Partnership Law – Bar of Section 69(2) – Appeal against High Court's decision rejecting the plaint under Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act – Suit for declaration and injunction by unregistered firm – Supreme Court reiterates that the bar under Section 69(2) applies only to suits for enforcement of rights arising from contracts entered into during the course of business – Suit challenging sale deed on grounds of fraud and seeking statutory rights is not barred – Appeal allowed, High Court judgment set aside, and trial court order restored [Paras 1-22].

Statutory and Common Law Rights – Enforceability by Unregistered Firm –

Unregistered firm’s suit not barred when enforcing statutory or common law rights – Right to seek declaration and injunction on grounds of fraud and misrepresentation does not arise from contract but from statutory and common law rights – Bar under Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act not applicable to such suits [Paras 15-20].

Decision- Appeal allowed – High Court judgment dated February 15, 2018, set aside – Trial Court order dated April 7, 2017, restored – Trial Court to proceed with the trial in accordance with law [Para 22].

Constitutional Law – Article 32 – Premature Release – Petition seeking premature release from prison based on policy at the time of conviction – Petitioner served 22.5 years without remission and almost 28 years with remission – Supreme Court directs consideration under the 2018 policy, as recent changes in 2021 policy imposing age limit are prima facie unsustainable – State Government directed to reconsider the clause prescribing a minimum age of 60 years [Paras 1-14].

Penal Code – Sections 302, 307, 323, 34 – Sentencing and Remission – Petitioner convicted under IPC Sections 302, 307, 323, and 34 – High Court appeal pending for 17 years – Supreme Court notes that the appeal pendency does not preclude State Government from considering remission – Directs State Government to consider petitioner’s case for remission under 2018 policy within three months – State Government also directed to revisit 2021 policy within four months [Paras 2-14].

Decision- Writ Petition allowed – Directions issued for consideration of petitioner’s remission within three months – State Government to re-examine the 2021 policy clause on minimum age within four months – Petitioner granted bail pending consideration [Paras 14-15].

Labour Law – Termination – Reinstatement and Compensation – Appeal against High Court's decision affirming Labour Court's order of reinstatement with back wages – Respondent's termination in breach of Sections 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act – Supreme Court finds that reinstatement and back wages not warranted for a contractual employee on fixed honorarium – Orders lump sum compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- in lieu of reinstatement and back wages [Paras 1-8].

Industrial Disputes Act – Breach of Sections 25-F and 25-G – Respondent worked as a sweeper on contractual basis at a fixed honorarium – Termination found in breach of Sections 25-F and 25-G by Labour Court – No specific allegations of unfair labour practice – Supreme Court modifies the order of reinstatement and back wages to lump sum compensation, considering nature of appointment and honorarium [Paras 2-7].

Decision- Appeal partly allowed – High Court judgment and Labour Court award modified – Appellant directed to pay lump sum compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- to respondent within four weeks – No order as to costs [Paras 8].

Tender Process – Judicial Review – Appeals challenging High Court's interference with the tender inviting authority's decision – Tender for supply of tablets – Supreme Court emphasizes that the tender inviting authority is the best judge of its requirements – Court should not interfere unless there is mala fide or perversity – High Court's decision to interpret tender terms contrary to the tender inviting authority's interpretation was erroneous – Appeals allowed, High Court judgment set aside, writ petition dismissed [Paras 1-29].

Interpretation of Tender Documents – Authority's Discretion – Tender inviting authority interpreted "similar category products" to exclude smart phones from tablets – High Court's detailed analysis of similarities between tablets and smart phones was unnecessary – Authority's interpretation aligned with categorization on GeM portal and customs classifications – Decision of authority upheld as it was neither arbitrary nor unreasonable [Paras 18-23].

Decision- Appeals allowed – High Court judgment and order dated September 27, 2021, set aside – Writ Petition (C) No. 6676 of 2021 dismissed – No order as to costs [Paras 28-29].

Disciplinary Proceedings – Judicial Review – Appeal challenging the High Court's decision to set aside the dismissal of a bank employee – Supreme Court emphasizes that judicial review under Article 226 is not appellate in nature – Courts can intervene when findings are based on no evidence, are perverse, or are based on irrelevant material – High Court's decision scrutinized the record and found the disciplinary findings unsupported by evidence – Appeal dismissed, High Court judgment upheld, employee's dismissal set aside, and reinstatement with all benefits ordered [Paras 1-26].

Scope of Judicial Review – Evidence and Perversity –,Findings of disciplinary authority can be reviewed if based on no evidence or ignoring material evidence – Procedural fairness and reasonable opportunity must be ensured in disciplinary proceedings – High Court correctly found the charges against the employee not substantiated by evidence – Confession by other employees could not be used against the respondent without corroborative evidence – Supreme Court supports High Court's conclusion that findings were perverse and unsupported by evidence [Paras 16-25].

Decision- Appeal dismissed – High Court judgment and order dated December 16, 2008, upheld – Respondent to be reinstated with all consequential benefits – Bank directed to calculate and pay arrears of salary, increments, and terminal benefits within three months [Paras 26].

Criminal Law – Burden of Proof – Alibi – Appeal against conviction for murder – Plea of alibi by appellant – Trial court and High Court concurrently found plea of alibi unconvincing – Supreme Court reiterates heavy burden on accused to prove alibi with certainty – Evidence adduced by appellant sketchy and insufficient to exclude presence at crime scene – Appeal dismissed on grounds of failure to discharge burden of proof [Paras 16-20].

Inquest and Post-Mortem Reports – Discrepancies – Discrepancies between inquest and post-mortem reports – Inquest report not substantive evidence but serves to ascertain cause of death – Post-mortem report by medical expert given more weight – Supreme Court finds no merit in claims of ante-dated FIR and discrepancies impacting prosecution case [Paras 28-32].

Judicial Review – Concurrent Findings – Supreme Court emphasizes limited scope of judicial review in criminal appeals – Interference warranted only in cases of manifest error or miscarriage of justice – Concurrent findings of fact by lower courts not disturbed unless clearly perverse – Appellant's arguments on defective investigation and absence of independent witnesses found unpersuasive [Paras 36-37].

Decision- Appeals dismissed – Conviction and sentences upheld – Directions for compliance with procedural mandates regarding evidence and investigation reiterated – Parties to bear their own costs [Para 38].

Execution of Foreign Decrees – Jurisdiction – Appeal against the High Court's decision on the execution of a foreign money decree – Foreign decree from a superior court of a reciprocating territory (United Kingdom) – Supreme Court clarifies that the High Court of Delhi has jurisdiction to entertain execution petitions for foreign decrees if the decree amount exceeds the pecuniary limits set under Section 5(2) of the Delhi High Court Act – High Court of Delhi considered a "principal civil Court of original jurisdiction" when pecuniary limits are exceeded – Appeal allowed, Division Bench judgment set aside, matter remanded to High Court for expedited hearing [Paras 1-32].

Interpretation of "District Court" – Section 44A CPC – "District Court" under Section 44A of the CPC includes courts with ordinary original civil jurisdiction based on pecuniary limits – High Court of Delhi, exercising such jurisdiction, competent to execute foreign decrees when pecuniary limits are met – Division Bench erred in excluding High Court from jurisdiction over foreign decree execution – Execution proceedings are a continuation of the original suit, thus falling within the jurisdiction of the High Court when pecuniary limits are exceeded [Paras 24-30].

Decision- Appeal allowed – Division Bench judgment dated July 1, 2014, quashed and set aside – Execution First Appeal (EFA) No. 3 of 2014 restored to the file of the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi – High Court directed to expedite the hearing and decide on merits within four months [Paras 31-32].

Externment Order – Grounds and Necessity – Appeal against the externment order based on multiple offences and in-camera statements – Supreme Court emphasizes that externment is an extraordinary measure that should be invoked sparingly – Necessity for objective material to support subjective satisfaction of the competent authority – Mere pendency of multiple offences insufficient for externment without live link to current necessity – Externment order for maximum period requires specific justification – Appeal allowed, externment order and High Court judgment set aside [Paras 1-16].

Fundamental Rights – Reasonableness of Restrictions – Externment order affects fundamental right of free movement under Article 19(1)(d) – Restrictions must be reasonable and based on objective material – Non-application of mind by competent authority apparent – No material indicating ongoing activities justifying externment – Externment period of two years not justified without specific reasons – Supreme Court sets aside externment order [Paras 4-14].

Decision- Appeal allowed – Externment order dated December 15, 2020, and High Court judgment dated August 20, 2021, quashed and set aside – Appellant's fundamental rights restored – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 15-16].

Bail – Judicial Discretion – Appeal against High Court's order granting bail to an accused charged with serious financial offences – Supreme Court emphasizes that bail decisions must consider the nature and gravity of the accusations, the modus operandi, and the evidence collected during the investigation – High Court's failure to consider these factors renders its decision unsustainable – Appeal allowed, bail order set aside, and respondent directed to surrender [Paras 1-14].

Financial Fraud – Consideration of Evidence – Accusations involve misappropriation and siphoning of Rs. 25 crores through shell companies using false documents – High Court did not consider the status report and evidence showing the systematic fraud committed – Supreme Court highlights the necessity of considering all relevant factors and evidence in bail decisions [Paras 9-13].

Decision- Appeal allowed – High Court judgment and order dated September 14, 2020, granting bail quashed and set aside – Respondent to surrender immediately – Respondent allowed to apply for bail afresh after three months, with High Court to consider the application based on relevant material and factors [Paras 13-14].