Civil Law - Limitation – Suit for Possession and Cancellation – Primary vs Ancillary Relief – Suit Time-barred - Where plaintiffs sought possession based on title with additional prayer of cancellation of sale deeds – Held: The prayer for cancellation was primary, not ancillary – As such, governed by Article 59 of the Limitation Act requiring suit within 3 years from date of knowledge – Plaintiffs’ knowledge of the sale deeds was in 1992 but suit filed only in 2003 – Hence, barred by limitation [Paras 25-36].

Lis Pendens – Sale During Pending Suit – Whether Void – Doctrine of Lis Pendens does not render transfer void – Effect is to subject transfer to outcome of litigation – Plaintiffs failed to prove that injunction order was served on appellants – Sale deeds not void ab initio and not hit by Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act – Second suit appeared collusive – Therefore, transfer upheld [Paras 40-42].

Transfer by Ostensible Owner – Section 41 of Transfer of Property Act – Protection to Bona Fide Purchasers – Ramesh Chand had been portrayed to be owner for decades – Mutation records and rent collection supported ostensible ownership – Appellants were bona fide purchasers for value without notice – Entitled to protection under Section 41 [Paras 43-45].

Execution of Will – Proof Requirement under Evidence Act – Will not proved – Plaintiffs produced only certified copy – No explanation for non-production of original – Plaintiffs failed to prove loss or unavailability of original Will – Hence, no presumption under Section 90A applicable as Will formed basis of suit – Plaintiffs failed to establish title through Will [Paras 46-58].

Declaratory and Possessory Relief – Suit for Possession Without Declaration – Not Maintainable – Plaintiffs did not seek declaration of title or cancellation of deeds – Appellate court decreed possession without granting such declaratory relief – Held: Decree illegal and contrary to law – Declaration or cancellation is a prerequisite for granting possession when title is clouded [Paras 60-65].

Decision – Civil Appeal Allowed – Decrees of High Court and First Appellate Court Set Aside – Trial Court’s Judgment Dismissing Suit Restored – Plaintiffs’ suit held barred by limitation and without proof of title – No relief granted – Each party to bear their own costs [Paras 66-70].
 

Service Law - Disciplinary Enquiry – Non-compliance with Statutory Procedure – Inquiry Held Vitiated – No Witness Examined – The enquiry against the respondent was conducted without examining any witnesses or proving documents relied on in the chargesheet – The Enquiry Officer solely relied on the chargesheet and reply of the delinquent officer – Held: Such enquiry process contravened Rule 7(v) of the 1999 Rules and was void ab initio [Paras 9–15].

Natural Justice – Enquiry Report Not Furnished – Violation of Rule 9(4) – Denial of Reasonable Opportunity – Despite mandatory provision under Rule 9(4), the enquiry report was never furnished to the respondent – Supreme Court reaffirmed that non-supply of report constitutes a clear breach of natural justice and deprives the employee of a fair chance to defend – Held: The test of prejudice is inapplicable where the procedural right is of mandatory nature [Paras 19–39, 60].

Judicial Discipline – Time-bound Direction by Tribunal – No Extension Sought – Tribunal had set a deadline for completing the enquiry which was not met, nor was an extension sought – Held: Disciplinary proceedings concluded beyond the stipulated time without leave of court are invalid – Orders passed in such proceedings are non-est in law [Paras 5, 61–64].

Discriminatory Punishment – Co-Charged Officer Let Off – Unequal Treatment – Co-accused officer in the same misconduct was not punished while the respondent was – Held: Disciplinary authority’s action amounted to discriminatory punishment and is not legally sustainable [Para 5].

B. Karunakar Doctrine – Expanded Interpretation – Prejudice Principle Clarified – The Court held that once a procedural right like furnishing of the enquiry report is violated, no further proof of prejudice is necessary unless waived – Held: Law laid down in B. Karunakar (1993) 4 SCC 727 mandates furnishing of the report, and failure invalidates the punishment [Paras 20–39, 41–52].

Final Relief – Appeal Dismissed – Reinstatement Denied Due to Age – Full Benefits Granted – Given that the respondent is 75 years old, Court found no purpose in remitting the matter for fresh enquiry – Held: Respondent entitled to full retiral benefits; state directed to disburse arrears within three months or face interest penalty [Paras 65–73].

Section 138 NI Act – Personal Criminal Liability of Director – Insolvency of Company No Bar – Appeals Dismissed – Appellant convicted for cheque dishonour and sentenced to two years imprisonment with ₹2.5 crore compensation – He claimed protection due to company liquidation and moratorium under IBC – Supreme Court held director’s criminal liability under NI Act is personal and survives insolvency proceedings of the company [Paras 1–19].

Moratorium Under IBC – Not Applicable to Penal Proceedings – Proceedings Under NI Act Permitted – Court affirmed ruling in Rakesh Bhanot vs. Gurdas Agro (P) Ltd., holding that IBC moratorium under Sections 96 and 101 is limited to debt recovery actions – Penal prosecutions like those under Section 138 NI Act continue unaffected by insolvency process [Paras 16–18].

Failure to Comply with Bail Condition – No Right to Hearing Without Deposit – Deposit Condition Upheld – Appellant failed to deposit 25% of cheque amount as required for suspension of sentence during revision – High Court recalled bail – Supreme Court upheld the condition and denied any protection from consequences [Paras 10–12, 20–22].

Relief – Final Opportunity to Comply – Conditional Protection from Arrest – Court granted final eight-week extension to deposit 25% of cheque amount – Failure to do so would expose appellant to custody; if deposited, High Court to hear revision on merits [Paras 20–24].
 

Criminal Law – Murder – Appeal Against Conviction - Section 313 CrPC – Inadequate Examination of Accused – Prejudice Caused – Conviction Set Aside – Appellant’s examination under Section 313 CrPC merely summarized the prosecution's case rather than presenting specific evidence against him – Supreme Court held this as fatal irregularity causing inherent prejudice – Trial court failed to present material circumstances for the accused to respond meaningfully [Paras 7–13].

Conviction Under Section 302 IPC – Defective Trial – No Effective Defence Opportunity – Acquittal Granted – Appellant’s right to fair trial violated due to non-compliance with mandatory requirements under Section 313(1) CrPC – Court held that prosecution must put each incriminating circumstance specifically to the accused – In absence of such examination, appeal allowed and appellant acquitted [Paras 10–15].

Remand – Not Feasible Due to Passage of Time – 14 Years Elapsed – Acquittal Ordered – Although such procedural defects are curable, Supreme Court declined remand due to long delay since incident (2011) and prolonged custody (14 years served) – Appellant ordered to be released forthwith unless required in another case [Paras 14–17].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges – Supreme Court directed his immediate release [Paras 15–17].
 

Service Law - Disability Pension – Presumption in Favour of Serviceman – Rules 5, 9 and 14 of 1982 Rules – Orders Set Aside - Supreme Court held that under the entitlement rules, a person entering service is presumed medically fit unless a disability is recorded at the time of joining – Any subsequent disability leading to discharge must be presumed attributable to or aggravated by service unless cogent medical reasoning disproves the same – No such reasoning was provided by the Medical Board – Appellant’s invaliding on medical grounds automatically triggered presumption of service-related disability – Orders of Tribunal not sustainable [Paras 29, 32, 34-36, 43-45].

Disability Pension – Minimum Threshold – Applicability of Instructions dated 31.01.2001 and Letter dated 20.07.2006 – Relief Granted - Supreme Court ruled that the artificial threshold of 20% disability for pension entitlement was abrogated post 01.01.1996 – Persons invalided out with even 1% disability attributable to service are entitled to rounding off and 50% disability pension – Appellant’s disability assessed at 15–19% thus qualifies – Appellant granted 50% disability pension with interest from 01.01.1996 for life [Paras 19.4, 25, 40, 42].

Medical Board – Inadequacy in Reasoning – Failure to Justify Non-Attribution – Decision Reversed - The Invaliding Medical Board did not record any reasons as to why appellant's condition was not attributable to military service, despite clear presumption in favour of attribution – The Board’s conclusion contradicted Rule 14(b) which requires reasons if disease is claimed as non-detectable at induction – Tribunal’s reliance on such an opinion without scrutiny was legally erroneous [Paras 22, 46].

Decision – Impugned Tribunal Orders Set Aside – Disability Pension Allowed - Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside both Tribunal orders dated 26.02.2016 and 22.01.2018 – Directed Respondents to pay appellant disability pension at 50% from 01.01.1996 with 6% annual interest, within three months [Para 47-48].

Service Law - Seniority – Date of Appointment v. Date of Selection – Partial Relief Granted – Appellants participated in 2003 judicial service exam and were appointed after a High Court order in 2012 – Though appointed in 2013, they claimed seniority over later batches – Held: They cannot claim seniority over those appointed before 2nd May 2012 (date of HC order), but are entitled to rank above officers appointed on 10th July 2012 due to State’s delay – Right to appointment accrued from judicial direction [Paras 9–16].

Delay in Implementation of Court Order – State Inaction Prejudicial to Appellants – Judicial Direction Binding – Though SLP filed by State was dismissed without stay, appointments were delayed – Held: State cannot benefit from inaction in implementing Court's order – Appellants should not suffer loss of seniority due to administrative delay [Paras 12–15].

Doctrine of Finality – No Challenge to 2012 HC Order – Scope Limited – Appellants bound by earlier High Court order stating seniority shall be reckoned from date of appointment – Held: Cannot reopen or seek general retrospective seniority beyond 2nd May 2012 – Challenge rightly confined to 2012 batch [Paras 8–11].

Decision: Appeal Partly Allowed – Seniority Directed over 2012 Batch – The Supreme Court directed that the appellants be shown senior to judicial officers appointed on 10th July 2012 – They were not entitled to seniority over candidates appointed prior to 2nd May 2012 – No costs awarded [Paras 16–17].

Bail – Long Incarceration without Trial – Bail Granted – The petitioner had been in custody for over four years in a case involving charges under IPC and MCOCA – Only four of 67 prosecution witnesses had been examined – Supreme Court noted prolonged trial and granted bail subject to stringent conditions, without commenting on merits [Paras 6–9].

MCOCA Charges – Premeditated Crime and Alleged Syndicate Membership – Allegation Not Prejudged – State alleged petitioner was a contract killer within a crime syndicate led by co-accused Yogesh Sawant – Court refrained from expressing opinion on evidence while granting bail – Emphasised that framing of charges and partial trial progress warranted conditional release [Paras 3, 6, 9].

Conditions for Bail – Passport Surrender and Police Reporting – Compliance Mandated – Petitioner directed to deposit passport with Trial Court and report fortnightly to local police – Also mandated to attend all trial dates – Misuse of bail to attract cancellation [Paras 10–11].

Final Relief – Special Leave Petition Disposed – Bail Directed – The Court disposed of the SLP by granting conditional bail and warning of strict consequences in case of misuse or witness tampering [Paras 9–12].
 

Criminal Law - SARFAESI Act - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Lack of Prima Facie Role – Criminal Process Misused – Allegations Baseless – Appellant held not to be involved in the auction process or issuance of sale certificate under SARFAESI Act – At relevant time, he was not the authorized officer under Rule 2(a) of the Enforcement Rules – Held: Criminal proceedings against the appellant amounted to abuse of process and must be quashed [Paras 10–13, 17–19].

Good Faith Protection – Applicability of Section 32 SARFAESI Act – No Criminal Intent Found – Appellant’s actions unrelated to the transaction challenged in the FIR – Held: No criminal liability as he had not acted in bad faith – FIR quashed on grounds of lack of mens rea and nexus to alleged acts [Paras 13, 18–19].

Overlapping Civil and Criminal Remedies – Civil Nature Disguised as Criminal Offence – Consumer Complaint Already Dismissed – Court held that criminal complaint was filed after failure in consumer forum – Held: Continuation of proceedings would result in harassment and miscarriage of justice [Paras 12, 19].

Decision – Criminal Proceedings Quashed – Abuse of Judicial Process Prevented – Supreme Court allowed the appeals and quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings in CC No. 50 of 2015 – Held: Appellant’s prosecution was without basis in law or fact; continuation would be unjust [Para 20].
 

Criminal Law – Murder – Appeal Against Acquittal - Dying Declarations – Non-compliance with Section 313 CrPC – Acquittal Upheld – The Supreme Court held that the prosecution’s failure to put the contents of the dying declarations to the accused during examination under Section 313 CrPC prejudiced the accused – As such, the declarations could not be relied upon for conviction – Further remand to rectify this defect after 14 years would cause undue prejudice – Appeals dismissed [Paras 16–23, 27].

Minor Witness – Competency of Child Witness – Procedural Lapse – The minor son of the deceased, who was presented as an eyewitness, was not subjected to preliminary questioning by the Trial Court to assess competence – Major contradictions in testimony led the Court to hold the evidence unreliable – Testimony not considered safe to rely on for conviction [Paras 10–14].

Contradictory Evidence – Medical Evidence and Dying Declarations – Burn Injuries on Co-Accused and Accused – The prosecution failed to explain injuries on the co-accused who later died and the accused who sustained 20% burns – This weakened the prosecution case and added to reasonable doubt about their role in the incident [Paras 24–25].

Appeal Against Acquittal – Judicial Review – Principles Reiterated – The Court reiterated that if the High Court’s view is a possible one based on evidence, even if another view is possible, the acquittal should not be interfered with – High Court's decision upheld despite some differences in interpretation [Paras 26–27].

Judicial Directions – Compliance with Section 313 CrPC – Procedural Safeguards Suggested – The Court directed that High Courts must verify the adequacy of Section 313 statements at the appellate stage to prevent prejudice and suggested trial courts seek assistance from counsels to ensure proper questioning under Section 313 CrPC [Para 28].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Acquittal confirmed – No interference warranted as prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to procedural and evidentiary lapses [Para 30].