Criminal Law – Murder – Section 302 IPC altered to Section 304 Part II IPC – Remand Ordered – Appellant convicted for murder committed on 28.10.2000 – Sessions court awarded life imprisonment – High Court on appeal, after 21 years, altered conviction to Section 304 Part II IPC with 5 years rigorous imprisonment through amicus curiae appointed in the absence of appellant's counsel – Supreme Court finds that appellant was not informed of appointment of amicus or listing of appeal for final hearing – Held: Impugned order set aside; appeal remanded to High Court for hearing de novo; all points on merits kept open [Paras 13-18].

Fair Trial – Appointment of Amicus Curiae – Duty to Inform Convict – Appellant's counsel did not appear; Division Bench appointed amicus after 20 years of pendency – Amicus urged a ground not raised in the memorandum of appeal and did not press grounds actually raised – High Court issued no notice to appellant of counsel's absence or appointment of amicus – Held: While the High Court was under no obligation to inform the appellant, it would have been a desirable precaution to do so; legal aid must be real and meaningful and not a token gesture; justice would have been better served had a notice been sent to the convict [Paras 13-15].

Convict on Bail – Duty to Pursue Appeal – Appellants Neglecting Proceedings – Appellant was on bail for 20 years without pursuing his appeal and did not keep track of proceedings – Held: Appellant while on bail has himself to blame for not keeping track of his appeal; he cannot urge before the Supreme Court grounds that were never pressed before the High Court; the tendency of convicts to misuse bail concessions must be dealt with firm hands [Para 13].

Guidelines – Procedure When Amicus Appointed for Absent Convict – Henceforth, when an appellate court appoints an amicus for an absent convict, the court should also consider issuing a notice to the convict through the jurisdictional police station to the address in the memorandum of appeal, informing the convict to contact the amicus and provide instructions – If the convict desires his own counsel, the court may hear both; if the convict remains dormant after service or refusal of notice, the High Court may proceed to decide the appeal; if notice cannot be served, pasting on the outer wall of the premises shall be sufficient compliance [Para 23].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Impugned order of the High Court dated 02.12.2024 set aside – Appeal revived on the file of the High Court for hearing de novo – Appellant released on bail forthwith on terms and conditions imposed by the trial court – High Court directed to decide the appeal as early as possible; preferably by the same Division Bench; not to be influenced by observations in the impugned order.

NDPS Act – Section 50 – Personal Search – Third Option – Non-Compliance – Accused apprehended carrying bag containing 11 kg 50 grams of charas – Trial Court convicted and sentenced accused to 10 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,00,000 – High Court acquitted accused holding that Investigating Officer offered accused a third option of being searched before a police officer, which is impermissible under Section 50 – Section 50 mandates only two options: search before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer – Offering a third option vitiated the entire trial – Held: High Court committed no error – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-19].

NDPS Act – Section 50 – Mandatory Compliance – Strict Construction – Where both a bag and the person of the accused are searched, Section 50 is attracted – Failure to apprise accused of his right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate renders recovery suspect and conviction unsustainable – Concept of substantial compliance not acceptable – Compliance with Section 50(1) is mandatory and requires strict observance [Paras 16-18].

Prosecution Case – Credibility – Recovery by Chance – PW-8's testimony that only a traditional weighing scale was available at his shop directly contradicted prosecution's claim that an electronic weighing scale was used for weighing the contraband – This additional infirmity rendered the prosecution case doubtful and untrustworthy – Prosecution failed to establish recovery beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 15, 18].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal of respondent-accused upheld.

Motor Vehicles Act – Compensation – Group Insurance Deduction – Whether employer-provided group insurance benefits constitute "pecuniary advantage" deductible from motor accident compensation – Two sets of appeals involving separate accidents where tribunals deducted group insurance amounts from compensation – High Courts in both cases set aside the deductions – Supreme Court affirms High Court orders holding that such benefits arise from independent contractual relationships and cannot be deducted from statutory compensation – Appeals dismissed [Paras 1-18].

Motor Accident Compensation – Deduction of Collateral Benefits – Employer Group Insurance – Principle that a claimant should not gain twice from the same accident examined – Held: Employer-provided group insurance benefits are earned by the deceased through contractual relations entered into during his lifetime and do not accrue to dependants solely by reason of the accident – Such amounts lack the requisite nexus with accidental death to qualify as deductible "pecuniary advantages" under the Motor Vehicles Act – Principle of balancing loss and gain cannot be invoked to diminish statutory entitlement to just compensation [Paras 10-16].

Procedural Objection – Non-joinder of Driver – In Civil Appeal Nos. 5492-5493, appellant raised procedural objection regarding non-joinder of driver as party – Both Tribunal and High Court rightly rejected the objection – Motor Vehicles Act compensation provisions are beneficial in nature and rigours of procedure cannot be allowed to defeat their purpose as trial is summary in nature [Paras 11-12].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – High Court judgments in MFA No. 2593 of 2020 c/w MFA No. 3299 of 2020 and MFA No. 9538 of 2017 affirmed – Appellants directed to deposit awarded compensation within six weeks if not already deposited – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law – Gang Rape – Conviction and Acquittal – Appellants convicted by Trial Court under Section 376(2)(G) and Section 506 IPC and sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment – Conviction upheld by High Court – Supreme Court finds that prosecution case rests solely on testimony of prosecutrix without corroborative evidence – Testimony suffers from material contradictions and inconsistencies – Unexplained delay of three months and 24 days in lodging FIR – Defence of prior enmity not properly considered – Held: Prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Appeal allowed and conviction set aside [Paras 13-18].

Delay in Filing FIR – Rape Cases – Prosecutrix lodged complaint after three months and 24 days of alleged incident on 07.04.1998 – FIR registered on 31.07.1998 – Prosecutrix claimed she did not disclose incident to family members including husband due to shame and ignorance – Court finds this conduct unnatural – Incident allegedly disclosed only to unknown woman Rahees Fatima whose statement was never recorded – Court observes it is difficult to accept that such grave incident was not disclosed to husband but to stranger woman who never deposed – Held: Delay not satisfactorily explained [Paras 4, 9, 14].

Evidence – Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix – Entire prosecution case based solely on testimony of prosecutrix – No medical evidence produced – No other witnesses examined – Woman to whom incident was allegedly disclosed (Rahees Fatima) never produced before court – I.O. stated her statement was recorded along with two other witnesses Mohd. Salim and Smt. Chandra Sharma but they were also never produced – Held: In absence of corroborative evidence and material inconsistencies, sole testimony of prosecutrix fails to inspire confidence [Paras 9-10, 14-15].

Contradictions in Prosecution Case – FIR and Statement of Prosecutrix – Material contradictions between FIR and statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. – FIR states incident took place in room whereas statement says it occurred in plot – Prosecutrix claimed bulb of her house was broken but I.O. stated there was no electricity in the house – Distance from house to site of incident stated as 2-3 kms in statement but I.O. found it was 15-20 steps away – Scribe of FIR mentioned as Jagjeevan Jot Singh but prosecutrix claimed unknown woman wrote it – Scribe never produced to verify – Held: Material inconsistencies weaken prosecution case [Paras 4-7, 14].

Prior Enmity – False Implication – Defence raised plea of prior enmity between prosecutrix and accused due to water dispute – Complaint dated 02.07.1998 regarding water dispute brought to notice of I.O. – Brother-in-law of prosecutrix stated in court confirming enmity of water dispute and stated prosecutrix was at home on date of incident – Accused falsely implicated – Held: Defence of prior enmity not properly considered by courts below and complete weightage given to testimony of prosecutrix [Paras 6, 14].

Conviction Based on Sole Testimony – Principle – Conviction can rest on solitary version of prosecutrix provided it inspires confidence of Court – In present case, version of prosecutrix utterly fails to inspire confidence – No medical evidence or other supporting evidence on record – Material on record does not clearly establish guilt of accused persons – Held: Prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 15, 17].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 376(2)(G) IPC and Section 506 IPC set aside – Appellants acquitted – Appellants to be released immediately if not convicted under any other offence.

Banking Law - SARFAESI Act - Recovery Proceedings - Auction Sale - Confirmation of Sale - Valuation of Properties - Respondent No. 6 Bank filed O.A. No. 536 of 1998 before DRT Chennai for recovery of Rs. 45,66,923.83 as outstanding balance from Respondent No. 7 and guarantors - DRT passed final order on 12.01.2010 granting Recovery Certificate - Auction held on 29.10.2010 - Appellant emerged as successful bidder with bid of Rs. 2,10,98,765/- against upset price of Rs. 2 crores - Sixteen bidders participated - Sale confirmed by DRT on 31.01.2011 - Sale Certificate dated 01.02.2011 issued and registered as Document No. 413 of 2011 on 02.02.2011 - DRAT by order dated 24.10.2017 affirmed legality of auction proceedings and protected rights of auction purchaser - High Court by impugned judgment dated 06.02.2020 upheld validity of auction sale and rights of appellant as auction purchaser but directed reconsideration of valuation of properties and remitted matter to DRT on limited aspect - Held: Limited remand for fresh consideration of valuation does not disturb concluded auction process - Direction merely enables DRT to assess whether valuation and fixation of reserve price were in accordance with law [Paras 10-17].

Auction Sale - Protection to Bona Fide Purchaser - Rights of bona fide auction purchaser deserve due protection and confirmed court sales should not ordinarily be interfered with - However, such protection is not absolute - Where credible issues raised regarding adequacy of valuation or fairness of process leading to fixation of reserve price, supervisory jurisdiction of Court may be invoked to ensure recovery proceedings conducted in manner that secures best possible value of property - Objective of recovery proceedings is not merely to complete sale but to realise maximum value of secured asset so as to balance interests of creditor and borrower - Purpose of auction is to obtain most remunerative price for property by affording opportunity to intending purchasers to participate in process of competitive bidding thereby ensuring transparency and fairness in sale - If process of competitive bidding is curtailed or compromised, possibility of underbidding or securing inadequate price cannot be ruled out - Court required to exercise discretion with circumspection to safeguard legitimate interests involved in sale process [Paras 14-15].

Valuation - Scrutiny by Court - High Court upon examining record was of view that question relating to valuation of property and fixation of reserve price warranted closer scrutiny - High Court neither set aside auction sale nor questioned participation of auction purchaser - Direction confined to reconsideration of issue of valuation by DRT - Limited remand does not prejudge rights of auction purchaser but enables DRT to assess whether valuation and fixation of reserve price were in accordance with law - Remand does not disturb recovery already effected by bank nor does it render auction proceedings void - Limited remand for fresh consideration by DRT cannot be said to be legally untenable [Paras 16-17].

Finality of Auction Sale - Principle of finality attached to court-confirmed auction sales cannot operate to shield process from judicial examination where question relates to adequacy of valuation or fixation of reserve price, particularly when such examination is necessary to ensure that secured asset has fetched best possible price - Requirement that recovery process be fair, transparent and based on proper assessment of value must co-exist with principle of finality governing confirmed sales - Confirmation of sale does not render matter entirely immune from further scrutiny where question relates to adequacy of valuation or fixation of reserve price [Paras 18, 20].

Recovery of Debts - Statutory Procedure - Recovery proceedings initiated pursuant to recovery certificate issued under Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 - Recovery Officer conducted auction sale by following procedure prescribed under Second Schedule to Income Tax Act, 1961 - Valuation report dated 08.09.2010 obtained prior to issuance of proclamation of sale - Sixteen bidders participated in auction - Sale confirmed by DRT on 31.01.2011 upon deposit of entire sale consideration - Sale certificate issued - Auction conducted in accordance with prescribed statutory procedure [Paras 8.1-8.3, 13].

Decision: Civil appeal dismissed - No error in course adopted by High Court in remitting matter to DRT for reconsideration of issue of valuation - Direction reflects balanced exercise of jurisdiction and does not require interference - No order as to costs.

Criminal Law – Bail – Section 307 IPC – Incarceration Exceeding Two Years – Bail Granted – Appellant was denied bail by the Allahabad High Court in FIR Case Crime No. 216 of 2023 registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 IPC and Sections 3, 25 and 27 of the Arms Act – High Court noted two grievous firearm injuries to the victim and Trial Court's observation that defence was purposefully delaying trial – Appellant had been incarcerated for more than two years – Serious contradictions found in recorded statements despite FIR alleging the appellant shot the victim – Co-accused alleged with overt acts had been enlarged on bail – Held: No purpose served in continuing incarceration pending trial; bail granted [Paras 1-6].

Trial Delay – Attribution – Victim's Conduct – Online Appearance – Appellant was in jail and therefore delay in trial could not be attributed to him – Victim resorted to intimidation within court premises for which an FIR was registered against the victim – Court directed Trial Court to permit accused to appear online or grant exemption from personal appearance to avoid tense situation – Non-cooperation of defence counsel addressed by directing closure of cross-examination if counsel fails to appear on second occasion [Paras 5, 9].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned order of Allahabad High Court set aside – Appellant directed to be released on bail on terms and conditions as fixed by the Trial Court – Observations not to be treated as comments on merits of the case.

Constitutional Law - Article 32 - Delay and Laches - Doctrine of Delay and Laches in Article 32 Petitions - Writ petition filed in 2014 challenging notification issued in 1955 - Delay of nearly six decades - Doctrine of laches operates as flexible rule of practice rather than rigid rule of law - Application anchored in sound judicial discretion moulded by specific facts and circumstances - Court performs balancing exercise weighing equity in not allowing stale claims against paramount constitutional duty to enforce fundamental rights - Held: Doctrine of laches not to be applied mechanically or rigidly - Inquiry guided by three primary considerations: whether inordinate delay in approaching Court, whether petitioner provided cogent explanation for delay, and whether entertaining belated claim would unsettle settled matters and prejudice third party rights [Paras 24-38].

Article 32 Petitions - Delay and Laches - Operative Test - Adequacy of explanation for delay constitutes paramount consideration when determining whether Article 32 petition ought to be dismissed on ground of laches - Operative test is not one of unreasonable delay but of unexplained delay - Even in instances where Court declined relief to prevent disruption of crystallised third-party rights, foundational premise for dismissal was petitioner's failure to furnish cogent and satisfactory explanation for delay - Emphasis on unexplained delay assumes heightened significance in writ proceedings where State is respondent - State cannot be permitted to benefit from its own lethargy by weaponising doctrine of laches against petitioner when State itself delayed taking conclusive decision [Paras 45-46].

Transformative Constitutionalism - Historical Injustices - Delay and Laches - Constitution conceptualised as living and dynamic body of law capable of constant updation and evolution as per changing societal mores - Rigid application of doctrine of delay and laches could inadvertently perpetuate historical wrongs and deny access to justice - When Court confronted with claims inextricably linked to historical wrong or systemic injustice, judicial scales must largely tilt in favour of granting access to court - Constitution's profound potential to address and correct historical wrongs forms fulcrum of Part III dealing with fundamental rights - Procedural threshold of laches should not become insurmountable wall against claims involving historical injustices [Paras 48-51].

Public Interest and Constitutional Validity - Exception to Doctrine of Laches - Doctrine of delay and laches not applicable strictly in matters where: (i) claim affects public at large, and (ii) vires of statute challenged vis-à-vis Constitution - Court accepts idea of transformative constitutionalism - Denying constitutional challenge solely based on delay would establish arbitrary cut-off beyond which laws could no longer be re-examined - Changing societal circumstances sometimes necessitate reconsideration of status quo even when challenge brought after considerable lapse of time - Time should not run in favour of constitutionally invalid statute [Paras 48, 68-70 of Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha vs Union of India cited].

Delay and Laches - Application to Facts - Petitioners Seeking Compensation for Historical Land Acquisition - Petition filed in 2014 challenging 1955 notification - Prima facie inordinate delay of six decades - However, petitioners offered confluence of mitigating circumstances: (i) region's unique and tumultuous historical trajectory with continuous evolution of administrative and constitutional status, (ii) political upheaval spanning nearly two decades in form of insurgency, (iii) continuous agitation of claims before various forums, and (iv) State of Mizoram held out hope for amicable settlement and never outrightly rejected grievances - State conducted itself in manner engendering legitimate expectation that resolution was imminent - High Court on two prior occasions left avenue open for chiefs to pursue legal remedies - Held: Petition not to be dismissed at threshold solely on ground of delay - To shut doors without examining substance of claims would be highly unjust [Paras 55-61].

Right to Property - Burden of Proof - Fundamental Rights Violation - Initial burden on petitioner to satisfy Court and make out case for invasion of fundamental right - To establish violation of fundamental right to property, petitioner must succeed on two fronts: (i) prove clear title over subject lands, and (ii) satisfy parameters under Article 31 including proving deprivation without lawful authority or acquisition without due compensation - In present case, petitioner failed to discharge burden of proving title over subject lands - Material adduced by petitioner primarily relied on accounts and writings of scholars and officials of British government which was highly ambiguous - No comprehensive compilation or analysis of boundary papers issued to Chiefs - Held: Petitioner woefully failed to discharge burden of proving title over subject lands [Paras 66-70].

Right to Property - Compensation - Illusory Compensation - Petitioner asserted compensation disbursed to Mizo Chiefs was illusory - However, petitioner entirely failed to traverse plethora of legal precedents delineating parameters for determining when compensation becomes legally illusory - Pleadings silent on how claim interacts with broader constitutional framework of property rights under Part III or how it reconciles with other legislation in force - Petitioner approached profoundly complex legal issue in simplistic and superficial manner - Held: Petitioner failed to establish violation of fundamental rights [Paras 71].

Equality and Discrimination - Article 14 - Comparison with Princely States - Petitioner contended Mizo Chiefs stood on equal historical footing with rulers of erstwhile Princely States and State's failure to grant comparable compensation or privy purses was manifestly arbitrary - Assertion devoid of legal basis - Privy purses and privileges granted to erstwhile rulers of Princely States were direct outcome of specific pre-constitutional political and contractual arrangements negotiated between rulers and Government - Legally flawed to equate and elevate these entitlements to status of right which all erstwhile rulers were constitutionally bestowed upon - Such political arrangements cannot be claimed as matter of legally enforceable right, much less fundamental right - Held: Contention rejected [Para 72].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed - Petitioner failed to establish violation of fundamental rights of Mizo Chiefs - Petitioner not entitled to any reliefs sought - Pending applications also dismissed.

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Illegal Gratification - Conviction under Section 7 and Section 13(2) - Appellant serving as Constable in Excise Department demanded Rs. 500/- as illegal gratification from complainant involved in contraband liquor business - Threatened complainant with false implication if amount not paid - Trap organised by Vigilance Department on 19.06.1990 - Five currency notes of Rs. 100/- each tainted with phenolphthalein powder recovered from appellant - Hands soaked in Sodium Carbonate solution turned pinkish confirming presence of phenolphthalein powder - Trial Court convicted appellant to undergo RI for one year and fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 7 and RI for two years and fine of Rs. 2,000/- under Section 13(2) - High Court sustained conviction - Held: Prosecution case rests on ocular evidence - Oral testimonies of complainant (PW-1) and independent witness (PW-2) reliable and consistent - No material contradictions or omissions - Conviction upheld [Paras 11-25].

Evidence - Oral Testimony - Complainant and Independent Witness - PW-1 (complainant Kashmir Singh) gave detailed version stating he was in liquor trade and on 16.06.1990 Excise Department raided his village - Accused demanded Rs. 500/- and threatened false implication - PW-1 gave detailed description of pre-trap steps, trap conducted and post-trap measures - Subjected to cross-examination and stood firm to version - No contradiction or omission making version doubtful - PW-2 (Jeet Singh) was shadow witness who corroborated entire chain of occurrence in pith and substance - Minor discrepancies ignorable - Held: Oral testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 reliable and worthy of credence [Paras 12-16].

Interested Witness - Acquaintance with Complainant - PW-2 stated complainant Kashmir Singh was not his relative but person of his knowledge - Appellant contended PW-2 was interested witness whose testimony should not be relied upon - Held: Merely on statement that PW-2 had acquaintance with PW-1, one cannot conclude that PW-2 was interested witness - To brand witness as interested witness, defence required to bring specific material showing hostility of particular witness - No such material brought on record [Para 15].

Defence Evidence - Restaurant Owner - Appellant contended restaurant owner (defence witness) did not support prosecution case - Restaurant owner denied any occurrence of raid in his restaurant on relevant date - High Court held this witness not trustworthy as he was local resident of town Khatima running restaurant there and accused also hailed from same town - Naturally small restaurant owner cannot incur wrath of native person and Government servant Constable of Excise Police - Complainant was resident of village far away from Khatima - Not possible for small restaurant owner to depose truth against accused - Held: Oral testimony of restaurant owner-defence witness cannot be accepted against reliable version of PW-2 [Para 17].

Criminal Procedure - Section 313 Cr.P.C. - Examination of Accused - Appellant contended he was not afforded opportunity to examine himself as defence witness as per Section 21 of P.C. Act - High Court held Act provides opportunity to accused to get himself examined in open court on oath to reveal truth but accused did not dare to avail this opportunity - Statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded - Held: Ground holds no water [Paras 18-19].

Evidence - Production of Currency Notes - Appellant contended currency notes in question were not produced before Court and such omission was fatal to prosecution case - Ground never raised before Trial Court or High Court - Not raised as ground in special leave petition - Orally raised at time of arguing matter before Supreme Court - Perusal of judgments shows complainant along with raiding party went to restaurant - Act of handing over currency notes to accused and acceptance of currency notes and thereafter hands and currency notes being exposed to water turned pink showing trace of phenolphthalein powder recorded in duly drawn panchnama - Held: Submission cannot be accepted [Paras 20-22].

Enmity - False Implication - Appellant contended complaint was result of personal enmity which complainant bears against appellant - Both Courts failed to appreciate defence of enmity - Perusal of deposition of PW-1 shows he stated he was indulged in liquor trade and action was already initiated against him three times and he was released on bail - PW-1 was facing prosecution launched against him - Held: Court not inclined to accept submission [Paras 23-24].

Sentence - Modification - Minimum Sentence - Appellant was approximately 40 years at time of offence and now approximately 75 years of age - Appellant surrendered on 15.10.2012 - Bail granted on 07.01.2013 - Appellant was behind bars for period of approximately 2 months and 24 days - Considering these facts, sentence awarded by Trial Court and upheld by High Court modified to minimum sentence - Held: Sentence modified to rigorous imprisonment of 6 months for offence under Section 7 and rigorous imprisonment of 1 year for offence under Section 13(2) of P.C. Act [Paras 25-26].

Decision: Appeal disposed of - Conviction under Section 7 and Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 upheld - Sentence modified to rigorous imprisonment of 6 months for offence under Section 7 and rigorous imprisonment of 1 year for offence under Section 13(2) of P.C. Act.

Arbitration – MSME Act – Execution of Award – Facilitation Council – Remand Set Aside – Writ Petitions to Be Heard with Civil Revisions – Appellant (AP TRANSCO) contracted with Respondent No. 2 for supply of conductors in 1998 – Dispute referred to arbitration under the MSME Act; Haryana Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council passed two awards on 21.06.2010 – Challenges under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration Act and Special Leave Petition were dismissed – Facilitation Council on review passed order dated 11.07.2018 securing interest amounts of Rs. 5,90,86,059/- and Rs. 6,08,99,870/- and restraining appellant from receiving payments from garnishees – High Court allowed Writ Petitions on ground of violation of natural justice and remanded matter to Facilitation Council – Held: Remand to Facilitation Council not appropriate; Writ Petitions to be heard together with pending Civil Revision Petitions for common adjudication [Paras 3-4, 8-9, 11-12].

Execution Petition – Government Company as Judgment Debtor – Arrest of Officers Not Maintainable – Execution Petitions filed before Commercial Court, Vijayawada were dismissed – Commercial Court held that failure to pay decretal amount by a Government Company cannot be treated as refusal or negligence of a public servant – Arrest and detention of Chairman, Managing Director or Directors of the judgment debtor company is not maintainable in absence of pleading and proof of intentional refusal or neglect to pay – Revisions against dismissal of Execution Petitions are pending before the Andhra Pradesh High Court [Para 6].

Consolidation of Proceedings – Avoidance of Conflicting Orders – Since issues in the Writ Petitions and Civil Revision Petitions arise from the same awards between the same parties, joint hearing directed to avoid conflicting orders and ensure expeditious disposal – High Court requested to dispose of the consolidated matters preferably within four months [Para 11-12].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Orders of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition Nos. 34399 and 34412 of 2018 set aside – Writ Petitions directed to be taken up along with CRP Nos. 74, 197 and 220 of 2021 and disposed of in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within four months.