Criminal Law – SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Anticipatory Bail – Bar under Section 18 – Applicability to Accused Added under Section 319 CrPC – Jurisdiction of High Court – Respondent added as accused under Section 319 CrPC in case involving offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of the 1989 Act – High Court granted anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC – Held: Once summoned under Section 319 CrPC, the respondent assumes status of an accused for all offences in the case, including those under the 1989 Act – Bar under Section 18 on consideration of anticipatory bail applies – High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain or grant anticipatory bail in absence of a finding that no prima facie case under the 1989 Act was made out – Order granting anticipatory bail unsustainable [Paras 4–10].

Criminal Procedure – Section 319 CrPC – Effect of Summoning Order – Scope – Where the order summoning the accused under Section 319 CrPC was not under challenge before the High Court, its validity could not be tested incidentally in anticipatory bail proceedings – High Court erred in overlooking the binding nature of the summoning order [Paras 5, 10].

Judicial Review – Scope under Section 438 CrPC – Limits in presence of Statutory Bar – In offences under the SC/ST Act, anticipatory bail is impermissible unless the Court first records a finding that no prima facie case under the Act exists – Mere allegations of false implication insufficient to dilute the statutory bar [Paras 7, 10].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order of the High Court granting anticipatory bail set aside – Respondent at liberty to appear before Trial Court and seek regular bail, to be considered expeditiously in accordance with law [Paras 10–11].

Criminal Procedure – Recall and Review – High Court’s Jurisdiction – No Power to Review Order Under Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS – High Court allowed transfer of investigation to CBI after recalling its earlier reasoned order that only directed fair investigation by police – Supreme Court held: Recalling earlier order amounted to review, which is impermissible in criminal law except for clerical errors – No error or inadvertence shown in earlier order – Recall and review of the final order based on same facts and reliefs not maintainable – Orders recalling and modifying prior decision held without jurisdiction and set aside [Paras 20–21, 25–29].

Criminal Procedure – Second Petition on Same Cause – Abuse of Process – Writ Petition Withdrawn Without Liberty – No Maintainability of Identical Petition Under Inherent Powers – Respondent-complainant had withdrawn earlier writ petition seeking same relief of transfer of investigation – Subsequently filed petition under Section 528 BNSS (Section 482 CrPC) without any change in circumstances – Supreme Court held: Filing second petition with same relief under different label is impermissible – Only remedy was to challenge earlier order – High Court erred in entertaining fresh petition and granting relief [Paras 25, 28].

Criminal Law – CBI Investigation – Transfer of Investigation – Allegations of Political Influence – Transfer Must Be Based on Cogent Reasons – High Court directed CBI investigation citing allegations of political influence and unfair investigation – Supreme Court held: Though serious allegations were raised, transfer of investigation must follow proper judicial procedure – High Court's recall and modification of its own prior order without legal basis renders direction unsustainable – Liberty granted to complainant to seek remedy afresh as per law [Paras 22–24, 30].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court’s orders dated 24/01/2025 and 04/02/2025 recalling and modifying order dated 16/01/2025 quashed – Direction to transfer investigation to CBI set aside – Liberty granted to complainant to challenge earlier orders through proper legal remedies – Connected Special Leave Petitions dismissed as infructuous [Paras 29–34].

Railway Accident Compensation – Bonafide Passenger – Burden of Proof – Prima Facie Ticket Verification Sufficient – Concurrent Rejection of Claim Set Aside – Deceased allegedly fell from a running train due to overcrowding and sustained fatal injuries – Railway Claims Tribunal and High Court rejected claim for compensation citing failure to prove bonafide passenger status – No ticket recovered from body; photocopy of ticket doubted due to lack of seizure memo or witness proof – Supreme Court held: Affidavit of widow and DRM report verifying ticket issuance discharged claimants’ initial burden – Once foundational facts shown, burden shifts to Railways to disprove – Mere absence of ticket or procedural lapses insufficient to deny compensation – Proceedings under Section 124-A governed by preponderance of probabilities, not strict criminal standards [Paras 9–14].

Strict Liability – Section 124-A of Railways Act – Untoward Incident – Compensation Not Defeated by Technical Lapses – Once official railway report or police records verify travel ticket linked to date and location of incident, it amounts to prima facie proof of bonafide travel – Railways failed to rebut such evidence – Presumption under Section 124-A applies – Welfare legislation must be interpreted liberally to ensure access to compensation – Technicalities like missing seizure memo cannot override substantive justice under beneficial statute [Paras 10–15].

Judicial Precedents – Rina Devi and Doli Rani Saha – Affirmed – Claimant Need Only Establish Initial Burden – Court relied on Union of India v. Rina Devi and Doli Rani Saha v. Union of India to reaffirm legal position – Claimants can discharge burden through affidavits and documentary evidence; Railways then must rebut – Deceased’s ticket verified in DRM report, and post-mortem confirmed accidental death – High Court and Tribunal erred in disregarding such material [Paras 10–13].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of Railway Claims Tribunal dated 16/01/2023 and High Court order dated 15/05/2024 set aside – Appellants held entitled to compensation – Union of India directed to pay ₹8,00,000 within 8 weeks, failing which interest at 6% p.a. from date of order will apply – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 16].

Succession Law – Scheduled Tribes – Applicability of Hindu Succession Act – High Court's direction to extend inheritance rights under Hindu Succession Act, 1956 to daughters in tribal areas of Himachal Pradesh – Held: Impermissible in law in absence of Central Government notification under Section 2(2) of the Act – Tribes remain governed by customary law unless notified – High Court's sweeping declaration lacked jurisdiction and was beyond scope of dispute – Direction expunged [Paras 3-6]

Tribal Custom – Judicial Overreach – Hindu Succession Act expressly excluded Scheduled Tribes unless notified otherwise – High Court's pronouncement was uncalled for as issue neither directly nor substantially involved in the appeal – Supreme Court reiterates settled position in Madhu Kishwar v. State of Bihar, (1996) 5 SCC 125, and State of Maharashtra v. Milind, (2001) 1 SCC 4 – Held: Law must evolve, but evolution must come via legislative process, not judicial fiat [Paras 4-5]

Article 342 – Constitutional Scheme – Notification Requirement – Scheduled Tribe status and de-notification must flow from Presidential notification – No such notification shown in present case – Courts cannot presume applicability of personal laws where exclusion is legislatively preserved [Paras 4]

Obiter Dicta – Binding Nature – High Court’s observations in paragraph 63 not founded on pleadings or issues framed – Held: Directions not sustainable – Supreme Court orders expunction of Paragraph 63 from the High Court judgment [Paras 5-6]

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – Direction in paragraph 63 of the impugned judgment dated 23.06.2015 expunged – No costs – Pending applications also disposed of.

Stamp Duty – Nature of Instrument – Mortgage vs. Security Bond – The instrument executed by the appellant-company in favour of Meerut Development Authority (MDA) styled as a “Security Bond cum Mortgage Deed” held, in substance, to be a mortgage deed and not a security bond – Appellant transferred interest in specified plots (2,934.45 sq. m.) to MDA to secure performance of contractual obligations relating to colony development and payment of external development charges – On default, MDA entitled to sell mortgaged property to realise dues – Essential ingredients of a mortgage under Section 2(17) of the Indian Stamp Act satisfied – Substance prevails over form or nomenclature [Paras 14–17].

Security Bond – Applicability of Article 57 – Article 57 confined to cases where deed is executed “by a surety to secure due performance of a contract” – Requires presence of three distinct parties: surety, principal debtor, and creditor – Not attracted where principal debtor itself executes the deed to secure its own obligations – Appellant-company being the principal developer executed mortgage in its own name; hence Article 57 inapplicable [Paras 21–25].

Contract of Guarantee – Tripartite Nature – Section 126, Contract Act – “Surety” means one who undertakes to discharge the liability of another in case of default – Contract of guarantee inherently tripartite – Absence of independent surety in the deed fatal to claim under Article 57 – Director signing on behalf of company cannot be treated as a distinct surety for purposes of stamp classification [Paras 22–25, 29].

Interpretation of Fiscal Statutes – Principle of Substance Over Form – It is settled that the nomenclature of a document is not decisive for determining stamp duty liability; courts must look to substance, recitals, operative clauses and legal effect – The “Security Bond cum Mortgage Deed” created an enforceable security interest by way of mortgage, satisfying the criteria of Article 40 – Merely describing it as a “Security Bond” cannot alter its character [Paras 14–18, 27–28].

Mortgage Deed – Definition and Applicability – Section 2(17), Indian Stamp Act, 1899 – Includes every instrument transferring a right over specified property to secure money advanced, a debt, or performance of an engagement – The appellant’s deed transferred rights in immovable property to MDA and to Allahabad Bank (in companion appeal) for securing payment and performance – Held: falls squarely under Article 40 of Schedule 1-B [Paras 16–17, 27–28].

Multiple Instruments – Consistent Interpretation – In both appeals (Meerut Development Authority and Allahabad Bank cases), the so-called “Security Bond cum Mortgage Deed”/“Security Bond or Mortgage Deed” involved direct security by principal debtor without a surety – Uniformly held to be chargeable under Article 40 – High Court orders upholding this view affirmed [Paras 27–30].

Fiscal Interpretation – Strict yet Rational Construction – Courts must adopt strict construction of charging provisions but may not disregard the legal effect of the instrument – Since the instrument transfers an interest in property to secure an engagement, its classification as a mortgage under Article 40 accords with both letter and spirit of the statute [Paras 18–20, 26].

Judicial Review – Limited Interference under Article 136 – Concurrent findings of stamp authorities and High Court that instrument chargeable under Article 40 found well-reasoned and based on proper appreciation of law – No manifest illegality or perversity shown – Appeals dismissed [Para 30].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Instruments executed by appellants chargeable under Article 40 of Schedule 1-B of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 – Findings of the High Court of Allahabad affirmed – No interference warranted under Article 136 – No order as to costs [Para 30].

Civil Procedure Code – Order XLI Rule 5 – Stay of Execution – Unconditional Stay – “Sufficient Cause” – Deposit not Mandatory – High Court justified in granting unconditional stay of money decree where decree found egregiously perverse, procedurally infirm, and passed without valid service of summons – Practice of deposit under Order XLI Rule 5 is prudential, not mandatory – Appeal dismissed [Paras 70, 80, 82-87, 125, 129-137].

Stay of Execution – Order XLI Rule 5 CPC – Discretionary Power – Unconditional Stay – “Sufficient Cause” – Deposit not Mandatory – Filing of appeal does not operate as automatic stay – Stay of execution must be based on recorded satisfaction of “sufficient cause” – Although the word “shall” is used in Order XLI Rule 5, it is directory in character – Deposit of decretal amount is not a mandatory condition precedent – Appellate court may grant unconditional stay if decree is egregiously perverse, patently illegal or facially untenable – Discretion to be exercised sparingly and on compelling facts [Paras 70, 80, 82-87, 134(VI)-(X)].

Meaning of “Sufficient Cause” – Interpretation – “Sufficient” means adequate and reasonable – Appellate court must be satisfied that refusal of stay would cause substantial loss – Recording of satisfaction is a precondition – “Sufficient cause” encompasses cases of gross procedural error, jurisdictional defect or manifest illegality [Paras 81, 134(III)-(IV)].

Stay of Money Decree – Deposit or Security – Non-mandatory – Under Order XLI Rule 5(3)(c) CPC, security may be in form of bond, property or undertaking – No statutory mandate to order cash deposit as sole form of security – Practice of insisting on deposit is a rule of prudence, not a rule of law [Paras 84-87, 134(XI)].

Exceptional Circumstances for Unconditional Stay – Parameters – Exceptional case for unconditional stay arises when decree is egregiously perverse, patently illegal, or facially untenable – Exceptional nature must be established from facts and reasons – Mere filing of appeal not sufficient [Paras 82-83, 134(VIII)-(IX)].

Service of Summons – Order IX Rule 13 CPC – Irregularity vs Invalidity – Second proviso to Order IX Rule 13 applies only when there is irregular service of summons, not when summons were never served – Knowledge of proceedings cannot replace valid service – Absence of valid service prevents court from acquiring jurisdiction – Division Bench rightly held that absence of service vitiated all proceedings after 20 April 2022 [Paras 88-93, 125, 131-133].

Damages – Order VII Rules 2 and 7 CPC – Enhancement Without Amendment – Single Judge enhanced damages from ₹2,00,05,000/- to ₹336,02,87,000/- without amendment of plaint or notice to defendant – Held impermissible – Damages cannot be awarded beyond pleadings – Evidence cannot traverse pleadings – Violation of fundamental procedural law [Paras 127-138, 175-178].

Trademark Infringement – Liability of Licensor – Lack of Pleadings and Findings – Licensing agreement between Amazon Tech and Cloudtail related only to ‘SYMBOL’ mark – No authorization for infringing acts – No pleading establishing complicity – Finding that defendants formed cohesive commercial entity unsupported by record – Held: prima facie patent illegality justified unconditional stay [Paras 126, 128, 142-153].

Arbitration Act – Section 36(3) – Analogy with CPC Inapplicable – Analogy of Section 36(3) Arbitration Act to civil appeals misconceived – Phrase “due regard” in Section 36(3) only directory – CPC provisions serve as guidance, not mandate – Courts under Arbitration Act or CPC retain discretion to grant unconditional stay in appropriate cases – Application of Pam Developments and Sepco Electric decisions confined to arbitration context [Paras 95-123, 114-120].

Practice and Prudence – Stay of Money Decree – Deposit of decretal amount is a rule of prudence evolved by courts to protect decree-holder’s interest – Not a universal principle – Appellate courts may depart in cases showing exceptional infirmities or grave procedural lapses [Paras 80, 134(X)].

Jurisdiction – Service of Summons and Due Process – Court’s jurisdiction founded on valid service of summons – Without such service, defendant not bound to appear – Proper service ensures due process; substituted service is exceptional and must be justified – In absence of service, ex parte proceedings void [Paras 131-133].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Impugned judgment of Division Bench affirming unconditional stay of money decree upheld – Division Bench correctly found serious procedural infirmities, invalid service of summons, lack of pleadings, and patent legal errors in decree – No interference warranted – Main appeal to be decided independently on merits [Paras 129-137].

Criminal Law – PMLA – Quashing at Pre-Trial Stage – Alternate Remedy – ECIR did not name appellants and CBI dropped them in supplementary report – ED complaint rests on alleged withdrawal of attached sums (post-PAO) linked to an identified quantum ₹33,80,87,617/- claimed as proceeds of crime – Held: With statutory appeals under Section 26 PMLA pending and PMLA being a self-contained mechanism, interference to quash cognizance is unwarranted – Issues whether the attached amount is “proceeds of crime” and effect of withdrawals are for Appellate Tribunal – Appeals disposed of; liberty to pursue statutory remedies; no costs [Paras 33-41].

PMLA – Provisional Attachment & Confirmations – Statutory Scheme – Court reiterates that Section 5 (provisional attachment), Section 8 (confirmation), and Section 26 (appeal) comprise a comprehensive adjudicatory path – Constitutional/appellate jurisdiction ordinarily not exercised where efficacious remedy exists and is actively pursued [Paras 34-35].

PMLA – Proceeds of Crime – Scope and Identification – Core question is confined to whether the specified sum ₹33.80 crore (unpaid consideration for iron ore supplied by AMC) is “proceeds of crime” and whether its post-PAO withdrawals constitute an offence under Section 3 – Apprehension that entire banking operations are tainted is misplaced where payments were through regular channels and in the books; determination falls within Tribunal’s domain [Paras 37-38].

Criminal Procedure – Cognizance & Summons – Where allegations are confined to recovery of quantified amount and do not presently fasten wider criminal liability, apprehension of arbitrary prosecution is misplaced – No ground made out to quash cognizance or interdict proceedings at this stage [Para 39].

Practice & Procedure – Writ/Appeal vs. Statutory Forums – Court declines to prejudge issues pending before Appellate Tribunal; proceedings may continue uninfluenced by observations in the judgment; appeals disposed of with liberty; no order as to costs [Paras 40-42].

Decision: Appeals disposed – No interference with ED proceedings/cognizance at this stage – Appellants at liberty to pursue PMLA appeals – No costs – Pending applications disposed [Paras 40-43].

Taxation – Works Contract – Transfer of Property in Goods – Printing of Lottery Tickets – Appellant engaged in printing lottery tickets using ink and chemicals procured by itself while paper was supplied by contractee – Assessing Authority levied tax under Section 3F(1)(b) of U.P. Trade Tax Act on ink and chemicals – Appellate Authority and Tribunal deleted levy holding such materials “consumed” and not transferred – High Court reversed holding ink and chemicals passed to customers as part of printing – Held: Tax under Section 3F(1)(b) is on goods involved in execution of works contract, not on end product – Lottery tickets being actionable claims immaterial – Ink and chemicals adhering to paper are transferred “in some other form” – Hence liable to tax [Paras 34–37, 52–56, 67–73].

Works Contract – Constitutional Scope – Article 366(29-A)(b) – After 46th Amendment, indivisible works contract deemed divisible into sale of goods and supply of services – Dominant intention test irrelevant – States empowered to tax transfer of property in goods “whether as goods or in some other form” – [Paras 21–33, 60–63].

Consumables – Meaning and Deduction – Only those consumables whose property is not transferred (e.g., water, electricity, fuel) are deductible – Ink and chemicals incorporated in printing process are not “consumables” but goods transferred in execution of works contract [Paras 61–64].

Interpretation – Moment of Transfer – Transfer of property occurs when contractor’s goods are incorporated in the “works” – Later consumption or transformation of goods immaterial – Taxable event is the deemed sale at the point of incorporation [Paras 59–63].

Precedents – Followed Builders Association of India v. Union of India (1989) 2 SCC 645; Gannon Dunkerley & Co. v. State of Rajasthan (1993) 1 SCC 364; Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. State of Karnataka (2014) 1 SCC 708; State of Maharashtra v. Sarvodaya Printing Press Fine Art Printer (1999) 114 STC 388 – Overruled Rainbow Colour Lab v. State of M.P. (2000) 2 SCC 385 to the extent inconsistent [Paras 25–33, 57–58].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – High Court judgment upholding levy of tax affirmed – Appellant liable to pay tax on ink and processing material under Section 3F(1)(b) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 – [Paras 70–74].

Oral Gift (Hiba) – Validity under Mohammedan Law – Plaintiff claimed title over 10 acres via oral gift by her mother and inheritance to rest of the land – High Court reversed Trial Court’s finding on gift without cross-appeal – Held: Oral gift invalid as essential condition of delivery of possession not proved – No contemporaneous action like mutation or exclusive control demonstrated – Plaintiff’s claim under Hiba rejected [Paras 34–39]

Evidentiary Law – Section 50 Evidence Act – Status of Plaintiff as daughter – Plaintiff failed to produce documentary evidence to establish relationship with donor – Trial Court and High Court erroneously relied on oral testimony of interested witnesses without applying triple test of relevancy, admissibility, and credibility – Held: Finding on Plaintiff’s lineage perverse and unsupported by credible evidence – Relationship not proved [Paras 22–33]

Appellate Jurisdiction – Absence of Cross-Appeal – High Court modified Trial Court decree and upheld validity of oral gift, enhancing Plaintiff’s ownership – Held: In absence of cross-appeal, High Court lacked jurisdiction to grant enhanced relief – Trial Court’s finding on oral gift stood untouched – Decree modification without cross-appeal is impermissible [Paras 16–21]

Limitation – Suit Barred – Challenge to 1995 registered sale deeds and claim of ownership filed in 2013 – No steps taken for mutation or assertion of possession for nearly two decades – Held: Plaintiff failed to act with reasonable diligence – Suit barred by limitation under Articles 58 and 59 of Limitation Act – Constructive notice and long delay fatal to Plaintiff’s case [Paras 40–48]

Possession and Mutation – Mutation records continuously in Defendants’ names since 1995 – Plaintiff never recorded as owner or cultivator – Absence of mutation or possession inconsistent with valid oral gift – Held: Consistent revenue records favoring Defendants demonstrate absence of possession or ownership by Plaintiff [Paras 38–39]

Article 136 – Scope of Interference – Though appellate interference with concurrent findings is limited, where appreciation of evidence is perverse or based on assumptions without legal foundation, Supreme Court may reappreciate evidence – Findings of High Court and Trial Court on key issues found unsustainable [Paras 14–15]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgments of Trial Court and High Court set aside – Suit OS No. 212 of 2013 dismissed as barred by limitation and lacking evidence of valid oral gift or status – No costs – Pending applications disposed of [Para 49]