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.

_{Constitutional Law – Article 12 – "State" – Air Force Group Insurance Society (AFGIS) – Employees of AFGIS aggrieved by Board of Trustees' decision to do away with linkage to Central Government Pay Commission scales filed writ petitions before Delhi High Court – High Court dismissed petitions holding AFGIS is not "State" under Article 12 – Supreme Court reverses the finding – AFGIS held to be "State" – Writ petitions restored to High Court for fresh consideration – Appeal allowed [Paras 2-19].}

_{Article 12 – Test for "State" – Cumulative Test of Deep and Pervasive Control – Financial, Functional and Administrative Dominance – Membership of AFGIS compulsory for all IAF officers and airmen under Air Force Instruction – Premium contributions automatically deducted from salaries – Board of Trustees and Managing Committee composed entirely of serving senior IAF officers on deputation – President of India sanctioned establishment of AFGIS and its deputation rules – AFGIS periodically reports financial transactions to senior IAF officer – AFGIS exempted from income tax and estate duty by Central Government – AFGIS itself claimed to be "Government" while seeking service tax exemption – Held: Cumulative facts establish deep and pervasive administrative control sufficient to constitute AFGIS as "State" under Article 12 [Paras 8-18].}

_{Public Duty – Welfare of Armed Forces Personnel – Insurance to service members as a core government function – Protection and welfare of armed forces directly linked to national sovereignty and security – Providing insurance coverage to IAF personnel constitutes a public function addressing a collective obligation of the State towards a defined public class – AFGIS functions as a conduit for discharge of that obligation – The role of the State in protecting armed forces personnel does not end upon superannuation [Para 17].}

_{Financial Control – Indirect Financial Nexus – Argument that automatic deduction of premiums from IAF salaries (charged to Consolidated Fund of India) constitutes financial control not accepted as determinative in itself – For a body to be "State" it is the cumulative effect of deep and pervasive administrative control along with other factors including public duty that is decisive – Financial control alone is neither necessary nor sufficient [Para 16].}

_{Estoppel – Inconsistent Positions – AFGIS cannot claim to be "Government" for one purpose (service tax exemption) and deny being "State" for another purpose (Article 12) – Such resiling from its own statement is impermissible [Para 18].}

_{Decision: Appeal allowed – AFGIS declared to be "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution – Writ petitions restored to Delhi High Court for expeditious disposal.}

POCSO Act – Section 6 – Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault – DNA Evidence – Reliability – Acquittal Restored – Appellant convicted by the High Court under Section 6 of POCSO Act and sentenced to ten years Rigorous Imprisonment upon reversal of the Sessions Court's acquittal – Core issue: whether the DNA report (Exh. P9) dated 09.10.2017 could be relied upon, given contradictory evidence on the date of collection of the appellant's blood sample – PW 7 (police constable) stated blood sample was collected on 31.08.2017 and handed to FSL on 06.09.2017, whereas PW 10 (doctor) deposed that blood sample was collected on 31.01.2018 — well after the DNA report was prepared – PW 12 (Assistant Director, Forensic Lab) admitted ignorance of the date of blood sample collection and acknowledged lack of a specialised DNA degree – Held: DNA report is fundamentally unreliable; prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction set aside; acquittal restored [Paras 3–10].

DNA Evidence – Probative Value – Not Infallible – The Court reiterated that DNA evidence, while increasingly reliable with advancements in science, is not infallible and its probative value varies from case to case depending on facts and corroborative material – In the absence of uncompromised and credible DNA evidence, conviction cannot be sustained – Where the reliability of the DNA report itself is in doubt, no reasonable view consistent only with the guilt of the accused can be formed [Para 5].

Reversal of Acquittal – Scope of Appellate Interference – High Court's interference with acquittal warranted only when the judgment suffers from patent perversity, misreading or omission to consider material evidence, or where no two reasonable views are possible – High Court erroneously characterised PW 10's deposition regarding blood sample collection on 31.01.2018 as a mere "slip of tongue" without any corroborative material to establish that the blood sample was drawn prior to 09.10.2017 – Parameters for reversing acquittal not satisfied [Paras 7–9].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Impugned judgment and order of conviction dated 22.01.2025 and sentence dated 27.01.2025 passed by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court set aside – Judgment of acquittal passed by the Sessions Court, Theni, in SC No. 14 of 2018 dated 20.05.2019 restored – Appellant acquitted and directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case – Bail bond discharged.

Service Law – Persons with Benchmark Disabilities – Appointment under SSC CGLE-2018 – Candidate recommended for post of Auditor under ‘Other PwD’ category was denied appointment on ground that the post was not identified as suitable for persons suffering from mental illness – Tribunal directed medical assessment and reconsideration but High Court set aside the order – During proceedings before Supreme Court, authorities acknowledged that subsequent Government notification dated 04.01.2021 identified certain Group ‘C’ posts as suitable for such benchmark disabilities – Held: No impediment remained for accommodating the appellant and similarly placed candidate against appropriate Group ‘C’ posts – Directions issued to implement the same [Paras 11–12, 17–19].

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 – Identification of Posts – Central Government notification dated 04.01.2021 expanded categories of posts suitable for benchmark disabilities including mental illness and specific learning disability – Based on revised identification, authorities expressed willingness to appoint candidates subject to recommendation from SSC – Court held that candidates recommended in recruitment process should be considered for suitable posts consistent with updated statutory framework [Paras 17–19].

Administrative Process – Inter-departmental Recommendation – CAG stated that appointment could be processed only upon receipt of recommendation and dossiers from Staff Selection Commission – Supreme Court directed SSC to forward dossiers within two weeks so that appointment process could be completed without delay [Paras 20–21].

Equitable Relief – Creation of Supernumerary Posts – Court observed that even if originally advertised posts had already been filled, authorities must create supernumerary posts to accommodate the appellant and similarly placed candidate in view of their entitlement under the revised disability framework [Para 21].

Decision: Appeal disposed of – Staff Selection Commission directed to forward dossiers of the appellant and similarly placed candidate to CAG within two weeks – Respondents directed to consider them for appointment to suitable Group ‘C’ posts – If posts already filled, supernumerary posts to be created – Appointment to take effect from date of joining.

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of FIR – Section 482 CrPC – Sine Qua Non – Dispute arising from a Collaboration Agreement of 2012 led the appellant to lodge a complaint with the Commissioner of Police – FIR not registered on complaint, whereupon appellant filed an application under Section 156(3) CrPC before the Magistrate along with a complaint under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B IPC – Magistrate by order dated 05.04.2023 directed the police to register an FIR under Section 156(3) CrPC – Respondents challenged the Magistrate's order and FIR under Section 482 CrPC before the High Court – High Court quashed the Magistrate's order and the FIR on the grounds of suppression of facts in the Section 156(3) application, non-conduct of preliminary inquiry by the Magistrate and absence of reasoning and application of mind – High Court further quashed the complaint and all subsequent proceedings and characterised the complaint as based on false, malicious and vague allegations without any foundation – Held: The sine qua non for exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC to quash an FIR is a finding that the complaint, on its face, does not disclose commission of a cognizable offence – No such finding recorded by the High Court – Impugned order set aside – Matter remitted for fresh consideration [Paras 7-9].

Section 482 CrPC – Scope – Before embarking on quashment of an FIR, the High Court must record a conclusion that the complaint does not disclose a cognizable offence – Labelling a complaint as false, malicious or vague without any foundation in the order is not sufficient to quash the FIR – High Court must pass a detailed reasoned order [Para 8].

Decision: Appeal disposed of – Impugned order of the High Court set aside – Matter remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration on all grounds under Section 482 CrPC – Interim order operating in favour of the respondents to continue subject to further orders by the High Court – High Court directed to decide the petition expeditiously.

Criminal Law – Murder by Arson – Parricide Allegation – Parents allegedly killed when their hut was set ablaze – Trial Court convicted son and daughter-in-law relying mainly on motive and dying declarations – High Court acquitted accused – Supreme Court held prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Investigation found selective and deficient – Acquittal affirmed [Paras 26-28, 31].

Evidence – Dying Declaration – Principles Governing Reliability – Court reiterated that a dying declaration is an important exception to hearsay under Section 32 Evidence Act and can form sole basis of conviction if it inspires full confidence of the Court – However Court must ensure it is voluntary, truthful and not the result of tutoring, prompting or imagination – Where declaration appears doubtful or suspicious, corroboration becomes necessary [Paras 7, 13-14].

Multiple Dying Declarations – Suspicion and Inconsistencies – Case involved two written declarations and several alleged oral declarations – First declaration (FIS) recorded in hospital without medical certification and in presence of villagers and relatives – Second declaration recorded by Executive Magistrate with conflicting testimony regarding authorship and without medical certification – Held: Surrounding circumstances created serious doubt about voluntariness and authenticity – Declarations did not inspire confidence [Paras 17-18].

Oral Dying Declarations – Credibility of Witnesses – Several witnesses claimed that deceased made oral statements implicating accused immediately after incident – However testimonies inconsistent and witnesses closely related or interested in property dispute – Independent witnesses who first noticed the fire not examined – Held: Oral declarations unreliable and unsafe to rely upon [Paras 19-22].

Criminal Investigation – Defective Investigation – Investigating Officer failed to prepare scene mahazar, conduct forensic examination, investigate possible accidental fire from gas cylinder, or examine independent witnesses – Arrest circumstances and presence of accused near scene not established – Held: Investigation appeared predetermined and selective, undermining prosecution case [Paras 24, 28, 31].

Witness Testimony – Interested Witnesses and Motive – Prosecution relied largely on relatives allegedly hostile to accused due to property dispute – Independent villagers and first witnesses to incident not examined – Evidence of motive also weakened by testimony that accused was entitled to share in property – Held: Prosecution evidence insufficient to sustain conviction [Paras 21-22, 26].

Criminal Procedure – Examination of Accused – Section 313 CrPC – Trial court asked only four general questions without putting incriminating circumstances such as motive, dying declarations and medical evidence – Supreme Court held such casual examination violates statutory duty and causes serious prejudice to accused – Courts and prosecutors must ensure every incriminating circumstance is put to the accused [Paras 29-30].

Standard of Proof – Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof – Criminal conviction must rest on proof beyond reasonable doubt and not on conjectures, suspicion or perceived motive – Where evidence fails to exclude other hypotheses, benefit of doubt must go to the accused [Para 30].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Supreme Court affirmed judgment of High Court acquitting the accused – Prosecution case found unreliable due to doubtful dying declarations, interested witnesses and defective investigation – Pending applications disposed of.

Criminal Law – Murder – Unlawful Assembly – Conviction under Sections 302/149 IPC – Deceased shot dead after being chased by group of armed persons – Trial Court convicted accused and High Court affirmed conviction – Supreme Court held that evidence established that accused persons arrived together armed with firearms and chased the deceased before firing upon him – Presence in unlawful assembly with common object sufficient to attract vicarious liability – Conviction upheld.

Section 149 IPC – Common Object – Vicarious Liability – Court reiterated that two essential ingredients for application of Section 149 IPC are existence of an unlawful assembly and a common object – Once participation of accused as members of such assembly is proved, it is not necessary that each accused must have committed a specific overt act – All members become vicariously liable for the acts committed in prosecution of the common object.

Evidence – Eyewitness Testimony of Related Witnesses – Several prosecution witnesses were relatives of the deceased – Held: Evidence of related witnesses cannot be discarded merely on ground of relationship if their testimony is consistent and credible – Minor discrepancies or allegedly unnatural behaviour of witnesses does not render their evidence unreliable when supported by other evidence on record.

Independent Witness – Limited Observation – Independent witness did not see the accused firing inside the house but heard gunshots – Court held that such evidence does not discredit prosecution case when other witnesses consistently proved that accused chased the deceased and multiple shots were fired resulting in death.

Medical and Forensic Evidence – Gunshot Injuries – Post-mortem revealed multiple firearm injuries with entry and exit wounds and recovery of pellets from the body – Ballistic evidence and recovery of cartridges corroborated the prosecution case that the deceased was killed by firearm shots during the attack.

Procedural Lapses – Effect – Alleged non-compliance with Section 157 CrPC regarding forwarding of FIR to Magistrate not fatal to prosecution where such lapse was not established by evidence and overall prosecution case stood proved by reliable ocular and medical evidence.

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Supreme Court affirmed judgments of the Trial Court and High Court – Conviction and life sentence imposed on appellants under Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC upheld – Appellants directed to surrender forthwith to undergo remaining sentence.

Environmental Law – NGT Jurisdiction – Section 14 – Encroachment on Park – Temple Removal – Order Without Jurisdiction – Respondent No. 1 (RWA) filed application before NGT alleging encroachment and illegal construction of temple on land earmarked as park in Sector 16A, Vasundhara, Ghaziabad – NGT constituted Joint Committee without notice to Appellant; on basis of committee report, directed removal of temple and allied structures – Appellant contended that even in the Revised Layout Plan dated 14.07.2004 of the UP Housing Board, the temple was shown as existing – Held: NGT has jurisdiction under Section 14 only over civil cases involving a substantial question relating to environment arising from the statutes specified in Schedule I; removal of alleged encroachment raised in violation of Municipal and Town Planning laws not covered by Schedule I does not attract NGT's jurisdiction; impugned order passed without jurisdiction and quashed [Paras 7-10].

Substantial Question Relating to Environment – Definition – Section 2(m) of NGT Act defines substantial question relating to environment to include direct violation of specific statutory environmental obligation affecting the community at large, or where gravity of damage to environment or property is substantial, or damage to public health is broadly measurable, or environmental consequences relate to a specific activity or point source of pollution – Such question must arise from implementation of statutes enumerated in Schedule I – Violation of Municipal Laws and Town Planning Act does not satisfy the jurisdictional condition precedent [Paras 8-10].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Order of NGT dated 26.07.2022 quashed and set aside – Liberty reserved to the RWA to approach the competent authority for redressal – No action to be taken against Appellants without issuing notice to them and affected parties.

Company Law - Oppression and Mismanagement - Interim Relief - Appellants claiming 40% shareholding in holding company alleged illegal removal of their shareholding, fabricated statutory filings, unlawful induction of directors and asset-stripping of valuable redevelopment project - NCLT declined interim relief - NCLAT set aside that order but confined protection to restraint against taking “perceptive steps” for one month - Held: Since the substantive Company Petition under Sections 241, 242, 244 and 59 of the Companies Act, 2013 remained pending, paramount consideration was preservation of the subject matter till final adjudication by NCLT - Interim arrangement earlier operating before Supreme Court directed to continue [Paras 20, 27-30].

Interlocutory Stage - Scope of Supreme Court Consideration - Court clarified that at this stage it was not examining merits of oppression and mismanagement allegations or rival claims regarding shareholding and control - Controversy before Court confined to nature and scope of interim protection necessary to preserve subject matter of dispute pending adjudication before NCLT [Paras 20, 32].

Preservation of Subject Matter - Project Land - Where project land constituted principal asset connected with dispute and allegations were made regarding conveyance, mortgage, transfer of development rights and alteration of management structure, status quo protection was necessary to ensure that proceedings do not become infructuous and parties are not left with shell entities [Paras 15-19, 27-29].

Insolvency Proceedings - Effect on Interim Protection - During pendency of appeals, entity in whose favour project land had been conveyed was admitted into corporate insolvency resolution process under Section 7 IBC - Supreme Court took note of these developments and continued restraint so that no irreversible changes were made to the property while underlying dispute as to corporate control and transactions remained unresolved [Paras 23, 28-29].

Limited Protective Works - No Creation of Equity - On complaints regarding excavation pits and safety of adjoining structures, Supreme Court permitted only limited protective works such as laying foundation in excavated pits, retaining walls, backfilling and barricading, subject to approvals - Held: Such permission was only to secure neighbouring structures and would not create any equity in favour of applicant [Paras 24-25].

Contempt Jurisdiction - Disputed Facts - Appellants alleged violation of interim directions by construction activity, registration with regulatory authorities and marketing of units - Respondents controverted allegations - Held: At this stage it was not necessary to enter into merits of contempt allegations since they involved factual disputes - focus remained on preserving subject matter pending final adjudication [Para 26].

Expeditious Disposal - NCLT Directed to Decide Main Petition - Supreme Court modified NCLAT order and directed continuation of status quo till disposal of Company Petition - Parties directed to appear before NCLT, Mumbai Bench on 19.03.2026 and Company Petition No.159(MB) of 2021 directed to be decided preferably within two months - All merits left open [Paras 29-30].

Decision: Appeals and Contempt Petitions disposed of - Impugned order dated 11.10.2022 modified - Parties directed to maintain status quo in terms of earlier orders of Supreme Court - No steps to be taken altering nature of property or creating third-party interests - NCLT directed to decide Company Petition expeditiously - Observations not to be treated as expression on merits [Paras 29-34].