Second SLP – Unconditional withdrawal without liberty – Barred – Appeals dismissed.

Civil Law - Maintainability - Second SLP after withdrawal – Unconditional withdrawal without liberty – Not maintainable – Court held that where a litigant withdraws a Special Leave Petition without seeking liberty to file afresh, a subsequent SLP against the same order is barred by principles of public policy flowing from Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC – Entertaining such SLP would defeat finality of judicial orders and permit bench-hunting – Upadhyay & Co. v. State of U.P. applied – Appeals dismissed [Paras 19-23, 35-37].

Review Petition – Appeal against refusal of review – Bar under Order XLVII Rule 7 CPC – Rejection of review does not merge with original decree/order and cannot be separately appealed – Remedy lies only against the original order, not the order refusing review [Paras 23-24].

Doctrine of Merger – Kunhayammed and Khoday Distilleries distinguished – Non-speaking dismissal of SLP does not attract merger, but principle does not extend to allow repeated challenges when earlier SLP is withdrawn without liberty – Hence, second SLP impermissible [Paras 27-33].

Public Policy – Interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium – Court reiterated the need for finality of litigation – Entertaining successive SLPs after withdrawal would undermine judicial discipline and finality [Para 35].

Decision – Appeals held not maintainable – Both civil appeals dismissed – Liberty to appellant to pursue remedies before appropriate forum in accordance with law [Paras 36-38].

Judicial Service Recruitment – Review Jurisdiction – Re-computation of cut-off marks – Impermissible – High Court had dismissed writ petition on 07.05.2024 holding respondents ineligible for Civil Judge (Entry Level) recruitment as they had not secured cut-off marks in preliminary exam – In review, High Court recalled its order and directed re-computation of cut-off marks excluding ineligible candidates and holding of fresh main exam – Held: Review jurisdiction cannot be used to substitute earlier view or re-adjudicate contentions already decided – Such directions could only be issued in appellate jurisdiction, not review – Order set aside [Paras 11-13].

Cut-off Marks – Apprehension of reduction – Excluding ineligible candidates – High Court in original writ held that even exclusion of ineligible candidates would not enable respondents to cross cut-off – Review based on same apprehension unsustainable [Paras 12-13].

Physically Impaired Candidates – Conduct of second main exam – No parity – Separate second exam held only for physically impaired candidates under judicial directions – Could not be relied upon to justify a third main exam for others – Review order unsustainable [Para 13].

Recruitment Process – Continuity – Affidavit filed by Registrar (I&L), MP High Court confirmed that no ineligible candidate would be called for interview – Respondents’ apprehension baseless – Appeal allowed – Recruitment to proceed as per advertisement dated 17.11.2023 [Paras 14-15].

Decision – Impugned order dated 13.06.2024 set aside – Review Petition dismissed – Appeal allowed – Recruitment process to be concluded expeditiously – No order as to costs [Para 15].

Service Tax – Export Cargo Handling – Liability – Airports Authority of India claimed exemption on handling of export cargo citing exclusion in definition of “cargo handling service” under Section 65(23), Finance Act, 1994 – Held: Exclusion under “cargo handling service” does not extend to definition of “taxable service” under Section 65(105)(zzm) – Any service provided by Airports Authority in an airport is a taxable service – Export cargo handling covered – Service tax payable [Paras 9-20].

Charging Section – Section 66 – Broad scope – Section 66 read with Section 65(105)(zzm) covers all services by Airports Authority at airports – Statutory provision prevails over exclusion clause in cargo handling definition – Legislative intent is wide taxation [Paras 14-21].

Circulars – Not binding against statute – Departmental circulars relied upon by appellant cannot override express statutory provisions – CESTAT’s view upheld [Para 22].

Decision – CESTAT order confirming service tax on services relating to export cargo upheld – Appeal dismissed [Paras 23-24].

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Section 528 BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC) – FIR alleging rape on pretext of marriage filed by complainant after she was issued a show cause notice by her employer pursuant to the appellant’s complaint – Appellant and complainant were colleagues for five years and were in a consensual relationship – FIR filed four months after the alleged incident – Held: FIR and chargesheet manifestly attended with mala fide intention and instituted to wreak vengeance after administrative action was initiated against the complainant – Quashing justified under Bhajan Lal guidelines [Paras 4-7, 13-15].

False Implication – Abuse of Criminal Process – High Court refused to quash FIR stating it was a matter of trial – Supreme Court finds delay in lodging FIR, prior complaints by appellant, and proximity to disciplinary proceedings against complainant raised strong inference of vendetta – FIR held to be retaliatory and not bona fide – Proceedings quashed to prevent abuse of process and to secure ends of justice [Paras 9, 13-15].

Judicial Precedent – Bhajan Lal principles – Supreme Court reiterates that FIR/chargesheet may be quashed if initiated with ulterior motives – Reference made to State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, M. Srikanth v. State of Telangana, Balaji Traders v. State of U.P., and Mohd. Wajid v. State of U.P. – Court stresses need to examine attendant circumstances and not merely the face of the complaint [Paras 12, 14].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of the High Court refusing to quash FIR and chargesheet set aside – FIR and chargesheet quashed – Pending applications, if any, disposed of [Para 15].

Criminal Law – Murder - Section 302, 34 IPC - Circumstantial evidence – Extra-judicial confession in police station inadmissible – Section 27 recovery from “simultaneous disclosures” unsafe – Mere presence of body in accused’s house does not by itself trigger Section 106 presumption – Motive not proved – Parity with acquitted co-accused charged differently not available – Conviction set aside – Accused acquitted [Paras 6–7, 14–17, 20–31, 35–37].

Circumstantial Evidence – Requirement of a complete chain – Acquittal – The case was entirely based on circumstances – Key witnesses including PWs 11 and 12 turned hostile – No eye-witness account of assault – The Trial Court and High Court erred in presuming guilt by piecing hostile testimony – Held: In a case based purely on circumstantial evidence, if the links of the chain are missing, conviction cannot stand – Benefit of doubt must go to accused [Paras 6, 16–19, 32–35].

Section 106, Evidence Act – Recovery of body from accused’s house – Limits of presumption – Allegation that the dead body was recovered from accused’s premises – No clarity or consistent proof in testimony of PWs 1–3 (tenants/eyewitnesses) – Hostile witnesses denied discovery from accused’s house – Held: Section 106 cannot be invoked unless prosecution first establishes foundational facts beyond reasonable doubt – Mere allegation of body being in house insufficient – Reliance on Santosh v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Shivaji Chintappa Patil – No adverse inference can be drawn [Paras 20–22, 35].

Extra-Judicial Confession – Inadmissibility of statements in police station – Alleged confessions by A3 and A4 made before deceased’s wife (PW-18) and neighbour (PW-9) inside the police station – Held: Hit by Sections 25–26 Evidence Act – Even if made before private individuals, statements lose sanctity when within police precincts – Extra-judicial confessions must be voluntary, truthful, and free from police influence – Here, inadmissible [Paras 23–25].

Section 27, Evidence Act – Simultaneous disclosures and doubtful recovery – Alleged joint confessions by A3 and A4 leading to discovery of billhook and blood-stained clothes – IO’s deposition vague on sequence, location, and who led to actual recovery – Recovery witnesses (PW-5 and PW-6) turned hostile – Held: Simultaneous disclosures not reliable – Cannot be made basis for conviction – Principle affirmed from Navjot Sandhu (Afsan Guru), Kishore Bhadke, Mohd. Inayatullah and Manoj Kumar Soni – Section 27 recovery discarded [Paras 26–31].

Motive – Loan dispute – Not proved – Prosecution alleged deceased constable lent ₹1 lakh to A3 and A4 – PW-18 (wife of deceased) did not corroborate demand – PWs 11–12 unreliable – Held: Motive not established – In circumstantial cases, absence of motive assumes greater importance in assessing guilt – Reference to Babu v. State of Kerala – Here, lack of motive weighs in favour of accused [Paras 10–14, 32].

Hostile Witnesses – Weakening prosecution’s chain – PWs 1–3 (tenants) and PWs 11–12 (key witnesses) turned hostile – Courts below improperly relied on stray contradictions under Section 161 CrPC – Held: Hostile testimony cannot be elevated to substantive evidence unless independently corroborated – Here, no corroboration – Chain of circumstances broken [Paras 6, 32–34].

Medical Evidence – Homicidal death proved but authorship unconnected – Post-mortem report confirmed multiple chop/lacerated wounds – PW-15 (doctor) affirmed death was homicidal – However, medical evidence only proves nature of death, not identity of assailants – Held: Without reliable circumstantial links, medical evidence alone insufficient to convict [Paras 7–8].

Parity with Acquitted Co-Accused – Distinction between Section 34 and Section 109 IPC – A1 (alleged instigator) acquitted as prosecution failed to prove presence and role – A2–A4 charged with direct participation under Section 302/34 IPC – Held: Acquittal of A1 does not exonerate A2–A4 – Vindu Lachmandas Sakhrani and Suraj Pal distinguished – No parity in charges or roles [Paras 3–4, 8–9].

Principle of Burden of Proof – Prosecution duty not diluted – Fundamental principle reiterated that prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Section 106 is not a substitute for prosecution’s failure to prove case – Any weakness in defence does not absolve prosecution’s burden [Paras 20–22, 35].

Decision – Conviction set aside – Considering (i) inadmissibility of extra-judicial confession, (ii) unreliable Section 27 recovery, (iii) absence of motive, (iv) hostile witnesses, and (v) misuse of Section 106, conviction of A2–A4 unsustainable – Appeal allowed – Appellants acquitted – Release ordered if not wanted in any other case – Bail bonds cancelled [Paras 35–38].

Service Law – Departmental Proceedings – Promotion with Retrospective Effect – Appeal Allowed – Appellant was denied retrospective promotion and consequential benefits despite departmental proceedings being quashed – Held: State violated direction in LPA judgment by not promoting appellant from date her junior was promoted – Relief granted including arrears and pension revision [Paras 2, 5, 9-11].

Contempt Jurisdiction – Improper Denial of Relief – Supreme Court held High Court erred in dismissing contempt petition – Once mandamus was issued for retrospective promotion and benefits, failure to comply warranted interference – Retirement of appellant not a bar to granting full relief [Paras 3, 9-10].

Delay and Sham Inquiry – Departmental Proceedings Initiated After 10 Years – Set Aside – Allegations found baseless and proceedings conducted in violation of natural justice – Punishment quashed – Reliance placed on Roop Singh Negi and Bani Singh cases [Paras 4-5].

Discrimination – Unequal Treatment Between Peers – Appellant’s junior promoted after relaxation – Appellant wrongfully denied same benefit due to annulled punishment – Held: Appellant entitled to identical promotion and benefits from same date as junior officer [Paras 6-9].

Consequential Relief – Pay, Arrears and Pension – Full Monetary Relief Granted – Supreme Court ordered fixation of pay, pension, and release of arrears within four months – Directed interest @7% if delay occurs beyond stipulated time – Officers responsible for delay may be made personally liable [Paras 10-11].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – State directed to grant retrospective promotion, fix pay and pension, pay all arrears – Compliance to be done within 4 months; failure will attract 7% interest and possible recovery from erring officials [Paras 11-12].

Bail Jurisprudence – Cancellation vs. Revocation – Bail Restored – Supreme Court set aside High Court’s order revoking bail granted to accused in murder case – Held: Bail once granted can only be revoked if found illegal, perverse, or against settled legal principles – No proven violation of bail conditions – Liberty restored with stringent conditions [Paras 17-25, 31-32].

Maintainability – Second Application for Bail Cancellation – Section 439(2) CrPC – Permissible – Held: Once Sessions Court rejects cancellation, High Court may entertain subsequent application under Section 482 read with 439(2) CrPC – No bar on High Court’s jurisdiction – Application was maintainable [Paras 14-15].

Grounds for Cancellation – Mere Delay Not a Bar – High Court rightly held that delay of 18 months in filing cancellation application was not fatal – However, Supreme Court held that delay coupled with absence of violation of bail terms did not justify revocation of bail after 2 years of liberty [Paras 6, 19-21, 24].

Violation of Bail Conditions – Alleged Misconduct by Accused Vishnu – FIR under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita quashed – Supreme Court noted denial of involvement by complainant via affidavit – Held: Allegation did not merit cancellation of bail [Paras 22].

Antecedents – Not Sufficient by Themselves – Criminal antecedents not conclusive ground for cancellation – Supreme Court followed Ayub Khan v. State of Rajasthan – Held: Bail may still be justified if long incarceration and cooperation shown [Para 23].

Trial Progress and Liberty – 141 Witnesses – Trial in Initial Stages – Supreme Court found that given volume of witnesses and lack of delay caused by accused, incarceration not justified – Directed continued bail with stringent conditions [Paras 25-26, 28-30].

Decision – Bail Restored – High Court’s revocation of bail set aside – Appellants to remain on bail during trial – Strict conditions imposed to prevent tampering with evidence or intimidation of witnesses [Paras 26, 28, 31-32].

Service Law – Pension and Gratuity – Withholding of Retiral Dues – Respondent retired in June 2013 – Department withheld pension and gratuity citing non-vacation of government residence – Supreme Court held such withholding illegal – Pension and retiral benefits are not a bounty but a matter of right – Delay in payment not justified merely due to continued occupation of official residence – Held: Right to pension and retiral dues arises from years of service and cannot be defeated by unrelated issues like accommodation [Paras 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11].

Recovery – Excess Salary and Penal Rent – Recovery of Rs. 1,46,466/- (excess salary) and Rs. 1,56,187/- (penal house rent) made from retiral dues – Refixed pay scale withdrawn by department after retirement – Supreme Court held recovery of excess salary not permissible where overpayment not due to employee’s misrepresentation or fraud – Recovery violates settled principles laid down in Syed Abdul Qadir v. State of Bihar – No case made out to invoke exceptions to bar on recovery [Paras 2, 4, 9].

Delay in Disbursement – Interest on Delayed Payment – Respondent’s retiral dues paid nearly three years after retirement and only after vacating government accommodation – Supreme Court upheld grant of 6% interest on delayed payment of pension and gratuity – Department failed to offer any legally sustainable explanation – Held: Pensionary benefits cannot be withheld as leverage for vacating house [Paras 5, 6, 11, 12].

Administrative Law – Arbitrary Action – State’s action in linking pension payment to vacation of residence found arbitrary and legally unsustainable – Held: Residential occupation is a service-linked facility, while pension is a post-retirement right – Two distinct entitlements cannot be interlinked – Department’s conduct deprecated [Paras 10, 11].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Recovery orders declared illegal – Department directed to refund deducted amounts with 6% interest – No costs awarded [Paras 12, 13].

SARFAESI—Sec. 13(8) (post-2016)—Borrower’s redemption ends on valid publication of composite sale notice under Rule 8(6)—only one notice required—amendment applies to alive claims where auction notice is after 01-09-2016—High Court order quashing sale certificate set aside—auction purchaser protected [Paras 169–178, 179–193, 202].

SARFAESI – Redemption Right – Section 13(8) as amended in 2016 – Scope and cut-off – Borrowers sought redemption relying on pre-amendment law and Mathew Varghese – Held: Under amended Section 13(8), borrower’s right to redeem is available only till valid publication of the composite sale notice – Once published in the manner required by the Rules, redemption is not permissible even before registration of sale certificate – High Court’s view to the contrary set aside [Paras 95–100, 170–178, 183].

SARFAESI Rules – Notice regime – Rule 8(6), Proviso, Rule 8(7), Rule 9(1) – One composite notice of sale – Conflicting High Court views resolved – Held: The scheme envisages a single composite “notice of sale” which is served on the borrower and, where applicable, published to the public, affixed on the property and uploaded on the creditor’s website – No requirement of two distinct sale notices nor two separate 30-day gaps – The 30-day bar in Rule 9(1) runs from service/affixation/publication (whichever later) to the date of sale [Paras 137–169].

Interpretation – Expression “before the date of publication” in Section 13(8) – Harmonious construction with Rules – Held: “Publication” covers the valid completion of the composite notice of sale process as required for the chosen mode (service, newspaper publication where applicable, affixation, website upload) – The borrower’s redemption right is extinguished upon such valid publication, irrespective of mode (auction, tender, quotations, private treaty) [Paras 170–178].

Retrospectivity / Retroactivity – Amended Section 13(8) – Procedural/remedial operation – Loans predating amendment – Held: Amendment applies to “alive claims” where auction notice is issued after 01.09.2016 – Presumption against retrospectivity does not apply to procedural/remedial provisions – Right of redemption under SARFAESI is statutory and subject to special-law curtailment – Borrowers’ contrary plea rejected [Paras 179–193].

Writ Jurisdiction – Availability of alternate remedies – Sanctity of SARFAESI auctions – High Court interference disapproved – Held: Having availed SARFAESI remedies before DRT, borrowers could not bypass statutory appeal by invoking writ to upend a concluded auction and sale certificate – Equitable considerations cannot override the statutory auction framework or vested rights of the auction purchaser [Paras 26–31, 100 (110.1, 110.5 of Bafna Motors discussed), 202].

Auction Purchaser – Vested rights and protection – Held: Upon confirmation under Rule 9(2) and compliance, purchaser has a vested right to sale certificate under Rule 9(6); third-party rights created by borrower during pendency declared non-est; Court warns of strict action for obstruction to delivery of possession [Paras 99, 194–195].

Legislative Clarification – Drafting anomaly – Court’s recommendation – Noting inconsistency between Section 13(8) and Rules 8–9 causing litigation, Court urges Ministry of Finance to cure ambiguities to protect creditor and purchaser interests and further expeditious recovery [Paras 199–201, 203].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Impugned High Court judgment quashing sale certificate set aside – Borrowers’ right of redemption stood extinguished on date of valid publication of auction notice (22.01.2021) – Auction on 26.02.2021 and sale certificate dated 22.03.2021 sustained – Directions issued regarding possession and disregard of any third-party rights created pendente lite [Paras 181–183, 194–202].