Service Law - Family Pension – Death in Harness of Substitute Railway Employee – Completion of One Year’s Service – Pension Entitlement Recognized – Appeal Allowed – The Appellant, widow of a substitute railway employee who died after 9 years and 8 months of service, was denied family pension by Railway Authorities citing non-regularisation and less than 10 years of service – Supreme Court held that under Rule 75(2)(a) read with Rule 18(3) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, family pension is payable to the family of a temporary railway servant who dies after completing one year of continuous service – Observed that the deceased had obtained temporary status and was eligible for family pension on par with temporary employees – Held: Denial of family pension unsustainable, appeal allowed [Paras 1-12].

Qualifying Service for Family Pension – 10-Year Minimum Tenure Not Applicable for Temporary Status – Clarification Issued – Supreme Court clarified that the 10-year qualifying service rule is applicable for superannuation pension, but in the case of death in harness after one year of service, family pension cannot be denied to dependents – Held: Disqualification based on the three-month shortfall from ten years violates the beneficial scheme of pension rules, purpose being to protect the deceased’s dependents [Paras 10-11].

Relief under Article 142 – Award of Ex-Gratia Compensation – Supreme Court invoked powers under Article 142 to award additional ex-gratia amount of ₹5,00,000 to the appellant in view of prolonged litigation and hardship faced by the widow after death of breadwinner – Directed payment of arrears of pension along with regular monthly pension within four months [Paras 13-14].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Orders of Tribunal and High Court Set Aside – Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside decisions of Central Administrative Tribunal and Patna High Court, directed immediate disbursal of pension benefits to the appellant along with ₹5 lakh ex-gratia compensation [Paras 14-15].

Electricity Act - Electricity Tariff – Scope of Note 3 of Regulation 55 – Contractual Obligation to Supply Free Power Beyond 13% Not Affected – Appeal Allowed – The appellant State challenged the High Court’s order that modified the agreed contractual free power supply from 18% to 13% in alignment with CERC Regulations, 2019 – The Supreme Court held that Note 3 of Regulation 55 of the 2019 Tariff Regulations only caps the extent of free power for purposes of tariff calculation recoverable from distribution licensees and beneficiaries – The cap does not restrain or extinguish the contractual obligation to supply free power beyond 13%, which forms part of negotiated consideration for resource allocation – Held: Contractual obligation to supply 18% free power continues unaffected by the 13% cap applicable for tariff computation [Paras 1-24].

Tariff Regulation – Limited Purpose of CERC Regulations – Contractual Free Power Obligations Not Regulated – The Court clarified that CERC Regulations govern tariff computation between generating companies and beneficiaries and cannot be relied upon to alter royalty-based free power obligations agreed with the State Government – Held: The free power clause forms part of the project allotment consideration and remains enforceable as such – The regulatory cap applies only to tariff pass-through and does not rewrite resource contracts [Paras 15-21].

Writ Jurisdiction – Not Maintainable to Modify Concluded Contracts Governed by Sectoral Regulation – The Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by entertaining a writ petition seeking to rewrite contractual terms based on tariff regulations – Disputes on tariff are within the exclusive domain of CERC and APTEL – Held: Constitutional Courts must refrain from entertaining parallel remedies when specialized statutory frameworks are available and operative [Paras 26-39].

Role of Sectoral Regulator – Judicial Deference to CERC in Tariff Matters – The Court reaffirmed the established principle that tariff-related determinations, including interpretations of applicable regulations, fall squarely within the regulatory domain of expert bodies like CERC and appellate bodies like APTEL – High Courts should not interfere where regulatory mechanisms exist and have not been duly exhausted – Writ petitions circumventing these remedies are impermissible [Paras 26-39].

Status of State Government – Not a Deemed Licensee – The Court observed that the High Court wrongly assumed the appellant State to be a deemed licensee and a regulated entity under the Electricity Act – Held: Supply of free power as royalty does not make the State a licensee as it involves no trading, transmission, or distribution activity – Obligations arising from sovereign contracts of natural resource allocation are distinct from regulated market relationships under the Electricity Act [Paras 35-38].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court’s judgment quashing part of the Implementation Agreement set aside – Contractual right of the State to receive 18% free power upheld – The High Court erred in modifying a sovereign contract through writ jurisdiction – Writ petition held not maintainable and dismissed [Paras 40-41].

Conviction for Rape, Kidnapping and Wrongful Confinement – Section 376, 363, 342 IPC – Conviction Set Aside – The appellant was convicted by the Trial Court under Sections 376, 363, 342 IPC, which was upheld by the High Court – The Supreme Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the age of the prosecutrix to be under 16 years as per the legal requirement – The only document relied upon was a school certificate (Exhibit P11) based on school register entries, which was not backed by primary evidence or the testimony of any family member – Held: Prosecution failed to establish the age conclusively; conviction for rape under Section 376 IPC unsustainable [Paras 7-12].

Kidnapping and Confinement – Section 363 and 342 IPC – Conviction Quashed – The prosecutrix had voluntarily stayed with the appellant for approximately two months without any evidence of inducement, threat, or confinement – The prosecution's claim of kidnapping failed due to absence of evidence showing force or deceitful means – Held: Conviction under Sections 363 and 342 IPC unsustainable in absence of credible evidence of kidnapping or wrongful restraint [Paras 13-17].

Rape Allegation – Absence of Proved Non-Consent – Section 376 IPC – Conviction Reversed – The prosecutrix did not allege forcible sexual intercourse and there was no medical evidence establishing recent forced intercourse – Her deposition contained inconsistencies and contradictions, with admissions of willingly cohabiting with the appellant – Held: Prosecution failed to establish absence of consent, leading to acquittal under Section 376 IPC [Paras 18-20].

Principle of Benefit of Doubt – Standard of Proof in Criminal Trials – Conviction Reversed – The Court reiterated the principle that criminal convictions must be based on proof beyond reasonable doubt – Mere suspicion or defective investigation cannot form the basis for conviction, especially in cases involving grave charges – Held: Benefit of doubt must be given to the accused where prosecution fails to discharge burden of proof [Paras 21-22].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Conviction and Sentences Quashed – The Supreme Court set aside the conviction and sentence under Sections 376, 363, and 342 IPC – The appellant was acquitted of all charges and ordered to be released forthwith unless required in any other case [Para 22].

Criminal Law - Murder – Section 302 of the IPC - Conviction Based on Ocular and Medical Evidence – Multiple Murders Committed Due to Suspicion of Infidelity – Conviction Upheld - The appellant was convicted of murdering five family members, including three minor children, his wife, and sister-in-law, with a chopper based on clear eyewitness testimonies, voluntary confession, and medical evidence – Courts below correctly found the accused guilty of premeditated, barbaric murder without any sudden provocation – Supreme Court upheld the conviction as there was no perversity or misreading of evidence [Paras 1-10].

Death Sentence – Application of ‘Rarest of Rare’ Doctrine – Consideration of Reformative Possibility – Death Sentence Commuted to Life Imprisonment – Though the crime was heinous, the Court found mitigating circumstances in the accused’s background – Reports revealed absence of prior criminal antecedents, good conduct in jail, participation in literacy programmes, psychological struggles, and potential for reformation – Applying the principle of giving benefit of doubt in sentencing, death penalty was substituted with life imprisonment without remission till the natural end of life [Paras 11-17].

Sentencing Guidelines – Compliance with Manoj v. State of M.P. – Requirement for Comprehensive Background Analysis – The Court emphasized adherence to sentencing principles laid down in Manoj v. State of M.P. (2023) 2 SCC 353, requiring socio-psychological, medical, and behavioural assessments before awarding capital punishment – Held: High Court inadequately appreciated these reports while confirming the death sentence, warranting interference on the sentencing aspect [Paras 11-17].

Final Decision – Conviction Upheld, Death Sentence Commuted – Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal by commuting the death sentence to life imprisonment without remission till natural death while affirming the conviction under Section 302 IPC for multiple murders [Paras 17].

Service Law – Reversion After 35 Years – Validity of Appointment and Promotion – Reversion Set Aside – The appellant was appointed as Stenographer in 1988 after undergoing shorthand training at ITI and was promoted through the judicial hierarchy to Deputy Registrar – The High Court allowed a writ petition filed in 2018 challenging his eligibility and directed his reversion – Held: Appellant’s shorthand certificate from ITI met qualification requirements – Approval by Chief Justice at the time of appointment carried curative authority – Appellant served without blemish for decades – Reversion after 35 years is harsh, unreasonable, and unsustainable [Paras 2, 3, 7, 8, 11-14].

Discretion of Chief Justice – Rule 6 of 1937 Rules – Waiver of Qualifications – Appointment Valid – The Chief Justice had the authority to relax qualifications under Rule 6 of the 1937 Rules – The appellant was appointed only after due recommendation and approval by the Chief Justice – Held: Any procedural deficiency in formal certification stood waived by exercise of this discretion – Appointment legally sound [Paras 7-8].

Delay and Laches – Belated Challenge to Appointment – Writ Filed After Three Decades – Unsustainable – Respondent no.1 filed a writ petition in 2018 challenging the appellant’s 1988 appointment after receiving his own promotion – Held: Such belated challenge is inequitable and lacks merit – No evidence of fraud or misrepresentation on the appellant’s part – Service benefits earned over three decades should not be undone [Paras 1.5, 13-14].

Relief to Respondent – Promotion from Retrospective Date – Upheld – The appellant did not oppose the High Court’s direction promoting respondent no.1 as Assistant Registrar with effect from August 2016 – Held: No interference warranted with that part of the High Court’s order – Respondent's seniority to be reckoned above the appellant accordingly [Paras 6, 15].

Final Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Reversion Set Aside – Promotion of Respondent Maintained – Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part by setting aside the direction reverting the appellant – However, it maintained the retrospective promotion of respondent no.1 with effect from 11/14.08.2016 – No order as to costs [Para 15].

Section 13(2), 13(4), 14, 17(4A), 18 and 35 of the of the SARFAESI Act - SARFAESI Proceedings – Tenant’s Rights and Restoration of Possession – Unregistered Lease – Appeal Allowed - The appellant, a secured creditor, took possession of a secured asset under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act following borrower’s default – Respondent claimed tenancy under unregistered lease from 1987 – High Court restored possession to respondent citing tenancy rights under rent laws – Held: High Court erred in entertaining challenge under Article 227 of Constitution despite availability of statutory remedy under Section 18 SARFAESI; tenancy claims must be adjudicated by DRT as per amended Section 17(4A) – Appeal allowed, possession retained by secured creditor pending DRT decision [Paras 11-13, 26].

Tenant Claims – Requirement of Documentary Evidence – Protection Limited for Unregistered Lease – The respondent failed to produce rent receipts, tax records, or electricity bills prior to issuance of demand notice under Section 13(2) SARFAESI Act – Reference to tenancy in sale deed or attornment letter insufficient without corroborative evidence – Citing Bajarang Shyamsunder Agarwal v. Central Bank of India, held unregistered tenancy not protected beyond one year from notice under SARFAESI – Mandatory order restoring possession unjustified – Appeal allowed [Paras 23-25].

High Court Jurisdiction – Alternate Remedy and Misapplication of Pre-Amendment Law – Error Noted – The High Court misapplied the ratio of Harshad Govardhan Sondagar v. International Assets Reconstruction Co. Ltd., which was based on pre-2016 SARFAESI Act and did not consider introduction of Section 17(4A) post-amendment – SARFAESI provides complete statutory remedy, writ jurisdiction not to be invoked – Appeal rightly entertained and allowed [Paras 11-13].

Non-Obstante Clause in SARFAESI – Applicability over Rent Control Act – Clarified – Following Bajarang Shyamsunder Agarwal, Court reiterated non-obstante clause under Section 35 SARFAESI overrides inconsistent tenancy claims unless validly established – Precedents in Vishal N. Kalsaria and V. Dhanapal Chettiar limited to legally protected tenancies and do not protect unregistered undocumented occupation in secured assets recovery proceedings [Paras 17-19, 23].

Conduct of Respondent – Delay in Asserting Rights – No Equitable Relief – Respondent failed to contest symbolic possession despite newspaper notice in 2021, approached DRT only after physical possession in 2023 – Collusive litigation with borrower not ruled out – Absence of proactive assertion of rights bars relief under equitable jurisdiction – Appeal allowed, possession retained by secured creditor [Paras 24-25].

Decision of the Case – Appeal Allowed – High Court’s direction restoring possession set aside – Status quo maintained with secured creditor till DRT adjudication within two months – No costs awarded [Paras 26-27].

Criminal Procedure – Scope of Review – Order 47 Rule 1 CPC – Review Order Set Aside – Division Bench of High Court recorded no ground for review but proceeded to issue investigative directions – Supreme Court held such directions unjustified and beyond review jurisdiction – Held: Review power cannot be used to rehear matter or interfere with investigation without satisfying legal criteria [Paras 7-9].

Investigation – Interference by Superior Officer – Restraint Imposed – Letter by IG (Police) restraining arrests despite anticipatory bail rejection deemed unauthorized – Investigation restored to original officer after CID involvement based on invalid order – Held: Investigating Officer to proceed uninfluenced by superior authority and conclude probe under law [Paras 4-5, 10-11].

Writ Appeal – Maintainability of Intra-Court Appeal in Criminal Writs – Doubt Expressed – Referring to Ram Kishan Fauji v. State of Haryana, Court noted uncertainty on maintainability of intra-court appeals in criminal writs – Division Bench should have limited scope to what was pleaded – Held: Broader directions beyond scope of appeal unwarranted [Para 6].

Extraordinary General Meeting – Interim Restraint Without Plea – Disapproved – Single Judge restrained company’s meeting though no such relief was claimed – Supreme Court held such injunction in a criminal writ unjustified – Held: Injunction not to apply to future meetings, liberty granted to appellant to approach appropriate forum [Paras 12-14].

Final Decision – Impugned Order Set Aside – Investigation Restored – Appeals Allowed – CID-initiated investigation reversed, original officer reinstated – Liberty granted to challenge future developments before competent forum [Paras 9-11, 15].

Specific Performance – Agricultural Land – Specific Performance Upheld with Additional Payment – Dispute arose from Agreement to Sell dated 08.10.2001 concerning over 9 acres of agricultural land where seller failed to execute sale deed – Plaintiffs claimed readiness and willingness but faced challenge from third party alleging fraud and possession – Trial Court, First Appellate Court, and High Court concurrently decreed specific performance, Supreme Court upheld the decree with modification directing plaintiffs to pay additional ₹25,00,000/- in view of land appreciation while nullifying subsequent sales by seller and third party objectors – Specific performance with possession decreed after balancing equities [Paras 1-21].

Readiness and Willingness – Proof of Financial Standing – Section 22 Specific Relief Act – Readiness of Plaintiffs Affirmed – Supreme Court reiterated readiness to perform need not involve production of sale consideration but can be established through conduct and financial position – Trial and Appellate Courts rightly relied on bank accounts and assets of plaintiffs to hold them ready and willing to perform contract despite lapse of time – Specific performance decree upheld [Paras 6-13].

Doctrine of Lis Pendens – Subsequent Transfers Declared Void – Section 52 Transfer of Property Act – Sale Deeds During Suit Hit by Lis Pendens – Seller executed two sale deeds during pendency of suit and purchaser sold it further – Supreme Court ruled these transactions invalid being hit by Section 52 and collusive attempt to defeat plaintiffs’ rights – Transfers during pendency of litigation held unenforceable [Paras 9-15, 21].

Possession – Relief Granted Despite Omission in Pleadings – Section 22 Specific Relief Act – Court Empowered to Grant Possession Without Specific Plea – Plaintiffs did not seek possession in original plaint but Court granted possession relying on power under Section 22 – Supreme Court held such relief permissible in interest of justice even without formal amendment in pleadings [Paras 16-17].

Escalation of Land Prices – No Ground to Deny Specific Performance – Appreciation in land value since 2001 cited by seller to resist decree – Supreme Court held that price rise alone is insufficient to deny equitable remedy of specific performance where readiness and willingness established – However, to balance equities, plaintiffs directed to pay ₹25,00,000/- in addition to original consideration to protect fairness [Paras 18-20].

Decision – Appeals Partly Allowed – Supreme Court confirmed specific performance and delivery of possession subject to additional payment – Sale deeds executed by seller and subsequent purchasers declared null and void – Registry directed to inform Sub-Registrar for cancellation of illegal transactions – No costs awarded [Paras 20-21].

Civil Law - General Power of Attorney (GPA) – Validity of Registration – Sections 32, 33, 34, and 35 of the Registration Act, 1908 – Appeal Allowed for Reconsideration - The appellants challenged the validity of the General Power of Attorney dated 15.10.1990 and the sale deeds executed by the attorney-holder on behalf of the original owners – The Supreme Court examined whether a power-of-attorney holder becomes an “executant” under Section 32(a), thereby bypassing the authentication requirements of Section 33 – Held: The power-of-attorney holder signs documents on behalf of the principal and remains an agent, not an executant under Section 32(a) – Therefore, the statutory requirements of authentication under Sections 32(c), 33, 34, and 35 are mandatory for valid registration [Paras 1-17].

Interpretation of Executant – Distinction between Agent and Executant – Clarification Made - The Court disapproved the interpretation laid down in Rajni Tandon v. Dulal Ranjan Ghosh Dastidar, (2009) 14 SCC 782, which held that a power-of-attorney holder executing a document becomes the “executant” under Section 32(a) – Held: Such an interpretation is erroneous as it overlooks statutory safeguards requiring verification of the agent’s authority and identity – Such power-of-attorney holders continue to fall under Section 32(c), necessitating adherence to authentication procedures [Paras 12-18].

Reference to Larger Bench – Conflict in Precedent – Matter Referred - Noting a direct conflict with previous binding precedent and its significant implications on property registration practices, the Court referred the matter to a larger bench to conclusively settle the legal position concerning the status of power-of-attorney holders under the Registration Act [Para 18-19].

Decision – Appeals Listed Before Larger Bench - The Supreme Court directed the Registry to obtain necessary orders from the Hon’ble Chief Justice for expeditious listing of these appeals before an appropriate larger bench for authoritative adjudication [Para 19].