Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Blanket Protection from Arrest – High Court, while refusing to quash FIR under Article 226, granted protection from arrest till filing of charge sheet – Held: Self-contradictory and impermissible – Once FIR is not quashed, High Court cannot mechanically grant anticipatory-bail-like protection in writ jurisdiction – Such directions prejudice investigation and violate settled law [Paras 5–7].

Article 226 – Scope – High Court’s power to grant pre-arrest protection is exceptional and must be exercised sparingly – Cannot be used to bypass statutory scheme of anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC – Persons seeking protection must approach Sessions Court first – Blanket orders of “no arrest/no coercive steps” are wholly impermissible, as reiterated in Neeharika Infrastructure [Paras 7–7.1].

Investigation – Judicial Interference – Directions restraining arrest during entire investigation, despite not quashing FIR, amount to unjustified interference – No rationale in protecting accused while simultaneously directing expeditious investigation – Orders undermine fairness and efficacy of investigation [Paras 5–6].

Remand – Fresh Consideration – Supreme Court sets aside High Court orders dated 16.06.2025 and 15.07.2025 – Matters remitted to High Court to reconsider quashing petitions on merits, uninfluenced by previous observations – Interim protection to continue until petitions are decided, to avoid prejudice [Paras 8–11].

Insolvency Law – IBC - Moratorium under Section 14 – Scope – Corporate debtor (developer) failed to commence or complete redevelopment project despite multiple extensions – Society terminated the Development Agreement and executed new agreement with another developer prior to initiation of second CIRP – Held: Section 14 does not protect development rights already terminated before CIRP – Such terminated contractual rights do not constitute “assets” under IBC [Paras 16.4–16.12, 21(ii)]

Termination of Development Agreement – Legality – Agreement dated 16.10.2005 and Supplementary Agreements of 2005 and 2014 terminated by society citing prolonged defaults in performance, including failure to pay rent, non-demolition and non-construction – Termination effected by notices in 2019 and 2021 – Held: Termination was lawful, not related to insolvency, and fell outside NCLT jurisdiction under Section 60(5)(c) – IBC cannot protect commercial indolence in projects of public welfare [Paras 15–15.14, 21(i)]

Urban Redevelopment – Nature of Rights – Developer under slum redevelopment does not acquire possessory or proprietary interest unless stipulated – Held: Appellant was a mere licensee, had no physical possession – Development rights were conditional and executory – Not enforceable assets under Section 3(27) IBC – Moratorium under Section 14(1)(d) not attracted [Paras 15.10–15.13, 16.6–16.9]

Writ Jurisdiction – Maintainability during CIRP – High Court passed directions under Article 226 to statutory authorities to process redevelopment approvals for new developer – Held: Constitutional courts’ jurisdiction not ousted by IBC – Public law remedies can coexist with CIRP where no interference in NCLT domain – High Court rightly ensured statutory duties were discharged [Paras 17.1–17.8, 21(iii)]

Natural Justice – Allegation of Procedural Violation – Appellants alleged denial of fair opportunity before High Court – Held: Appellants were represented by counsel, no adjournment sought, no prejudice shown – Writ petition did not seek direct relief against appellants – Directions were procedural and administrative – No breach of audi alteram partem rule [Paras 18–18.10, 21(iv)]

Redevelopment and Social Welfare – Balancing of Equities – Developer’s delay and inaction caused hardship to lower-income society members awaiting rehabilitation – Held: IBC moratorium cannot be used to frustrate urban renewal or delay housing projects – Social welfare of citizens must prevail over defunct contractual claims – Constitutional promise of dignified housing must be honoured [Paras 23–23.3]

Precedents – Gujarat Urja, TCS Ltd., Embassy Property, Rajendra Bhutta – Considered – Held: Moratorium protects only existing, subsisting and enforceable rights – NCLT jurisdiction confined to cases where contract is central to corporate survival and termination is linked to insolvency – In present case, contract was not central and was terminated for cause [Paras 15.5–15.8, 16.6–16.9, 17.2]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Termination of developer agreement upheld – Development rights not protected under IBC – High Court’s direction to authorities affirmed – Redevelopment to proceed as per directions – Appellants at liberty to pursue remedies for expenditure claims.

Negotiable Instruments – Jurisdiction – Territorial jurisdiction under Section 142(2)(a) NI Act – Complaint under Section 138 is triable only in court where payee maintains the account – Explanation to Section 142(2)(a) creates legal fiction deeming cheque delivered at any branch as delivered at home branch – Held: Jurisdiction cannot be fixed at the place of cheque deposit for collection if different from payee’s bank branch where account is maintained – Ensures uniformity and clarity in trial jurisdiction post-amendment [Paras 54-58, 76]

Interpretation of Statute – Explanation to Section 142(2)(a) – Legal fiction – Deeming provision clarifies that delivery for collection at any bank branch shall be deemed delivery to payee’s home branch – Prevents forum shopping – Held: Interpretation must avoid circumvention of jurisdictional safeguards and uphold purpose of statutory reform under 2015 amendment [Paras 68-70, 73]

Precedent – Yogesh Upadhyay v. Atlanta Ltd. – Overruled – Yogesh Upadhyay interpreted Section 142(2)(a) to prioritise the place of cheque deposit – Court held such interpretation overlooks the Explanation and statutory fiction – Declared per incuriam – Clarified that delivery for collection is legally deemed to occur at home branch, not place of physical deposit – Reaffirmed Bridgestone India and distinguished reasoning in Sendhur Agro Industries [Paras 65, 67, 75]

Transfer of Pending Case – Section 145(2) NI Act – Complaint was originally filed before MM, Kolkata – Proceedings had reached stage of recording complainant's evidence before return of complaint for lack of jurisdiction post-amendment – Held: In line with Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod, complaints which reached evidence stage prior to amendment must remain with existing court to avoid prejudice – Re-transfer to MM, Kolkata directed to resume from pre-return stage [Paras 77-80]

Statutory Interpretation – Harmonious construction – Explanation must clarify, not override or distort main provision – Court emphasised that Section 142(2)(a) must be interpreted as per legislative purpose to provide specific jurisdiction and prevent jurisdictional misuse – Held: Statement of Objects and Reasons cannot override plain language of Explanation – Interpretation in Yogesh Upadhyay disregards Explanation and allows jurisdictional manipulation [Para 70(i)-(ii)]

Jurisdiction Post-Amendment – Conflict between pre-amendment judgments and amended law resolved – Court explained that 2015 Amendment intended to overcome accused-centric interpretation in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod – However, intention was not to reintroduce misuse potential under Bhaskaran – Held: Legislative design balances convenience of payee with fairness to accused through deeming fiction [Paras 39, 56-58, 70]

Doctrine of Per Incuriam – Applied to Yogesh Upadhyay – Judgment declared per incuriam for failing to consider binding Explanation to Section 142(2)(a) and misreading legislative intent – Clarified that subsequent courts are not bound by decisions that overlook express statutory provisions [Paras 75, 68]

Decision: Petition allowed – Complaint and all related proceedings under Section 138 NI Act transferred back to Metropolitan Magistrate, Kolkata – Proceedings to resume from stage prior to return order dated 28.07.2016 – All connected transfer petitions also disposed of accordingly.

Civil Law - Order 38 Civil Procedure Code (CPC) – Attachment Before Judgment – Fraudulent Transfer – Registered sale deed executed prior to institution of suit – Held: Attachment before judgment under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC cannot extend to property already transferred before the suit – Attachment is a protective mechanism, not a tool to defeat completed transactions – Claim petition under Order XXXVIII Rule 8 CPC is maintainable in such circumstances – Courts below erred in treating the attachment proceeding as a trial under Section 53 of the T.P. Act [Paras 11.1, 13, 20(a)-(d), 21]

Transfer of Property – Section 53 T.P. Act – Burden of Proving Fraud – The burden to prove fraudulent intent lies on the party alleging fraud – Mere suspicion, partial cash payments or prior dealings do not suffice – Bona fide purchaser for consideration is protected under the proviso to Section 53 – Sale deed supported by prior agreement, registered documentation, and delivery of possession – No material to prove collusion or intent to defraud [Paras 14-16]

Equitable Principles – Prior Agreement to Sell – Rights of Attaching Creditor – Agreement dated 10.05.2002 followed by registered sale deed on 28.06.2004 – Property no longer vested in judgment debtor at time of suit – Attachment cannot override contractual obligations created by prior agreement – Consideration partly adjusted against existing debts valid under Section 25 of the Contract Act [Paras 16-17]

Adjudicatory Limits – Order XXXVIII Rule 8 and Order XXI Rule 58 CPC – Scope – Proceedings under Rule 8 CPC incorporate Rule 58 of Order XXI – These are procedural and intended to safeguard third-party rights – Cannot substitute a substantive adjudication under Section 53 T.P. Act – Courts below erred in exceeding this scope by declaring the transfer fraudulent in claim proceedings [Paras 11.2, 13, 20(d)]

Binding Precedents – Applicability – Supreme Court reiterated principles from Hamda Ammal v. Avadiappa Pathar, Vannarakkal Kallalathil Sreedharan v. Chandramaath Balakrishnan, and Rajender Singh v. Ramdhar Singh – Held: Attachment cannot prevail over a prior registered sale deed – Title of bona fide purchaser not affected by post-transfer attachment [Paras 17-19]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Sale deed dated 28.06.2004 declared valid – Attachment before judgment held inapplicable – Orders of trial court and High Court set aside – Claim petition under Order XXXVIII Rule 8 CPC allowed

Arbitration Law – Section 11(6) – Judicial Review – High Court, having appointed arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the A&C Act, later reviewed and dismissed the same petition on ground of invalidity of Clause 25 – Held: Such review impermissible – Section 11(6) does not confer any revisional or appellate power to re-adjudicate issues already settled – High Court became functus officio after appointment – Review jurisdiction wrongly invoked to revisit settled interpretation [Paras 11.1–11.15]

Arbitration Agreement – Existence and Validity – Clause 25 of contract between parties provided for dispute resolution through arbitration with a specific appointment procedure – Held: Clause 25 satisfied the requirements of Section 7 of the A&C Act – Arbitration agreement valid and binding – Prior arbitration between same parties under same clause further established existence of valid arbitration mechanism – Subsequent dispute over extended period arbitrable under same clause [Paras 12.1–12.8, 12.17]

Unilateral Appointment Clause – Validity and Severability – Clause 25 vested appointment power solely in Managing Director and stated arbitration would not proceed if appointment not made – Held: Such unilateral clause violates principles of neutrality, equality and Article 14 – Portion of clause disabling arbitration to be severed – Doctrine of severability invoked – Core arbitration agreement preserved, appointment process corrected under Section 11(6) [Paras 12.9–12.16]

Section 29A Extension – Waiver by Conduct – Respondents joined in multiple applications under Section 29A to extend mandate of arbitrator – Held: Though Section 12(5) requires express post-dispute written waiver, participation and joint applications under Section 29A amount to waiver under Section 4 – Respondents estopped from challenging arbitrator’s mandate after years of participation [Paras 13.1–13.13]

Precedential Value – Dismissal of SLP – High Court relied on earlier case (Kashish Developers) said to be “affirmed” by SC due to SLP dismissal – Held: Dismissal of SLP without reasons does not amount to law declared under Article 141 – Does not bind other benches – Reliance on such dismissal misplaced – Precedent value confined to that case alone [Paras 14–14.3]

Public Contracts – Model Litigant Conduct – Respondent PSU delayed appointment, resisted arbitration after years of participation – Held: Conduct unjustified – State entities must act fairly and promptly – Warning issued to Managing Director – Caution against future recurrence of administrative apathy in contractual obligations [Paras 19–19.2]

Relief – Appeal Allowed – Impugned judgment set aside – High Court directed to appoint substitute arbitrator within two weeks – Proceedings to resume from stage at which they were interrupted – De novo hearing avoided in interest of efficiency and fairness [Paras 18, 20]

Criminal Law – Bail – Parity – Scope and Limit – Grant of bail to accused Rajveer on the sole ground of parity with co-accused Suresh Pal – High Court failed to assess role, gravity, or impact of offence – Supreme Court reiterates that parity must be grounded in similarity of role, not just involvement in same offence – Held: Grant of bail solely on parity is erroneous [Paras 6–12, 14–15].

Criminal Law – Role-Based Bail Analysis – Appellant alleged that Rajveer instigated shooting of deceased Sonveer – FIR disclosed active participation and instigation – Role of Rajveer distinct from Suresh Pal, who was merely part of armed group – Held: No basis for equating both on parity – Orders granting bail quashed [Paras 3, 15].

Bail Jurisprudence – Requirements for Grant – Bail order must reflect judicial application of mind – Parity cannot override factors like role, gravity, antecedents, and potential to influence trial – High Court erred in granting bail without recording reasons or distinguishing roles – Held: Orders bereft of reasoning violate principles of natural justice [Paras 10–13, 20].

Judicial Discipline – Precedents on Parity – Supreme Court surveys decisions from various High Courts and apex court confirming that parity is not an absolute ground for bail – Must be examined with full context, role, and factual similarity – Uniform view against mechanical grant of bail on parity alone [Paras 13.1–13.7].

Criminal Law – Grant of Bail to Prince – Co-accused Prince granted bail by High Court without assigning reasons – No analysis of role, gravity, or applicability of cited precedents – Held: Such non-speaking order violates settled principles – Matter remanded for fresh consideration [Paras 17–20].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Bail granted to accused Rajveer and Prince set aside – Rajveer directed to surrender within two weeks – Matter of Prince remanded to High Court for reconsideration as per law.

Criminal Law – Dowry Death – Cancellation of Bail – Respondent No. 1 (husband) accused of poisoning wife within four months of marriage after dowry harassment – Post-mortem showed ante-mortem abrasion and FSL confirmed aluminium phosphide poisoning – Dying declaration made to family members disclosed forcible administration of toxic substance – Held: High Court erred in granting bail without considering statutory presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act and gravity of offence – Bail order found to be perverse and legally unsustainable – Annulled by Supreme Court [Paras 1, 5–6, 12–17, 22–24].

Presumption under Section 113B Evidence Act – Applicability – Marriage took place on 22.02.2023, death occurred on 05.06.2023 – Evidence indicated cruelty and harassment soon before death – Prosecution’s burden to establish proximity and causal link satisfied – Statutory presumption of dowry death against accused attracted – High Court failed to apply mandatory presumption under Section 113B – Interference justified [Paras 17–20].

Bail Jurisprudence – Distinction between Grant and Cancellation – Annulment permissible where bail granted ignoring material facts or settled principles – Appellate court may interfere even without post-bail misconduct – Law laid down in State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan, Puran v. Rambilas and Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. followed – Personal liberty cannot override societal interest in serious offences like dowry death [Paras 11, 18].

Maintainability – Complainant’s Right to Challenge Bail – Appellant (father of deceased) held to have locus standi – Cited precedents R. Rathinam v. State and Brij Nandan Jaiswal v. Munna Jaiswal – Victim’s family may seek cancellation of bail even in absence of state appeal – Appeal maintainable [Paras 10–10.3].

Dowry Death – Societal Impact – Observations on the rising menace of dowry-related violence – Court noted misuse of marriage as a transactional arrangement and emphasized deterrent response to such gender-based offences – Judiciary cannot remain passive or lenient in face of institutional violence against women [Paras 25–25.3].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Bail granted to Respondent No. 1 by High Court cancelled – Respondent No. 1 directed to surrender forthwith – Trial to proceed independently and uninfluenced by this judgment.

Criminal Law – Murder Trial – Benefit of Doubt – Appellants convicted for murder based on statements of informant (PW-3) and deceased’s sisters (PW-1 and PW-2) alleging oral dying declaration – First information report dated 12 May 1990 (Fardbeyan) did not name the accused – Informant later filed embellished report naming appellants due to previous enmity over land acquisition employment – Prosecution failed to justify contradiction or explain delay in naming accused – Held: Fardbeyan was the true FIR and subsequent statement could not override it – Names of accused introduced belatedly – creates serious doubt [Paras 5-6, 24-35].

Criminal Procedure – Examination under Section 313 CrPC – Violation – Trial Court recorded only three generic questions – High Court failed to address this defect – Supreme Court held that the defective recording caused serious prejudice to the accused – omission to put specific incriminating circumstances undermines a fair trial – Remand not ordered due to long passage of time – Held: Trial vitiated due to violation of principles under Section 313 CrPC [Paras 18-23].

Evidence – Non-examination of Investigating Officer – Adverse Inference – Investigating Officer (ASI R. Paswan) recorded both FIRs but was not examined without explanation – Supreme Court held this withholding was deliberate – His testimony was crucial to explain discrepancies – Held: Adverse inference must be drawn against the prosecution [Paras 12, 25-30].

Evidence – Witness Credibility – Informant’s testimony inconsistent with FIR and Section 164 CrPC statements – Multiple improvements including alleged oral dying declaration introduced at different stages – Deceased’s sisters examined after 1.5 months and failed to inspire confidence – Medical evidence did not support ability of deceased to make any dying declaration – Held: Prosecution evidence wholly unreliable and inconsistent [Paras 30-45].

Defence Witnesses – Evidentiary Value – Defence examined two eyewitnesses (DW-1 and DW-2) named in prosecution’s own report – They did not implicate appellants and supported a different version – Courts below failed to consider their testimonies – Held: Defence version plausible – Appellants entitled to benefit of doubt [Paras 47-51].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellants acquitted – To be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case [Paras 52-53].

Criminal Law – Dowry Death – Section 304B IPC – Acquittal – Accused convicted under Sections 304B and 498A IPC by Trial Court – Conviction upheld by High Court – Deceased wife and infant child found dead in well – Alleged demand for gold ring and chain at ‘Chhoochhak’ ceremony held as insufficient to constitute a "dowry demand" under Section 304B – Supreme Court held that demands made post-marriage and not in connection with the marriage do not qualify as dowry – Conviction under Section 304B set aside [Paras 7–7.2].

Criminal Law – Cruelty by Husband – Section 498A IPC – Conviction Sustained – Evidence of prosecution witnesses supported consistent ill-treatment and harassment of deceased by accused following unmet demand of gold – Sessions Court and High Court found ingredients of Section 498A proved – Supreme Court upheld conviction under Section 498A [Para 7.3].

Sentence – Imprisonment Already Undergone – Appellant had served more time in prison than imposed under Section 498A IPC – Fine already paid – Supreme Court held that further incarceration not warranted – Appeal partly allowed with conviction under Section 304B set aside and sentence under Section 498A treated as already undergone [Paras 8–9].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Section 304B IPC set aside – Conviction under Section 498A IPC upheld – Sentence already undergone – No further imprisonment required.