Title and Possession of Property – Ownership Claim through Sale Deed Validated – Plaintiff appellant’s ownership of disputed land established through registered sale deed dated 21.01.1966 from erstwhile Zamindar. Attempt to construct on land led to dispute in 1975. Trial Court and First Appellate Court's findings upheld, decreeing suit for possession in plaintiff's favor. High Court's dismissal on grounds of limitation, based on adverse possession claim by defendants, set aside. [Paras 1-9.6]

Adverse Possession – Incorrect Application by High Court – High Court erred in applying concept of adverse possession. First, plaintiff's ownership was not disputed; second, the defendants' possession, originating from tenancy, could not be adverse to the Zamindars or the subsequent owner, plaintiff appellant. The suit filed in 1975 was within 12 years of the sale deed, negating adverse possession claim. [Paras 9-9.5]

Non-Agricultural Land – Relevance in Zamindari Abolition – First Appellate Court found the disputed land to be non-agricultural, negating defendants' claim of ownership through Zamindari abolition. This finding, not disturbed by the High Court, supported the plaintiff’s title claim. [Para 9.6]

Decision – High Court's Judgment Set Aside, First Appellate Court’s Decree Upheld – Supreme Court allows the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment on limitation grounds. Upholds the First Appellate Court's decree for possession in favor of the plaintiff appellant. [Para 10]

Insolvency and Bankruptcy – Application of Section 30(2)(b)(ii) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) to dissenting financial creditors – Entitlement to payment not less than the liquidation value of their security interest – Applicability of the IBC (Amendment) Act, 2019 to pending proceedings and appeals. [Para 22, 23, 24]

Secured Creditors – Different treatment of secured financial creditors based on the nature of their security – Protection of minority autonomy of creditors under Section 30(2)(b)(ii) of the IBC – Requirement for payment to dissenting financial creditors equivalent to their security interest value. [Para 25, 26, 27]

Committee of Creditors (CoC) – Authority to decide the distribution of resolution proceeds – Commercial wisdom of CoC respected – Minimum payment protection for operational creditors and dissenting financial creditors under Section 30(2)(b)(ii). [Para 25, 30, 35, 36]

Legal Interpretation – Interpretation of Section 30(2)(b)(ii) and its application to dissenting financial creditors – Ensuring fair and equitable treatment in the resolution process – Dissenting financial creditors entitled to liquidation value of their security interest. [Para 33, 34, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49]

Judicial Discrepancy – Contradiction in judicial reasoning in India Resurgence ARC Private Limited case – Referral to a larger bench for clarification on the interpretation of Section 30(2)(b)(ii) of the IBC. [Para 31, 37, 49]

Decision – Resolution plan approval by NCLT and NCLAT challenged – Dissenting creditor’s claim for liquidation value of security interest under scrutiny – Matter referred to a larger bench for definitive interpretation of Section 30(2)(b)(ii) of the IBC. [Para 17, 18, 49]

Judicial Discipline and Precedent - Importance of adhering to judicial discipline and doctrine of precedents emphasized - Binding nature of decisions of co-equal benches of the same High Court, subject to the right to refer to a larger bench - Ensures certainty and consistency in judicial decisions. [Para 1]

Property Rights Dispute - Appeal against the judgment of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court - Original suit filed for declaration of title, possession, and permanent injunction - Initial suits and appeals culminated in a High Court decision, deemed final. [Paras 2-4]

Property Possession and Title - Trial Court's partial decree and subsequent modifications by the appellate courts - Controversy over whether the High Court's earlier decision covered the entire property or only a part - Issue of interpreting the scope of the previous High Court judgment. [Paras 5-12]

Doctrine of Merger - Legal principle that lower court judgments merge into the appellate court's decision - Ensures a single operative order on a subject matter - Trial Court and First Appellate Court decisions merged with the High Court's decision in the first round of litigation. [Paras 13, 17]

Judicial Discipline Violation - High Court's second round decision seen as contrary to its own previous judgment - Accusations of breaching judicial discipline by not adhering to the established facts and conclusions of the earlier judgment. [Paras 14-16, 20]

Property Boundaries and Possession Claims - Analysis of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court judgments in the context of property boundaries and possession claims - Clarification of the property in dispute and the basis of possession claims. [Paras 22-23]

Decision - Supreme Court allows the appeal - Sets aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and restores the judgment of the First Appellate Court dated 13.10.2003 - Upholds the principle of judicial discipline and correct interpretation of prior judgments. [Paras 24-25]

Abduction and Attempted Murder – Neeraj Sharma and Ashwani Kumar Yadav convicted for abduction and attempted murder of Arjit Sharma (PW-6) - Incident involved choking the victim with a motorcycle clutch wire, setting him on fire, and robbing him - Victim sustained 45-48% burns leading to amputation of his right leg [Paras 2-3, 9-10].

Conviction and Sentence – Trial court convicted appellants under Sections 307/120B, 364-A, and 392/397 IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment under Section 364-A IPC for attempted murder - High Court upheld the conviction and sentence [Para 2].

Evidence and Witness Testimonies – Reliance on the victim’s testimony (PW-6), medical evidence (PW-4, PW-9), and other witnesses - Complainant's testimony crucial, corroborated by medical evidence of severe burn injuries and witness accounts [Paras 4, 8-10].

Questioning Section 364-A Conviction – Supreme Court analyzed the applicability of Section 364-A IPC (kidnapping or abduction with ransom demands) - Found prosecution failed to establish a ransom demand, crucial for Section 364-A - Conviction under Section 364-A IPC set aside [Paras 12-16].

Conversion of Conviction – Supreme Court converted the conviction from Section 364-A to Section 364 IPC (kidnapping or abducting to murder) - Sentenced appellants to rigorous imprisonment of ten years and a fine of Rs. 10,000 each under Section 364 IPC [Para 17].

Compensation to Victim – Directed State of Chhattisgarh to pay Rs. 5,00,000 as compensation to the victim under Section 357A of Cr.PC - Acknowledged the severe impact on the victim’s life [Para 20].

Decision – Convictions under Sections 307/120B and 392/397 IPC affirmed, but conviction under Section 364-A IPC set aside and replaced with Section 364 IPC. Appellants sentenced to ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine, with compensation awarded to the victim.

Murder and Concealment of Evidence – Conviction Affirmed by Supreme Court – Appellant Perumal Raja @ Perumal convicted for murder of Rajini @ Rajinikanth under Section 302 and Section 201 of the IPC – High Court's judgment affirming conviction upheld – Conviction based on circumstantial evidence including recovery of deceased’s body parts and belongings, and superimposition report confirming identity. [Para 2, 3, 31]

Circumstantial Evidence – Principles for Conviction – Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires satisfaction of the 'panchsheel' principles – Circumstances must point only towards the guilt of the accused, forming a conclusive chain that excludes every hypothesis except guilt. [Para 37]

Section 27 of the Evidence Act – Admissibility of Statements Leading to Discovery – Statements made by the appellant leading to recovery of evidence admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act – Statements must directly relate to and lead to discovery of a fact. [Para 19, 20, 22, 25, 30]

Absence of Direct Eyewitnesses – Reliance on Recovery and Forensic Evidence – In absence of eyewitnesses, conviction based on recoveries made from appellant's disclosure, forensic evidence, and superimposition report – Recovery of body parts and belongings crucial in establishing guilt. [Para 32, 33, 34, 35, 36]

False Explanation by Accused – Consideration as an Additional Link in Circumstantial Evidence – Appellant's false explanation considered as an additional link in the chain of circumstantial evidence, reinforcing the conclusion of guilt. [Para 38, 39, 40]

Acquittal of Co-accused – Different Evidentiary Standards – Acquittal of co-accused not impacting appellant's conviction – Co-accused acquitted due to lack of direct evidence implicating them. [Para 43]

Decision – Supreme Court Upholds High Court’s Judgment – Appellant Perumal Raja @ Perumal’s conviction for murder and concealment of evidence affirmed – Appeal dismissed, maintaining life imprisonment and fines as sentenced. [Para 45]

Property Dispute – Suit for Declaration and Injunction – Dismissal of suit by Trial Court and First Appellate Court upheld; High Court's decision reversing their findings set aside – Plaintiffs failed to prove oral partition and will as per statutory requirements – Appeal allowed. [Paras 2, 3, 6-8, 12-15]

Evidence – Burden of Proof – Plaintiffs unable to substantiate claim of oral partition and execution of will in favor of plaintiffs – Reliance on unconnected documents insufficient to establish oral partition or plaintiffs' ownership. [Paras 6, 12, 13]

Partition – Oral Partition – Requirement of Proof – Oral partition not established through credible evidence – High Court's reliance on unrelated sale and mortgage deeds to conclude oral partition erroneous. [Para 10, 12, 13]

Will – Execution and Proof – Plaintiffs' claim based on will not established as per Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 63 of Indian Succession Act, 1956 – Trial Court and First Appellate Court's findings on lack of proof upheld. [Para 6]

Civil Procedure – Second Appeal – High Court's interference in factual findings of lower courts found unwarranted – High Court's judgment set aside for not conforming to the scope of Section 100 of CPC and for being perverse in appreciating evidence. [Paras 10, 14]

Decision – High Court's judgment in favor of plaintiffs set aside – Trial Court and First Appellate Court's dismissal of suit confirmed – Appeal allowed with no order as to costs. [Para 15]

Insurance Policy – Commencement Date Determination – Interpretation of insurance policy terms to ascertain the effective date of policy commencement – Focus on the dates of policy issuance, premium payment, and risk acceptance in determining policy start date. [Para 2-4, 9-11]

Suicide Clause in Insurance Policy – Application of suicide clause in life insurance policies – Analysis of policy terms regarding suicide within 12 months of policy issue or reinstatement – Importance of policy reinstatement date in determining the applicability of the suicide clause. [Para 5, 6, 8]

Policy Reinstatement – Impact on Suicide Clause – Consideration of policy reinstatement in the context of suicide clause enforcement – Determination of policy effectiveness from the reinstatement date in cases of lapsed and subsequently reinstated policies. [Para 6, 8]

Judicial Interpretation of Insurance Contracts – Adherence to Contractual Terms – Emphasis on strict interpretation of insurance policy terms and conditions – Importance of honoring specific expressions and dates mentioned in the policy contract. [Para 12-14]

Decision – Setting Aside Lower Forum Orders – Supreme Court's decision to set aside orders of the District Forum, State Commission, and National Commission based on misinterpretation of policy commencement and suicide clause – Appeals allowed, rejecting the claims of the respondents. [Para 15-16]

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Conviction and Sentence – Appellant and intervenor convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act – Sentenced to ten months of simple imprisonment and directed to pay a total of Rs. 5 crores in three cases – Conviction and sentence affirmed by the Sessions Court and High Court [Paras 1-5, 7].

Bail and Suspension of Sentence – Violation of Undertaking – High Court cancelled bail and suspension of sentence due to non-compliance with financial obligations under an undertaking – Appellant and intervenor failed to pay the agreed amount of Rs. 4.63 crores as per the payment schedule – High Court's order upheld by Supreme Court [Paras 4, 9-12, 17, 19].

Inter Se Agreement – Payment Proportions – Appellant and intervenor's internal agreement on payment proportions (60:40) not binding on the complainant – Dispute over the outstanding amount to be settled between appellant and intervenor – Supreme Court refrains from adjudicating on inter se payment dispute [Paras 13-16].

High Court's Discretion – Enforcement of Undertaking – Supreme Court emphasizes High Court's discretion in enforcing compliance with the undertaking – Orders compliance with original terms of settlement and directs coercive measures if necessary [Paras 18-20].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Supreme Court dismisses the appeal with costs of Rs. 5 lakhs payable to respondent No. 2 (complainant) – Appellant and intervenor directed to surrender within four weeks – High Court to proceed with pending revisions and applications ensuring full compliance with the undertaking [Paras 19-21].

Separation of Powers – High Court’s Power to Direct Notification of Rules Proposed by Chief Justice – Inadequate power under Article 229 to frame rules for post-retiral benefits of former judges – High Court, acting on judicial side, cannot compel the executive to exercise rule-making power as directed. [Para 24-30]

Criminal Contempt – Inappropriateness of Initiating Criminal Contempt for Legal Challenges – Recall application by State Government not contemptuous – Distinction between civil and criminal contempt – High Court's action in hastily invoking criminal contempt and custody of officials not justified. [Para 31-37]

Summoning Government Officials – Guidelines and Limitations – Inappropriate frequent summoning of government officials – Reliance on law officers instead of direct summoning – Framing of Standard Operating Procedure for appearance of government officials in court. [Para 38-45]

Decision – Impugned Orders Set Aside – Appeals allowed – High Court directed to reconsider the writ petition in light of observations made – Communication of judgment to all High Courts for framing rules based on SOP. [Para 46-49]