Appointment of Ombudsman cum Ethics Officer – Constitutionality of Appointment – High Court Allowed Appointment – The Apex Council's decision to appoint an Ombudsman and Ethics Officer was challenged on the grounds of non-conformance with the Hyderabad Cricket Association's Constitution – The High Court set aside the Civil Court's suspension order and dismissed the related suit, which led to the present Special Leave Petitions – Held: Recommendations for appointment were prima facie found appropriate by the Supreme Court as interim measures pending further hearings.

Supervisory and Election Conduct – Single Member Committee Supervision – Elections Held – A Single Member Committee under a retired Supreme Court judge was constituted to oversee fair elections and recommend amendments to the Hyderabad Cricket Association Constitution – The Supreme Court provisionally implemented these recommendations while objections were considered.

Conflict with BCCI Constitution – Integration of Regulations – Recommendations May Conflict – Petitioners argued potential conflicts between Hyderabad Cricket Association recommendations and BCCI Constitution guidelines, suggesting joint consideration with pending Civil Appeal No. 4235 of 2014 – Held: Matters to be tagged and heard with Civil Appeal No. 4235 of 2014 to ensure uniformity in Cricket Association governance.

Decision: Matters directed to be tagged with Civil Appeal No. 4235 of 2014 for consideration by the same bench to resolve potential conflicts in governance regulations across Cricket Associations.

Constitutional Law – Judicial Review – Scope Under Article 32 – Dismissal of Writ Petition – Held: A writ petition under Article 32 challenging recovery proceedings initiated under SARFAESI Act and IBC is not maintainable – Petitioners failed to establish grounds for invoking Article 32 jurisdiction – Proper forum for such disputes lies with DRTs and NCLTs, as prescribed under respective statutes [Para 3].

Banking and MSMEs – Non-Performing Assets (NPAs) – MSME Notification – Implementation Gaps – Petitioners alleged failure of Central Government and RBI to enforce MSME Notification dated 29.05.2015, particularly provisions protecting MSMEs from being classified as NPAs – Held: Petitioners provided no sufficient basis for interference by the Supreme Court – No breach of statutory duty demonstrated [Para 2].

Separation of Powers – Legislative Frameworks for Debt Recovery – Challenge to SARFAESI Act, IBC, and RDB Act – Petitioners sought declarations of unconstitutionality – Held: Statutory frameworks under challenge provide alternative dispute resolution mechanisms – Petitioners’ remedies lie within specialized forums created under these laws, and not under the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court [Paras 2-3].

Jurisdiction of Civil Courts – Bar Under Special Statutes – Petitioners contended that the bar on civil court jurisdiction under SARFAESI Act, IBC, and RDB Act is unconstitutional in absence of special forums for MSME disputes – Held: Alternative forums under statutory frameworks provide adequate remedies – No merit in the contention that civil court jurisdiction must remain unaffected [Para 3].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Pending applications, if any, also disposed of.

Domestic Violence – Quasi-Criminal Proceedings – Bailable Warrants – Issuance of bailable warrants by the Magistrate in proceedings under the D.V. Act deprecated – Held: Proceedings under the D.V. Act are quasi-criminal in nature and do not attract penal consequences unless there is a breach of protection order – Magistrate unjustified in issuing bailable warrants in absence of such breach.

Transfer of Proceedings – Hardship to Petitioner – Petitioner, a dependent mother of a specially abled minor child, sought transfer of DV case from Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi to Ludhiana – Respondent (mother-in-law) remained unrepresented despite notice – Held: Considering petitioner’s circumstances and previous SC order transferring divorce case to Ludhiana, the present DV proceedings also liable to be transferred for convenience and judicial consistency.

Judicial Directions – Video Conferencing Facility – If available, courts directed to extend benefit of VC hearing to the parties – Trial court directed to transmit records to transferee court without delay.

Decision: Transfer Petition allowed – Domestic violence case MC No. 825/2023 pending in Mahila Court-05, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi transferred to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana – Magistrate’s order issuing bailable warrants found unjustified – Pending applications disposed of.

Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR – Prima Facie Case – Sections 197 CrPC and 83 of M.P. Griha Nirman Mandal Adhiniyam – Protection of actions in official duty – High Court erred in refusing to quash FIR based on mere allegations without sufficient evidence – Held: No prima facie case established; allegations lack evidence of intent or knowledge of forgery [Paras 11-15].

Ingredients of Cheating – Section 420 IPC – Essential elements include dishonest intention and false representation – No evidence on record to indicate appellant's involvement or intent to defraud – Allegations based on conjecture insufficient to sustain criminal charges [Para 12].

Criminal Conspiracy – Section 120B IPC – Requirements include meeting of minds and agreement to commit an unlawful act – No material on record to suggest appellant's participation in any conspiracy – Charges unsubstantiated [Para 12].

Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Bhajan Lal Guidelines – FIR fails to disclose cognizable offence or intention to defraud – Case falls under principles for quashing as laid down in Bhajan Lal – Criminal proceedings quashed [Para 14].

Decision – High Court judgment quashed; all proceedings arising from FIR and subsequent actions in Crime No. 241 of 2016 dismissed – Appeal allowed [Para 15].

Criminal Law – Limitation - Delay in Filing Appeal – Right to Appeal under Article 21 – Fundamental Right – High Court erred in dismissing the appeal on grounds of delay without proper examination of reasons provided by the appellant – Appellant cited lack of monetary resources and livelihood challenges as causes for delay – Held: Delay of 1637 days condoned; appeal restored [Paras 4-7].

Right to Appeal – Expansive Scope under Article 21 – An appeal against conviction is a statutory and fundamental right affecting liberty – Condonation of delay warranted in cases where the appellant provides reasons, even if imperfect – High Court’s dismissal based on technical grounds erroneous [Paras 5-6].

Decision – Impugned order set aside – Criminal Appeal No. 1001/2021 restored for disposal on merits – Directions issued to High Court for expeditious adjudication [Para 8].

Tenancy Rights - Land Law – Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 – Occupancy Rights – Manipulation of Proceedings – High Court’s Judgment in Writ Appeals Set Aside – Supreme Court Finds Non-Disclosure of Crucial Facts and Manipulation by Respondent No.1 – Restores Single Judge’s Judgment [Paras 1-14].

Occupancy Rights – Land Tribunal Proceedings – Rejection in LRF No.835/74-75 Final – Misrepresentation of Facts by Respondent No.1 – Tribunal’s Later Decision in LRF No.1114/74-75 Incorrectly Linked – Supreme Court Highlights Manipulative Changes in Names and Records by Respondents [Paras 8-13].

Procedural Lapses – Delay Condonation – Delay of 1378 Days in Writ Appeal No.206/2007 – Supreme Court Criticizes Non-Disclosure of Consequential Orders Passed After Single Judge’s Decision – Observes Abuse of Process by Respondent No.1 [Paras 10-11].

Judicial Integrity – Litigant’s Conduct – Non-Disclosure of Material Facts and Manipulative Changes in Records – Supreme Court Relies on Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India to Deny Relief to Respondent No.1 Due to Lack of Clean Hands [Paras 11-13].

Decision – Appeals allowed; judgments in Writ Appeals Nos.1708, 1705, 1707, 1709, 206, and 1738 of 2006 set aside – Judgments in the original Writ Petitions restored for further proceedings [Para 14].

Land Law – Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 – Resumption of Assigned Lands – Whether Lands Assigned Under Laoni Rules, 1950 Can Be Resumed Under Act No. 9 of 1977 – Common Judgment Dated 02.09.2008 by High Court Set Aside by Supreme Court – High Court Misconceived Appellants’ Position Regarding Non-Collection of Market Value – Judgment Remanded for Fresh Consideration [Paras 1-12].

Assigned Lands – Non-Alienability – Applicability of G.O.M.S. No.1406 Dated 25.07.1958 – Patta Certificates Issued Free of Cost – High Court Failed to Appreciate Revised Assignment Policy Prohibiting Alienation – Supreme Court Relies on Gudepu Sailoo and Yadaiah to Highlight Conditions of Non-Alienability [Paras 6, 8-10].

Validation of Transactions – Section 47 and 50-B of Telangana Tenancy Act – Validation Limited to Lands Assigned on Market Value – Supreme Court Holds High Court’s Presumption of Market Value Collection Unsupported by Evidence – Misinterpretation of Government Orders and Relevant Policies [Paras 6, 8-9].

Judicial Process – Misconception in Findings – High Court Ignored Appellants’ Denial of Market Value Collection – Order Based on Misconception Calls for Interference – Remand Ordered for Reassessment of Facts and Policies [Paras 8-10].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court’s judgment set aside – Writ Petitions restored for fresh adjudication [Para 10-12].

Land Acquisition – Compensation Determination – Shifting Date of Notification – Appeal Before Supreme Court – Petitioners’ Lands Acquired for Bengaluru-Mysuru Infrastructure Corridor Project in 2003 – No Compensation Paid Despite Lapse of 22 Years – SLAO Shifted Preliminary Notification Date to 2011 for Calculating Compensation – High Court Quashed SLAO Award for Lack of Jurisdiction – Division Bench Held Writ Appeal Premature – Supreme Court Exercised Power Under Article 142 to Direct Fresh Award Based on 2019 Market Value – Relief Granted to Avoid Violation of Article 300-A and Promote Justice – Appeal Disposed of with Directions to SLAO for Fresh Determination [Paras 1-60].

Land Acquisition Act – Delay in Award – SLAO’s Power to Shift Notification Date – Court's Intervention – Supreme Court Held SLAO Cannot Alter Preliminary Notification Date – Shifting Permissible Only Under Articles 142 or 226 – Exceptional Circumstances Justify Judicial Intervention – Inordinate Delay in Award and Payment of Compensation Violates Right to Property Under Article 300-A – Relief Modeled to Provide Justice Without Burdening Public Interest or Exchequer – Fresh Determination Ordered on 2019 Market Value Basis [Paras 17, 53-57].

Right to Property – Constitutional and Human Right – Article 300-A – Inaction by State Authorities – Supreme Court Noted Deprivation Without Compensation for Over Two Decades – Emphasized Expeditious Compensation Determination – Directed SLAO to Reassess Compensation Based on Current Market Value (2019) and Grant Statutory Benefits – Held: Right to Property Cannot Be Mocked by Procedural Delays or Neglect [Paras 42-47, 55-57].

Delay and Injustice – Compensation Valuation – Supreme Court Considered Escalation in Land Prices and Inflation – Ruled Compensation Based on 2003 Market Value Inadequate Due to Loss of Purchasing Power – Compensation Determination Adjusted to Prevent Travesty of Justice – Avoided Costly Fresh Acquisition Under 2013 LA Act – Rights of All Parties Preserved [Paras 48-54, 57].

Decision: Appeal Allowed – Judgment of High Court’s Division Bench Set Aside – SLAO Directed to Determine Compensation Based on Market Value as on April 22, 2019, Within Two Months – Appellants to Receive Full Statutory Benefits – Rights of Parties to Challenge Award Remain Intact – Respondents No. 6 & 7 Permitted to Seek Remedies for Additional Costs from State/KIADB as per Agreement [Paras 59-60].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Maintainability of Complaint – Complaint Filed by Power of Attorney Holder – Quashing of Summons and Complaint – Sole Proprietor Authorised Manager to File Complaint – Trial Court Issued Summons Based on Sufficient Evidence – High Court Quashed Complaint on Grounds of Lack of Explicit Averments Regarding Personal Knowledge – Supreme Court Held High Court Erred – Explicit Averments Sufficient to Show Knowledge of Transactions – Complaint Restored for Trial on Merits [Paras 1-36].

Representation – Power of Attorney Holder – Personal Knowledge Requirement – Supreme Court Reiterated Principles from A.C. Narayanan v. State of Maharashtra and TRL Krosaki Refractories Limited – Power of Attorney Holder Must Have Personal Knowledge of Transactions and Must Explicitly State It – Averments in Complaint, Affidavit, and Letter of Authority Held Sufficient to Establish Knowledge – Quashing of Complaint Premature Without Trial [Paras 15-21, 26-33].

Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Scope of High Court’s Powers – Quashing of Complaint – Supreme Court Held Inherent Powers to be Exercised Sparingly – Premature Quashing Denies Trial Court Opportunity to Examine Merits – High Court’s Intervention Found Unwarranted in Light of Settled Law [Paras 34-35].

Decision: Appeal Allowed – High Court Judgment Quashing Summoning Order Set Aside – Complaint No. 701 of 2021 Restored for Decision on Merits – Trial Court to Proceed in Accordance with Law – Pending Applications Disposed of [Paras 36-37].