Service Law – Government Employment – Suppression of Criminal Antecedents – Cancellation of Appointment – Respondent selected as Sahayak Samiksha Adhikari – Required to disclose pendency of criminal cases in attestation and verification forms – Respondent answered in the negative despite two criminal cases pending against him – Held: Proper and complete disclosure of criminal antecedents is a fundamental requirement rooted in fairness, integrity and public trust – Repeated non-disclosure amounts to deliberate concealment and is a serious lapse justifying cancellation of appointment [Paras 3–6, 8–9].

Service Law – Attestation / Verification Forms – Effect of Disclaimer – Forms contained clear stipulation that furnishing false information or suppressing material facts would render candidate unfit and ineligible for government service – Respondent submitted incorrect information twice in clear violation of disclaimer – Held: What is decisive is the status of criminal cases at the time of filling the forms – Subsequent acquittal or later disclosure does not efface the misconduct of suppression [Paras 7–9].

Service Law – Criminal Cases – Pending Investigation – Relevance at Time of Disclosure – At the time of filling forms, investigations in criminal cases were pending – Acquittal or dropping of proceedings occurred later – Held: Subsequent developments cannot accrue to benefit of candidate who furnished false information at the relevant time [Paras 8–9].

Service Law – Equity and Sympathy – Limits – High Court interfered on grounds of triviality of offences, absence of charge-sheet, subsequent disclosure and opinion of District Magistrate – Supreme Court held that sympathy cannot supplant law – Maxim “juda lex sed lex” applied – Loss of employment cannot justify overlooking deliberate concealment of material facts [Paras 9–10].

Precedents – Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Ravindra Kumar v. State of U.P. – Applicability – Principles relating to consideration of surrounding circumstances in cases of non-disclosure reiterated – Held: Facts of present case show demonstrated mal-intent due to repeated false declarations – Hence benefit of said precedents not available to respondent [Para 9].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgments of Single Judge and Division Bench of Allahabad High Court set aside – Cancellation of respondent’s appointment upheld – Pending applications disposed of [Para 10].

Civil Law – Abatement of Appeal – Non-substitution of one legal heir – Estate sufficiently represented – No abatement – Vendor Kishorilal died during pendency of first appeal – All four legal heirs initially substituted – One heir (Murarilal) subsequently died – Remaining three legal heirs and transferees lis pendens continued on record – Held: Where estate of deceased party is substantially and sufficiently represented by other legal heirs already on record, appeal does not abate merely due to non-substitution of one heir – High Court erred in holding appeal abated [Paras 25, 26, 38–40, 43].

Specific Performance – Vendor as necessary party – Distinction between total non-representation and partial non-substitution – Vendor is a necessary party in suit for specific performance notwithstanding transfer of property – However, where vendor’s estate is represented by some legal heirs, absence of substitution of one heir does not render appeal incompetent – Decision in Dwarka Prasad distinguished on facts [Paras 32–36, 39–40].

Civil Procedure – Doctrine of Lis Pendens – Status of transferee pendente lite – Transfer during pendency of suit not void but subservient to decree – Transferee lis pendens can represent estate of vendor as intermeddler and maintain appeal – Such transferee not a substitute for vendor where vendor’s presence is totally absent – But can supplement representation where vendor’s heirs are on record [Paras 10, 36–38].

Civil Procedure – Res Judicata – Applicability at different stages of same proceedings – High Court earlier held that appeal had not abated and permitted impleadment of heirs – Subsequent contrary finding by same court impermissible – Principle of res judicata applies between different stages of same litigation – Earlier determination binding unless set aside in appeal [Paras 30, 41–42].

Civil Procedure – Clerical / Typographical Error – Power of correction – Order deleting name of Kishorilal passed despite his prior death and substitution of LRs – Error apparent on face of record – Such clerical mistake correctable at any stage under Sections 151 and 152 CPC – Party cannot take advantage of court’s inadvertent error [Para 44].

Order I Rule 10 CPC – Impleadment of legal heirs – Effect on abatement – Impleadment of heirs of deceased legal heir as pro forma respondents permissible where appeal had not abated – No necessity of formal order setting aside abatement when abatement itself had not occurred [Paras 45–46].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Orders of High Court dismissing First Appeal Nos. 213 of 2000 and 217 of 2000 as abated set aside – Both appeals restored to file of High Court for decision on merits in accordance with law [Paras 47–48].

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 52 (Lis Pendens) – Applicability to Transferees Pendente Lite – Upheld – The doctrine of lis pendens, enshrined in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, applies with full force to transfers made during the pendency of a suit – Such transfers are not void ab initio but remain subservient to the decree that may be passed by the court – The Explanation to Section 52 clarifies that pendency commences from the date of plaint presentation and continues until final decree or satisfaction – The Maharashtra amendment requiring registration of lis pendens notice is for the benefit of third parties to prevent undue hardship, but its absence does not render the doctrine inapplicable or grant absolute title to subsequent purchasers who bought during pendency – Appellants, as transferees pendente lite, were bound by the decree for specific performance, and their rights were subservient to the decree holder – The High Court's finding that Section 52 TPA was applicable to the pendente lite transfers was affirmed [Paras 39-45, 65-66].

Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 19(b) (Relief against subsequent transferees) – Interaction with Section 52 TPA – Distinguished – Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which provides for specific performance against subsequent transferees for value without notice, operates at a stage prior to the institution of a suit or proceeding – Once a suit is instituted and the property is transferred during its pendency, Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, takes precedence – A transferee pendente lite cannot claim protection as a bona fide purchaser without notice under Section 19(b) because the doctrine of lis pendens binds them to the outcome of the litigation irrespective of their knowledge – The interpretation of Section 19(b) must align with Section 52 TPA to avoid incongruous situations [Paras 46-50].

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XXI Rules 97, 98, 101 (Execution, Resistance, Adjudication) – Powers of Executing Court – Affirmed – The Executing Court has wide powers under Order XXI Rules 97 to 103 CPC to adjudicate all questions, including those relating to right, title, and interest, arising between the parties to the proceeding or their representatives, when a decree holder seeks possession and is resisted or obstructed – Transferees pendente lite have no independent right or locus standi to obstruct the execution of a decree for possession as they step into the shoes of the judgment debtor and their title is extinguished under Section 52 TPA – The Bombay Amendment to Rule 98(2) CPC further empowers the Executing Court to order civil imprisonment and compensation for obstruction – The Executing Court's decision to allow the decree holder's application for removal of obstruction and reject the obstructionists' objections was upheld [Paras 51-60, 64.5, 65].

Limitation Act, 1963 – Articles 129, 134 (Execution of Decree) – Rejection of Limitation Plea – Upheld – A plea of limitation raised by the appellants at a belated stage, not having been pleaded before the High Court or framed as a substantial question of law, was rejected – The decree holder had sought execution within one year of the trial court's judgment and decree – The application for removal of obstruction was filed within 30 days of the resistance, as prescribed by Article 129 of the Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 134 was held not to be attracted to the facts of the present case – The High Court's view on this aspect was affirmed [Paras 69-71].

Constitution of India – Article 142 (Extraordinary Powers) – Directions to Prevent Frivolous Litigation – Issued – Considering the peculiar facts of the case, where the decree holder had to suffer multiple rounds of litigation for over three decades despite the decree attaining finality, the Supreme Court invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India – Directions were issued to ensure that no further application(s) or petition(s) by the appellants, the judgment debtor, or any other person claiming rights qua the suit property through them, shall be entertained by any court, to prevent further harassment and ensure the ends of justice [Paras 74].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Appellants directed to hand over actual physical possession of the suit property to respondent No. 1 (decree holder) on or before 15.02.2026 – No cost – No further application(s) or petition(s) by appellants, judgment debtor, or any person claiming through them regarding the suit property shall be entertained by any court [Paras 72, 73, 75].

Criminal Law - Companies Act, 2013 – Fraud – Cognizance on Private Complaint – Bar under Section 212(6) – Special Court took cognizance of offences under Sections 448 and 451 of the Companies Act on a private complaint alleging falsification of company records and fraudulent filings – Section 448 provides no independent punishment and makes the accused “liable under Section 447” – Held: Offence under Section 448 is an offence “covered under Section 447” and therefore attracts the statutory bar under the second proviso to Section 212(6) – Cognizance cannot be taken except on a complaint by the Director, SFIO or authorised Central Government officer – Cognizance under Sections 448 and 451 on a private complaint is without jurisdiction [Paras 21–35, 41–45].

Statutory Interpretation – Companies (Amendment) Act, 2015 – Meaning of ‘offence covered under Section 447’ – Post-2015 amendment, Section 212(6) substituted earlier enumeration of sections by expression “offence covered under Section 447” – Legislative intent was to confine stringent bail conditions to fraud, not to dilute safeguard against frivolous prosecutions – Expression includes offences which, upon proof, entail punishment under Section 447 – Section 448 being inextricably linked to Section 447 cannot be read in isolation [Paras 27–34].

Quashing of Proceedings – Section 451, Companies Act – Section 451 applies only in case of repeated default of a substantive offence – Once cognizance under Section 448 itself is barred and quashed, offence of repeated default under Section 451 cannot survive – Proceedings under Sections 448 and 451 liable to be quashed in entirety [Paras 46–47].

Judicial Discipline – Coordinate Bench Decisions – Earlier judgment of the same High Court holding that private complaint for offences attracting Section 447 is barred was not noticed in impugned order – Failure to follow judicial comity and stare decisis deprecated – High Court ought to have followed earlier view or referred matter to larger Bench [Paras 36–38].

Companies Act and IPC – Jurisdiction of Special Court – Section 436(2) – Special Court may try IPC offences only when it is trying an offence under the Companies Act – Once Companies Act offences are quashed, Special Court ceases to have jurisdiction to try IPC offences – Complaint to be transferred to court of competent territorial jurisdiction – Distinction from cases under Companies Act, 1956 noted [Paras 48–54].

Criminal Proceedings vis-à-vis Civil/Corporate Disputes – Pendency of civil suits and proceedings before NCLT relating to management and control of company does not ipso facto bar criminal prosecution – Allegations disclose prima facie criminality under IPC – No ground to quash IPC offences at threshold – Criminal proceedings for IPC offences to continue independently [Paras 55–57].

Decision – Appeals partly allowed – Impugned judgment of High Court set aside – Cognizance and proceedings under Sections 448 and 451 of the Companies Act quashed – Proceedings under IPC to continue before court of competent jurisdiction after transfer – No opinion expressed on merits of IPC offences – No order as to costs [Paras 59–61].

Criminal Law – Bail Jurisdiction – Section 439 CrPC – Scope and Limits – High Court while deciding bail application under Section 439 CrPC issued sweeping directions mandating medical age determination of victims in all POCSO cases and laid down procedural norms for investigation – Held: Jurisdiction under Section 439 CrPC is confined to consideration of grant or refusal of bail – High Court cannot issue general or policy directions unrelated to adjudication of bail – Exercise of statutory jurisdiction cannot be enlarged by invoking constitutional status of High Court – Directions issued beyond jurisdiction and liable to be set aside [Paras 10–11.5].

POCSO Act – Determination of Age of Victim – Statutory Scheme – High Court held medical age determination under Section 164-A CrPC read with Section 27 POCSO Act to be mandatory at commencement of investigation – Supreme Court held that statutory framework does not mandate compulsory medical age determination in every case – Section 94 JJ Act provides a clear hierarchy for age determination, giving primacy to documentary evidence – Medical tests are permissible only in absence of primary documents and by competent authority at appropriate stage – High Court erred in holding otherwise [Paras 12–14.5].

Bail Proceedings – Mini Trial Impermissible – High Court undertook detailed evaluation of victim’s age, documentary records and medical opinion at bail stage – Held: Bail court is required to form only a prima facie view – Detailed examination of evidence, determination of disputed facts and issuance of binding findings amounts to conducting a mini trial – Such exercise is impermissible while deciding bail [Paras 11.1.2, 14].

Juvenile Justice Act vs. POCSO Act – Distinct Fields of Operation – JJ Act primarily deals with children in conflict with law or children in need of care and protection – Victims under POCSO Act do not automatically fall within jurisdiction of JJ Board or Committee – Age determination mechanism under Section 94 JJ Act cannot be mechanically imported into bail proceedings under POCSO Act – Conflation of statutory regimes by High Court held erroneous [Paras 14.5.1–14.5.4].

Constitutional Law – Statutory Power vs. Constitutional Power – High Court justified directions on ground of being a constitutional court – Supreme Court clarified distinction between constitutional powers and statutory powers – When exercising statutory jurisdiction under Section 439 CrPC, High Court must act within limits of statute – Constitutional status cannot be used to expand statutory jurisdiction [Paras 11.3–11.4].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment of High Court set aside to extent it issued general and mandatory directions regarding age determination in POCSO cases – Bail order interfered with accordingly – Law clarified that such directions cannot be issued in exercise of bail jurisdiction under Section 439 CrPC.

Civil Law – Dismissal for Default – Conditional Restoration – Appeal dismissed for non-prosecution – High Court restored appeal subject to deposit of costs within stipulated time – Failure to deposit costs within time resulted in refusal to process restoration – Subsequent deposit made belatedly without leave of Court – Recall application rejected – Held: In peculiar facts, rigid adherence to procedural condition defeated substantial justice – Appeal deserved to be restored [Paras 3–5, 9].

Civil Procedure Code – Section 151 CPC – Inherent Powers – Recall of Orders – High Court declined to exercise inherent powers to recall order refusing restoration on ground of non-compliance with conditional cost order – Supreme Court held that inherent powers exist to prevent miscarriage of justice where default is technical and not deliberate [Paras 5–9].

Procedural Law – Handmaid of Justice – Technical Lapses – Supreme Court reiterated that procedure should not override merits – Dispute pending since long and dismissal on technical ground led to unnecessary multiplicity of proceedings – Matter should be decided on merits rather than non-suiting parties for procedural lapses [Paras 9–11].

Discretionary Jurisdiction – Supreme Court – Balancing Equity – While restoring appeal, Supreme Court deprecated laxity on part of appellants – Respondents unnecessarily dragged to Supreme Court – To balance equities, costs imposed payable to Supreme Court Middle Income Legal Aid Society [Paras 11–12].

Costs – Deterrent and Compensatory – Appellants directed to deposit Rs.50,000/- with Supreme Court Middle Income Legal Aid Society within two weeks – Restoration made subject to such deposit – Ensuring accountability of litigants while advancing justice [Para 12].

Direction to High Court – Expeditious Disposal – Restored appeal directed to be heard and decided by High Court within four weeks – Respondents granted liberty to file counter affidavit – Emphasis on early resolution of long-pending litigation [Paras 9–10, 12].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order dated 15.09.2025 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur set aside – Civil First Appeal restored to its original file – Appellants directed to deposit Rs.50,000/- with Supreme Court Middle Income Legal Aid Society – High Court directed to decide the appeal on merits within four weeks – Pending applications disposed of.

Prevention of Corruption Act – Registration of FIR – Preliminary Inquiry – Not Mandatory in Every Case – FIRs registered by Karnataka Lokayukta Police on directions of Superintendent of Police without conducting preliminary inquiry – High Court quashed FIRs holding action to be without jurisdiction – Held: Issue no longer res integra in view of judgment in State of Karnataka v. T.N. Sudhakar Reddy – Preliminary inquiry not mandatory where source information is detailed and prima facie discloses commission of cognizable offence – High Court erred in quashing FIRs on this ground [Paras 3–6, 12].

Section 17, PC Act – Power of Superintendent of Police – Authorization of Investigation – Challenge raised that Superintendent of Police could not authorize Deputy Superintendent of Police to investigate offences under PC Act – Held: Superintendent of Police is competent to direct registration of FIR and simultaneously authorize investigation, subject to restrictions under Section 17 PC Act – Registration of FIR governed by CrPC and not fettered by Section 17 – Law settled by T.N. Sudhakar Reddy and followed in State of Karnataka v. Channakeshava H.D. [Paras 4–6, 12].

Writ Jurisdiction – FIR under PC Act – Adjudication on Merits – High Court allowed writ petitions solely on preliminary jurisdictional issues without examining other grounds touching upon merits including lack of foundational material for disproportionate assets cases – Held: Respondent deprived of adjudication on remaining grounds – Matter remitted to High Court for fresh consideration limited to grounds not earlier adjudicated [Paras 7–14].

Remand – Scope – Filing of Chargesheet During Pendency of Appeal – During pendency of appeal, chargesheets filed against respondent – Held: Respondent permitted to assail chargesheets in revived writ petitions post-remand – Liberty limited to challenge chargesheets filed during pendency of appeal – Remedies under CrPC/BNSS remain unaffected [Paras 15–16].

Interim Protection – Continuance on Remand – Respondent had interim protection during pendency of writ petitions – Held: No coercive steps to be taken against respondent till disposal of writ petitions by High Court post-remand [Para 17].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned order of the High Court set aside – Writ petitions restored to file of High Court of Karnataka for fresh adjudication on merits confined to grounds not earlier decided – Interim protection to continue till disposal – Pending applications disposed of.

Income Tax – Amalgamation – Shares held as Stock-in-Trade vs Capital Asset – Taxability under Section 28 – Assessees, promoter investment companies, received shares of amalgamated company in lieu of shares of amalgamating company under a court-sanctioned scheme – Assessing Officer treated shares as stock-in-trade and taxed notional gains as business income – Tribunal held no income accrued in absence of sale or transfer – High Court remanded matter holding that if shares were stock-in-trade, gains would be taxable under Section 28 – Supreme Court examined whether substitution of shares itself constitutes taxable business income – Held: Mere substitution of shares on amalgamation does not automatically give rise to taxable business income – What is relevant is real commercial realisation and not notional appreciation – Taxability depends on whether shares received are immediately realisable, freely tradable, and of ascertainable market value – Matter remitted for factual determination by Tribunal [Paras 8–11, 15–18, 39–40].

Income Tax – Section 28 – Scope and Interpretation – Real Income Doctrine – Section 28 is a wide charging provision taxing real profits and gains of business whether received in cash or kind – However, income must be real, accrued or received, and commercially realisable – Hypothetical or notional gains cannot be taxed unless expressly deemed by statute – In amalgamation, unless assessee receives a real, immediately disposable commercial benefit, no income accrues at the stage of substitution – Principle of real income reiterated [Paras 13–15, 18–19].

Amalgamation – Legal Nature – Not a Sale or Exchange per se – Amalgamation results in statutory substitution of one corporate holding by another – Amalgamating company ceases to exist and shareholders receive shares by operation of law – Not a bilateral exchange in strict legal sense – However, amalgamation constitutes “transfer” for purposes of capital gains as held in Grace Collis – Distinction maintained between capital gains taxation and business income taxation [Paras 16–18].

Capital Gains – Section 47(vii) – Limited to Capital Assets – Exemption under Section 47(vii) applies only where shares are held as capital assets – If shares are stock-in-trade, exemption under Section 47(vii) is unavailable – Determination of nature of holding is foundational to deciding taxability – Tribunal directed to decide nature of holding afresh [Paras 12–13, 26].

Section 260A – High Court Jurisdiction – Incidental Questions of Law – Contention that High Court exceeded jurisdiction by addressing Section 28 rejected – Issue of business income taxability was incidental and arose directly from Tribunal’s findings – Parties were fully heard and no prejudice caused – High Court empowered to consider such incidental questions even if not formally framed – Distinguished Shiv Raj Gupta [Paras 9–9.6].

Preliminary Inquiry vs Final Tax Liability – Role of Tribunal – Tribunal erred in declining to decide whether shares were capital assets or stock-in-trade – Such determination is mandatory before applying charging provisions – High Court justified in remanding matter for fresh adjudication – Tribunal to examine commercial realisability, marketability, and nature of shares received [Paras 8.3, 11, 18.4–18.6].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – High Court judgment upheld – Matters remanded to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to determine whether shares were held as stock-in-trade or capital assets and whether substitution on amalgamation resulted in real, taxable business income under Section 28 – No automatic taxability on mere substitution of shares.

Criminal Law – Police Custody – Discretion of Magistrate – Learned Magistrate declined police custody after noting extensive investigation and recovery of incriminating materials – Order passed with cogent reasons – Held: Revisional Court should not ordinarily interfere with such reasoned exercise of discretion unless perversity is shown [Paras 10–14].

Police Remand – Revisional Jurisdiction – Sessions Court allowed revision and granted police custody nearly six months after Magistrate declined custody – Order passed without properly appreciating Magistrate’s reasoning – Held: Revisional interference unjustified and perverse [Paras 12–15].

Bail – Grant of Police Custody After Bail – Accused already enlarged on regular bail – Grant of police custody necessarily curtails liberty and amounts to indirect cancellation of bail – Held: Police custody cannot be granted so long as bail order remains in force [Paras 16–19].

Criminal Procedure – Proper Course – When police seek custody of accused already on bail – Investigating agency must first seek cancellation of bail in accordance with law – Scheme of criminal procedure does not permit police remand of an accused protected by a subsisting bail order [Paras 17–19].

Police Custody – Statutory Period – Section 187 BNSS – Police custody permissible only within statutory period of forty days in cases not punishable with death, life imprisonment or ten years or more – Even within statutory period, custody not automatic and must be justified by necessity [Paras 8–9].

Personal Liberty – Article 21 – Casual or mechanical grant of police remand impermissible – Liberty of an accused enlarged on bail cannot be curtailed without compelling and legally sustainable reasons [Paras 16–19].

Precedent – Reliance – Satyajit Ballubhai Desai v. State of Gujarat, (2014) 14 SCC 434 – Reiterated that police remand after grant of bail without cancellation of bail is impermissible and affects personal liberty [Para 18].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Orders dated 13.10.2025 passed by the High Court of Telangana and 26.09.2025 passed by the Sessions Judge set aside – Grant of police custody held illegal in view of subsisting bail order – Bail of appellants remains undisturbed – Pending applications disposed of.