Auction Sale – Deposit of Purchase Money – Compliance with Order 21 Rules 84 and 85 CPC – The auction purchaser deposited 25% of the bid amount on the date of the auction and the remaining 75% within the statutory period – The auction was confirmed by the Executing Court and upheld by the High Court – The appellant's contention of non-compliance was rejected as the deposits were made within the time frame allowed by law [Paras 8-14].

Judicial Interpretation – "Immediately" – The term "immediately" in Order 21 Rule 84 CPC interpreted to mean with all reasonable speed considering the circumstances – The Court held that in high-value auctions, immediate payment in cash is not feasible, and reasonable time is allowed for preparing demand drafts [Para 14].

Application to Set Aside Sale – Order 21 Rule 89 CPC – The appellant's application to set aside the sale was dismissed due to failure to deposit the required amount within the specified time – The deposit under Rule 89 must be unconditional, and the application cannot be entertained without compliance [Paras 19-21].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the decisions of the Executing Court and the High Court – The belated offer to deposit the amount was rejected [Para 22].

Auction Sale – Fairness and Transparency – The High Court set aside the auction sale due to lack of fairness and transparency, directing a re-auction with proper public notification – The Supreme Court conducted further auctions and confirmed the sale for Rs. 5.04 crores, with conditions for the appellants to deposit an additional Rs. 50 lacs [Paras 13-16].

Role of Official Liquidator – The High Court correctly held that the official liquidator must participate in the sale process to ensure the highest price is obtained – The Supreme Court concurred with this finding but confirmed the sale due to the exhaustive auction process conducted [Paras 17-18].

Workmen's Rights – The High Court should address the settlement of workmen's dues, with submissions made by the first and second respondents taken into account – The matter was recommended to be placed before the same Division Bench for consistent adjudication [Paras 19-20].

Decision – Appeal Disposed of – The Supreme Court confirmed the sale subject to the appellants depositing Rs. 50 lacs within three months – All impleadment applications were allowed, and bidders were permitted to withdraw their earnest money deposits [Paras 21-22].

Termination of Probationary Service – Probationers have no inherent right to hold a post – The services of probationers can be terminated during or at the end of the probation period based on general suitability – Bank’s right to punish probationers for defined misconduct, misbehavior, or misdemeanor must be exercised in compliance with natural justice principles [Paras 15-18].

Probation and Confirmation – Distinction between satisfactory completion of probation and successful passing of training/tests – Confirmatory tests for probationers must be fair, transparent, and adhere to the principles of natural justice [Paras 11-19].

Due Process and Natural Justice – Termination on grounds of misconduct requires fair hearing – Allegations of using unfair means in a test necessitate inquiry and opportunity for the accused to respond – Failure to provide such opportunity can render termination punitive and invalid [Paras 12-18].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Court emphasized the need for adherence to due process and natural justice in termination cases involving allegations of misconduct during probation [Paras 20-22].

Parole – Life Convict – Release on Parole – Krishan Lal was sentenced to life imprisonment without premature release based on a specific Supreme Court order due to threats to the complainant's family – Regular parole was denied under Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Prisons (Release on Parole) Rules, 1958, despite previous parole grants before the Supreme Court order – Parole for humanitarian reasons under Rule 10-A(i) remains available subject to stringent conditions to ensure safety of the complainant’s family [Paras 6-12].

Parole Rules – Humanitarian Grounds – Rule 10-A(i) allows parole in emergent cases involving illness, death, natural calamity, or marriage of close relatives for a limited period – Any such parole must impose stringent conditions for security and guarantee return to jail [Paras 11-12].

Decision – Appeals Disposed of – Denial of regular parole affirmed – Temporary parole on humanitarian grounds permitted under strict conditions to ensure safety and adherence to legal requirements [Paras 12-13].

Cheating – Issuance of Process – The CJM, Ahmednagar, issued process against the respondent under Sections 418 and 420 IPC without conducting an inquiry or directing an investigation as mandated by the amended Section 202 CrPC, given the respondent resided outside the magistrate's jurisdiction – The High Court quashed the issuance of process for non-compliance [Paras 3-5].

Section 202 CrPC – Amendment and Obligation – The 2005 amendment to Section 202 CrPC requires a magistrate to conduct an inquiry or direct an investigation before issuing process against an accused residing beyond the magistrate's jurisdiction – The amendment aims to prevent harassment of individuals through false complaints filed in distant jurisdictions [Paras 7-9].

Remand for Fresh Orders – The High Court's quashing of the complaint was inappropriate – Instead, it should have directed the CJM to pass fresh orders complying with Section 202 CrPC – The Supreme Court remitted the matter to the CJM, Ahmednagar, to pass fresh orders within two months, uninfluenced by the High Court's conclusions [Paras 10-11].

Decision – Appeal Disposed of – Matter remitted to the CJM, Ahmednagar, for fresh orders following the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC within two months from the date of receipt of this order [Para 11].

Limitation – Suit Filed in Time – Plaintiffs invoked Section 15(5) of the Limitation Act 1963, claiming exclusion of the period during which the defendant was absent from India – Based on the precedent set in P.C.K. Muthia Chettiar vs. V.E.S. Shanmugham Chettiar, the court held that the period of the defendant’s absence from India must be excluded, making the suit filed by the plaintiffs within time [Paras 13-15].

Readiness and Willingness – Breach of Contract – The plaintiffs were found to be ready and willing to perform their part of the contract – The defendant’s demand for an additional payment not stipulated in the agreement constituted a breach on his part – The High Court’s application of the business efficacy principle to justify the defendant’s demand was deemed inappropriate [Paras 16-25].

Specific Performance – Discretionary Relief – The court emphasized that efflux of time and increased property value alone cannot justify denial of specific performance – Balancing the equities, the plaintiffs were granted specific performance with the sale deed to be executed at the current market value of the property – The trial judge was directed to assess the market value expeditiously [Paras 27-30].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – The findings and conclusions of the High Court were set aside – The plaintiffs’ suit for specific performance was decreed with conditions on the market price assessment to be conducted by the trial judge [Paras 30-31].

Criminal Conspiracy – Evidence of Meeting of Minds – Prosecution established that N.V. Subba Rao (A-1) entered into a conspiracy with Attur Prabhakar Hegde (A-2) to defraud the Central Bank of India – Evidence included correspondence, loan applications, and testimonies proving the disbursement of loans without following proper procedures and without obtaining required security [Paras 5-20].

Misuse of Official Position – Abusing Power for Pecuniary Gain – A-1 abused his position as a Branch Manager to sanction loans and overdrafts fraudulently, causing financial loss to the bank – Prosecution demonstrated that loans were sanctioned based on false documents and without necessary collateral, benefitting A-2 and causing wrongful loss to the bank [Paras 21-30].

Due Process and Conviction – High Court upheld the trial court’s findings but reduced the sentence considering A-1's age – Supreme Court examined the evidence, statements, and procedural compliance, affirming the conviction based on the substantial evidence presented by the prosecution [Paras 31-40].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Convictions under Sections 120B, 420, 468, 471 IPC and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act were upheld – Sentence reduction by the High Court was affirmed – Both appeals were dismissed [Para 40].

Administrative Law – Seniority and Promotion – Appeals concerned the inter se seniority of officers recruited through regular and special batches in the Assam Police Service – Appointments through special recruitment found to be in violation of rules, particularly Rule 5(1)(c) of the Assam Police Service Rules, 1966 – Special batch recruits appointed earlier were treated as senior to regular batch recruits – Tribunal and High Court ruled that regular batch recruits should be senior, leading to the appeals [Paras 1-24].

Administrative Tribunal Act – Limitation and Jurisdiction – Tribunal's jurisdiction to hear appeals regarding seniority upheld – Appeals not barred by limitation as they concerned seniority, not the validity of appointments – Tribunal's decision based on detailed analysis of rules and recruitment process [Paras 25-28].

Police Service Rules – Special Recruitment – Recruitment under Rule 5(1)(c) meant for special cases and limited to 5% of total cadre strength – Selection process violated by exceeding quota and bypassing mandatory procedures – Special batch recruits appointed irregularly and without proper approval – Tribunal and High Court's decision to refix seniority in favor of regular batch upheld [Paras 29-39].

Decision:

Appeals dismissed – Appointments of special batch recruits deemed irregular but not annulled due to long service and subsequent promotions – Seniority refixed in favor of regular batch recruits – Directions for implementing revised seniority list issued [Paras 40-54].

Compassionate Appointment – Eligibility and Vacancy – Appeal concerns rejection of compassionate appointment application due to no available vacancies and non-qualification of the applicant – Appellant's father, Vijay Bahadur Singh, died in service, and the application was made for the appointment of his son, Prabhat Singh – CAT-Allahabad and CAT-Lucknow directed reconsideration of the application – High Court's direction to consider appointment despite non-availability of vacancy challenged [Paras 1-17].

Administrative Law – Compassionate Appointment – The appointment on compassionate grounds is governed by rules and is permissible only if vacancies exist within the quota for direct recruitment – Non-availability of vacancies and the requirement for necessary qualifications are valid grounds for rejection – The court emphasized that sympathy cannot override statutory requirements and prescribed norms [Paras 13-16].

Judicial Review – Scope and Limits – The court reiterated that judicial sympathy should not lead to directions for appointments that contravene established rules and regulations – Directions for reconsideration by CAT and High Court were without adequate consideration of the statutory limitations on appointments [Paras 16-17].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – High Court's order directing the appointment of Prabhat Singh set aside – Emphasized strict adherence to the rules governing compassionate appointments and the importance of maintaining the integrity of statutory requirements [Paras 17-18].