Civil Law - Res Judicata - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 11 Explanation IV - Constructive Res Judicata - Long-standing property dispute involving 95.80 acres originally belonging to Mahabir Rai - Earlier suits filed by or on behalf of appellant in 1960s and 1970s for cancellation of specific sale deeds for 21.43 and 33.76 acres respectively - Suits dismissed - Mutation sought by respondent in 1985 for the entire property including land not part of sales - Appellant filed suit in 1986 for declaration of title and possession of remaining 43.69 acres - High Court reversed lower court decrees holding suit barred by constructive res judicata as title claim based on 1960 deed should have been raised in earlier cancellation suits - Supreme Court held that earlier suits were specific to sale transactions and the appellant title to the larger parcel was not then threatened - Constructive res judicata cannot be applied where it leads to unduly harsh and unjust consequences offensive to law and equity - Held - High Court erred in its application of the doctrine - Impugned judgment set aside - [Paras 1-15].

Civil Law - Constructive Res Judicata - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 11 Explanation IV - Interpretation of Ought - Doctrine mandates that grounds which might and ought to have been employed in previous proceedings should be raised to avoid multiplicity - Supreme Court clarified that the word ought implies a threshold to be above mere possibility - Application of the rule is not uniform and depends on the nexus which the matter bears to the nature of the controversy - Parties are expected to apply reasonable diligence and legitimate purview - Held - The principle applies with equal force to negligence or inadvertence but its application must align with facts and circumstances of each case - [Paras 7-8].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and order of the High Court set aside – Parties to take recourse in law as permissible – No costs awarded.

Service Law - Recruitment - Haryana Cooperative Societies Act 1984 - Sections 27 and 36 - Primary Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Societies Limited Staff Service Rules 2003 - Rule 3 - Composition of Appointing Authority - Appellants were appointed in 2014 following a public advertisement and merit-based selection process - Appointments were later annulled by statutory authorities and the High Court on the ground that the Board of Directors meeting dated 13/08/2014 lacked the mandatory presence and concurrence of three official members as required under amended Rule 3 - Appellants rendered over ten years of unblemished service - Supreme Court held that the recruitment process is divisible into three stages: notification of vacancies - interview - and final appointment - Findings confirmed that the advertisement and interview stages were valid and free from fraud or manipulation - The defect was restricted to the third stage of taking the formal appointment decision - Held - Not every infraction of a recruitment procedure renders an appointment void in law - The absence of official members in the meeting was a curable procedural irregularity attributable to the authorities and not the candidates - Section 36 of the 1984 Act protects the acts of a society from invalidation due to defects in procedure or committee constitution - Appellants who entered service through a transparent process should not suffer for institutional lapses - Appeal allowed - [Paras 1-67].

Service Law - Severability of Recruitment Process - Haryana Cooperative Societies Act 1984 - Section 36 - Curable Irregularity - The Court analyzed the three phases of recruitment and determined that the final stage of passing the appointment resolution is severable from the earlier notification and interview phases - Held - A defect in the third phase does not necessarily vitiate the validity of the earlier stages - Rectification of the third phase can be achieved by directing the Board of Directors to revisit the 2014 recommendation with the mandated official members present - Procedural defects that do not go to the root of the selection merit are curable and not fatal - [Paras 52-62].

Constitutional Law - Public Employment Norms - Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 15 - Equality of Opportunity - Recruitment challenged on grounds of Rule 14(a) violation regarding medical certificates from private doctors and Rule 3 quorum - Held - The recruitment was conducted after adequate publicity in national newspapers satisfying constitutional mandates of equal opportunity - In the absence of fraud or lack of eligibility - a decade of continuous service creates an equitable interest that warrants protection against technical procedural defaults over which the employees had no control - Principles of fairness and proportionality require the preservation of appointments where only internal administrative formalities were deficient - [Paras 33-51].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment dated 29/07/2025 set aside – Respondent Society directed to reconvene the Board of Directors meeting within one month to reconsider the 2014 recommendations – Reconvened Board prohibited from re-opening the advertisement or interview stages – Appellants to be re-appointed with continuity of service for all purposes except arrears of pay if found eligible.

Writ Law - Compassionate Appointment - Haryana Civil Services (Compassionate Financial Assistance or Appointment) Rules 2019 - Rule 23(1) - Appellant’s father a Junior Basic Teacher - died in harness - Mother booked under Section 302 IPC for alleged murder conspiracy - Trial Court acquitted mother on benefit of doubt - Complainant filed criminal appeal against acquittal - State kept appellant’s claim for compassionate appointment in abeyance citing Rule 23(1) which suspends benefits during criminal proceedings - High Court upheld Rule 23(1) and dismissed writ petition as premature - Supreme Court observed Rule 23(1) textually applies only to financial assistance and not to appointment - Rules maintain structural distinction between monthly monetary assistance and permanent public employment - Rule 5(1)(g) defining family for appointment lacks the cascading failing qualifier used in Rule 5(1)(f) for financial assistance - Held - Rule 23(1) cannot be extended to appointments via judicial interpretation - High Court erred in importing sequential bar into Rule 5(1)(g) - appeal allowed - [Paras 1-53].

Constitutional Law - Right to Equality - Constitution of India - Article 14 - Rule 23(1) of Haryana Civil Services Rules 2019 - Validity of suspension clause - Rule 23(1) suspends financial assistance claims if a family member is charged with murdering the government employee - Appellant challenged rule as discriminatory - Supreme Court held rule is regulatory and preventive rather than penal - Classification has rational nexus with object of preventing criminals from benefiting from the victim’s death - Held - Rule 23(1) is constitutionally valid in its proper domain of financial assistance but inapplicable to the appellant’s claim for appointment - [Paras 40-42].

Service Law - Statutory Interpretation - Haryana Civil Services Rules 2019 - Rules 5(1)(f) and 5(1)(g) - Legislative intent regarding priority of claims - Rule 5(1)(f) uses cascading language - failing the preceding tier - to create a strict sequential bar - Rule 5(1)(g) regarding appointments provides a plain list without such terminology - Supreme Court held that the legislature is deemed to know the effect of language employed - Absence of failing qualifier in Rule 5(1)(g) means children are not excluded from consideration while widow’s claim is unresolved - especially if she relinquishes her right - Held - Respondents erred in law by invoking Rule 23(1) to defer appointment claim - [Paras 27-39].

Decision: Civil Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment of the High Court set aside – Respondents directed to consider and decide the appellant’s claim for compassionate appointment on merits within three months – Consideration to be uninfluenced by the pendency of criminal appeal against the mother.

Writ Law - Territorial Jurisdiction - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Appellant enrolled in BSF dismissed from service following inquiry into second marriage without permission - Dismissal order passed in West Bengal - Statutory petition rejected in Jammu - Writ petition filed in Delhi High Court on basis that BSF Headquarters and Ministry of Home Affairs located in Delhi - High Court dismissed citing forum non conveniens and cause of action arising elsewhere - Supreme Court observed that under Article 226(1) jurisdiction is referable to the situs of the respondent - Union of India and Director General BSF are necessary parties with offices in Delhi - Held - Delhi High Court possesses jurisdiction - Doctrine of forum non conveniens misapplied in context of writ jurisdiction under Article 226(1) where respondents are located within the territory - Impugned order set aside and writ petition revived - [Paras 1-40].

Writ Law - Forum Non Conveniens - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Principles - Choice of forum - Doctrine applies when multiple fora available and one is more convenient - However where a constitutional remedy is pursued under Article 226(1) based on the situs of the respondent the doctrine rarely applies - Suitor choosing forum convenient to the respondents cannot be non-suited - Records of the case for Certiorari usually available at respondent office - Held - Application of the doctrine to deny access to justice under Article 226(1) is self-defeating - [Paras 36-37].

Civil Law - Precedent - Conflict of coordinate benches - Supreme Court noted discordant notes between Abrar Ali and Kalyan Banerjee - Reconciliation of conflict regarding jurisdiction in service matters for CAPF personnel - Held - Notwithstanding cause of action arising elsewhere the Delhi High Court has jurisdiction under Article 226(1) due to the situs of the office of Union of India and Director General BSF - [Paras 17-27].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order of the Delhi High Court set aside – Writ petition revived for consideration on merits – Respondents granted two months to file counter affidavit.

Writ Law - Mining Lease - Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957 - Sections 10A 11(1) and 5(1) - Applicability of auction regime - PIL petitioner challenged the grant of iron ore mining lease to Respondent No. 2 pursuant to a 2010 application - Petitioner contended that in the absence of a formal order of grant before 2015 and execution before 2021 the application should have been treated as pending and subsequently ineligible under the amended Act - Respondent No. 2 held preferential rights under Section 11(1) having obtained a prospecting license in 2006 and submitting a report in 2010 - State Government recommended the grant in 2011 and the Central Government provided prior approval in 2012 - Court observed that Section 10A inserted in 2015 applies only to applications pending without disposal and decision - Held - Since the decision to grant was made and approved prior to 12.01.2015 the application was not pending and Section 10A had no applicability - The transition from allotment to auction does not affect cases where a decision was already finalized before the amendment date - [Paras 1-8].

Writ Law - Statutory Interpretation - Mineral Concession Rules 1960 - Rules 63A and 22(4) - Definition of disposal - Petitioner argued that lack of communication of a formal grant order before 2015 meant the application remained pending - Rule 63A second proviso clarifies that for minerals listed in the First Schedule such as Iron Ore disposal means the recommendation by the State Government to the Central Government for grant of the concession - Rule 22(4) distinguishes between taking a decision to grant and communicating such a decision - Held - For First Schedule minerals the recommendation itself constitutes disposal - Formal non-communication of the grant order for execution does not diminish the accrued and vested rights of the concession holder where the decision was taken and prior approval obtained - [Paras 4-5].

Writ Law - Public Interest Litigation - Mining Operations - Environmental Clearances - Requirement of statutory approvals - Petitioner claimed public interest necessitated the auction route under Section 10(4) - State Government had obtained legal opinion from the Attorney General for India and consulted the Law Department before issuing the grant order - Held - The notion of public interest in not resorting to auction is misplaced when vested rights were established under the prevailing law - No illegality exists in the impugned order - However no mining operation shall be carried out without obtaining all statutory approvals including mining plan environment clearance and forest clearance - [Paras 4-7].

Decision: PIL dismissed – Pending applications stand disposed of – Relevant authorities directed to consider statutory clearances on their own merits expeditiously.

Civil Law - SARFAESI Auction - Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002 - Rules 9(3) and 9(4) - Mandatory timelines for deposit of sale price - Appellant daughter of deceased guarantor challenged 2010 auction sale on ground that balance 75 percent was paid after the 15-day statutory period without a written agreement for extension - Trial before DRT and DRAT and High Court resulted in dismissal of challenge citing delay by borrower and perceived equities for auction purchaser - Supreme Court found that auction occurred on 11.03.2010 with 25 percent deposit made on 10/11.03.2010 - The 15-day period for balance 75 percent payment expired on 26.03.2010 but payment was admittedly made only on 31.03.2010 - No written agreement for extension of time existed between the secured creditor and the auction purchaser - Held - Rule 9 provisions are mandatory and go to the root of the validity of the sale - Any deviation from the timeline absent legally sustainable justification or written agreement renders the process vitiated - Auction sale quashed and set aside - [Paras 1-41].

Civil Law - Interpretation of Statutes - Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002 - Rule 9 - Mandatory Nature - Validity of auction conducted under statutory regime is not to be tested on equitable considerations but strictly on whether the mandate of the statute and rules has been breached - Rule 9(3) and 9(4) are for the benefit of the secured creditor and borrower and while they can be waived by mutual consent - such extension must be by written agreement between the parties - Failure to adhere to the timeline constitutes a material irregularity going to the root of the matter - Held - Rights of an auction purchaser must yield where the process engendering the sale is demonstrated to be legally infirm - [Paras 24-28 and 32-36].

Civil Law - Right of Redemption - Article 142 of the Constitution of India - Balancing Equities and Restitution - Sale set aside due to procedural non-compliance not attributable to the auction purchaser - Appellant as legal heir expressed willingness to redeem by filing multiple applications before the DRT - Court exercised jurisdiction under Article 142 to balance competing equities - Auction purchaser directed to receive refund of entire deposit with 7 percent interest per annum from the secured creditor - Appellant granted a one-time opportunity to redeem the mortgage by paying the original demand amount of Rs 95,42,372.52 with 5 percent interest per annum from the date of Section 13(2) notice - Held - Failure of appellant to avail this opportunity will result in fresh auction with a fresh valuation report from a government-empanelled valuer - [Paras 40-46].

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – Auction sale quashed – Restitution ordered for auction purchaser with 7% interest – Appellant granted one-time opportunity to redeem the secured asset upon payment of dues with 5% interest.

Writ Law - Territorial Jurisdiction - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Forum Non Conveniens - Appellant BSF member dismissed from service for contracting second marriage without permission - Dismissal order passed in West Bengal and statutory appeal rejected in Jammu and Kashmir - Appellant filed writ petition in Delhi High Court citing location of BSF Headquarters and Ministry of Home Affairs - Division Bench of Delhi High Court dismissed petition invoking doctrine of forum non conveniens stating no cause of action arose in Delhi - Supreme Court observed that Article 226(1) permits filing based on situs of office of respondents - Union of India and Director General BSF are necessary parties with offices in Delhi - Held - Delhi High Court has competence to entertain petition as jurisdiction is clearly referable to Article 226(1) - doctrine of forum non conveniens misapplied as it should not deny access to justice when suitor chooses a forum convenient to respondents - impugned order set aside - [Paras 1-40].

Writ Law - Forum Non Conveniens - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Situs of Respondent - Court examined applicability of doctrine of forum non conveniens where jurisdiction is traceable to Article 226(1) - Held - Where a constitutional remedy is pursued and jurisdiction is based on the location of the respondents office the doctrine of forum non conveniens may rarely apply - filing a writ of certiorari requires records usually available at respondents head office - a suitor choosing the forum of the respondent should not be non-suited on this ground as it defeats access to justice - [Paras 36-39].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order of Delhi High Court set aside – Writ petition revived for consideration on merits – Respondents granted two months to file counter-affidavit.

Criminal Law - Reference to Third Judge - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 392 - Scope of jurisdiction - Three siblings were convicted by the Trial Court under Sections 302/149 and 148 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment - On appeal to the High Court a Division Bench delivered split opinions - Both Judges upheld the conviction of two siblings but differed on the third sibling - The matter was referred to a third Judge under Section 392 CrPC - The referee Judge not only acquitted the sibling in respect of whom there was a difference of opinion but also reversed the unanimous findings of the Division Bench to acquit the other two siblings - Complainant and State filed appeals before the Supreme Court - The Court examined whether a referee Judge is a Judge of the case or a Judge of the appeal - Significant difference in phraseology between Section 429 of the 1898 Code and Section 392 of the 1973 Code noted - Court doubted the precedent in Sajjan Singh v. State of M.P. which allowed the third Judge to examine the whole case independently including unanimous findings - Held - The question of whether a third Judge is bound by unanimous conclusions of the Division Bench on certain aspects requires authoritative determination - Matter referred to a larger bench - [Paras 1-42].

Interpretation of Statutes - Grammar and Syntax - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 392 - Use of articles - The provision opens with the phrase an appeal and is followed by the appeal - Indefinite article an sets up the class while the definite article the refers back to the specific instance of disagreement - Comparison with Section 429 of the 1898 Code which used the term the case - Court observed that the legislature is prone to use indefinite articles for first mentions and definite articles anaphorically to limit subsequent clauses - Held - Sajjan Singh did not advert to the anaphoric use of the definite article and is thus distinguishable or requires reconsideration - [Paras 29-34].

Criminal Law - Judicial Discipline and Propriety - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 392 - Potential for anomalous results - Supreme Court noted that a mechanical application of the rule in Sajjan Singh could lead to irrational outcomes where a third Judge might reverse a unanimous acquittal recorded by the referring bench - Such an approach could lead to discrimination between litigants filing composite appeals versus separate appeals - Article 14 of the Constitution implicated - Held - Principles of judicial comity and discipline necessitate a deeper study of the jurisdiction of the third Judge - [Paras 35-41].

Decision: Reference made to a larger bench – Questions regarding the scope of Section 392 CrPC referred to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for constitution of an appropriate Bench.

Civil Law - Mining Royalty - Mines and Minerals Development and Regulation Act 1957 - Section 9 - Enhancement of royalty rate - Respondent was successful bidder in e-auction for iron ore lots in July 2014 - Tender conditions stipulated royalty at 10 percent plus additional deposit for future variance - Central Government amended Second Schedule of MMDR Act on 01-09-2014 increasing royalty to 15 percent - Respondent removed mineral after the amendment - Monitoring Committee deducted 5 percent difference from security deposit - High Court quashed the deduction holding royalty was frozen at time of bid - Supreme Court reversed the decision holding that royalty is a statutory impost linked to removal or dispatch of mineral - Held - Contractual provisions must give way to statutory amendments - Appeal allowed - [Paras 1-14].

Civil Law - Statutory Interpretation - Mines and Minerals Development and Regulation Act 1957 - Section 9 - Definition of dispatch - Court examined Section 9 and 9-Judge Bench decision in Mineral Area Development Authority case - Stated that royalty becomes payable upon removal or consumption of mineral from leased area - Interpretation of the word applicable in auction terms means the rate prevalent at time of removal - Held - Liability for enhanced royalty cannot be escaped if movement occurs after statutory amendment - [Paras 11-13].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of the High Court of Karnataka quashed – The appellant is entitled to the enhanced royalty of 15 percent.