SC/ST Act – Quashing of Proceedings – Compromise – Using casteist slur against a neighbor – Compromise reached between the parties – Supreme Court invoked powers under Article 142 to quash the proceedings – Offence considered predominantly private and civil in nature, rooted in a pre-existing civil dispute – No mental depravity exhibited by the appellant – Quashing proceedings seen as advancing peace and harmony given the socio-economic status of both parties [Paras 19-20].

Article 142 of the Constitution – Powers of the Supreme Court – Court reiterated that Article 142 powers could be invoked to quash criminal proceedings, even for non-compoundable offences, when a voluntary compromise is reached – Emphasized complete justice between the parties, considering the nature of the offence and the conduct of the accused [Paras 9-13].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Held – Criminal proceedings quashed – Judgment and orders passed by the Trial Court and the High Court set aside – Bail bonds discharged [Para 20].

Attempt to Commit Rape – Distinction between Preparation and Attempt – Respondent lured minor girls, took them inside a room, closed the doors, undressed them, and rubbed his genitals against theirs – High Court reduced conviction to 'outraging the modesty' under Section 354 IPC – Supreme Court held acts were beyond preparation and amounted to an attempt to commit rape – Offence of attempt to commit rape upheld [Paras 11-24].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Mens Rea and Attempt – Explained the three stages of crime: Mens Rea, preparation, and attempt – 'Attempt' starts after preparation and is punishable even if the crime is not completed – Specific actions of the respondent were proximate to committing the offence, thus constituting an attempt [Paras 11-13].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Held – High Court’s judgment set aside – Conviction under Section 376(2)(f) read with Section 511 IPC restored – Respondent directed to surrender and serve the remainder of his sentence [Paras 25-26].

Administrative Service – Allocation of Cadre – Selected candidate's right to be considered for appointment to IAS but no right to choose cadre or home state – Allocation of cadre an incidence of service – High Court's directive to allocate respondent to Kerala cadre set aside – Consultation required with the state to which allocation is made, not with the candidate's home state – Policy of allocation followed as per rules and procedures [Paras 1-28].

Allocation Circular – Interpretation – Allocation of insiders and outsiders in the ratio of 2:1 – Consultation with State Government where cadre is allocated – Decision on the number of vacancies based on various administrative factors – High Court misread statutory rules and policy of allocation [Paras 23-26].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Held – Orders of the High Court and the Central Administrative Tribunal set aside – Original application by the respondent dismissed [Paras 48].

Taxation – Nature and Character – Levy of water and sewerage taxes under Section 52 of the UP Water Supply and Sewerage Act – Levy labeled as water tax and sewerage tax – Supreme Court held that the nomenclature does not determine the nature of the levy – Taxes on lands and buildings within the meaning of Entry 49 List II of the Seventh Schedule – Taxes imposed to augment finances for providing water supply and sewerage services [Paras 1-28].

Legislative Competence – Entry 49 List II – Tax on Lands and Buildings – Legislature’s choice of label for the tax does not alter its nature – Supreme Court emphasized the levy’s character as a tax on lands and buildings – Restrictions imposed by Section 55 do not change the tax's fundamental nature [Paras 29-38].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Held – High Court’s judgment set aside – Levy of water and sewerage taxes upheld – Constitutional challenge to the levy rejected [Paras 39-47].

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].