Admiralty Law – Addition of Parties – Appealability – Commercial Division (Single Bench) of the High Court ordered the addition of Gulf Petroleum FZC as a party in the admiralty suit – Division Bench set aside this order – Supreme Court finds that an order under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC is not appealable under Section 14 of the Admiralty Act – Intra-court appeals in admiralty matters are restricted to orders specified under Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC as per Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act – Division Bench erred in setting aside the Single Bench's order [Paras 54-89].

Harmonious Interpretation – Non-obstante Clauses – Admiralty Act and Commercial Courts Act both contain non-obstante clauses – Conflict resolved by considering the purpose and policy underlying the enactments – Special statutes prevail over general statutes – Appeal from an interim order in an admiralty suit must be read in harmony with Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC [Paras 67-88].

Procedural Law – Necessary and Proper Parties – Single Bench added Gulf Petroleum FZC as it was necessary for the effective adjudication of the dispute – Division Bench's decision to set aside this order was incorrect – Presence of Gulf Petroleum FZC is essential for resolving all questions involved in the suit [Paras 51-52, 82-83].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Division Bench's order set aside – Single Bench's order adding Gulf Petroleum FZC as a defendant restored – No order as to costs [Paras 89-90].

Criminal Law – Bail Cancellation – High Court granted bail to the respondent based on parity with co-accused – Supreme Court finds that bail granted to co-accused was previously disapproved – Bail order found to suffer from illegality and impropriety – High Court failed to consider the gravity of the offense and relevant factors – Impugned order set aside [Paras 1-18].

Parity in Bail – Relevance and Limitations – Bail cannot be granted solely on the ground of parity without independent consideration of the individual case's facts – Supreme Court emphasizes that each bail application must be assessed on its own merits, considering the nature of the crime and the role of the accused [Paras 12-17].

Seriousness of Crime – Consideration of Facts – Daylight murder with multiple grievous injuries – Respondent named in the FIR as one of the assailants – Supreme Court underscores the need to consider the crime's seriousness and potential impact on public interest and justice administration [Paras 16-17].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's order granting bail set aside – Respondent directed to surrender forthwith – Liberty granted to respondent to apply for bail afresh after surrendering – Application to be considered on its own merits at an appropriate stage [Paras 18-20].

Civil Law – Permanent Injunction – Appeal against High Court's decision affirming the first appellate court's decree for permanent injunction – Based on an unregistered agreement to sell on ten rupees stamp paper – Supreme Court holds that such an unregistered document is inadmissible in evidence for substantive relief – Plaintiff cannot obtain relief indirectly which is otherwise not permissible directly [Paras 1-8].

Unregistered Documents – Admissibility and Collateral Use – Unregistered agreement to sell can only be used for collateral purposes – However, relief for permanent injunction cannot be granted when specific performance is not achievable due to the document's unregistered status – Trial court's dismissal of suit for permanent injunction and allowance of defendant's counter-claim for possession restored [Paras 5-7].

Procedural Impropriety – Clever Drafting – Plaintiff's attempt to circumvent the inadmissibility of the unregistered document by seeking permanent injunction without specific performance – Supreme Court emphasizes that clever drafting cannot be used to achieve what is otherwise legally untenable [Paras 6-7].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment and decree set aside – Trial court's judgment dismissing the suit for permanent injunction and allowing the counter-claim for possession restored – No order as to costs [Paras 7-8].

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of FIRs – FIRs/complaints arising from the Newshour Debate telecasted on Times Now on 26.05.2022 were transferred to the IFSO unit of Delhi Police – Supreme Court holds that there cannot be two investigating agencies for the same incident involving different co-accused – Petitioner permitted to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution or Section 482 of CrPC for further relief [Paras 1-9].

Transfer of Investigation – Investigative Parity – Considering parity with a co-accused whose investigation was transferred to the IFSO unit of Delhi Police – All similar FIRs/complaints against the petitioner also transferred to IFSO unit – Emphasizes the necessity for a single investigating agency to maintain consistency and efficiency in the investigation process [Paras 5-7].

Interim Relief – No Coercive Steps – Supreme Court directs that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner for a period of eight weeks – Allows the petitioner to seek appropriate relief from the Delhi High Court during this period [Para 7(iv)].

Decision: Writ Petition disposed of – Investigation of all FIRs/complaints transferred to the IFSO unit of Delhi Police – Liberty granted to petitioner to approach the High Court for further relief – Clarification that no opinion expressed on the merits of the allegations [Paras 7-9].

Constitutional Law – Right to Life and Personal Liberty – Article 21 – Extension of Investigation Period – It is mandatory to produce the accused either physically or virtually when the Court considers an application for extension of the investigation period under Section 167(2) CrPC and Section 20(2) of the GCTOC Act – Failure to do so is not a mere procedural irregularity but a violation of Article 21 rights [Paras 1-18, 22-23, 28-33].

Criminal Procedure – Section 167(2) CrPC – Extension of Time for Investigation – The Public Prosecutor's report must set out the investigation's progress and specific reasons for continued detention – The Court must ensure these requirements are met before granting an extension – Failure to inform the accused of the Public Prosecutor's application and failing to produce the accused before the Court invalidates the extension order [Paras 15-23, 29].

Default Bail – Right to Bail – Failure to Produce Accused – The accused is entitled to default bail if the mandatory requirements of producing the accused and informing him of the extension application are not met – The extension order's illegality entitles the accused to default bail [Paras 30-38].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Orders extending the investigation period quashed – Appellants granted default bail on conditions including furnishing a bail bond, surrendering passports, and cooperating with the investigation and trial process [Paras 38-39].

Insolvency Law – Financial Debt – The appellant challenged the initiation of CIRP against Doshi Holdings, arguing that no disbursement was made to Doshi Holdings and thus no financial debt existed. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Appellate Authority, stating that Doshi Holdings was party to the Loan-cum-Pledge Agreements in a dual capacity as borrower and pledgor. The approval of a resolution plan for one borrower does not discharge a co-borrower from liability [Paras 33-34, 36-37].

Contract Law – Pledge and Guarantee – The court differentiated between contracts of indemnity, guarantee, and pledge, stating that a pledgor per se may not be a financial debtor. However, in this case, Doshi Holdings was found to be a borrower in addition to being a pledgor [Paras 35-36].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The court found no grounds to interfere with the judgment of the Appellate Authority, affirming the initiation of CIRP against Doshi Holdings [Para 38].

Insolvency Law – Withdrawal of Application – Before Committee of Creditors (CoC) Constitution – Section 12A of IBC allows withdrawal of an application admitted under Sections 7, 9, or 10 upon approval by 90% voting shares of the CoC – Prior to CoC constitution, applicant can withdraw the application without CoC approval – NCLT’s inherent powers under Rule 11 of NCLT Rules allow withdrawal to meet ends of justice [Paras 23-24, 28-29].

Settlement of Disputes – Inherent Powers of Tribunal – IBC aims to resolve insolvency efficiently, promoting economic growth – NCLT can permit withdrawal of CIRP applications to facilitate business operations and settlements, preventing undue hardship on corporate debtors [Paras 26-27].

NCLAT Interim Order – Scope of Appeal – Interim order staying CoC constitution but allowing CIRP process continuation – Settlement application under Section 12A pending – Supreme Court finds no substantial question of law warranting interference – NCLT directed to decide settlement application promptly [Paras 31-32].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – NCLT to expeditiously decide settlement application in accordance with observations [Para 32].

Right of Appeal – Statutory Basis – Appeal rights are conferred by statute and are not automatic – Second Appeal under Section 100 of CPC can only be entertained on substantial questions of law, not on factual findings of lower courts [Paras 1-2, 36-37].

Substantial Question of Law – Definition and Tests – To be substantial, a question of law must be debatable, of general public importance, or directly affecting parties' rights – Well-settled legal principles applied to facts do not constitute substantial questions of law – Criteria laid out in Sir Chunilal V. Mehta & Sons, Santosh Hazari, and other precedents reiterated [Paras 27-32].

Second Appeal – High Court’s Jurisdiction – High Court can interfere only when substantial questions of law are involved – Mere reappreciation of evidence is not warranted – Findings of fact by First Appellate Court should be respected unless material evidence is ignored or wrong legal principles applied [Paras 23-25, 33-35].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment of the High Court set aside – Judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court in Regular Civil Appeal No. 361 of 1984 restored [Para 38].

Execution of Decree – Identifiability of Suit Property – Decree can only be executed if the suit property is easily identifiable – Dispute over exact boundaries of Plot No. 4/4 vs. Plot No. 4/5 – Court mandates precise demarcation by Local Commissioner [Paras 45-47, 51].

Possession and Mesne Profits – Determination and Restoration – Appellant directed to restore any excess land wrongfully claimed, including Plot No. 4/5 or land belonging to Delhi Government – Mesne profits to be computed afresh from 1st March 2006 till possession relinquishment [Paras 54-56].

Legal Standards – Order 7 Rule 3 and Order 20 Rule 3 CPC – Plaint must include sufficient property description for identification – Decree execution based on exact property identification to avoid wrongful possession claims [Paras 49-50].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Impugned judgment set aside – Executing Court to decide applications afresh, appointing Revenue Officer as Local Commissioner to demarcate and transfer possession of Plot No. 4/4 – Excess land to be restored to Appellant – Mesne profits computed in accordance with modified decree [Paras 55-56].