Insolvency Law – Admission of CIRP Application – NCLAT admitted the application under Section 9 of the IBC, based on additional documents taken on record during the final decision – Supreme Court held that admitting additional documents without providing adequate opportunity for the corporate debtor to respond was procedurally improper – The case was remanded to NCLT for reconsideration with directions to include the additional documents and provide adequate hearing opportunity [Paras 7-10].

Limitation – Acknowledgment of Debt – NCLT initially rejected the application as time-barred under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 – NCLAT, considering new email exchanges as acknowledgments of debt, found the application to be within the limitation period – Supreme Court directed NCLT to reconsider the application in light of the new documents while ensuring procedural fairness [Paras 4-6, 8-9].

Procedural Fairness – Right to Respond – Emphasized the importance of providing a fair opportunity to respond to new evidence introduced at the appellate stage – Reinforced the need for due process in insolvency proceedings to ensure justice [Paras 7-8].

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – NCLAT’s order admitting the application under Section 9 of the IBC set aside – Case remanded to NCLT for reconsideration including new documents and providing adequate opportunity for response.

Constitutional Law – Article 14 – Negative Equality – Supreme Court reiterates that Article 14 does not envisage negative equality but only a positive aspect – Relief granted to a few individuals inadvertently or by mistake does not confer any legal right on others to get the same relief – The principle of parity cannot be relied upon to perpetuate illegality or irregularity [Paras 24-25].

Service Law – Recruitment and Appointment – Appointment of ITI Helpers in TANGEDCO based on compromise terms – Supreme Court held that the compromise order was not based on merits and could not be treated as a binding precedent – Reiterated that appointments should be made based on legal provisions and not on concessions or compromises – Candidates who approached the court belatedly and sought parity based on the compromise order were not entitled to relief [Paras 20-21].

Judicial Precedent – Compromise Orders – The compromise order directed by the Division Bench of the High Court was binding only on the parties and did not have precedential value – Public employer's concession in a compromise cannot be the basis for extending similar benefits to others not party to the compromise [Paras 22-23].

Decision: Appeals by aggrieved candidates dismissed – Appeals by TANGEDCO allowed – Compromise order could not be treated as a precedent to grant relief to other candidates – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law – Default Bail – Right to Default Bail under Section 167(2) CrPC arises only if the charge-sheet has not been filed before the expiry of the statutory period – Supreme Court held that the filing of the charge-sheet within the stipulated period is sufficient compliance with Section 167(2) CrPC, and taking of cognizance is not material for this purpose – The High Court's decision to grant default bail based on non-taking of cognizance before the expiry of the statutory period was incorrect [Paras 9-10, 15].

Criminal Procedure Code – Indefeasible Right – The accused’s right to statutory bail under Section 167(2) CrPC ceases once the charge-sheet is filed within the statutory period – The custody of the accused continues with the Magistrate until cognizance is taken by the relevant court [Para 8].

Judicial Interpretation – Cognizance and Filing of Charge-Sheet – Clarified that the two stages (filing of charge-sheet and taking of cognizance) are distinct – Emphasized the continuity of custody from the Magistrate to the trial court upon filing of the charge-sheet [Paras 9-10].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court's order granting default bail set aside – The filing of the charge-sheet within the statutory period complied with the provisions of Section 167(2) CrPC, and the respondents were not entitled to default bail on the ground of non-taking of cognizance.

Banking Law – Liability for Fraud – The Post Office, like a bank, can be held liable for fraud or wrongs committed by its employees – Such acts of fraud by employees during their course of employment are binding on the bank/post office at the instance of the person damnified by the fraud – Acts of bank/post office employees being within their course of employment give a right to the appellants to legally proceed against the post office for injury caused [Paras 37-38].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Payment in Due Course – KVPs being bearer instruments require that payment must be made in 'due course' as defined under Section 10 of the NI Act – Payment to an agent without proper verification and identity proof does not satisfy 'payment in due course' – The Post Office's failure to follow procedural rules and instructions issued for the encashment of KVPs amounts to negligence, thus not constituting 'payment in due course' under Section 82(c) of the NI Act [Paras 16-17, 32-33].

Negligence – Contributory Negligence – The court found that the appellants were not guilty of contributory negligence – They acted under the belief that the Post Office would safeguard their interests and follow proper procedures – The Post Office's failure to adhere to established rules and procedures was the primary cause of the loss [Paras 34-35].

Decision: Appeals allowed – The respondents held jointly and severally liable to pay the maturity value of the KVPs as on the date of presentation for encashment, along with 7% simple interest per annum from the date of encashment until payment – Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 and litigation costs of Rs. 10,000 awarded to the appellants – Payment to be made within eight weeks, failing which additional simple interest of 7% per annum will accrue on the compensation amount [Para 41].

Land Acquisition – Compensation for Injurious Affection and Severance – Supreme Court examined the legality of the award concerning the acquisition of a trolley line and related infrastructure – Held that the High Court erroneously denied compensation for rails and sleepers in the unacquired portion of land, affirming the Reference Court’s award under this head – Clarified that severance and injurious affection claims should be assessed based on the impact on the entire property, not just the acquired part [Paras 16, 45-47, 56-57].

Land Acquisition Act – Section 23 – Determining Compensation – Applied principles under Section 23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, including market value, severance damage, and injurious affection – Emphasized the distinct evaluation of injurious affection to property (rails and sleepers) versus earnings (increased transportation costs) – Found sufficient evidence supporting the obsolescence of the trolley line and related infrastructure due to acquisition [Paras 30-36, 78-79].

Severance and Injurious Affection – Distinct Heads of Claim – Differentiated between severance (damage due to dividing land) and injurious affection (impact on remaining property and earnings) – Supreme Court upheld the Reference Court’s compensation for severance and injurious affection while rejecting claims not sufficiently evidenced or overlapping, such as increased transportation costs [Paras 42-46, 65-67, 76].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – High Court’s judgment set aside regarding compensation for rails and sleepers in the unacquired portion – Reference Court’s award of Rs. 3,121,860/- towards compensation for rails and sleepers restored – Other claims, including increased transportation costs and rolling stock compensation, dismissed as unsupported by evidence or due to no actionable loss [Paras 79-80].

Insolvency Law – Operational Creditor – Advance Payment – Supreme Court held that an advance payment for goods or services that remains unpaid due to contract termination constitutes an operational debt under the IBC – The appellant, having made an advance payment for light fittings which were not delivered after the project termination, qualifies as an operational creditor under Section 5(20) of the IBC – The contract between the appellant and the proprietary concern (taken over by the respondent) establishes this operational debt [Paras 21-46].

Memorandum of Association – Takeover of Proprietary Concern – The respondent's Memorandum of Association (MOA) stated the takeover of the proprietary concern – Supreme Court held that the respondent is liable for the debts of the proprietary concern as the amendment to MOA was not registered as per statutory requirements – The Board resolution to not take over the concern, lacking Registrar's approval, does not negate the liability [Paras 47-56].

Limitation – Commencement of Default – The period of limitation for filing an application under Section 9 of the IBC begins from the date of default, not the date of debt becoming due – Supreme Court found the default date as 2 March 2017 when the proprietary concern refused to return the advance payment, making the application filed on 1 November 2017 within the limitation period [Paras 57-61].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment set aside – Respondent is liable to repay the advance amount – Application under Section 9 of the IBC is maintainable.

Criminal Law – Murder vs. Culpable Homicide – The accused attacked the deceased with multiple blows using a "Phakadiyat" on the head, resulting in severe injuries including a skull fracture – Supreme Court held that the case falls under Clauses Thirdly and Fourthly of Section 300 IPC – High Court's judgment altering the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder and reducing the sentence to ten years rigorous imprisonment quashed – Conviction under Section 302 IPC restored [Paras 1-14].

Indian Penal Code – Clauses Thirdly and Fourthly of Section 300 – The injuries inflicted by the accused were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, and the act was imminently dangerous, making the accused's actions fall squarely under Clauses Thirdly and Fourthly of Section 300 IPC – The accused's intent and knowledge were inferred from the nature of the weapon used, the force applied, and the severity of the injuries [Paras 7-8, 16, 45-47, 56-57].

Judicial Interpretation – Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC – Supreme Court clarified that Exception 4, which deals with acts done in a sudden fight in the heat of passion, was not applicable – The second incident occurred later and was not a result of a sudden fight but a deliberate attack by the accused, who chased the deceased to his house and continued the assault [Paras 5, 6].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's order set aside – Accused held guilty under Section 302 IPC – Life imprisonment sentence restored [Para 8].

Service Law – Selection Grade – Clean Record Requirement – The respondent, who was compulsorily retired and faced 19 charge-sheets during his service, sought Selection Grade benefits – Supreme Court held that employees are entitled to Selection Grade only if their service record is satisfactory, which implies an unblemished record – The respondent's multiple disciplinary penalties indicated that his record was not satisfactory, disqualifying him from Selection Grade benefits [Paras 10-11].

Limitation – Suit for Benefits – The respondent filed the suit seven years after compulsory retirement – Supreme Court found the suit barred by limitation under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which prescribes a three-year period – The representation for Selection Grade benefits rejected in 2010 did not extend the limitation period as the cause of action arose at the time of retirement [Paras 7-9].

Constitutional Law – Article 14 – Reasonable Classification – The Court upheld the classification that only employees with an untainted record are eligible for Selection Grade benefits, finding it reasonable and within the ambit of Article 14 – This classification ensures that benefits are awarded based on merit and clean service records [Para 9].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment set aside – Respondent's suit dismissed as barred by limitation and lacking merit – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 12-14].

Labour Law – Industrial Disputes Act – Contractors’ Workmen – The respondent Union representing workmen engaged by contractors claimed wages and service conditions at par with ONGC employees – Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal’s award, as modified by the High Court, finding that the settlement of 19th September 2016 did not bind the respondent workmen and that they were entitled to wage revisions and benefits based on earlier MoUs between ONGC and Unions [Paras 16-24].

Jurisdiction – Tribunal’s Jurisdiction – Mixed Question of Law and Fact – The Tribunal’s jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute was contested on the ground that the workmen were not employees of ONGC – Supreme Court held that the issue was a mixed question of law and fact, appropriately addressed by the Tribunal and upheld by the High Court, thus not warranting interference [Paras 12-15].

Settlement – Section 18(3)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act – Binding Nature – The settlement dated 19th September 2016 was held not binding on the respondent workmen – Supreme Court affirmed that the settlement primarily involved contractors and did not encompass the specific demands of the respondent Union representing ONGC’s workmen [Paras 19-24].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court’s judgment sustained – Directives for wage revisions and arrears payment to be implemented as per Tribunal’s award and High Court’s modifications – No order as to costs [Paras 25-28].