Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Resolution Plan – Concurrent Findings – Appeals under Section 62 lie only on a question of law – NCLT and NCLAT concurrently upheld JSW’s plan with minor modification regarding EBITDA – Held: Appeals not maintainable in absence of statutory grounds under Section 61 – Concurrent findings not to be disturbed unless perverse, arbitrary or contrary to statute [Paras 87-96].

IBC – Clause Permitting CoC to Extend Implementation Period – Validity – Clause authorising CoC to extend effective date of implementation by 66% majority not open-ended – No renegotiation or withdrawal of plan involved – Distinguished from Ebix Singapore and Amtek Auto – Held: Such discretion to CoC permissible to address exigencies – Delay not attributable to JSW or CoC but due to litigation, ED attachments and interim orders – Plan validly implemented on 26.03.2021 [Paras 97-128].

IBC – Compliance with IBBI (CIRP) Regulations – Priority of OCs – Resolution Plan submitted when Regulation 38 mandated only liquidation value to OCs – Subsequent amendment (05.10.2018) providing priority complied with via addendum – Ex gratia payment of Rs. 350 crores to OCs beyond entitlement – Later amendment (27.11.2019) inapplicable as prospective – No contravention of law – Promoters cannot raise issue not agitated by OCs [Paras 130-143].

IBC – Upfront Infusion of Funds – CCDs as Equity – JSW infused Rs. 8,450 crore by compulsorily convertible debentures – CCDs mandatorily convertible into equity treated as equity instruments in law (Narendra Kumar Maheshwari, IFCI Ltd.) – Upfront commitment fulfilled – Commercial wisdom of CoC paramount and non-justiciable [Paras 144-152].

IBC – Distribution of EBITDA – NCLT directed distribution based on NCLAT Essar – NCLAT relying on SC Essar held EBITDA not distributable absent provision in RfRP – CoC initially opposed distribution, later took contrary stand in affidavit post-review – Held: RfRP silent, no such claim permissible after plan approval – EBITDA to remain with corporate debtor – Finality of resolution plan cannot be unsettled [Paras 153-171, 185-190].

IBC – Classification of Contingent Creditors – Jaldhi – Claim based on foreign arbitral awards – Withdrawn execution petitions before Calcutta High Court – Awards not deemed decrees under Section 49 of Arbitration Act – Stand of creditor inconsistent – CoC’s commercial wisdom in classifying as contingent creditor upheld – Non-justiciable [Paras 172-180].

IBC – Pre-CIRP Dues – Medi & Darcl – Payments made during CIRP adjusted against services rendered – No CoC approval for pre-CIRP dues – Must be treated only under resolution plan – Appeals dismissed [Paras 181-184].

IBC – Section 32A Immunity – Corporate debtor’s liability for pre-CIRP offences ceases after plan approval – ED attachments and prosecutions could not continue once management changed – Delay due to pendency of such proceedings not attributable to JSW – Implementation valid [Paras 105-123, 116-118].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – NCLAT order dated 17.02.2020 upholding resolution plan of JSW Steel Limited affirmed – Implementation of plan on 26.03.2021 valid – Contingent claims, EBITDA demands, and objections of ex-promoters rejected – Section 32A immunity reiterated – Resolution Plan attained finality [Paras 185-192].

Judicial Services – Eligibility Criteria – Telangana State Judicial Service Rules, 2023 – Rule 5(5.1)(a) restricting eligibility to advocates practicing in Telangana High Court or its subordinate courts for not less than 7 years – Petitioners challenged rejection of their applications on ground of discrimination and violation of Articles 14 and 233 – High Court dismissed writ petitions holding Rule valid – Supreme Court refrained from adjudicating constitutionality of Rules but permitted qualified petitioners to be appointed as District Judges as a special case without treating it as precedent [Paras 4, 6-9, 11-12].

Recruitment – Judicial Service Examinations – Petitioners permitted by interim orders to participate in written and viva-voce examinations – They secured qualifying marks – Supreme Court directed High Court to declare results and proceed with verification of antecedents – Qualified candidates to be appointed within two months but without arrears of benefits – Seniority to be reckoned from date of actual appointment; existing appointees to rank senior [Paras 8-10].

Civil Judge (Junior Division) – Connected Petitions – Writ petitioners challenging Bar Association enrolment requirement also permitted to appear in exams pursuant to interim order – Supreme Court extended similar relief, directing declaration of results and appointment if qualified [Para 10].

Constitutional Law – Scope of Relief – Supreme Court clarified that directions were confined to peculiar facts and circumstances and would not operate as precedent – All questions of law kept open for determination in future [Para 11].

Decision: Appeals, SLPs, and Writ Petition disposed of – Qualified petitioners directed to be appointed as District Judges as special case – No precedent – Parties to bear own costs.

Civil Procedure – Summary Suit – Leave to Defend – High Court allowed defendant to file reply to summons for judgment without prior leave to defend under Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) CPC – Held: Permitting reply without prior leave undermines the summary nature of Order XXXVII proceedings – Order suffers from serious procedural defect and is unsustainable – Impugned order set aside [Paras 6, 7, 9].

Civil Procedure – Order XXXVII CPC – Procedure Mandate – Summary suits under Order XXXVII require strict compliance with sequence of steps – Entry of appearance, filing of summons for judgment, and leave to defend must precede filing of written statement or reply – Deviation from mandated procedure strikes at the root of Order XXXVII scheme [Paras 6, 7].

Delay – Condonation of Delay in Filing Leave to Defend – Application for condonation of delay in seeking leave to defend pending before High Court – Supreme Court held that mere pendency or wrong provision invoked cannot justify bypassing procedural compliance – No opinion expressed on merits of delay or entitlement to decree [Paras 8, 9].

Procedural Law – Distinction Between Regular and Summary Suit – Allowing reply in summary suit without leave equates it with ordinary suit, thereby nullifying the purpose of Order XXXVII – Procedural safeguard is integral to summary disposal – Order set aside while preserving rights of both parties to pursue appropriate remedies [Paras 9, 10].

Criminal Procedure – Bail – Fraudulent Conduct and Suppression of Material Facts – Bail Set Aside – Accused obtained interim protection during anticipatory bail proceedings by giving undertakings to repay cheated amount (₹6.25 crores) but later reneged on promise – High Court rejected anticipatory bail observing that accused misled courts and complainant – Despite this, Magistrate granted regular bail merely on ground that charge sheet was filed – Supreme Court held that such grant of bail ignored material facts and amounted to legal perversity – Orders granting and upholding bail set aside [Paras 5–10, 16–21, 37].

Judicial Discipline – Precedent and Higher Court Orders – Failure to Consider – Magistrate and Sessions Judge failed to properly appreciate the High Court’s detailed rejection of anticipatory bail due to misconduct and prior undertakings – Grant of regular bail without considering past conduct of accused held legally untenable – Trial courts must give due weight to findings of superior courts on conduct and case facts [Paras 19–20, 25–28].

Procedure – Custody and Bail – Irregular Grant of Liberty Without Bail Order – After accused appeared before ACMM, they were allowed to remain at liberty without any formal order of interim bail or bond under Section 88 CrPC – Supreme Court termed this procedural lapse unacceptable – Emphasised that appearance without custody or bail violates settled procedure [Paras 30–31].

Judicial Training and Accountability – In light of the judicial and procedural lapses in grant and affirmation of bail, Supreme Court directed that the ACMM and Sessions Judge undergo special judicial training for 7 days at Delhi Judicial Academy – Focus to be on application of precedent and judicial reasoning in bail cases involving economic offences and misconduct [Para 38].

Police Conduct – Direction for Enquiry – Commissioner of Police, Delhi, directed to conduct an enquiry into conduct of Investigating Officers in the case – Supreme Court observed that their approach aided improper grant of bail and warranted accountability [Para 39].

Court Administration – Roster and Case Assignment – Misinterpretation of Judicial Discretion – High Court wrongly declined to place matter before same Judge who had earlier dismissed anticipatory bail, citing roster change – Supreme Court clarified that bench composition is sole prerogative of Chief Justice and cannot be subject to ad hoc judicial reasoning by coordinate benches [Paras 34–36].

Decision: ACMM’s Order dated 10.11.2023, Sessions Judge’s Order dated 16.08.2024, and Delhi High Court’s Impugned Order dated 18.11.2024 quashed and set aside – Private respondents (accused) directed to surrender within two weeks – Matter not remanded – Directions issued for judicial training and departmental enquiry.

Insolvency Law – Transfer of Partnership Share – Appellant inducted as partner after father’s death; creditors initiated insolvency (1975); official receiver executed transfer deed (1983) in favour of respondent based on alleged offer/acceptance (Ex.P4, Ex.P6) – District Court (2004) found documents fabricated, cancelled transfer, restored appellant’s share – High Court (2011) reversed relying on S.37, holding acts of receiver saved – Held: High Court erred; once order dated 04.01.1983 allowing transfer was set aside and matter remanded, transfer deed had no legal foundation – Section 37 protects only duly concluded acts, not those based on fabricated documents – Appellate court must give reasons when reversing fact findings; here, High Court failed in its duty under Santosh Hazari principles – District Court’s detailed factual findings restored – Appeals by appellants allowed; connected appeals by respondents dismissed [Paras 19-27].

Insolvency – Section 37, Provincial Insolvency Act – Annulment wipes out insolvency retrospectively but saves only valid and duly concluded sales/acts of receiver – Transfer based on fabricated documents not “duly made” – Sale deed dated 11.03.1983 cannot be protected [Paras 17-23].

Evidence – Fabricated documents – District Court meticulously analysed contradictions, failure to produce originals, improbabilities, and concluded Ex.P4 offer and Ex.P6 acceptance were concocted – Findings binding absent proper reappreciation by appellate court [Paras 20-22].

Appellate Jurisdiction – High Court reversed District Court findings without analysis of evidence – Error of law; appellate court must engage with trial court reasoning and give independent reasons when reversing findings [Paras 24-25].

Decision – Appeals (CA Nos. 12048-12049/2018) allowed – High Court judgment set aside – District Court’s order dated 16.02.2004 restored – Connected appeals (CA Nos. 12050-12053/2018) dismissed [Paras 27-29].

Electricity – Power Purchase Agreement – Diversion of allocated share – EPL diverted GUVNL’s contracted 58% share of 515 MW capacity to sister concern ESL – Held: Such diversion violated proportionate principle – GUVNL entitled not only to “compensation” at HTP-1 tariff (less variable costs) but also to reimbursement of fixed charges proportionately – APTEL and GERC erred in denying reimbursement – Restitution prevents EPL from appropriating fixed charges twice (from both GUVNL and ESL) – SC clarifies distinction between “compensation” and “reimbursement” [Paras 30-38].

Contract Interpretation – Earlier SC decision (2016) restoring GERC’s order binding – Proportionate principle governs both supply and fixed charges – EPL obligated to declare weekly capacity for full 515 MW plant – Diversion to ESL beyond allocated 215 MW not permissible [Paras 20-24].

Computation Methodology – Though PPA defined “availability period” as hourly, EPL itself sought CEA’s advice (2003) leading to adoption of half-hourly metering from 21.02.2005 – Parties acted upon it – EPL estopped from opposing half-hourly basis for diversion computation – GERC rightly applied half-hourly basis; APTEL erred in reversing [Paras 39-41].

Delayed Payment Charges – GERC rightly applied simple interest as per PPA – However, parity mandated: if EPL secures compound interest in its other proceedings, same benefit extends to GUVNL [Para 28].

Remand – Issues of exact quantum of Deemed Generation Incentive refund (₹34.42 Cr vs. ₹36.62 Cr) and deductions from invoices remanded to GERC – SC upholds remand on factual quantification but modifies findings on fixed charges and computation basis [Paras 42-43].

Decision – Appeals partly allowed – GERC’s order dated 27.12.2019 and APTEL’s judgment dated 21.03.2025 modified – GUVNL entitled to reimbursement of fixed charges (in addition to compensation) – Diversion to be computed on half-hourly basis – Other remanded issues stand – Parties to bear own costs [Para 43].

Banking Law – Leasehold Plot – Validity of mortgage and e-auction sale of leasehold property allotted by DDA – Mortgage without prior permission of Lieutenant Governor held void – DDA’s rights of pre-emption and unearned increase ignored – Recovery Officer and Bank failed to disclose material encumbrances in auction proclamation – E-auction notice dated 27.09.2012 and sale held on 09.11.2012 declared illegal for violation of Rule 53 Second Schedule, Income-tax Act and Rule 16 of 1962 Rules – High Court erred in applying res judicata – Fresh cause of action arose when auction violated lease terms – Auction purchaser found bona fide and entitled to restitution – Bank directed to refund full deposit with 9% interest – Appeal allowed; auction and sale certificate quashed [Paras 18-27, 28-32].

Mortgage – Leasehold property allotted by statutory authority – Mortgage created without written consent of Lieutenant Governor – Held: Mortgage void ab initio; Bank cannot claim lawful security interest [Paras 5, 18-19].

Debt Recovery – Auction under RDDBFI Act – Recovery Officer bound to disclose encumbrances and statutory dues in proclamation – Failure to mention DDA’s unearned increase claim vitiates sale [Paras 23-27].

Res Judicata – Earlier writ petition withdrawn on Bank’s undertaking that auction would be subject to lease conditions – Not decided on merits – Fresh cause of action arose upon breach of undertaking – High Court erred in dismissing subsequent writ as barred [Paras 28-29].

Restitution – Innocent auction purchaser caught in illegal sale – Restitution a moral imperative – Bank, having auctioned what it never lawfully possessed, must refund money with interest [Paras 30-32].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court order dated 11.08.2014, e-auction notice dated 27.09.2012, auction dated 09.11.2012, and confirmation/sale certificate dated 08.07.2013 and 12.07.2013 quashed – Bank directed to refund entire deposit with 9% interest to auction purchaser within one month [Para 32-33].

Negotiable Instruments – S.138 – Presumptions under Ss.118 & 139 – Cash loans over ₹20,000 not void for S.269SS breach; presumption still arises – Revisional court cannot upset concurrent findings absent perversity – Non-reply to demand notice permits adverse inference – “Blank cheque given to help secure bank loan” defence held unbelievable – Comprehensive directions issued to cut S.138 pendency (service incl. dasti/e-service; QR/UPI payment links; mandatory complaint-synopsis; no pre-cognizance summons under S.223 BNSS; structured S.251 CrPC/S.274 BNSS questioning; interim compensation; physical listing; realistic evening-court thresholds; dashboards & HC committees) – Damodar S. Prabhu graded costs modified downward – Appeal allowed; HC order set aside; trial & appellate convictions restored; instalment payment ordered [Paras 11-18, 19-21, 27-32, 29-31, 32, 33-36, 37-39, 40].

Presumptions – Sections 118 & 139 NI Act – Once execution/signature admitted, presumptions of consideration and legally enforceable debt arise – APS Forex does not negate presumption for cash loans; it only recognises rebuttable nature shifting onus back upon rebuttal [Paras 15-18].

Income-tax Act – S.269SS/S.271D – Violation invites penalty but does not render cash loan illegal/void or unenforceable for S.138 purposes – Kerala HC view in P.C. Hari (2025 SCC OnLine Ker 5535) set aside [Paras 19-21].

Criminal Procedure – Revisional jurisdiction – High Court cannot reappreciate evidence to upset concurrent findings in absence of perversity/jurisdictional error [Paras 27-28].

Evidence – Financial capacity – Accused led no independent evidence; reading PW-1 as a whole showed capacity (partly from father/own borrowings); trial and sessions courts’ concurrent findings sustained [Paras 22-26].

Notice – Failure to reply to S.138 demand notice – Permits inference supporting complainant’s version; burden to raise capacity defence at reply stage emphasised [Paras 29-31].

Defence – “Signed blank cheque to help obtain bank loan” – Defence rejected as absurd/unbelievable on facts [Para 32].

Practice & Procedure – Pendency of S.138 Cases – SC issues detailed guidelines:

(A) Dasti + e-service of summons per BNSS 2023; complainant to furnish verified contact details

(B) Affidavit of service; false affidavit actionable

(C) QR/UPI payment facilities with option for early compounding

(D) Mandatory synopsis format for complaints

(E) No summons at pre-cognizance stage under S.223 BNSS

(F-G) Structured questioning under S.251 CrPC / S.274 BNSS at cognizance stage

(H) Use of interim deposit under S.143A NI Act

(I) Physical listing post-service; limited exemptions

(J) Realistic pecuniary limits for evening courts

(K) District dashboards for pendency and disposals

(L) HC committees for monitoring, ADR promotion [Paras 33-36].

Compounding – Damodar S. Prabhu guidelines revisited – New graded costs: Nil if payment made before defence evidence; 5% before judgment; 7.5% at revisional/appellate stage; 10% before Supreme Court – Courts may suggest compounding; if broader settlement demanded, court may accept guilty plea and consider Probation of Offenders Act benefits [Paras 37-39].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court’s 16/04/2009 order set aside – Trial and Sessions Court convictions restored – Respondent No.1 to pay ₹7,50,000 in 15 equal monthly instalments of ₹50,000 – Guidelines to be implemented by High Courts and District Courts not later than 01/11/2025 [Para 40].

Service Law – Lecturer Appointment – Rule Applicability – Appellant selected as Lecturer in History in 2006 under Assam Government Aided Junior College Management Rules, 2001 – Age condonation granted by Government for 2 years 7 months – Appointment approved and 18 years of continuous service rendered – High Court Division Bench wrongly applied Rule 19(iv) of Assam Secondary Education (Provincialisation) Service Rules, 2003 to aided post, quashing appointment – Held: 2003 Rules not applicable to aided colleges at the time of advertisement – Appointment validly made under 2001 Rules – Orders of Division Bench and Review dismissed as illegal – Appellant entitled to reinstatement with continuity but no back wages [Paras 2, 3, 5, 6, 7].

Education Law – Distinction Between Aided and Provincialised Institutions – 2001 Rules governed appointments in aided junior colleges pre-provincialisation – 2003 Rules under 1977 Act apply only post-provincialisation and cannot retrospectively invalidate appointments in aided institutions – High Court erred in conflating rules applicable to distinct statutory regimes [Paras 2, 3, 6].

Reinstatement – Break in Service – Appellant removed after review dismissal – Supreme Court directs reinstatement within 4 weeks without treating intervening period as break in service – Continuity of service for all purposes except back wages allowed [Para 7].