observed that hyper-technical adherence to finality of judgments is unsuitable in sensitive custody cases – Held: Courts must intervene to protect child welfare overriding strict procedural limitations [Paras 11-17].

Visitation Rights – Gradual Reintegration with Biological Father – Weekly Physical and Virtual Access Granted - Court crafted a balanced visitation arrangement ensuring weekly in-person interaction of biological father with minor child under supervised conditions, along with virtual interactions twice a week, reserving liberty for future relaxation of visitation norms subject to psychological assessments and child’s comfort level [Paras 35-36].

Foreign Travel – Restrictions on Relocation – Protective Measures – Relocation Regulated - Court restrained petitioner-mother from relocating child abroad permanently, permitting foreign travel only during vacation periods with prior intimation to father and Family Court, to prevent abrupt disruption in child’s environment while maintaining opportunities for travel [Para 36].

Final Decision – Judgment Dated 22.08.2024 Recalled – Custody Restored to Mother - Supreme Court allowed the review petition, recalled its earlier judgment, set aside the High Court’s order, restored permanent custody of the child to the mother with modified visitation arrangements in favour of the father to secure the holistic welfare of the minor [Paras 40-41].