Civil Law – Suit for Injunction – Plaintiff sought injunction to prevent defendants from disturbing possession – Defendants contested, claiming title and possession – Trial court granted injunction based on plaintiff’s possession – First Appellate Court reversed, questioning validity of power of attorney and sale deed – High Court restored trial court’s decree, noting plaintiff’s possession and defendants’ failure in previous litigation for declaration and possession – Supreme Court upheld High Court’s view that plaintiff’s suit for injunction was maintainable without declaration of title due to established possession and prior litigation outcomes [Paras 1-27].

Possession and Title – Principle – Possession is valid against all except the true owner – Plaintiff in possession can seek injunction even if title is disputed, provided plaintiff does not elaborate on title dispute in the plaint and fails to seek declaration of title – Previous litigation outcomes impact current claims [Paras 21-23].

Legal Precedents – Applicability – Previous judgments support the principle that possession can lead to injunction without title declaration if certain conditions are met – Relevant cases include Nagar Palika Jind vs. Jagat Singh Advocate, Yamuna Nagar Improvement Trust vs. Khariati Lal, and Nair Service Society Ltd. vs. K.C. Alexander [Paras 18-24].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court’s judgment upheld – Plaintiff entitled to injunction based on possession and prior litigation results – Plaintiff not required to prove title for injunction in this specific case.

Service Law – Recruitment – Government of Maharashtra issued requisition for LDCE to fill 828 vacancies for Police Sub-Inspector – Later decided to accommodate additional 636 candidates without consulting MPSC – Tribunal vacated interim order of status quo, which was challenged in High Court – High Court directed training of additional candidates – Supreme Court held that filling vacancies beyond the notified number violates Articles 14 and 16 (1) – Government's decision stayed during pendency of proceedings [Paras 1-21].

Consultation with MPSC – Article 320(3)(a) – State Government must consult MPSC for recruitment to civil services – Government acted unilaterally without MPSC consultation, violating constitutional and statutory provisions – Rule 5 of Police Sub-Inspector (Recruitment) Rules, 1995 requires prior consultation with MPSC for altering recruitment ratio [Paras 13-14].

Judicial Review – Interim Orders – Tribunal’s grounds for vacating interim status quo were erroneous – Promotional prospects of petitioners would be seriously prejudiced – High Court's direction to send additional candidates for training during pendency of proceedings was improper [Paras 16-20].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Government Resolution dated 22.04.2019 stayed during pendency of proceedings before Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal – Tribunal directed to decide pending applications within six months, ensuring notice to additional candidates – High Court and Tribunal orders vacating interim status quo set aside [Paras 20-21].

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964 – Rule 12(4) – Encroachment and Regularization – Petitioners encroached upon Panchayat land and sought regularization under Rule 12(4) – Competent authority and High Court found illegal occupation exceeding 200 square yards – Regularization limited to 200 square yards, inclusive of constructed and open space – Petitioners not entitled to benefit of Rule 12(4) [Paras 1-10].

Encroachment Policy – Compliance with Rules – Petitioners in illegal occupation must meet conditions for regularization – Regularization only permissible if occupation does not exceed 200 square yards – Supreme Court emphasizes strict adherence to conditions stipulated in Rule 12(4) – Illegal occupation exceeding stipulated area cannot be regularized [Paras 6-8].

Illegal Encroachments – Public Interest – Supreme Court refers to Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab – Emphasizes eviction of unauthorized occupants from Gram Panchayat land for common use – Illegal constructions must be removed, and land restored to Panchayat – Regularization of such encroachments not permitted unless under exceptional circumstances [Paras 9-10].

Decision – Special Leave Petition Dismissed – Held – Petitioners’ illegal occupation exceeds permissible limit – Competent authority and High Court decisions upheld – No grounds for regularization under Rule 12(4) – Land must be restored to Panchayat for public use [Para 10].

Criminal Law – Kidnapping – Quashing of FIR – Appellant sought quashing of FIR for kidnapping of a minor girl – Prosecutrix and complainant did not level allegations against the appellant – Main accused married the prosecutrix and had children with her – High Court dismissed appellant’s petition – Supreme Court held continuation of proceedings against appellant as abuse of process of law – Quashed the FIR and subsequent proceedings [Paras 1-11].

Abuse of Process – Lack of Evidence – No allegations or evidence against appellant in the statements of prosecutrix and complainant – Main accused acquitted by trial court due to lack of evidence on prosecutrix's age and her voluntary actions – Supreme Court found proceedings against appellant untenable and quashed them [Paras 9-11].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Held – High Court's dismissal of petition set aside – FIR No. 31 of 2013 and charge sheet against appellant quashed [Para 11].

Prevention of Corruption Act – Illegal Gratification – Acquittal – Appellant accused of demanding and accepting Rs. 500 and a cell phone as illegal gratification – Trial court acquitted the appellant citing lack of evidence and contradictions in witness testimonies – High Court reversed acquittal without adequate reasons – Supreme Court held that the mere recovery of money is not sufficient to constitute the offense without proof of demand and acceptance – Acquittal by trial court deemed a possible view based on evidence – Conviction by High Court set aside [Paras 1-14].

Evidence Evaluation – Demand and Acceptance – Proof of demand for illegal gratification is essential – Mere possession of currency notes without proof of demand does not constitute an offense under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Act – Presumption under Section 20 can only be drawn on proof of demand and acceptance [Paras 9-12].

Appellate Review – Acquittal – High Court can interfere with acquittal only if the trial court's view is not a possible view – Supreme Court emphasized that trial court’s acquittal should not be reversed unless it is found that the view taken is unreasonable or perverse [Paras 10-11].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Held – High Court's conviction reversed – Appellant acquitted of all charges – Directed immediate release of the appellant from custody unless required in connection with any other case [Para 14].

Money Laundering – Search and Seizure – Due Process – Appellant challenged the freezing of bank accounts by the Enforcement Directorate – Supreme Court held that the procedure under Section 17 of PMLA must be followed strictly – Freezing of accounts without following due process deemed unsustainable – Court directed defreezing of accounts to enable statutory payments by the appellant – Appeal allowed [Paras 1-18].

Statutory Compliance – Freezing Orders – Section 17 of PMLA requires reasons to be recorded in writing by the Authorised Officer – A copy of reasons must be forwarded to the Adjudicating Authority in a sealed envelope – Officer must file an application before the Adjudicating Authority within 30 days of freezing or seizure – Compliance with these procedures is mandatory for the validity of freezing orders [Paras 8-11].

Legal Principle – Adherence to Statutory Process – Actions under special enactments like PMLA must strictly follow the procedures outlined – Deviations or non-compliance render actions void – Established principle that statutory tasks must be performed as prescribed by the statute [Paras 15-16].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Held – Freezing orders quashed for non-compliance with Section 17 of PMLA – Directed defreezing of accounts to facilitate statutory payments – Respondent given liberty to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law if needed [Paras 17-18].

Constitutional Law – Admission Regulations – Rule 12(8)(a) of Madhya Pradesh Chikitsa Shiksha Pravesh Niyam, 2018 – Appellant challenged the rule prohibiting the inclusion of vacant seats from mop-up round in college level counseling – Supreme Court declared Rule 12(8)(a) as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution – Found that the rule imposed unreasonable restrictions on the right to admit students, protected under Article 19(1)(g) – Emphasized that the measure was disproportionate, resulting in financial loss to institutions and wastage of resources – Held that public interest is not served by keeping seats vacant, thus the rule lacked rational connection with its objective [Paras 1-26].

Educational Institutions – Right to Admit Students – Management’s right to occupation includes right to admit students – Supreme Court reiterated that regulations should ensure transparency and merit-based admissions without imposing unreasonable restrictions – Upgradation and selection of subjects relevant to postgraduate courses, not undergraduate – Keeping seats vacant not a viable solution – Interest of general public better served by filling all seats [Paras 12-25].

Judicial Review – Proportionality – Subordinate legislation can be challenged on grounds of proportionality – Rule 12(8)(a) fails proportionality test – No rational connection between the restriction and the objective of preventing manipulation in admissions – Excessive restriction deemed unconstitutional [Paras 15-21].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Held – Rule 12(8)(a) struck down as unconstitutional – High Court judgment set aside – Directed the State to initiate process of filling up vacant seats through college level counseling [Para 26].

Housing Law – Allotment Procedure – Registration and Allotment – Respondent’s grandfather registered for a plot under a housing scheme – No allotment was made to him by draw of lots – Grandfather's registration ceased under Government Order dated 11.10.2002, which stipulated that unsuccessful old registrations would not be renewed – Respondent requested transfer and allotment of the plot based on grandfather’s registration – High Court directed allotment of a plot to the respondent – Supreme Court held that mere availability of plots does not entitle the respondent to allotment without participating in prescribed procedure – Allotment to respondent would deprive other eligible applicants – High Court's direction for allotment set aside [Paras 1-20].

Registration and Eligibility – Grandfather's registration did not guarantee allotment – Respondent failed to participate in subsequent allotment processes as required – Government Order nullified old registrations and offered refund instead – Respondent repeatedly informed of invalid registration and option for refund – No allotment right existed for respondent based on expired registration [Paras 10-19].

Administrative Orders – Authority and Misinterpretation – Alleged order by Housing Commissioner under Rule 47 for plot allotment to respondent was found to be a mere recommendation, not a binding order – Respondent’s claim based on misinterpretation rejected – Actual administrative procedures emphasized over individual claims [Paras 16-18].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Held – High Court’s order directing plot allotment to respondent set aside – Writ petition dismissed – Allotments to follow prescribed procedures ensuring fairness to all applicants [Para 20].

Insolvency Law – Financial Creditor Status – Appellant claimed to be a financial creditor under IBC based on a pledge agreement and deed of undertaking – Pledge of shares does not amount to a guarantee or financial debt – Definition of "financial creditor" requires disbursement against the consideration for the time value of money – Supreme Court held that the pledge agreement did not constitute a financial debt – Corporate debtor had not undertaken to discharge the liability of the borrower, thus appellant is not a financial creditor [Paras 1-32].

Pledge vs. Guarantee – Contractual Interpretation – Under the Indian Contract Act, 1872, a contract of guarantee involves a promise to discharge the liability of a third person in case of default – The Pledge Agreement was only for pledging shares as security and did not involve such a promise – Pledge does not equal a guarantee, and thus, does not fulfill the criteria for being a financial debt under IBC [Paras 22-24].

Judicial Precedents – Reliance on Previous Judgments – The Court referred to and distinguished previous judgments, including Anuj Jain Interim Resolution Professional for Jaypee Infratech Limited vs. Axis Bank Limited and others – Confirmed that security interest alone does not confer financial creditor status – Emphasized the need for direct involvement in the functioning and financial restructuring of the corporate debtor for financial creditor recognition [Paras 29-31].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Held – Appellant does not qualify as a financial creditor under Sections 5(7) and 5(8) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code – Observations limited to this determination without prejudice to other legal proceedings by the appellant [Para 32].