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].

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].

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].

Constitution of India - Article 14 - Compassionate Appointment - Child of Second Wife - Supreme Court held that compassionate appointment cannot be denied to the child of a second wife of a deceased employee solely on the basis of descent - Such exclusion violates Article 14 of the Constitution - Policy or rule that discriminates against legitimate children born from second marriages is arbitrary and ultra vires - Legitimate children must be considered for compassionate appointment irrespective of their mother’s marital status with the deceased employee [Paras 2-7].

Discrimination - Descent - Article 16(2) - Prohibition - Supreme Court emphasized that descent cannot be a ground for denying employment under compassionate appointment schemes - Discriminatory policies against children of second wives violate Article 16(2) of the Constitution - Children cannot be punished for circumstances beyond their control [Paras 9-10].

Decision - Appeal Allowed - High Court order set aside - Direction to consider appellant's application for compassionate appointment as per extant policy, fulfilling all other requirements of law - Process to be completed within three months [Paras 11-12].

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Central Excise Act, 1944 - Confiscation of Properties - Rule 173Q(2) - SARFAESI Act 2002 prevails over Central Excise Act 1944 - Confiscation orders passed under omitted Rule 173Q(2) of Central Excise Rules 1944 lack jurisdiction - Secured creditors' dues have priority over central excise dues - Section 38A and Section 6 of General Clauses Act not applicable to omitted rules [Paras 32-47].

Confiscation Orders - Rule 173Q(2) Omitted - Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise lacked jurisdiction to pass confiscation orders under omitted Rule 173Q(2) - Orders dated 26.03.2007 and 29.03.2007 quashed - Confiscation provisions post-omission only applied to "goods" not immovable property [Paras 33-36].

Priority of Secured Creditors - Section 11E - Central Excise Act, 1944 - Absence of first charge provision prior to 08.04.2011 - Secured creditors under SARFAESI Act have priority over excise dues - Section 35 of SARFAESI Act provides overriding effect over other laws - SARFAESI Act provisions prevail even after Section 11E insertion in Central Excise Act [Paras 43-47].

Decision - Appeal Allowed - Confiscation orders dated 26.03.2007 and 29.03.2007 quashed - Secured creditors' dues prioritized over Central Excise Department's dues [Para 48].