Civil Law - Execution Proceedings – Maintainability of Objections – Code of Civil Procedure, Order XXI, Section 47 – The appellants contested the execution of a final decree in a partition suit, asserting co-sharer rights in the disputed property – Held: Under Section 47, objections to execution by co-sharers with existing possessory rights are maintainable; however, objections challenging a final decree without prior appeal are generally barred – Objections of the appellant were dismissed due to lack of grounds for modification of the decree [Paras 18-22, 40-42].

Doctrine of Lis Pendens – Applicability to Successor-in-Interest – Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Appellants, as successors to Mukand Singh, were bound by lis pendens under which transferees of property during pending litigation are subject to the court's final decision – Held: Objector’s ownership claim arising post-decree did not entitle him to obstruct execution; compliance with the final decree was required [Paras 28-30].

Executing Court’s Powers – Restraint on Modifying Decrees – Consistent with the well-established principle, the executing court is bound to enforce decrees as passed, without alteration – Held: No modification to the partition decree could be entertained by the executing court; appeals for modification were required to be made at the preliminary or final decree stages [Paras 31-35].

Decision: Appeal dismissed, upholding the executing court's directive to enforce the decree without modification.

Motor Accident Claim – Motor Accident – Involvement of Car – Appeal against the dismissal of a claim for compensation – Appellants, the widow, minor child, and parents of the deceased, sought compensation after Ikhbal died in a road accident – Accident allegedly caused by the respondent's car when the deceased was overtaking a bus on his motorcycle – Trial court and High Court dismissed the claim on grounds that the car was not involved in the accident – Supreme Court, after examining evidence including witness testimonies and a Mahazar report showing damage to the car, held that the car was involved in the accident based on the preponderance of probability – Held: Appellants entitled to compensation of ₹46,31,496 with 9% interest [Paras 1-17].

Witness Testimony – Credibility of Witnesses – P.W. 2, the driver of the bus, testified that the accident involved the car hitting the motorcycle – P.W. 3, a nearby shopkeeper, also confirmed damage to the car – P.W. 6, an eyewitness, firmly stated the car hit the motorcycle and took the injured to the hospital – Courts below disbelieved P.W. 6 only because his statement was not recorded during the police investigation – Supreme Court found P.W. 6 trustworthy, holding that police oversight does not render credible testimony unreliable in motor accident cases [Paras 10-16].

Circumstantial Evidence – Damage to Car – Mahazar report noted damage to the front bumper, parking light, and grill of the car, indicating its involvement in the accident – Respondent's claim that the motorcycle skid independently was dismissed – The Supreme Court ruled that the damage corroborated the appellants' version of events, overturning the lower courts' findings [Paras 12-17].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Award of ₹46,31,496 with 9% interest granted to the appellants – Payment to be made within three months, failing which interest will increase to 12% – Respondents to bear their own costs [Paras 17-18].

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Appeal against death sentence – Appellant accused of killing his wife, daughter, and mother, and attacking a neighbor – Trial court sentenced the appellant to death based on circumstantial evidence, including recovery of the murder weapon (hammer) and blood-stained clothes – High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence – Supreme Court examined the reliability of witness testimonies and the circumstantial evidence, finding inconsistencies and weak evidence – Held: Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction and death sentence set aside [Paras 1-28].

Witness Testimony – Credibility of Injured Witness – P.W. 12 (neighbor) was injured during the incident and identified the appellant as the attacker – However, his statement was recorded after a six-day delay, raising doubts about its reliability – The court found no explanation for the delay, and other witnesses failed to corroborate his testimony – Supreme Court held that P.W. 12’s testimony was insufficient to sustain a conviction, given the inconsistencies and lack of corroboration from neighbors [Paras 8-17].

Circumstantial Evidence – Recovery of Hammer and Clothes – The murder weapon, a hammer, was recovered from a canal based on the appellant's disclosure – However, the hammer had been submerged for three days, making it improbable for bloodstains to remain – Blood-stained clothes were found in an open area accessible to others, raising the possibility of tampering – The Supreme Court found these recoveries unreliable and insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 25-26].

Motive – Appellant’s Alleged Affair – The prosecution claimed that the appellant killed his family to marry another woman – The Supreme Court held that motive alone, without strong corroborative evidence, cannot justify a conviction, particularly in a case resting on circumstantial evidence [Para 27].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and death sentence under Sections 302, 307, and 201 IPC quashed – Appellant acquitted and ordered to be released if not wanted in any other case [Paras 28-29].

Citizenship Law – Constitutionality of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955 – Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, which provides for citizenship to migrants from Bangladesh to Assam, was challenged for violating various constitutional provisions – It was argued that Parliament lacked legislative competence to modify the citizenship provisions for a specific region like Assam without amending the Constitution – The Supreme Court upheld Parliament’s authority under Article 11 of the Constitution to legislate on matters of citizenship, noting that Articles 6 and 7 govern citizenship at the commencement of the Constitution, while Section 6A addresses later migrants – No conflict was found between Section 6A and Articles 6 and 7 [Paras 29-42].

Citizenship Law – Validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955 – Petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of Section 6A, arguing it violated the legislative competence of Parliament under Article 11 of the Constitution, and Articles 14, 29, and 355 – Section 6A provides special provisions for granting citizenship to migrants from Bangladesh to Assam, based on specific cut-off dates – The court upheld the validity of Section 6A, holding that the provision fell within Parliament's legislative competence under Article 11 and did not violate any constitutional provisions, including Article 14, as the classification of Assam and the cut-off date were rational and justified [Paras 12, 42-45, 72-75, 387-391].

Citizenship Law – Validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955 – Petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of Section 6A, arguing it violated the legislative competence of Parliament under Article 11 of the Constitution, and Articles 14, 29, and 355 – Section 6A provides special provisions for granting citizenship to migrants from Bangladesh to Assam, based on specific cut-off dates – The majority upheld the validity of Section 6A, holding that the provision fell within Parliament's legislative competence under Article 11 and did not violate any constitutional provisions, including Article 14, as the classification of Assam and the cut-off date were rational and justified – However, Justice J.B. Pardiwala dissented, arguing that Section 6A has become unconstitutional due to its "manifest arbitrariness" and temporal unreasonableness [Paras 12, 42-45, 72-75, 207-219].

Legislative Competence – Article 11 of the Constitution – Parliament's power to legislate on matters related to citizenship – Petitioners argued that Section 6A of the Citizenship Act altered the cut-off dates prescribed by Articles 6 and 7, thus requiring a constitutional amendment rather than parliamentary legislation – The majority held that Section 6A does not amend Articles 6 and 7, as those provisions only pertain to citizenship at the commencement of the Constitution, whereas Section 6A deals with post-Partition migration – Article 11 empowers Parliament to enact laws on citizenship beyond the scope of Articles 6 and 7, as Section 6A addresses a different time frame and context – In dissent, Justice Pardiwala argued that Section 6A's framework is flawed for lacking a clear temporal limit for its application [Paras 13, 29-31, 32-42, 208].

Article 14 – Equality before Law – Petitioners argued that Section 6A violates Article 14 by adopting arbitrary cut-off dates and singling out Assam – The majority held that the classification of Assam as a separate entity is based on the unique impact of migration in the region and the significant cultural, economic, and political challenges faced by the state due to the influx of migrants from Bangladesh – The cut-off date of March 25, 1971, was rational, linked to historical events, and had a reasonable nexus with the objective of regulating migration – However, Justice Pardiwala, in dissent, held that Section 6A has become arbitrary over time, especially due to the burden of detection being placed solely on the state, and the provision has led to continued illegal immigration [Paras 43-75, 207-215].

Cultural Identity – Article 29(1) – Petitioners argued that Section 6A infringes on the cultural identity of Assamese people by granting citizenship to migrants from Bangladesh – The majority found no violation of Article 29(1), stating that the provision balances the protection of Assamese cultural identity with humanitarian considerations for migrants – Justice Pardiwala also disagreed with the majority's stance, stating that Section 6A, lacking procedural safeguards like those in Articles 6 and 7, undermines Assamese identity through unchecked migration [Paras 387, 212].

External Aggression – Article 355 – Petitioners contended that undocumented immigration constitutes 'external aggression' under Article 355 and that Section 6A fails to curb such immigration – The majority rejected this argument, stating that the provision is in line with the legislative intent to regularize certain classes of migrants and is not in conflict with the State's duty under Article 355 to protect against external aggression – Justice Pardiwala, in dissent, emphasized that Section 6A's failure to stop illegal immigration into Assam is evidence of its ineffectiveness in addressing the concerns of external aggression [Paras 12(c), 387, 211].

Decision: Section 6A of the Citizenship Act upheld by the majority, but declared unconstitutional by dissenting opinion – The majority held that Section 6A is constitutionally valid and does not violate any provisions of the Constitution, including Articles 6, 7, 14, 29, or 355 – However, Justice Pardiwala's dissenting opinion argued that Section 6A suffers from temporal unreasonableness and has become unconstitutional due to its failure to curb illegal immigration effectively – The dissent also emphasized that Section 6A's flawed framework places an undue burden on the state and undermines Assamese cultural identity – Directions were issued for improved enforcement and monitoring of immigration laws post-1971 [Paras 387-393, 217-219].

FIR Quashing – False Promise of Marriage – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – FIR Quashed – The appellant sought quashing of the FIR registered under Sections 376 and 313 of IPC – High Court dismissed the petition – Supreme Court held: The FIR, even if taken at face value, does not reveal a prima facie case of rape or forced abortion – The appellant and complainant lived together for over five years, which cannot be classified as a relationship arising out of a false promise of marriage – The delay of over five years in filing the complaint further weakens the complainant’s case – FIR quashed under inherent powers of the court to prevent abuse of process [Paras 9-12, 16].

Consensual Relationship – No Misconception of Fact – Section 376 IPC – Alleged rape based on a false promise to marry – Court noted that the relationship lasted several years during which the complainant and the appellant lived as husband and wife – A consensual relationship lasting such a long period negates the claim of rape – No prima facie evidence that consent was vitiated by misconception of fact under Section 90 IPC [Paras 8-10].

Section 313 IPC – Allegation of Forced Abortion – Dropped Post Investigation – After investigation, charges under Section 313 IPC (forced abortion) were omitted as no supporting evidence was found – The lack of medical evidence or statements substantiating the claim of abortion further weakened the complainant's case – No ground to proceed with the allegation of rape under Section 376 IPC [Paras 6, 11].

Delay in Filing Complaint – Impact on Credibility – A significant delay of over five years in lodging the FIR – The court held that such delay, coupled with the consensual nature of the relationship, undermined the credibility of the allegations – FIR quashed as the allegations were inherently improbable [Paras 5, 12, 15].

Decision – The appeal is allowed – FIR No. 28/2018 dated 21.02.2018 registered at Police Station – Nandganj, Ghazipur District of Uttar Pradesh, and all proceedings based on it are quashed – Held: The High Court's refusal to quash the FIR was erroneous, and no prima facie case under Sections 376 and 313 IPC is made out – The appellant is acquitted of all charges [Para 16].

Criminal Law – Bank Fraud – Discharge of Accused – Appeal against the High Court’s decision to discharge the respondent (Accused No. 7) from charges of conspiracy, cheating, and criminal misconduct related to fraudulent credit facilities granted to a company – Allegation of undue haste in sanctioning loans without proper appraisal or clearance by the relevant departments – The High Court held that mere suspicion was insufficient to proceed against the respondent – Supreme Court upheld the discharge, stating no direct evidence implicated the respondent beyond signing a memorandum approved by senior officials – Held: No scope for interference, appeal dismissed [Paras 1-17].

Conspiracy – Participation and Knowledge – Submission by the learned Additional Solicitor General that a conspiracy does not require all conspirators to know every detail, and suspicion alone can suffice for framing charges – However, the Supreme Court found that although the process was expedited, there was no material to show that the respondent actively engaged in fraudulent conduct – The Loan Advisory Committee and senior officers’ involvement minimized the respondent’s role – No direct evidence of pecuniary benefit or improper influence by the respondent – Held: Suspicion alone does not justify framing charges [Paras 5, 18].

Banking Procedure – Loan Sanctioning – Court examined the procedures followed in sanctioning loans, noting the Zonal Office, Credit Department, and Loan Advisory Committee's roles in recommending the loans – The respondent’s role was limited to signing the memorandum, and no evidence showed personal involvement in misconduct – Despite the rapid processing of the loans, this did not amount to criminality – Held: Discharge was appropriate as no criminal intent or participation in the conspiracy could be proven [Paras 16-17 ].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court’s order of discharge upheld – No findings made regarding other accused persons

Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the High Court's order discharging the respondent was upheld. The court clarified that its findings were limited to the respondent's role and did not affect the trial against the other accused.

Auction Sale – Cancellation by Bank – Non-Issuance of Sale Certificate – The appellant bank conducted an auction where the respondents were the highest bidders. After the auction was confirmed, the bank failed to issue the sale certificate, citing the respondents’ delay in paying the balance sale consideration. The respondents challenged the cancellation, asserting they were willing to pay the amount but were obstructed by the appellant's actions. The court held that the bank’s unilateral cancellation was not justified, particularly since the bank had delayed accepting the balance amount due to internal reasons, including a complaint to the CBI and an advisory from the ED – Auction upheld, cancellation set aside [Paras 5-12].

Interpretation of Rule 9(4) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 – Time for Payment Not Sacrosanct – The court clarified that Rule 9(4), which provides 15 days to pay the balance sale consideration, is not absolute. The time can be extended by agreement between the parties. In this case, the delay in payment was not the respondents’ fault but due to the bank's failure to accept the balance within the stipulated time. Therefore, Rule 9(4) did not apply to declare the respondents as defaulters [Paras 15-18].

Principles of Natural Justice – Unilateral Cancellation Without Hearing – The cancellation of the auction by the bank was made without notice or an opportunity of hearing, violating the principles of natural justice. Such cancellation was held to be illegal [Para 23].

Decision: The court dismissed the appeals and upheld the High Court's decision, directing the bank to issue the sale certificate and execute the sale deed in favor of the respondents upon payment of the balance sale amount within four weeks. The cancellation of the auction was declared illegal, and the respondents were entitled to the property.

Criminal Law – Murder – Death Sentence Commuted to Life Imprisonment Without Remission – The appellant was convicted of strangling his pregnant daughter due to her inter-caste marriage, a crime for which both the Trial Court and High Court imposed the death penalty – The Supreme Court, while affirming the conviction under Sections 302, 316, and 364 IPC, commuted the death sentence to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment without remission – The Court considered mitigating factors, including the appellant’s poor socio-economic background, absence of criminal antecedents, satisfactory prison conduct, and medical conditions, including cognitive impairment due to a stroke suffered in prison [Paras 29-33].

Rarest of Rare Doctrine – Mitigating Circumstances Considered – The Court reiterated the principle that death penalty should be reserved for the “rarest of rare” cases, where the possibility of reformation is absent – In the present case, the Court found that despite the gravity of the crime, there was a potential for reformation, especially given the appellant’s personal circumstances and health conditions, and thus opted for a "middle path" approach, converting the death sentence to a fixed term of 20 years without remission [Paras 24-31].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – The conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC and related charges under Sections 316 and 364 IPC was upheld, but the death penalty was commuted to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment without eligibility for remission [Para 33].

E-Auction Sale – Issuance of Sale Certificate – Readiness to pay balance auction amount – Respondents were highest bidders in an e-auction and had deposited 25% of the sale price, but the bank refused to accept the balance amount or issue a sale certificate, citing various reasons, including an advisory by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). The High Court held that the refusal was unjustified as there was no directive from CBI or ED against the auction. Held: The bank's refusal to accept the balance amount and issue the sale certificate was unwarranted, and the sale certificate must be issued after receiving the balance auction amount [Paras 4-10].

Rule 9(4), Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 – Extension of Time – The period for depositing the balance auction amount, while prescribed under Rule 9(4), is not sacrosanct and can be extended by mutual agreement in writing. The bank’s refusal and delay in accepting the balance amount implied consent for an extension, and hence no default could be attributed to the respondents under Rule 9(4) [Paras 13-16].

Natural Justice – Unilateral Cancellation – The bank’s cancellation of the auction sale without notice or an opportunity for the respondents to be heard was held to be a violation of natural justice principles. Such unilateral cancellation was deemed illegal [Para 20].

Article 142 – Supreme Court’s Power – Extension of statutory time – The Court clarified that while Article 142 does not override statutory provisions, Rule 9(4) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules permits an extension of time with mutual consent in writing, and hence the bank’s reliance on statutory timelines was misplaced [Paras 21-22].

Auction Sale Validity – High Court’s Order Affirmed – The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision directing IDBI Bank to issue the sale certificate and accept the balance sale consideration within four weeks, as no fault was found with the respondents' conduct [Paras 22-23].