Service Law – Promotion and Seniority – Appellant's promotion to Office Superintendent quashed by High Court – High Court favored respondent due to earlier entry into service and promotion by reservation benefit – Supreme Court emphasized seniority-cum-merit criterion, upheld higher pay scale and unblemished record of appellant as basis for promotion – Promotion to selection post requires consideration of merit alongside seniority – Chargesheet against respondent indicated dereliction of duty [Paras 1-26].

Merit and Seniority – Importance of Clean Record – Seniority-cum-merit involves evaluating both seniority and merit – Clean service record of appellant considered significant – Higher pay scale in feeder cadre supports seniority claim – Respondent's disciplinary issues and resultant penalty factored against promotion [Paras 17-26].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court judgment set aside – Appellant's promotion reinstated – Board's decision to prefer appellant over respondent upheld based on unblemished record and higher pay scale [Para 26].

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 468 - Limitation Period - Cognizance of Offence - Relevant Date - The date of filing of the complaint or institution of prosecution is the relevant date for computing the period of limitation under Section 468 CrPC, not the date on which the Magistrate takes cognizance. High Court’s decision set aside for being contrary to the law declared by the Constitution Bench in Sarah Mathew v. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases by its Director Dr. K.M. Cherian [Paras 1-13].

Bar to Taking Cognizance After Lapse of Limitation - The complaint filed on 10.07.2012 and cognizance taken on 04.12.2012 within the limitation period concerning the alleged offence committed on 04.10.2009. The High Court erroneously considered the date of cognizance as decisive [Paras 10-13].

Decision - Appeal Allowed - High Court order set aside - Trial Magistrate to proceed with the trial expeditiously - Measures to prevent delay or obstruction by the accused respondents, including possible cancellation of bail or imposition of monetary conditions [Paras 13-15].

Civil Procedure - Execution of Decree - Mandatory Procedure - Order XXI, Rule 34 CPC - Decree for specific performance - Draft sale deed not served to judgment debtor - Court's duty to serve draft, invite objections, and consider them before execution - Execution of sale deed without following procedure quashed [Paras 9-16].

Execution of Decree - Non-Compliance with Procedural Requirements - The decree-holder must deliver the draft document to the court, which must then serve it on the judgment debtor - Failure to follow this procedure led to the setting aside of the executed sale deed [Paras 10-14].

Decision - Appeal Allowed - High Court order set aside - Execution court directed to serve draft sale deed on appellant and consider objections before proceeding with execution - Executed sale deed to be re-evaluated for conformity with the decree - Process to be completed within four months [Para 16].

Customs Act, 1962 - Section 129E - Pre-Deposit Requirement - Applicability - Appellant penalized for smuggling - Tribunal dismissed appeal for non-compliance with pre-deposit requirement under amended Section 129E - High Court upheld Tribunal's order - Appeal to Supreme Court on grounds that amended provision should not apply to acts committed before its substitution [Paras 1-3].

Pre-Deposit Requirement - Legislative Intent - Substitution of Section 129E intended to replace earlier regime with a new one - New provision reduces pre-deposit to a percentage but removes discretion to waive pre-deposit - Argument that pre-substitution provisions should apply to pre-substitution acts rejected - Legislative intent is clear in applying new provisions to appeals filed after substitution [Paras 6-10].

Decision - Appeal Dismissed - Extended period for compliance with Section 129E granted - No merit found in appellant's contention that pre-substitution provision's discretionary waiver should apply while benefiting from reduced pre-deposit of the new regime [Para 11].

Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ Petition - Specific Performance of Contract - High Court issued a writ of mandamus virtually granting specific performance of a work order in a writ petition under Article 226 - Supreme Court held such a writ could not be issued when there were disputed questions of fact and no evidence that goods were manufactured as per specifications [Paras 8-8.1].

Suspension/Cancellation of Work Order - Decision based on Government Resolution due to COVID-19 Pandemic - Municipal Council suspended/cancelled the work order due to lack of funds and closed schools - High Court's decision to set aside the suspension/cancellation was erroneous [Para 8.1].

Decision - Appeal Allowed - High Court order quashed - Original writ petition dismissed - Liberty granted to the original writ petitioners to file a civil suit for damages/losses suffered [Para 9].

Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ Petition - Specific Performance of Contract - High Court dismissed writ petition seeking specific performance of a contract after significant delay - Supreme Court upheld High Court's decision, noting that writ petitions for specific performance are not maintainable especially after long delays [Paras 4-6].

Delay and Laches - Representation and Fresh Cause of Action - Mere representation does not extend limitation period - Writ petitions filed after significant delay should be dismissed at the threshold to prevent claims of fresh cause of action upon rejection of representation [Paras 4-5].

Decision - Petition Dismissed - High Court correctly dismissed writ petition filed 10 years after the cause of action - Writ for specific performance not maintainable after such delay [Para 7].

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 173(6) - Witness Protection - Disclosure to Defense - Section 44 of UAPA - Section 17 of NIA Act - Sections aim to safeguard witness identities - Trial court allowed redacted statements to be provided to defense to ensure fair trial - High Court's order denying redacted statements set aside - Sections 173(6), 44, and 17 interpreted to balance witness protection with fair trial rights [Paras 9-25].

Witness Protection - Redacted Statements - Defense's Right - Redacted statements ensure fair trial while protecting witness identities - Redaction left to Special Public Prosecutor's discretion - High Court's interpretation denying redacted statements reversed - Trial court's order restored [Paras 27-29].

Decision - Appeal Allowed - High Court order quashed - Trial court order dated 11.09.2021 restored - Redacted witness statements to be provided to defense, protecting witness identities and ensuring fair trial [Para 28].

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Section 62 - Resolution Plans - Modifications - NCLT allowed modifications to resolution plans submitted by the appellant and other resolution applicant - NCLAT upheld NCLT's decision - Supreme Court declined to interfere, noting that modifications were to maintain level playing field and no prejudice was caused to appellant [Paras 2-18].

Resolution Plans - Level Playing Field - NCLT allowed appellant to modify resolution plan and correspondingly allowed other resolution applicant to modify their plan - Appellant's contention that modification was not substantial and thus no corresponding permission should have been granted was rejected [Paras 12-13].

Confidentiality - Contents of appellant's resolution plan became known due to appellant's own disclosure - No fault found with resolution professional or other parties in divulging the contents [Para 15].

Decision - Appeal Dismissed - Supreme Court left all relevant aspects open for examination by the Adjudicating Authority in accordance with law [Paras 18-19].

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Section 14(1A) - Appointment of Advocate - District Magistrate (DM) or Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) can appoint an advocate to take possession of secured assets and documents - Advocate considered an officer of the court and subordinate to CMM/DM for the purposes of Section 14(1A) - Advocate Commissioner’s actions under Section 14(3) receive immunity - Appointment not restricted to officers on CMM/DM rolls or public service - Legislative intent supports such functional subordination [Paras 9-35].

Delegation of Powers - Functional Subordination - Appointment of advocate to assist in taking possession of assets as a ministerial act under CMM/DM's supervision - Advocates as officers of the court fit within the wide generality and context of "any officer subordinate" in Section 14(1A) - Practical necessity due to logistical constraints faced by CMM/DM [Paras 27-30].

Precedent and Statutory Interpretation - Consistency with previous High Court decisions in Kerala, Madras, and Delhi supporting the appointment of Advocate Commissioners - Legislative history and intent of SARFAESI Act facilitating efficient resolution and possession of secured assets without court intervention [Paras 19-25].

Decision - Appeals Allowed - High Court of Bombay's restrictive interpretation overruled - Advocates can be appointed by CMM/DM to take possession of secured assets under Section 14(1A) [Para 36].