SARFAESI Act – Typographical Error – Auction Validity – High Court set aside e-auction sale due to a typographical error in the property description (Door No. 12-3-393 instead of 12-3-39) – Supreme Court held typographical error inconsequential as no prejudice was caused – Full property description with boundaries provided – Auction process upheld [Paras 13, 35-37].

Compliance with Rule 9(4) – Auction Timelines – Rule 9(4) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 mandates balance payment within 15 days of sale confirmation – Delay of four days occurred due to Tribunal's interim order and negotiations – Supreme Court held delay justified and did not invalidate auction – Auction upheld [Paras 38-44].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment quashing the auction set aside – Auction sale and proceedings upheld – Surplus amount of Rs. 1,880,000/- to be transferred to borrowers/guarantors within eight weeks [Paras 46-47].

Electricity Tariff – Concessional Rates – Respondent industrial unit started commercial production on March 26, 1995, and sought concessional tariffs based on the Government Order (GO) dated February 6, 1992 – Dispute over whether the benefit period should start from the date of commercial production or the date of energisation – High Court initially ruled in favor of commercial production start date – Respondent later claimed parity with another unit, M/s Patspin India Ltd., which had received benefits from the date of energisation – High Court granted benefits to respondent based on this parity – Supreme Court found the parity claim invalid after benefits to M/s Patspin India Ltd. were withdrawn [Paras 1-21].

Policy Implementation – GO dated February 6, 1992 – Provided tariff concessions for five years to new industrial units starting production between January 1, 1992, and December 31, 1996 – High Court’s decision based on incorrect parity with another industrial unit – Supreme Court ruled the benefit period should adhere strictly to GO terms – Extended period for power cuts already accounted for in Board’s orders [Paras 22-24].

Decision: Appeals Allowed – Held – High Court’s judgments dated November 22, 2018, and July 29, 2019, set aside – No order as to costs [Para 24-26

Tax Deduction at Source (TDS) – Commission and Brokerage – Supplementary Commission – Travel agents earning amounts over the Net Fare set by airlines – Section 194H of IT Act mandates TDS on such amounts if principal-agent relationship exists – Supplementary Commission to be included for TDS deduction [Paras 1-19].

Principal-Agent Relationship – Analysis under Contract Act – No transfer of title in tickets from airline to travel agents – Relationship remains that of principal-agent, not of two principals – Relevant clauses of Passenger Sales Agency Agreement (PSA) indicate agent's actions on behalf of the airline [Paras 20-32].

Revenue Neutrality – Tax already paid by agents – No further recovery of TDS shortfall but interest may be levied under Section 201(1A) of IT Act – Assessing Officer to compute interest from date of default to date of tax payment by agents [Paras 52-58].

Decision: Appeals Partly Allowed – Held – Airlines liable for TDS on Supplementary Commission – Recovery of shortfall barred due to agents' tax payments – Interest to be computed by Assessing Officer – Penalty proceedings under Section 271C of IT Act quashed due to reasonable cause for non-deduction of TDS [Paras 59-67].

Contempt of Court – Imprisonment Term – Applicant (contemnor) in continuous custody from February 3, 2020, seeks clarification on the commencement date of the six-month imprisonment term imposed by the Supreme Court’s order dated September 22, 2022 – Applicant contends term should start from February 3, 2020 – Supreme Court rejects contention, holding that custody in connection with another case cannot be converted to custody in the contempt case [Paras 1-15].

Clarification on Sentence – Section 428 of CrPC – Application of set-off for period of detention requires custody to be in connection with the same case – Court determines that applicant’s custody since February 3, 2020, was in connection with another case and not the contempt case – No merit found in applicant’s request for clarification [Paras 9-15].

Decision: Miscellaneous Application Dismissed – Held – Term of imprisonment of six months shall commence from September 22, 2022, as per original order – No change to commencement date of imprisonment term [Para 15].

Seniority – Promotees vs. Direct Recruits – Promotees and direct recruits appointed in the same recruitment year (1997-1998) for the post of ACOs – Seniority list prepared by the State giving higher seniority to direct recruits challenged – High Court ruled in favor of promotees – Supreme Court upheld High Court's decision [Paras 1-28].

Application of Rules – Rule 18 and Rule 19 of the 1992 Rules – Require combined select list and cyclic order of seniority – First name in the list to be a promotee – Seniority list dated 29th July 2005 giving undue benefit to direct recruits found unsustainable in law [Paras 17-27].

Retrospective Seniority – Not Permissible – Seniority cannot be reckoned from the date of occurrence of vacancy and given retrospectively unless expressly provided by the service rules – Any departure must be consistent with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution [Paras 20-21].

Decision: Appeals Dismissed – Held – Seniority list dated 29th July 2005 quashed – Combined select list to be prepared in accordance with Rules 18 and 19 of the 1992 Rules – Promotees to be placed above direct recruits for the recruitment year 1997-1998 [Paras 28-29].

Bond Forfeiture – Excessive Amount – Appellant, a daily-wage earner, furnished a bond of Rs. 500,000 under Section 107 CrPC for keeping the peace during Panchayat Elections – Allegations of illegal construction and obstruction of officials – Magistrate ordered forfeiture of the entire bond amount – High Court and Revisional Court upheld the order – Supreme Court emphasizes preventive nature of Section 107 CrPC and proportionality of bond amount [Paras 1-16].

Preventive Measures – Purpose of Bond – Chapter VIII of CrPC aims to prevent breach of peace and disturbance of public tranquillity – Bond should not be excessive or punitive – Court has discretion under Section 446 CrPC to remit part of the bond amount [Paras 11-14].

Reasonable Amount – Considering appellant's financial status and nature of alleged acts – Court finds Rs. 500,000 excessively high – Reduced amount payable to Rs. 5000 to meet ends of justice [Paras 15-17].

Decision: Appeal Allowed in Part – Held – Forfeiture amount reduced to Rs. 5000 – Appellant directed to deposit the amount within six weeks [Para 18].

Test Identification Parade (TIP) – Inadmissibility of TIP Conducted with Police Presence – Evidence of TIP is not substantive and is meant to corroborate in-court identification – TIP must be conducted without undue delay and without the accused being seen by witnesses beforehand – TIP conducted with police presence or after the accused is shown to witnesses invalidates its reliability [Paras 1-29].

Eyewitness Credibility – Inconsistent Statements – Witnesses admitted to seeing the accused before the TIP – TIP conducted in the presence of police and with an imbalanced ratio of suspects to non-suspects – Judicial Magistrate did not ensure separation of suspects and witnesses prior to TIP – High possibility of witnesses identifying accused based on photographs seen in media or during police custody [Paras 30-45].

Conviction Based on TIP – High Court's failure to consider the validity of the TIP – Mere reliance on TIP without assessing its credibility – Convictions under Sections 143, 147, 148 of IPC and Sections 3(2)(e) of PDPP Act based on invalid TIP and unreliable witness testimony [Paras 46-57].

Decision: Appeals Allowed – Held – Convictions and sentences set aside – Acquittal of all charges – Appellants' bail bonds discharged – High Court's judgment and Trial Court’s conviction quashed due to unreliable TIP and insufficient evidence beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 57-58].

Bail Cancellation – Exercise of Suo Motu Powers – Appellant granted bail by Trial Court – High Court canceled bail citing appellant’s absconding behavior – Supreme Court emphasizes the requirement of cogent and overwhelming circumstances for bail cancellation – High Court's action deemed over-expansive for not considering the peculiarity of appellant's situation and the procedural requirements under Section 439(2) CrPC [Paras 2-21].

Regular Bail – Considerations for Grant – Appellant a 55-year-old woman, responsible for minor child after daughter-in-law's suicide – Regular bail granted by the Sessions Court referencing co-accused's pre-arrest and regular bails – Supreme Court notes that there was no misuse of bail conditions by appellant [Paras 16-18].

Decision: Appeal Allowed – Held – High Court’s order canceling bail set aside – Original bail order by First Additional Sessions Judge Jaura District Morena restored – Clarified that this order does not affect the merit consideration by the Trial Court [Paras 21-23].

Market Value Determination – Public Auction – Section 47A – The provision under Section 47A of the Act does not apply to properties sold through public auctions conducted under court supervision – Public auctions ensure transparency and reflect the true market value, thus the Registering Authority cannot reassess or dispute the market value determined through such auctions [Paras 1-18, 22-32].

Auction Process and Market Value – Even if the auction price is slightly lower due to the legal complexities involved, the price obtained through a transparent auction process is considered the market value – The Registering Authority has no jurisdiction to challenge or revise this value as it is derived through a judicial process [Paras 22-32].

Objective of Section 47A – The intent of introducing Section 47A was to address under-valuation of property to prevent loss of revenue for the State – It targets private transactions where there is a risk of dual pricing, not court-monitored public auctions [Paras 22-24].

Judicial Precedents – Analysis and Differentiation – The decision references various cases (e.g., V.N. Devadoss, P. Laxmi Devi) to highlight the distinction between private sales and public auctions in determining the applicability of Section 47A – Emphasizes that court-monitored auctions do not warrant Registering Authority's intervention in determining market value [Paras 10-27, 30-31].

Decision: Appeals Dismissed – Held – Section 47A of the Stamp Act does not apply to properties sold through court-monitored public auctions – The market value determined through such processes is final and cannot be revisited by the Registering Authority – No order as to costs [Paras 31-34].