Criminal Law – Multiple Dying Declarations – The appellant was convicted for the murder of his wife based on her dying declarations – The Supreme Court noted that while dying declarations hold significant evidentiary value, their reliability must be scrutinized, especially when there are inconsistencies – Court found substantial procedural lapses in recording the dying declarations, including the absence of a doctor’s certification of the deceased's mental fitness – The oral dying declarations made to interested witnesses (father and mediator) were inconsistent with the written declarations and thus unreliable [Paras 11-37].

Legal Principles – Dying Declarations – Emphasized that a dying declaration, if found reliable and voluntarily made, can form the basis of conviction even without corroboration – However, in cases of multiple dying declarations with discrepancies, the court must carefully scrutinize each declaration and rely only on those consistent with other evidence – Reiterated the need for dying declarations to be free from tutoring and made in a fit state of mind [Paras 15-24].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Held – The High Court’s judgment upholding the trial court’s conviction was set aside – The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant, granting him the benefit of doubt due to the unreliable and contradictory dying declarations – Directed the appellant’s immediate release unless required in other cases [Paras 38-39].

Tribunals – Territorial Jurisdiction – The appellant challenged the orders of the NGT Principal Bench, New Delhi, which prohibited further construction at Rushikonda Hill and rejected the application for vacating the stay – Supreme Court held that the NGT, being a Tribunal, is subordinate to the High Court within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court – Court emphasized that in case of conflicting orders between constitutional courts and statutory tribunals, the orders of the constitutional courts would prevail – The continuation of proceedings before the NGT was found inappropriate when the High Court was already in seisin of the matter [Paras 1-13].

Conflict of Jurisdiction – High Court vs. NGT – The Court noted that the High Court had already passed an interim order permitting construction in accordance with the permissions from the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, and the existing master plan – The NGT’s orders were in conflict with the High Court’s directions, leading to an anomalous situation for the authorities – The proceedings before the NGT were quashed and parties directed to approach the High Court for appropriate orders [Paras 3-14].

Environmental Considerations – Balance Between Development and Environment – While acknowledging the need for economic development, the Court emphasized the importance of safeguarding the environment for future generations – Directed the High Court to consider the report of the Experts Committee constituted by the NGT and decide accordingly [Paras 15-20].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Held – Proceedings before the NGT quashed – Parties directed to seek appropriate orders from the High Court – Interim construction permitted only on previously constructed and demolished areas until the High Court’s further decision – No opinion on merits expressed by the Supreme Court, leaving all issues to be raised before the High Court [Paras 14-21].

Insolvency and Bankruptcy – Financial Debt – The Supreme Court held that a liability in respect of a claim arising out of a Recovery Certificate constitutes a "financial debt" under Section 5(8) of the IBC. Consequently, the holder of a Recovery Certificate is a "financial creditor" as per Section 5(7) of the IBC, and is entitled to initiate CIRP if the application is filed within three years from the date of issuance of the Recovery Certificate [Paras 1-27].

Limitation Period – Fresh Cause of Action – The Court observed that the issuance of a Recovery Certificate gives rise to a fresh cause of action, allowing the financial creditor to initiate CIRP within three years from the date of issuance of the Recovery Certificate, rejecting the argument that the application was time-barred [Paras 28-39].

Legal Interpretation – Inclusive Definitions – Emphasized that the inclusive nature of definitions under the IBC (e.g., "financial debt") must be construed broadly to encompass liabilities arising from Recovery Certificates, supporting the broader objective of the IBC to maximize recovery for creditors while preserving the debtor as a going concern [Paras 40-55].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The judgment and order of the learned NCLAT are set aside – The application under Section 7 of the IBC filed by the appellant within three years from the issuance of the Recovery Certificate is deemed within the limitation period and is thereby admitted.

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant, finding that the conviction based solely on the "Last seen together" theory and the extra judicial confession of a co-accused was insufficient. The Court emphasized that the time gap between the accused last being seen with the deceased and the discovery of the deceased's body was too large to conclusively link the appellant to the crime [Paras 1-19]. Circumstantial Evidence – Homicidal Death – The Court noted that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the deaths were homicidal, given that the postmortem report suggested the possibility of suicide. Without establishing homicidal death, the conviction under Section 302 IPC could not be sustained [Paras 8-10]. Last Seen Together Theory – Insufficient for Conviction – The Court reiterated that the "Last seen together" theory alone cannot be the basis for conviction unless the time gap is minimal and other corroborative evidence is present. In this case, the significant time gap weakened the prosecution's case [Paras 13-18]. Extra Judicial Confession – Weak Evidence – The Court held that extra judicial confessions are inherently weak and must be corroborated by other strong evidence to sustain a conviction. In this case, the extra judicial confession did not meet this standard [Paras 11-12].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC are set aside – The appellant is acquitted of all charges and ordered to be released forthwith.

Securities Law – Manipulative Trading – The Supreme Court upheld the SEBI order barring the appellant from proprietary trading for four years. The Court found that the appellant engaged in manipulative self-trades to inflate share prices, causing detriment to investors. The penalty was deemed proportionate to the gravity of the offense [Paras 1-15].

Penalty and Proportionality – The Court noted that penalties under SEBI regulations aim to preserve market integrity and prevent abuse. The imposition of a trading ban, despite being harsh, was not disproportionate considering the appellant's manipulative actions [Paras 10-14].

Investor Protection – Emphasized the importance of protecting investors' wealth and maintaining confidence in the securities market. The Court highlighted that manipulative trading practices harm market integrity and investor trust [Paras 12-14].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – The SEBI order restraining the appellant from proprietary trading for four years is upheld.

Bail Cancellation – High Court's Error – The Supreme Court canceled the bail granted to the second respondent, noting that the High Court failed to consider crucial aspects such as the pending examination of important witnesses and the risk of witness tampering. The Court emphasized the nature and gravity of the offense and the role attributed to the second respondent [Paras 10-11].

Fair Trial – Witness Examination – The Court highlighted that the release of the second respondent on bail could impede a fair trial, especially given the apprehension of witness tampering. The ongoing trial's completion was directed to be expedited [Para 10].

Discretionary Power – Improper Exercise – The Supreme Court found the High Court's exercise of discretion in granting bail to be improper, given the circumstances of the case and the material evidence against the second respondent [Para 11].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The High Court's order dated 2 March 2022 granting bail is set aside – The second respondent is to surrender forthwith – The trial court is directed to conduct and conclude the trial expeditiously within one year [Paras 12-13].

Service Law – Civil Judges Selection – The Supreme Court held that the rejection of candidates on the technical ground of non-production of original certificates at the time of the interview was improper, unjustified, and not warranted. The Court noted that there were vacancies available, which, if filled by meritorious candidates, would benefit the institution by helping in the disposal of cases pending in large numbers [Paras 16-17].

Adjustment of Candidates – The Court directed that the eight appellants, who had secured higher marks than the last selected candidates in their respective categories, be allowed to join forthwith. They would be entitled to seniority as per their merit but not to any arrears of salary for the intervening period. The State was directed to adjust three candidates from reserved categories against future vacancies or borrow posts from future vacancies [Paras 17-19].

Non-Production of Original Certificates – The Court observed that non-production of original certificates at the time of the interview, despite later submission, should not result in the cancellation of candidatures, especially when the candidates were duly qualified and had scored higher marks than the last selected candidates [Paras 9-14].

Decision: Appeals allowed – The rejection of candidatures and the impugned judgments of the High Court are set aside. The appellants are to be allowed to join immediately with seniority as per merit but without arrears of salary for the intervening period [Paras 19-20].

Contempt of Court – Advocate's Conduct – The Supreme Court upheld the conviction and sentencing of the appellant under Sections 2(c)(iii) and 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971. The Court found that the appellant's behavior was thoroughly contemptuous and involved a clear attempt to obstruct the process of justice. The appellant's actions included preventing the execution of a non-bailable warrant and obstructing police officials, as recorded in video footage [Paras 2-5].

Disproportionate Sentence – The Court rejected the argument that the sentence was disproportionate, affirming both the two weeks' imprisonment and the one-year debarment from practicing as an advocate. The decision was consistent with the precedent set in R.K. Anand vs Registrar Delhi High Court (2009) 8 SCC 106 [Paras 6-8].

Abuse of Judicial Process – The appellant's conduct included leveling wanton allegations against a Single Judge of the Madras High Court and seeking the recusal of a judge on improper grounds. The Court noted the appellant's lack of respect for the administration of justice, as evidenced by his multiple adjournments and improper applications [Paras 8].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – The conviction and sentencing, including the debarment from practicing as an advocate for one year, are upheld [Para 9].

Retirement Age – Revision of Pension – High Court held that the appellant was wrongfully retired at 58 instead of 60 – High Court denied salary/back wages for extra two years due to delay in approaching – High Court ordered revised pension payable from January 1, 2020 – Supreme Court modified this, holding denial of arrears of pension unjustified – Appellant entitled to revised pension from date of attaining age 60 [Paras 1-4].

Pension Arrears – Continuous Cause of Action – Supreme Court emphasized that pension is a continuous cause of action – Denial of arrears by High Court was without justification – Arrears to be paid from date of appellant attaining 60 years [Paras 3-4].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – High Court’s order denying arrears of pension and setting revised pension payable only from January 1, 2020, quashed – Appellant entitled to revised pension from the date he attained 60 years – Arrears to be paid within four weeks – No order as to costs [Para 4].