Wakf Act, 1995 – Jurisdiction of Wakf Tribunal – Scope and limits – Section 83 – Nature and ambit – Held: Section 83 does not by itself confer substantive jurisdiction on the Tribunal – It merely enables constitution of the Tribunal – Jurisdiction must flow from specific provisions of the Act – Interpretation in Ramesh Gobindram v. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf reaffirmed [Paras 15, 37, 44–47].

Civil Court Jurisdiction – Ouster under Section 85 Wakf Act – Not absolute – Exclusion applies only to matters required by or under the Act to be determined by the Tribunal – Presumption in favour of civil court jurisdiction reiterated – Held: Tribunal jurisdiction and civil court ouster are confined strictly to powers expressly conferred under the Act [Paras 13–15, 18, 47].

Wakf Property – Determination of status – Sections 6 and 7 – Mandatory requirement of inclusion in ‘list of auqaf’ or registration under Section 37 – Held: Tribunal can decide whether a property is wakf property only if it is specified in the list of auqaf or entered in the Register of Auqaf – Properties outside the statutory list cannot be subjected to Tribunal adjudication [Paras 12, 14, 30, 44, 50].

Wakf by User – Claim based on recent user – Mosque allegedly established in 2008 – Requirement of long and immemorial user – Held: Question left open – Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to decide ‘waqf by user’ claim when property is not notified or registered as wakf [Paras 6, 50].

Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Rejection of plaint – Injunction simpliciter before Wakf Tribunal – Property not notified or registered as wakf – Held: Suit before Tribunal is barred for want of jurisdiction – Plaint liable to be rejected – High Court erred in affirming Tribunal’s jurisdiction [Paras 4, 5, 50].

Wakf (Amendment) Act, 2013 – Expansion of definition of ‘list of auqaf’ under Section 3(g) – Nature of amendment – Held: Amendment is procedural and clarificatory – Enables Tribunal to decide disputes relating to properties entered in Register of Auqaf under Section 37 – Does not enlarge Tribunal’s jurisdiction beyond statutory framework [Paras 30–36].

Section 83 Wakf Act – Misinterpretation in later decisions – Anis Fatma Begum and Rashid Wali Beg considered – Held: Expansive interpretation of Section 83 contrary to earlier binding precedent – Coordinate Benches could not have taken divergent view without reference to Larger Bench – Ramesh Gobindram continues to hold the field except to the limited extent of eviction of encroachers post-2013 amendment [Paras 28–29, 39–49].

Eviction and Encroachment – Power of Tribunal – Source of jurisdiction – Held: Power to remove encroachers flows from Section 54(3) & (4) and not from Section 83 – Amendment Act, 2013 only removes the bar noted in Ramesh Gobindram regarding eviction – Does not otherwise expand Tribunal jurisdiction [Paras 12, 46, 49].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Orders of Wakf Tribunal and High Court set aside – Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC allowed – Suit before Wakf Tribunal rejected – Question whether property is a wakf left open to be agitated before competent forum in accordance with law [Paras 50–51].

Criminal Law – Sect 302 IPC – Murder - Circumstantial Evidence – Reversal of Acquittal – Limits of Appellate Interference – Trial Court acquitted the accused holding that prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances – High Court reversed acquittal holding that the five golden principles in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda were satisfied – Supreme Court held that appellate court must first examine whether the view taken by Trial Court was a possible and reasonable view – Acquittal strengthens presumption of innocence and cannot be lightly disturbed – High Court erred in substituting its own inferences without dislodging the Trial Court’s reasoning [Paras 2–6, 31–32].

Circumstantial Evidence – Last Seen Theory – Requirement of Proximity – Prosecution alleged deceased was last seen with accused on evening of 18.02.2006 – No witness proved actual seeing together of deceased and accused immediately prior to death – Statements relied upon were hearsay or merely indicated intended meeting – Auto-rickshaw driver’s testimony unreliable due to absence of test identification parade and prior police identification – Held: Last seen theory not established as proximity to time of death not proved [Paras 10–15].

Medical Evidence – Cause of Death – Inconclusive Opinion – Post-mortem suggested asphyxia by strangulation – Cross-examination revealed possibility of death by hanging – Absence of classical signs of strangulation such as cyanosis or blood clots – Medical evidence not conclusive of homicidal death – Held: Inconclusive medical opinion cannot sustain conviction without strong corroborative circumstantial evidence [Paras 9–12].

Recovery of Dead Body – Section 27 Evidence Act – Discovery Not Proved – Prosecution claimed accused led police to graveyard where body was exhumed – No disclosure statement recorded – Independent witnesses did not support accused’s presence at exhumation – Conflicting testimony on date of recovery – Held: Discovery not attributable to accused under Section 27 and cannot be treated as incriminating circumstance [Paras 17–18].

Recovery of Weapon – Rope – Forensic Evidence – Failure of Proof – Rope allegedly recovered at instance of accused – Recovery witnesses denied disclosure statement – Rope recovered from open place already accessed earlier – Forensic report did not show blood, human tissue or hair – Held: Recovery highly doubtful and not reliable as incriminating evidence [Paras 18–19].

Seizure of Articles – Identification of Property – Failure to Link with Crime – Alleged recovery of belongings of deceased from accused – Articles not identified by father of deceased – Some seizure witnesses turned hostile – Laptop admittedly handed over earlier to friend – Held: Seizures failed to establish nexus with crime [Paras 20–22].

Confessional Statements – Section 164 CrPC – Voluntariness and Evidentiary Value – Confessions retracted – Serious discrepancies in recording dates and language – Magistrate failed to inform accused of right to legal assistance – Confession of A1 exculpatory and incriminating co-accused – Confession of A2 not amounting to admission of guilt – Held: Confessions unreliable, not voluntary and lacking corroboration – Cannot form basis of conviction [Paras 23–30].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Confession – Requirement of Corroboration – Confession must be direct acknowledgment of guilt – Partial or exculpatory statements not confessions in law – In absence of independent corroborative evidence, conviction impermissible – Reliance placed on Pyarelal Bhargava and Kanda Pandyachi [Paras 29–30].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Judgment of High Court set aside – Acquittal recorded by Trial Court restored – Accused directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case – Bail bonds cancelled [Paras 32–33].

Labour Law - Industrial Disputes – Reference of Dispute – Maintainability – Preliminary objection by Management that Union directly approached Conciliation Officer without serving charter of demands – Held: No statutory requirement under ID Act to first serve demand on employer before invoking conciliation – Section 10(1) allows reference of existing or apprehended dispute – Rejection of challenge to maintainability of reference upheld [Paras 12, 28, 33, 34].

Contract Labour – Sham and Camouflage – Jurisdiction – Workers claimed direct employment under principal employer and alleged labour contract was sham – Held: Industrial Court is the proper forum for adjudication of employer-employee relationship and whether contract is genuine or camouflage – High Court correctly declined to interfere in reference proceedings [Paras 19.6, 26, 28, 32, 35].

Employer-Employee Relationship – Tripartite Structure – Management engaged contract workers through registered contractors – Denial of direct relationship by Management – Held: Such denial itself raises a factual dispute warranting adjudication before Industrial Court – Reference cannot be quashed at threshold on such grounds [Paras 27, 31, 35.1].

Conciliation Proceedings – Commencement Without Prior Notice – Conciliation Officer acted on representation from Union and issued notice on same day – Management challenged such initiation – Held: Conciliation Manual is directory, not mandatory – Officer has discretion to intervene in apprehended disputes to prevent industrial unrest [Paras 12, 30, 33, 37].

Principle of Law – Even in absence of written demand, if substantial dispute exists or is apprehended, reference under Section 10 is valid – Purpose of ID Act is to maintain industrial peace, not to frustrate remedies on technicalities [Paras 24, 35, 36].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Reference to Industrial Court upheld – Industrial Court directed to frame issues (i) whether the labour contracts are sham and (ii) whether Management is principal employer – To dispose of the case within 4 months [Paras 32, 41, 42].

Criminal Law – BNSS – Section 175(4) – Interpretation – Not a Standalone Provision – Issue whether Section 175(4) operates independently or in conjunction with Section 175(3) – Held: Sub-sections (3) and (4) are not isolated silos – Power to order investigation flows primarily from Section 175(3) – Section 175(4) provides an additional procedural safeguard where complaint is against a public servant – It neither stands alone nor operates independently of Section 175(3) [Paras 24–26, 31, 37–39, 42].

Statutory Construction – BNSS – Section 175(4) – Not a Proviso – Question whether Section 175(4) is to be read as a proviso to Section 175(3) – Held: Not a proviso – Provision does not carve out an exception but introduces an additional safeguard absent in CrPC – Placement as a sub-section and ability to operate even if Section 175(3) is removed militates against proviso construction [Paras 32–36].

Judicial Magistrate – Power to Order Investigation – Mandatory Preconditions – Magistrate can exercise power under Section 175 only after complainant exhausts remedy under Section 173(4) – Resort to Superintendent of Police is a mandatory statutory step – Direct approach to Magistrate impermissible – Sequential statutory scheme must be respected [Paras 31.1–31.2].

Affidavit – Mandatory Requirement – Complaints Against Public Servants – Though Section 175(4) uses expression “complaint”, term cannot include oral complaints – Context requires written complaint supported by affidavit – Affidavit requirement under Section 175(3) read with Section 333 BNSS applies equally to Section 175(4) – Any other interpretation would defeat safeguard laid down in Priyanka Srivastava [Paras 37.4–37.9, 41, 44].

Public Servants – Additional Threshold Protection – Legislative Intent – Section 175(4) introduced to prevent frivolous or vindictive complaints against public servants – Requires Magistrate to call for report from superior officer and consider explanation of accused public servant – Protection operates at pre-investigation stage and is distinct from sanction requirement under Section 218 BNSS [Paras 27–30, 40].

Lalita Kumari – FIR Registration – Limited Applicability – Principles of mandatory FIR registration govern police action under Section 154 CrPC / Section 173 BNSS – Once matter reaches Magistrate under Section 175 BNSS, statutory procedure therein governs – Lalita Kumari does not override Magistrate’s duties under Section 175 [Paras 16–19].

Judicial Magistrates – Discretion under Section 175(4) – Practical Guidelines – Where prima facie offence appears connected with discharge of official duties, Magistrate must follow Section 175(4) safeguards – Where doubt exists, Magistrate should err on side of caution – Where act clearly unrelated to official duty, Magistrate may proceed under Section 175(3) alone – Magistrate may reject complaints that are absurd, improbable or untenable with recorded reasons [Paras 45–48].

Writ Jurisdiction – Article 226 – Premature Interference – Bar – Single Judge erred in entertaining writ petition while proceedings under Section 175 were pending before JMFC – Judicial order calling for report under Section 175(4) could not be interfered with in writ jurisdiction – Directions issued without challenge to Magistrate’s order held impermissible [Paras 49–53].

Judicial Orders – Recall by Magistrate – Impermissibility – Single Judge’s directions effectively compelled Magistrate to recall his own judicial order – Such power unknown to criminal procedure – Magistrate’s subsequent FIR direction rendered unsustainable [Paras 52–53].

Public Servants – Discharge of Official Duties – Fact-Dependent Determination – Whether alleged acts arose in discharge of official duties requires factual assessment – Writ court cannot undertake magisterial fact-finding – Issue must be left open for determination by JMFC under statutory procedure [Paras 54–57].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment of Division Bench upheld – Order of Single Judge set aside – Magistrate to proceed strictly in accordance with Sections 175(3), 175(4) and 333 BNSS – No direction for immediate FIR registration – Appellant granted liberty to raise all contentions before JMFC – Parties to bear their own costs.

Land Acquisition – Railway Projects – Excess Compensation – Collusion Allegations – Scope of Setting Aside Awards – Award of compensation for land acquisition under Railways Act set aside by High Court on ground of excessive compensation and collusion between certain land owners and officials – Question whether such setting aside ipso facto nullifies awards of all land owners including those not implicated – Held: Allegations and inquiry confined only to specific beneficiaries – Entire acquisition award cannot be invalidated wholesale – Relief can operate only against tainted beneficiaries [Paras 2, 9–11].

Natural Justice – Non-Impleadment of Affected Parties – Effect – Writ petition by Railways challenging award impleaded only five land owners out of 550 beneficiaries – Appellant not arrayed as party nor alleged to have received excess compensation – High Court erred in extending effect of judgment to non-parties – Orders passed in proceedings to which appellant was not a party cannot prejudice his vested rights [Paras 7, 9–12].

Arbitration – Enhancement of Compensation – Power of Review – Railways Act, 1989 – Arbitrator enhanced compensation under Section 20-F(6) – Subsequent administrative orders kept enhancement in abeyance and later cancelled award – Held: Neither Competent Authority nor Arbitrator has statutory power of review under Railways Act or 2016 Rules – Cancellation of award without jurisdiction unsustainable in law [Paras 13–14].

Administrative Law – Colourable Exercise of Power – Limits – Inquiry and FIR lodged against specific officials and land owners for unjust enrichment – Appellant neither named in inquiry nor subjected to prosecution or refund proceedings – No finding of similarity in quantum or unjust enrichment qua appellant – Mechanical extension of adverse findings to appellant held arbitrary and illegal [Paras 9, 12].

Judicial Review – High Court Error – Failure to Distinguish Individual Claims – High Court failed to appreciate that challenge before it was limited to specific respondents – Setting aside arbitral and original awards affecting appellant without factual or legal basis amounted to egregious error – Supreme Court interfered to prevent miscarriage of justice [Paras 11, 14].

Relief – Restoration of Award – Disbursement Directions – Orders keeping enhanced compensation in abeyance and cancelling award set aside – Original award dated 12.02.2018 and arbitral enhancement dated 28.06.2019 restored – Direction issued for payment of balance compensation with applicable interest and solatium within three months – Appeal allowed [Paras 14–16].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned High Court judgments and consequential administrative orders set aside – Compensation and enhanced amounts restored – Directions for disbursement with interest and solatium – Pending applications disposed of.

Income Tax – Employees’ Contribution to PF and ESI – Deductibility – Section 2(24)(x) and Section 36(1)(va) – High Court held that employees’ contribution deducted from salaries constitutes income of the employer and is allowable as deduction only if deposited within the due date prescribed under the relevant welfare statutes – Employer’s contribution under Section 36(1)(iv) and employees’ contribution under Section 36(1)(va) held to be fundamentally different in nature – Non-obstante clause of Section 43B held inapplicable to employees’ contribution – Alom Extrusions distinguished for not considering Sections 2(24)(x) and 36(1)(va) [Paras 1–4, 6–8].

Income Tax – Interpretation of “Due Date” – Employees’ Contribution – Conflicting Judicial Views – One line of authorities holds that delayed deposit of employees’ contribution beyond the statutory due date under PF/ESI Acts disentitles deduction notwithstanding payment before filing of return – Another line of authorities applies Section 43B and allows deduction if payment is made before due date of filing return under Section 139(1) – Supreme Court notes divergence of opinion among High Courts across the country [Paras 5, 8–10].

Income Tax – Section 43B – Scope – Employees’ Contribution – Prima facie view that employees’ contribution held in trust by employer continues to be income unless deposited within statutory due date under PF/ESI laws – Explanation 5 to Section 43B noted as not having been considered in earlier decisions forming one view – Matter found to require authoritative determination by Supreme Court [Paras 6–7, 11].

Decision: Notice issued on the Special Leave Petition in view of conflicting High Court judgments on allowability of delayed deposit of employees’ contribution to PF and ESI – Returnable in four weeks – Dasti service permitted [Paras 11–13].

Criminal Law - Bail – Regular Bail – Abetment of Suicide and Dowry Death Allegations – Appellant husband accused under Sections 108 and 80 BNS and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act in connection with death of wife – High Court rejected bail solely on seriousness of offence – Supreme Court examined FIR, case diary statements, post-mortem and surrounding circumstances – FIR initially alleged mental harassment due to alleged extra-marital relationship leading to suicide – No allegation of dowry demand in FIR or initial statements – Dowry allegations surfaced only in subsequent statements – Improvement in prosecution version noted – Held: Subsequent introduction of dowry allegations weakens prima facie case at bail stage [Paras 13–15].

Criminal Law – Abetment of Suicide vs. Murder – Medical Evidence – Post-mortem revealed multiple ante-mortem injuries including injection marks – Query report opined injuries (needle pricks, scratches) could be self-inflicted – No injury conclusively established as cause of death – Deceased was an anaesthetist and death prima facie due to Atracurium Besylate Injection – Absence of clear medical evidence pointing towards homicidal death – Held: At bail stage, material does not conclusively indicate murder [Paras 10–12, 15].

Evidence – Electronic Evidence – Suicide Note and Audio Recording – Recovery of photograph of handwritten suicide note, WhatsApp chats and audio recording indicating marital discord and emotional distress – Contents suggest suspicion of extra-marital affair and threat of self-harm – Held: Material indicates strained marital relationship but does not, by itself, establish abetment or homicidal intent for purposes of denying bail [Paras 10, 15].

Dowry Death – Prima Facie Assessment at Bail Stage – Allegations of demand of money/dowry absent in FIR and first statements of parents and brother of deceased – Allegations introduced later in investigation – Court cautioned against treating such improved statements as determinative at bail stage – Held: Prima facie case of dowry death not strong enough to justify continued incarceration [Paras 14–15].

Bail Jurisprudence – Post Charge-Sheet Custody – Appellant in custody since 25.03.2025 – Charge-sheet filed and charges framed – Appellant a dentist, not a hardened criminal – No likelihood of absconding or non-cooperation with trial – Continued detention not justified merely on gravity of allegations – Held: Bail deserved with conditions [Paras 15–16].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order of High Court rejecting bail set aside – Appellant directed to be released on regular bail subject to conditions imposed by Trial Court – Appellant to cooperate with trial and not influence witnesses – Observations confined to bail consideration and not to affect merits of trial [Paras 16–17].

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code – Section 60(5) – Residuary Jurisdiction – Limits – NCLT’s jurisdiction under Section 60(5)(c) extends only to questions of law or fact arising out of or in relation to insolvency resolution or liquidation proceedings – Jurisdiction cannot be invoked to adjudicate independent civil or proprietary disputes lacking direct nexus with insolvency – Adjudicating Authority cannot assume power to declare title to intellectual property merely because dispute surfaces during CIRP [Paras 24–26, 37].

Resolution Plan – Binding Nature – Sanctity and Finality – Once a resolution plan is approved by the Committee of Creditors and Adjudicating Authority under Section 31 IBC, it constitutes the charter governing rights and obligations of all stakeholders – NCLT cannot grant rights beyond or contrary to what is recognised in the approved plan – Any declaration conferring additional proprietary rights amounts to impermissible modification of the plan [Paras 19–23, 38].

Trademark Dispute – Declaration of Ownership – Impermissibility during CIRP – Approved resolution plan itself recorded existence of rival claims over trademark “Gloster” and merely reflected beliefs and understanding of Resolution Applicant – In absence of adjudication under appropriate forum or avoidance proceedings, NCLT could not declare trademark as asset of Corporate Debtor or vest ownership in SRA [Paras 11–16, 37–40].

IBC – Sections 43, 45 and 46 – Preferential and Undervalued Transactions – Mandatory Procedure – Adjudicating Authority cannot suo motu invoke Sections 43 or 45 to invalidate transactions in absence of a formal application by Resolution Professional or eligible party under Section 47 – Avoidance of transactions requires specific pleadings, rigorous scrutiny and compliance with principles of natural justice – Summary findings by NCLT held perverse and unsustainable [Paras 42–49].

Resolution Professional – Statutory Role – Failure to Initiate Avoidance Proceedings – Resolution Professional bears statutory responsibility to examine and move appropriate applications in respect of preferential or undervalued transactions – Failure to do so cannot be cured by collateral adjudication while deciding unrelated application under Section 60(5) [Paras 13–15, 48–49].

Section 60(5) IBC – Embassy Property and Gujarat Urja Explained – Embassy Property reiterated that NCLT cannot usurp jurisdiction of civil courts or statutory authorities in matters dehors insolvency – Gujarat Urja carved a narrow exception where dispute arose solely due to insolvency – Trademark ownership dispute herein pre-existed insolvency and did not arise solely from CIRP, thus falling outside Section 60(5) [Paras 26–31, 37].

Trademark Registration during Moratorium – No Automatic Vesting – Registration of trademark during CIRP does not conclusively determine ownership where title itself is disputed – Issues of assignment, effectiveness, moratorium and statutory compliance require adjudication before competent forum under Trade Marks Act or civil law [Paras 40–41].

Natural Justice – Adjudication beyond Pleadings – Illegality – Declaring assignment void as preferential or undervalued without pleadings, notice or opportunity of defence violates principles of natural justice – Parties cannot be rendered worse off in proceedings initiated by them [Paras 44–47].

Decision: Civil Appeal No. 2996 of 2024 dismissed – Civil Appeal No. 4493 of 2024 disposed of – Finding of NCLT declaring trademark “Gloster” as asset of Corporate Debtor set aside – Observations of NCLAT declaring vesting of title in GCL also set aside – All issues of trademark ownership left open to be decided by appropriate forum uninfluenced by observations herein – No order as to costs [Paras 50–52].

Property Law – Registered Sale Deed – Sham Transaction – Presumption of Validity – Threshold for Interference – Registered sale deed carries a strong presumption of validity and genuineness – Registration is a solemn act lending sanctity and certainty to title – Courts should not lightly or casually declare a registered deed to be sham – Burden lies heavily on the party challenging the deed to establish with cogent pleadings and evidence that it was never intended to be acted upon [Paras 31–33].

Evidence Act – Sections 91 & 92 – Oral Evidence – Scope and Limitation – Oral evidence barred where terms of registered document are clear and unambiguous – Exception permitting oral evidence applies only where plea is that document itself was never intended to operate – Mere allegation of nominal or sham nature, without strict proof, insufficient to override statutory bar [Paras 34–37, 41].

Civil Procedure – Pleadings – Order VI Rule 4 CPC – Rigorous Pleading Standard – Allegation that a registered deed is sham requires clear, specific and material particulars akin to fraud – Clever drafting creating illusion of cause of action impermissible – Absence of particulars and internal inconsistencies render claim unbelievable [Paras 34–35, 38–41].

Transfer of Property Act – Section 58(c) – Mortgage by Conditional Sale – Statutory Test – For a transaction to qualify as mortgage by conditional sale, condition of reconveyance must be embodied in the same document effecting the sale – In absence of such condition, transaction cannot be treated as mortgage – Sale deed dated 12.11.1971 held not to be a mortgage by conditional sale [Paras 44–49].

Sale Deed vs. Mortgage – Intention of Parties – Determination – Clear recitals of absolute transfer, full consideration, symbolic delivery of possession, and execution of contemporaneous registered rental agreement establish intent of outright sale – No ambiguity warranting resort to extrinsic evidence [Paras 43–45, 55, 58].

Conduct of Parties – Subsequent Events – Evidentiary Value – Payment of rent for fourteen months under registered lease and failure to seek reconveyance at earliest opportunity negate plea of mortgage – Delay in filing suit and silence in reply to legal notice undermine claim of sham transaction [Paras 52–54, 73].

Admissions – Reply to Legal Notice – Effect – Written reply admitting tenancy, default in rent and conceding right of eviction constitutes strong admission – Plea that reply was issued without understanding contents not pleaded and therefore rejected [Paras 41, 73–75].

Consideration – Inadequacy – Effect on Validity – Mere allegation of inadequacy of consideration does not render sale deed void – In absence of proof that no consideration passed, registered conveyance cannot be invalidated [Para 60].

Mutation and Municipal Records – Relevance – Non-mutation of purchaser’s name and subsequent payment of municipal taxes by vendor do not defeat title under registered sale deed – Revenue and municipal entries do not confer ownership [Paras 61–65].

Appellate Interference – Error by High Court – High Court erred in misapplying Gangabai v. Chhabubai and in discarding statutory presumptions attached to registered instruments – Judgment of first appellate court restoring validity of sale deed upheld [Paras 72–75].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of High Court of Karnataka dated 04.02.2010 set aside – Judgment of First Appellate Court dated 13.12.1999 restored – Suit O.S. No. 39 of 1977 dismissed with costs – Sale Deed and Rental Agreement dated 12.11.1971 held genuine and intended to be acted upon.