Insolvency and Bankruptcy – Application of Section 30(2)(b)(ii) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) to dissenting financial creditors – Entitlement to payment not less than the liquidation value of their security interest – Applicability of the IBC (Amendment) Act, 2019 to pending proceedings and appeals. [Para 22, 23, 24]

Secured Creditors – Different treatment of secured financial creditors based on the nature of their security – Protection of minority autonomy of creditors under Section 30(2)(b)(ii) of the IBC – Requirement for payment to dissenting financial creditors equivalent to their security interest value. [Para 25, 26, 27]

Committee of Creditors (CoC) – Authority to decide the distribution of resolution proceeds – Commercial wisdom of CoC respected – Minimum payment protection for operational creditors and dissenting financial creditors under Section 30(2)(b)(ii). [Para 25, 30, 35, 36]

Legal Interpretation – Interpretation of Section 30(2)(b)(ii) and its application to dissenting financial creditors – Ensuring fair and equitable treatment in the resolution process – Dissenting financial creditors entitled to liquidation value of their security interest. [Para 33, 34, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49]

Judicial Discrepancy – Contradiction in judicial reasoning in India Resurgence ARC Private Limited case – Referral to a larger bench for clarification on the interpretation of Section 30(2)(b)(ii) of the IBC. [Para 31, 37, 49]

Decision – Resolution plan approval by NCLT and NCLAT challenged – Dissenting creditor’s claim for liquidation value of security interest under scrutiny – Matter referred to a larger bench for definitive interpretation of Section 30(2)(b)(ii) of the IBC. [Para 17, 18, 49]

Title and Possession of Property – Ownership Claim through Sale Deed Validated – Plaintiff appellant’s ownership of disputed land established through registered sale deed dated 21.01.1966 from erstwhile Zamindar. Attempt to construct on land led to dispute in 1975. Trial Court and First Appellate Court's findings upheld, decreeing suit for possession in plaintiff's favor. High Court's dismissal on grounds of limitation, based on adverse possession claim by defendants, set aside. [Paras 1-9.6]

Adverse Possession – Incorrect Application by High Court – High Court erred in applying concept of adverse possession. First, plaintiff's ownership was not disputed; second, the defendants' possession, originating from tenancy, could not be adverse to the Zamindars or the subsequent owner, plaintiff appellant. The suit filed in 1975 was within 12 years of the sale deed, negating adverse possession claim. [Paras 9-9.5]

Non-Agricultural Land – Relevance in Zamindari Abolition – First Appellate Court found the disputed land to be non-agricultural, negating defendants' claim of ownership through Zamindari abolition. This finding, not disturbed by the High Court, supported the plaintiff’s title claim. [Para 9.6]

Decision – High Court's Judgment Set Aside, First Appellate Court’s Decree Upheld – Supreme Court allows the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment on limitation grounds. Upholds the First Appellate Court's decree for possession in favor of the plaintiff appellant. [Para 10]

Error in Date of Birth on Application – Minor Discrepancy – Appellant's candidature for Police Constable was rejected due to a mismatch in the date of birth in the application form (08.12.1997) and educational certificates (18.12.1997). The appellant contended the error was inadvertent, with no advantage gained, as he met the age criteria regardless. [Paras 2-4, 11, 18]

High Court Decision – Dismissal of Writ Petition – The High Court dismissed the appellant's writ petition, agreeing with the respondents that the error constituted misleading information, warranting rejection of the candidature per the terms of the advertisement. [Paras 6-7]

Supreme Court Analysis – Trivial Error – The Supreme Court found the error to be trivial and not impacting the selection process. The appellant's lack of awareness about the error and success in all stages of selection were noted. The principle 'De minimis non curat lex' (law does not concern itself with trifles) was applied. [Paras 14, 19, 20]

Precedents Considered – The Supreme Court considered various precedents where similar trivial errors in application forms were condoned. [Paras 16-17]

Supreme Court Decision – Candidature Restoration – The Court set aside the High Court's judgment, directing the State to consider the appellant as having passed the selection process and issue an appointment letter, if otherwise qualified. In case of no vacancy, an appointment letter is still to be issued, with the possibility of adjusting the vacancy in future recruitments. [Paras 25-26]

Sale Deed Dispute – Land ownership dispute involving land measuring 71 kanals 8 marlas – Discrepancy between original and interpolated sale deed – Original sale deed showing sale of entire land, while interpolated version showing sale of only 1/3rd of the land. [Paras 1, 11]

Interpretation of Registered Document – Application of Section 47 of the Registration Act, 1908 – Emphasis on the operation of a registered document from the time it would have commenced if no registration was required – In this case, the registered sale deed operates from the date of its execution. [Paras 5, 6, 11]

Legal Position of Sale Completion – Reference to the Constitution Bench decision in Ram Saran Lall v. Domini Kuer – Section 47 of the Registration Act does not determine the completion of sale but the operation date of the registered document. [Paras 7, 8]

Role of Consideration in Sale Deeds – Consideration fully paid on date of execution of sale deed – Sale deed operates from date of execution as per Section 47, Registration Act. [Paras 10, 11]

Invalidity of Unilateral Interpolation – Interpolation made by the seller after execution but before registration, without the buyer’s consent, deemed invalid – Sale deed to be considered in its original form at the time of execution. [Paras 11, 12]

High Court’s Decision Upheld – Supreme Court finds no error in High Court's decision restoring the Trial Court's decree – Dismissal of appeal with no order as to costs. [Paras 12, 13, 14]

Arrest Procedure under PMLA – Appellant's arrest by ED challenged – Question of law: legality of ED's practice of not furnishing a copy of arrest grounds to the arrestee at the time of arrest – Appellant contends violation of Section 19 of PMLA and fundamental rights under the Constitution. [Para 3]

Factual Background – Appellant, founder of M/s Supertech Limited, faced multiple FIRs and a PMLA investigation – Arrested without a copy of the arrest grounds provided at the time, which led to the legal challenge. [Paras 4(i)-(vi)]

ED's Compliance Assertion – ED asserts compliance with Section 19 of PMLA – Claimed to have provided the arrest grounds document, which the appellant read and signed. [Para 5]

Appellant's Rejoinder – Appellant argues non-service of arrest grounds at the time of arrest is an illegality, stressing the importance of serving the grounds as per Supreme Court precedents. [Para 6]

Supreme Court's Analysis – Reviewed the constitutionality and interpretation of Section 19 of PMLA – Considered the mandate of informing the arrestee of arrest grounds. [Paras 10-22]

Decision and Rationale – Appeal dismissed – Court held that informing the appellant orally about the arrest grounds and providing a written communication within 24 hours is compliant with Section 19 of PMLA and the Constitution – The practice prior to the Pankaj Bansal judgment was deemed sufficient. [Paras 23-25]

Arbitration Clause in Property Agreements – Applicability to Subsequent Development Agreements and Conveyance Deed – Tripartite Agreements dated 31.03.2007 and 25.07.2008 containing arbitration clauses form the basis of subsequent Development Agreements and a Conveyance Deed – Disputes arising out of these agreements referred to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act. [Paras 2, 5-6]

Judicial Intervention in Arbitration – Limited Role Post 2015 Amendment to Arbitration Act – Courts to minimize interference in arbitration matters, primarily ensuring existence of a valid arbitration agreement. [Paras 7, 17]

Suit for Cancellation of Deed – Action in Personam, not in Rem – Following precedent in Deccan Paper Mills v. Regency Mahavir Properties, dispute related to cancellation of a deed recognized as an action in personam, suitable for arbitration. [Para 19]

Fraud Allegations in Arbitration – Need for Substantiation – Mere allegations of fraud without serious implications in the public domain do not preclude arbitration. [Para 20]

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – No interference warranted by the Supreme Court in the decisions of the Trial Court and High Court to refer the dispute to arbitration. [Para 21]

Slum Rehabilitation Scheme – Mumbai Slums – Legal challenge to the allotment process of a Slum Rehabilitation Scheme under the Maharashtra Slum Areas Act, 1971. The appeal contests the High Court’s decision dismissing a writ petition concerning the Slum Rehabilitation Authority’s allotment methods in the redevelopment of slums in Lower Parel Division, Mumbai. [Paras 1-2, 3-5, 7, 8]

Development and Allotment Dispute – A dispute arose over the allotment of residential units in towers D, E, and F, with claims based on a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between a minority group of slum dwellers (Appellants) and a Developer. The High Court found the MoU, which deviated from standard SRA procedures, legally untenable. [Paras 9-14, 16-19, 22]

Legal Provisions for Allotment – The SRA’s guidelines under DCR 1991 and Circular No. 162, dated 23.10.2015, mandate the allotment of rehabilitation tenements through a lottery system, ensuring fairness and compliance with the law. [Paras 21, 25-26]

Court’s Decision – The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, dismissing the appeal. The Court emphasized the statutory authority of the SRA and the non-enforceability of private agreements like the MoU in matters of public policy and welfare. It directed SRA to proceed with the allotment as per legal norms and reprimanded the Developer for bypassing statutory procedures. [Paras 22-26]

Bail Rejection Upheld – High Court of Chhattisgarh's decision to reject bail application upheld – Appellant, Saumya Chaurasia, arrested in connection with crimes under IPC and PMLA, involved in a large-scale extortion racket – No compelling reason for granting bail observed. [Para 30]

Misrepresentation in SLP – Attempt by appellant to misrepresent facts in the Special Leave Petition by presenting incorrect statements to challenge High Court order – Deplored by the Supreme Court. [Paras 12-15, 30]

Scheduled Offences under PMLA – Discussion on the survival of scheduled offences under PMLA – Clarification that chargesheet details do not conclude existence of scheduled offences, dependent on court's decision – Offences under PMLA sustained despite changes in chargesheet. [Paras 27-29]

Women's Bail Under PMLA – Discussion on discretion under Section 45 of PMLA for granting bail to women – Appellant's involvement in serious offences and evidence against her do not warrant bail despite her being a woman. [Paras 22-25]

Chargesheet and Cognizance Order – The non-existence of the chargesheet and cognizance order during the High Court proceedings highlighted – Importance of presenting accurate information in legal proceedings stressed. [Paras 6-10, 27]

Professional Conduct of Advocates – Emphasis on the duty of advocates to verify facts and assist the court in administering justice – Need for high professionalism in legal practice, especially at the Supreme Court level. [Para 14]

Decision – Appeal dismissed with cost of Rs.1 Lakh to be deposited by the Appellant before the Supreme Court Legal Services Authority within two weeks. [Para 30]

Equating Party to Suit with a Witness – Analysis Under CPC and Indian Evidence Act – The Supreme Court concluded that there is no fundamental difference between a party to a suit and a witness for the purpose of evidence. Both are treated similarly in the context of producing evidence, either documentary or oral. Emphasized that the party to a suit, when acting as a witness, is subject to the same procedural requirements as any other witness. [Paras 14-16, 22, 26-27, 32]

Production of Documents during Cross-Examination – It is permissible under law for parties to produce documents at the stage of cross-examination without prior submission with the plaint or written statement, for both a witness and a party acting as a witness. This ensures effective cross-examination and aligns with the broader objective of uncovering the truth in legal proceedings. [Paras 18-21, 30-31, 33]

Interpretation of CPC Provisions (Order VII Rule 14; Order VIII Rule 1-A; Order XIII Rule 1) – The Court negated the strict interpretation that differentiates between 'party' and 'witness' for the purposes of evidence under the CPC. The judgment interprets these provisions to allow documents' production for cross-examination or refreshing a witness's memory, applicable equally to parties and witnesses. [Paras 19, 22, 32]

Decision – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment of the Bombay High Court. The case is remanded to the High Court for decision on merits based on the principles outlined in the Supreme Court judgment. [Paras 34-36]