SARFAESI Act – Waiver and Estoppel – Borrower repeatedly requested restructuring of loans post notices under Sections 13(2) and (4) – Bank deferred SARFAESI action in consideration of Borrower's promises – Borrower's conduct amounted to waiver of statutory rights under Section 13(3A) – Equitable estoppel bars Borrower from challenging Bank’s actions – Appeals allowed, High Court’s judgment set aside [Paras 10-18].

Mandatory Compliance – Section 13(3A) – High Court found Bank failed to respond to Borrower's representations under Section 13(3A) – Supreme Court noted Borrower's intentional relinquishment of rights through repeated conduct – Violation of Section 13(3A) not significant in light of Borrower's actions [Paras 10-13].

Valuation of Mortgaged Property – Machinery and Land – Borrower contested valuation and sale process – Valuation report dated 19.02.2018 was not disputed – Machinery, building, and land sold together for higher than reserve price – Separate valuation or auction not required [Paras 19-20].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court’s judgment set aside – DRT's decision upholding the sale under SARFAESI Act restored [Para 21].

Service Law – Pension Determination – Appellant, a lecturer, sought to include his practice at the Bar as qualifying service for pension under Rule 25(a) of KSR – Respondent University denied the benefit citing a proviso inserted after his appointment – Supreme Court held the proviso could not be applied retrospectively to the appellant who joined before its insertion – Discriminatory denial of benefit since similarly situated employees received it – Appeals allowed, High Court’s judgment set aside [Paras 1-37].

Rule 25(a) KSR – Retrospective Application – Proviso inserted in 1985 limited Rule 25(a) benefits to posts requiring law qualification and Bar experience – Appellant appointed in 1984, before proviso – Proviso cannot apply retrospectively without express direction – Appellant entitled to benefit under Rule 25(a) as originally framed [Paras 25-27].

Discriminatory Treatment – Similar Situations – Another faculty member received benefits under Rule 25(a) without applying the proviso – University’s selective application of proviso to appellant was arbitrary and violated equality principles under the Constitution – Equal treatment required for similarly situated employees [Paras 28-33].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court's judgment set aside – University directed to calculate and pay shortfall in appellant's pension considering his Bar practice, with interest at 5% p.a. from date of superannuation [Paras 34-37].

Criminal Law – Unlawful Assembly – Appellant convicted under Sections 147, 148, 149, 201, and 302 IPC – Role assigned to appellant was only pointing out the house where the victim was hiding – Testimonies of key witnesses did not implicate appellant beyond this role – Presence of appellant explained by proximity of his house to the incident – Supreme Court held mere act of pointing out the hiding place did not constitute participation in unlawful assembly – Acquittal warranted [Paras 1-15].

Testimonies and Evidence – PW-1 to PW-15 – Majority did not mention appellant – PW-1, PW-4, and PW-5 noted appellant pointed out victim’s location – PW-7 hostile but corroborated pointing out – PW-8’s testimony based on hearsay – Inconsistency in testimonies and lack of direct evidence against appellant [Paras 5-9].

Legal Principles – Constructive Liability – Constructive liability under Section 149 IPC requires more than passive behavior – Court emphasized against convicting innocent bystanders – Mere proximity or passive conduct insufficient for conviction [Paras 10-14].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction under Sections 147, 148, 302, 201, 149 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted and ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case [Para 15-16].

Family Law – Dissolution of Marriage – Marriage dissolved on grounds of cruelty and desertion by the appellant-wife – Concurrent findings by Family Court and High Court – Supreme Court noted irretrievable breakdown of marriage as the parties have been living separately since May 2011 and respondent-husband has re-married – Decree of divorce upheld under Article 142 of the Constitution [Paras 1-6].

Maintenance of Child – Appellant-wife requested maintenance for herself and minor son – Respondent-husband liable to maintain son till he attains majority – Supreme Court directed respondent-husband to pay Rs. 50,000 per month for son’s maintenance from December 2019 onwards, to be deducted from salary by Army Authorities and credited to appellant’s bank account [Para 6].

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Court exercised power under Article 142 due to prolonged separation and remarriage of respondent – Findings on cruelty and desertion not further examined given breakdown of marriage [Paras 5-6].

Decision: Appeal disposed of – Decree of divorce/dissolution of marriage confirmed – Respondent-husband directed to pay maintenance for son – Arrears to be paid within eight weeks, ongoing maintenance to be deducted from salary [Para 7].

Criminal Law – Post-arrest Bail – Appellant charged with serious offences under IPC, Arms Act, Explosive Substances Act, and UAPA – Charges framed in June 2019, appellant in custody since July 2012 – Trial progress slow with 298 prosecution witnesses – Supreme Court granted bail considering prolonged incarceration and slow trial – Directed State of West Bengal to designate more Special Courts for speedy trial under NIA Act – Central Government advised to consult Chief Justice for expediting trials [Paras 1-23].

Bail Jurisprudence – Long Incarceration – Liberty under Part III of the Constitution includes speedy trial – Prolonged pre-trial detention inconsistent with Article 21 – Courts obligated to grant bail when trial delay evident – Appellant's nine and half years of detention significant for bail consideration [Paras 12-14].

Special Courts – NIA Act, 2008 – Section 19 mandates day-to-day trial for offences under NIA Act – Existing delay and single Special Court in West Bengal noted – State and Central Government directed to ensure compliance with legislative intent for speedy trials [Paras 10-19].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment set aside – Appellant to be released on post-arrest bail with conditions imposed by trial court – State of West Bengal and Central Government directed to address trial delays [Para 21].

Criminal Law – Rape – Conviction on Sole Testimony – Appellant convicted under Section 376 IPC based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix – Supreme Court upheld conviction, noting her testimony was consistent, credible, and unblemished – Court reiterated that the sole testimony of a trustworthy prosecutrix is sufficient for conviction, without requiring corroboration unless there are compelling reasons [Paras 1-6].

Medical Evidence and Delay in FIR – Lack of injuries on the prosecutrix and delay in filing FIR – Court noted delay explained by victim’s circumstances and familial disbelief – Medical examination conducted three days post-incident, explaining lack of injuries – Delay and absence of injuries not grounds to disbelieve prosecutrix’s testimony [Paras 4-9].

Alibi Defense – Accused’s plea of alibi rejected – Court found alibi unsupported by credible evidence – Defense witnesses and alleged circumstances disbelieved due to inconsistencies and lack of corroboration [Para 8].

Sentence – Appellant sought reduction of seven years rigorous imprisonment to simple imprisonment – Supreme Court rejected plea, finding no exceptional reasons to reduce sentence – Court upheld minimum sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment as appropriate for the gravity of the offense [Paras 10-11].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment under Section 376 IPC confirmed [Para 11].

Insolvency Law – Timely Resolution – Appeal arose from the NCLAT’s order directing liquidation due to delays in the insolvency resolution process – Supreme Court emphasized mandatory completion within 330 days as per Section 12 of IBC, including extensions and litigation time – Allowed further time for resolution due to unique circumstances and previous litigations, stressing no further delays in implementation [Paras 9-10].

Resolution Plan Implementation – DVI’s Commitment – DVI committed to implementing the approved resolution plan, with Rs. 500 crores already transferred to Corporate Debtor’s account – Supreme Court directed all parties to complete the implementation within four weeks, ensuring transfer to lenders as per the plan [Paras 6-11].

Legal Framework and Judicial Observations – Section 12 IBC mandates a strict timeline for the resolution process – Court highlighted the need for adherence to statutory timelines to uphold the objectives of IBC – Emphasized serious consequences for any further lapses in implementation [Para 10].

Decision: Appeal disposed of – All parties directed to complete implementation of the approved resolution plan within four weeks – Rs. 500 crores to be transferred to lenders/financial creditors as per the plan [Para 11].

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Appellant convicted under Section 302/149 IPC for causing fatal injuries to the deceased – High Court reduced the conviction to Section 304 Part II IPC – Supreme Court restored the original conviction, emphasizing the severity of the injuries and the intent behind them [Paras 1-22].

Nature of Injuries – Vital Parts – Evidence showed injuries to vital organs, including the right lung and liver, which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature – High Court's finding of no intent to kill was deemed erroneous given the nature and location of the injuries [Paras 6-13, 17-19].

Section 300 'Thirdly' IPC – Application – Court emphasized the applicability of 'thirdly' in Section 300 IPC, stating that the intention to cause bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death was evident in this case – High Court's error in applying Section 304 Part II IPC noted [Paras 16-19].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Supreme Court restored the conviction under Section 302/149 IPC as determined by the Sessions Court – High Court's order set aside [Paras 21-22].

Medical Negligence – No fault found with hospital operation theatre availability – Operation theatres were occupied during the patient's surgery timeframe – Non-availability during other ongoing surgeries not a ground for hospital negligence [Paras 18-19].

Doctor's Absence – Doctor's absence due to attending medical conferences abroad cannot infer negligence – The hospital had multi-specialty facilities and specialists attended the patient [Para 24].

Patient's Critical Condition – Patient admitted with severe conditions, impending gangrene noted before hospital admission – Despite surgery and re-exploration, the patient's survival was beyond the hospital's control – No negligence found in post-operative care [Paras 18, 22-23].

Res Ipsa Loquitur – Not applicable in this case – The principle does not establish medical negligence merely due to an unfavorable outcome or patient's death – Clear evidence required to substantiate negligence, which was lacking [Paras 27, 36].

Decision – Appeals allowed – National Commission’s order set aside – Complaint dismissed – Interim compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs provided to complainant treated as ex gratia [Paras 37-38].