Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code – Limitation Period – Appeal under Section 61 IBC – Limitation period for filing an appeal is thirty days from the date of the order, extendable by fifteen days upon showing sufficient cause – Time requisite for obtaining a certified copy excluded under Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act – Litigant must apply for and obtain a certified copy for filing an appeal – Delay in receipt of a certified copy, once applied for, is excluded from the limitation period calculation – Parties cannot wait for a free certified copy under Section 420(3) of the Companies Act to delay the limitation period [Paras 1-28].

IBC – Calculation of Limitation Period – Clarification that Section 61(2) of the IBC does not include language allowing limitation to be computed from the date the order is made available to the aggrieved party, unlike Section 421(3) of the Companies Act – Ensures timely resolution and avoids delays inherent in insolvency proceedings – Strict adherence to procedural requirements emphasized [Paras 9-13].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Held – High Court and NCLAT orders upheld – Appeal dismissed as barred by limitation – Emphasis on due diligence and timely application for a certified copy of the order to avoid delay [Para 24].

Execution of Decree – Assignment – Without Separate Assignment – Law Commission recommended amending Order 21, Rule 16 to clarify that it does not affect the provisions of Section 146 of the CPC – Transferee of rights in the subject matter of the suit can obtain execution of a decree without a separate assignment – Objective to avoid multifarious proceedings – Amended Order 21, Rule 16 deals with assignments pre and post-decree similarly to promote judicial efficiency [Paras 1-28].

Civil Procedure – Application for Execution by Transferee – Section 146 of the CPC allows for the proceedings to be continued by representatives or assignees without separate assignment – Explanation added to Order 21, Rule 16 intended to resolve conflicting views of High Courts and ensure clarity – Post-amendment, the earlier legal position restricting pre-decree assignments does not prevail [Paras 24-27].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Held – Impugned judgments set aside – Matter remitted back to the executing court for determination on the validity of the assignment deed – Executing court directed to expedite the proceedings [Para 28-29].

Pensionary Benefits – Break in Service – Condonation – Appellant served in Central Government and subsequently in State Government – Intervening non-pensionable service in a State-owned PSU – Appellant sought to condone the break in service and reckon prior service for pension – Government orders allowed condonation of break in service between qualifying services – KAT upheld appellant’s entitlement, but High Court set aside KAT’s decision – Supreme Court restored KAT’s order, allowing condonation of break and reckoning of prior service for pensionary benefits [Paras 1-28].

Government Orders – Interpretation – Government orders issued on 12.11.2002 and 06.12.2003 provided for reckoning prior qualifying service with condonation of break – Government order dated 24.09.2014 allowed condonation of non-qualifying sandwiched service – High Court’s interpretation limiting retrospective application rejected – Issue still pending when the relevant government order was issued [Paras 13-15].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Held – High Court’s order set aside – KAT’s order restored – Time for implementation starts from the date of the Supreme Court’s judgment [Paras 15-17].

Contract Finalization – Procedural Impropriety – High Court permitted original writ applicant to modify its offer without giving opportunity to other applicants – Other applicants neither impleaded as parties nor given a chance to modify their offers – Procedure adopted by High Court unsustainable and contrary to law – High Court's issuance of writ of mandamus without addressing merits and without appropriate procedural safeguards criticized [Paras 1-6].

Judicial Review – Article 226 Powers – High Court allowed modification of offer in exercise of powers under Article 226 – Such judicial intervention questioned – Requirement to provide equal opportunity to all bidders emphasized – High Court's order set aside due to lack of procedural fairness and absence of reasoning on merits [Paras 4-6].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Held – High Court’s order quashed and set aside – Matter remitted back to High Court for fresh decision – High Court to allow appellants to be impleaded as party respondents and decide the writ petition on merits and in accordance with law – Expedited hearing requested [Para 6].

Organized Crime – Quashing of Charge Sheet – Prior Approval – High Court quashed charge sheet against accused under KCOCA – Supreme Court held High Court exceeded jurisdiction – High Court failed to consider prior sanction and cognizance by competent court – Approval under Section 24(1)(a) of KCOCA for organized crime valid – Specific role of accused not required in prior approval – Role to be detailed in investigation and chargesheet – Appeal allowed [Paras 1-30].

Jurisdiction of High Court – Procedural Impropriety – High Court allowed writ petition without analyzing material – Prior approval was for recording organized crime, not individual roles – High Court quashed chargesheet without addressing post-cognizance developments – Supreme Court set aside High Court’s judgment, emphasizing the procedural correctness and material review by lower courts [Paras 16-22].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Held – High Court’s order quashed – Chargesheet against accused reinstated – High Court exceeded jurisdiction by quashing charges without considering subsequent cognizance – Matter remitted for appropriate proceedings [Para 30].

Anticipatory Bail – Absconder – Proclaimed Offender – High Court granted anticipatory bail to an accused despite proclamation under Sections 82-83 CrPC – Supreme Court held that absconders or proclaimed offenders are not entitled to anticipatory bail – High Court erred in granting anticipatory bail without considering relevant legal precedents and facts – Order of anticipatory bail set aside [Paras 1-9].

Legal Precedents – Jurisprudence – Supreme Court reiterated principles from Adri Dharan Das v. State of W.B., Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), and State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Pradeep Sharma, establishing that absconders are not entitled to anticipatory bail – High Court's failure to adhere to these principles criticized – Emphasis on the nature of accusations, irrespective of business transaction context [Paras 7.3, 8].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Held – High Court’s order granting anticipatory bail quashed – Respondent No. 2 directed to surrender within two weeks – Liberty to apply for regular bail on surrender, to be considered on merits [Paras 8-9].

Furlough Leave – Public Peace and Tranquillity – High Court directed release of respondent on furlough – Supreme Court set aside High Court's order – DGP's refusal of furlough based on prisoner's conduct and potential threat to public peace upheld – Respondent engaged in illegal activities in jail, had significant criminal influence, and a large following that could disrupt public order – Furlough not granted as a matter of right; public interest and conduct considered crucial [Paras 1-28].

Prison Rules – Interpretation – Rule 4(4) and 4(6) of Bombay Furlough and Parole Rules applied to refuse furlough – Negative recommendation by police and prison authorities based on conduct and potential disruption justified – Supreme Court emphasized discretion in granting furlough based on safety and public order considerations [Paras 23-27].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Held – High Court's order set aside – Furlough leave application by respondent dismissed – Public interest and security concerns given precedence over temporary release [Para 27].

Criminal Proceedings – Civil Dispute – Promised Jobs in Italy – High Court declined to quash proceedings under Sections 406 and 420 IPC despite civil nature of allegations – Supreme Court quashed proceedings, noting the predominantly civil flavor of the dispute and previous settlement between the complainant and main accused – Allegations revolved around money paid for securing a job abroad, which could be subject to a civil suit for recovery, not criminal prosecution [Paras 19-21].

Inherent Powers under Section 482 CrPC – Abuse of Process – Supreme Court emphasized the need to use inherent powers to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice – High Court erred by not considering the entire material on record and the civil nature of the dispute – Proceedings against the appellant, who was not directly involved and was declared a proclaimed offender, deemed unjustified [Paras 14-20].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Held – High Court’s order set aside – Criminal proceedings quashed – Proceedings arising out of FIR No. 179 dated 29.10.2009 and all consequential proceedings quashed against the appellant [Para 21].

NIA Act – Continuation of Investigation – Once the Central government directed the NIA to take over the investigation under Section 6(4) of the NIA Act, the ATS Nanded had a duty to continue the investigation until the NIA actually took over – The investigation by ATS Nanded and filing of the charge-sheet were valid under Section 6(7) of the NIA Act [Paras 19-23].

Jurisdiction – CJM and ASJ Nanded – Designation of CJM Nanded as remand court and ASJ Nanded as Special Court for cases filed by ATS Nanded under the CrPC – These courts had jurisdiction to handle the case until the NIA Mumbai took over the investigation on 8 December 2016 and transferred it to the NIA Special Court Mumbai [Paras 24-49].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Held – High Court’s order affirmed – ATS Nanded's continuation of investigation and CJM Nanded's committal to trial were legitimate – The appeals stand dismissed [Paras 50-51].