Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) – Belated inclusion of claim – Appellant’s claim related to an arbitral award dated 01.08.2016, which was in appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act – An agreement entered into on 02.08.2006 for the development of land into a residential group housing complex – Alleged misconduct by the Corporate Debtor in advertising the project under its own name led to arbitration proceedings initiated on 02.05.2011 – Award in favor of the appellant on 01.08.2016, directing the Corporate Debtor to apply for the transfer of licenses – Corporate Debtor filed a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act on 26.09.2016 – Concurrent execution proceedings initiated by the appellant adjourned sine die due to the pendency of the Section 34 proceedings – Section 34 proceedings culminated in the award being upheld with modifications on 25.04.2019 – CIRP initiated against the Corporate Debtor in respect of three real estate projects on 27.03.2019 – Resolution plan approved by the COC on 11.07.2020 – Appellant’s claim of Rs.35,67,05,337 against the Corporate Debtor rejected as belated by respondent no.1 – Appellant filed an application under Section 60(5) of the IBC – Adjudicating Authority granted relief to the appellant, allowing consideration of their claim – NCLAT disagreed with the Adjudicating Authority’s view – Appellant’s contentions regarding the claim’s contingent nature, timeline under Section 12 of the IBC, and lack of awareness about the CIRP – Respondent No.1’s efforts to collate claims and the potential consequences of reopening claims after plan approval – Appeal dismissed. [Para 1-23]

Constitutional law - Governor's power to invite Chief Minister - Objective material for calling floor test - Held, the Governor must have objective material before concluding that the Chief Minister has lost the confidence of the House and calling for a floor test. [Para 166]

Constitutional law - Governor's power to invite Chief Minister - Restoration of status quo ante - Resignation of Chief Minister - Held, the Court cannot quash a voluntary resignation, and the status quo ante cannot be restored if the Chief Minister has resigned before the floor test. [Para 194]

Constitutional law - Governor's power to invite Chief Minister - Authority to recognize factions within a political party - Role of Election Commission - Held, the Governor's authority is not exceeded by inviting a faction as long as the party has returned the highest number of candidates, and the Election Commission is the appropriate authority to determine the factions within a political party. [Para 204]

Constitution of India - Article 164(1B) - Disqualification of Minister - Pending disqualification petition - Applicability - Held, Article 164(1B) does not bar the appointment of a member as a Minister if a disqualification petition is pending adjudication before the Speaker. [Para 199]

Constitution of India - Article 164(1B) - Disqualification of Minister - Triggering of disqualification - Speaker's verdict - Held, Article 164(1B) is triggered only when the Speaker returns a verdict finding that the member has breached Paragraph 2 of the Tenth Schedule. [Para 200]

Constitution of India - Article 164(1B) - Disqualification of Minister - Disqualification related to date of act - Effect of subsequent acts - Held, subsequent acts or events do not have an exculpatory effect on the disqualification if the prohibited act has already been committed. [Para 202]

Constitution of India - Tenth Schedule - Disqualification of members - Procedure and jurisdiction of Speaker and Election Commission - Role of Court - Larger Bench reference - Held, the correctness of the decision in Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker, Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly, (2016) 8 SCC 1 is referred to a larger Bench of seven judges. [Para 206(a)]

Decision It cannot ordinarily adjudicate petitions for disqualification under the Tenth Schedule in the first instance, and the Speaker must decide disqualification petitions within a reasonable period. [Para 206(b)]

 MLA has the right to participate in the proceedings of the House regardless of the pendency of disqualification petitions, and the validity of the proceedings is not subject to the outcome of the disqualification petitions. [Para 206(c)]

The political party, and not the legislature party, appoints the Whip and the Leader of the party in the House. The Speaker should recognize the Whip and the Leader authorized by the Shiv Sena political party based on the party constitution. [Para 206(d)]

Speaker and the Election Commission of India (ECI) have concurrent jurisdiction to adjudicate on the petitions under the Tenth Schedule and Paragraph 15 of the Symbols Order, respectively. [Para 206(e)]

The effect of the deletion of Paragraph 3 of the Tenth Schedule is that the defense of 'split' is no longer available to members facing disqualification proceedings. The Speaker should determine the political party for adjudicating disqualification petitions when factions claim to be the same party. [Para 206(f)]

Governor was not justified in calling for a floor test as there was no objective material indicating that the Chief Minister had lost the confidence of the House. However, the status quo ante could not be restored as the Chief Minister had already resigned. [Para 206(h)]

Governor was justified in inviting Mr. Eknath Shinde to form the government based on the support extended by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MLAs and independent candidates. [Para 206(i)]

Constitution of India - Tenth Schedule - Disqualification of members - Jurisdiction of Court to adjudicate disqualification petitions - Speaker's role - Held, the Court cannot ordinarily adjudicate petitions for disqualification in the first instance, and the Speaker must decide disqualification petitions within a reasonable period. [Para 206(b)]

Constitution of India - Tenth Schedule - Disqualification of members - Right of MLA to participate in House proceedings - Pendency of disqualification petitions - Validity of proceedings - Held, an MLA has the right to participate in the House proceedings regardless of the pendency of disqualification petitions, and the validity of the proceedings is not subject to the outcome of the disqualification petitions. [Para 206(c)]

Service Law – Post Graduate Medical Courses – In-Service Quota – Eligibility: The Supreme Court held that there is a clear distinction between junior resident doctors who completed their undergraduate medical courses at ESIC institutions and regularly recruited Insurance Medical Officers (IMO-II). The in-service quota for postgraduate medical courses is justifiably reserved for regularly recruited IMO-II doctors and not for junior resident doctors serving under a bond​​.

Institutional Preference – Postgraduate Medical Education – Legal Validity: The Court reiterated that institutional preference in postgraduate medical admissions is permissible and constitutional as upheld in previous judgments (Pradeep Jain v. Union of India and Saurabh Chaudri v. Union of India). However, the decision to provide such institutional preference lies within the policy realm of the respondent-authority and cannot be mandated by the Court​​.

Difference in Recruitment and Employment Nature: Junior resident doctors are appointed on a contractual basis to fulfill bond conditions after completing their undergraduate courses, whereas IMO-II doctors are recruited through a formal selection process and serve as permanent employees. This fundamental difference justifies the reservation of the in-service quota for the latter category​​.

Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that junior resident doctors cannot claim parity with regularly recruited Insurance Medical Officers (IMO-II) for the benefit of the in-service quota for postgraduate medical courses. The in-service quota is reserved for IMO-II doctors due to their permanent employment status and continued service in ESIC institutions post their postgraduate studies​​.

Employment Law – Regularization of Services – Deceased Employee – Respondent’s claim for regularization of her deceased husband’s services after 12 years from his death – High Court directed State to regularize services one day prior to death for pensionary benefits – Supreme Court held deceased was not entitled to regularization at the time of death due to lower seniority – Regularization policy required seniority-based regularization as per vacancy – High Court’s direction deemed unsustainable [Paras 2-5].

Pensionary Benefits – Entitlement Posthumously – Claim for family pension based on posthumous regularization – Supreme Court emphasized that entitlement to regularization and consequent pensionary benefits must adhere to policy and seniority rules – Regularization not feasible after death if not eligible during lifetime – Appeal allowed setting aside High Court’s judgment [Para 4].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment directing regularization one day prior to death and awarding family pension set aside – Original writ petition dismissed – No order as to costs [Para 5].

Bail – Cancellation – Criteria – The appeal addresses the cancellation of bail granted to the accused, highlighting misuse of liberty, influence over witnesses, and potential threat to the complainant. The Court emphasized that bail can be cancelled if the accused misuses his liberty by engaging in similar criminal activity, attempts to tamper with evidence, influences witnesses, evades court proceedings, or if any facts emerge post-grant of bail that are unconducive to a fair trial [Paras 24, 26-27].

Misuse of Bail – Influence and Threat – The respondent No. 2, a student leader, misused his liberty post-bail by displaying his influence through social media and posters celebrating his release. This conduct caused a bona fide fear in the complainant regarding the fairness of the trial and potential influence over material witnesses. The Court found this behavior sufficient to cancel the bail [Paras 28-30].

High Court’s Failure – Inadequate Reasoning – The High Court's order granting bail was criticized for lack of cogent reasons and failure to consider the criminal antecedents of the respondent No. 2, thereby leading to its reversal by the Supreme Court. The importance of providing reasons for granting bail, especially in serious offenses, was reiterated [Paras 26, 27].

Decision: Bail Cancelled – The Supreme Court cancelled the bail granted to respondent No. 2, directing him to surrender within a week. The Court clarified that observations made are limited to the bail context and do not influence the trial's merits [Paras 31-32].

Service Law – Compassionate Appointment – Fraudulent Claims – Respondent-employees were appointed on compassionate grounds in the Eastern Railway based on forged and fabricated documents – The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal from service, emphasizing that appointments obtained through fraud vitiate the proceedings and nullify any claims to protection under Article 311 of the Constitution – The Court noted that the principles of natural justice were complied with, as the respondents were given the opportunity to respond to the show-cause notices [Paras 7-14].

Service Law – Natural Justice and Disciplinary Proceedings – The respondents alleged a violation of natural justice due to the lack of a full disciplinary inquiry – The Court rejected this claim, noting that the respondents had actively participated in the proceedings and failed to provide necessary documentation to support their claims – The Tribunal's dismissal of their applications was restored [Paras 8-9].

Criminal Law – Simultaneous Proceedings – The Court confirmed that the criminal proceedings related to fraud and forgery can run concurrently with departmental proceedings – The outcome of the criminal cases will not affect the decision regarding dismissal from service [Paras 12-14].

Decision:

Appeals allowed – The High Court's order was set aside, and the Tribunal's order dismissing the respondent-employees' original applications was restored – The respondents' dismissal from service was confirmed, with the clarification that this decision does not affect the ongoing criminal proceedings.

Adoption Validity – Contesting of Registered Adoption Deed – Section 16 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, raises presumption in favor of registered adoption documents, but is rebuttable – Requirements of actual giving and taking in adoption under Section 11(vi) of the same Act not convincingly proven – Adoption ceremony’s credibility doubted due to absence of key participants and lack of convincing photographic evidence. [Paras 35-51]

Will Validity – Requirements under Section 63 of Indian Succession Act, 1925, for proving a Will – Necessity of attestation by two witnesses as mandated by the Act not satisfied – Inadequate evidence to establish that Will was signed in testator's presence or with her acknowledgment – Will deemed not proved as per legal requirements, rendering it legally ineffective. [Paras 17-32]

Testamentary Document – Examination of suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of Will – Consideration of age, health condition, and behavior of testator at the time of Will execution – Discrepancies in adoption and testamentary documents indicating lack of consistent and credible evidence for legal validation. [Paras 33-34, 52-54]

Decision – Appeal of Moturu Nalini Kanth dismissed – Adoption and Will not proved in accordance with law – Findings of High Court confirmed, denying Nalini Kanth any right or share in Venkubayamma’s properties. [Para 55]