Family Law – Divorce – Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Parties living separately since April 2010 – Multiple litigations and failed reconciliation attempts – Held: Relationship has irretrievably broken down – No purpose in perpetuating a legally defunct marriage – Supreme Court exercises powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to dissolve the marriage [Para 8–9].

Maintenance – Domestic Violence Act and CrPC – Trial Court granted monthly maintenance, education expenses, residence rights, and compensation to wife and child under DV Act – Family Court also granted additional maintenance under Section 125 CrPC – High Court set aside Family Court’s order and partly allowed husband's revision – Held: In light of comprehensive settlement, all prior orders merged into final alimony award – All pending proceedings quashed [Paras 3.5, 3.7–3.9, 8–9].

Permanent Alimony – Settlement – Respondent-husband offered Rs.1 crore as full and final settlement for all claims by wife and minor son – Supreme Court found the amount fair and reasonable considering income, duration of litigation, and circumstances – Directed payment within three months – Upon receipt, no further claims to be raised by either party [Paras 7–9].

Constitution of India – Article 142 – Scope – Supreme Court invoked Article 142 to do complete justice – Dissolved marriage, settled all pending disputes, and quashed all civil/criminal proceedings arising from the matrimonial relationship – Held: Appropriate case for Article 142 relief due to protracted litigation and impossibility of marital reconciliation [Paras 8–9].

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – Marriage dissolved under Article 142 – Respondent-husband directed to pay Rs.1 crore as permanent alimony and final settlement to appellant-wife within 3 months – All civil and criminal proceedings between the parties arising from the marriage quashed – No further claims maintainable thereafter – Appellant to provide bank details – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 9–12].

Service Law – NIT Recruitment – One-Time Relaxation – Appellants recommended for promotion under one-time relaxation granted via GoI letter dated 06.10.2017 – Relaxation initially held ultra vires by High Court for lacking statutory support – Later validated by incorporation into First Statutes via Statute 9 of 2023 Statutes approved by the President – Held: Statute 9 has clarificatory and retrospective effect validating the 2018 selection process – High Court erred in holding amendment prospective and ordering fresh recruitment [Paras 13–18, 35–38].

Constitutional Law – Separation of Powers – Validating Legislation – Legislature cannot override court judgments but may remove statutory basis of judgment – Held: Amendment through Statute 9 did not overreach prior judgment but cured the procedural defect by incorporating relaxation into law – Action was legally valid and within legislative competence [Paras 32, 36].

Statutory Interpretation – Clarificatory Statute – Retrospective Effect – Statute 9 was explanatory of the executive relaxation dated 06.10.2017 and intended to validate the prior selection process – Held: Clarificatory statutes are presumed retrospective unless otherwise stated – Statute 9 permitted NIT Kurukshetra to complete the 2018 recruitment drive [Paras 28–31, 36].

Administrative Law – Judicial Review of Policy – High Court held 2023 amendment could not revive 2018 selection – Supreme Court held this view erroneous as the statutory change was clarificatory and lawful – Directed NIT Kurukshetra to act upon earlier recommendations [Paras 36–38].

Service Law – Notional Appointment – Relief Granted – Appellants to be considered for notional appointment as Associate Professors effective post 27.11.2018 – No financial or experiential benefit for promotion – Continuity allowed for terminal benefits only [Paras 38–40].

Decision: Appeals allowed in part – High Court judgment modified – NIT Kurukshetra to consider and process appointments of appellants/intervenors recommended under Advertisement No. 03/2018 – Appointments to be notional, without back wages or promotional experience – One-time relaxation deemed exhausted thereafter – No impact on NIT Jalandhar [Paras 38–45].

Service Law – Compassionate Appointment – Civil Death – Respondent No.2 sought appointment on compassionate grounds after his father, a municipal employee, went missing on 01.09.2012 – High Court directed appointment by treating 01.09.2012 as date of death – Held: Under Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, death is presumed only after a lapse of 7 years from the date of disappearance – No specific evidence adduced to prove earlier date of death – Civil Court decree did not fix a date of death – Presumption of death applies only from 01.09.2019 – Appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be based on presumed death before that date [Paras 3, 6–9]

Service Law – Retirement Benefits – Missing Employee – Despite disappearance, employee was deemed in service and retired on 31.01.2015 – Family accepted retiral dues and continues to receive pension – Held: Acceptance of retirement and benefits estops respondent from seeking compassionate appointment based on presumed earlier death [Paras 4, 9]

Administrative Law – Scope of Judicial Direction – High Court erred in directly ordering appointment – Held: Even where claim is maintainable, proper course is to direct consideration of the case, not straight appointment – Appointment can only follow satisfaction of prescribed criteria [Para 10]

Equitable Relief – Appointment on Merits – Though compassionate appointment was denied, Court left it open to the Corporation to consider respondent No.2 for appointment on merits, independently of his claim, subject to law and age relaxation if permissible [Para 11]

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment dated 18.07.2024 set aside – No entitlement to compassionate appointment – Liberty granted to consider respondent No.2 for appointment on other grounds.

Specific Performance – Registered Agreement – Additional Consideration – Plaintiff entered into a registered agreement for sale dated 08.01.2010 for purchase of two items of property for a total sale consideration of Rs. 4,80,000 – Out of which, Rs. 4,70,000 was paid as advance on the date of agreement – Plaintiff placed in possession of the property – Subsequently, defendants demanded an additional Rs. 2,00,000 – Plaintiff paid Rs. 1,95,000 on 09.06.2010, which was acknowledged by endorsement on the reverse of the agreement – Trial court disbelieved transaction, treating it as a loan and held plaintiff not ready and willing – First appellate court reversed, upheld existence of valid sale agreement and additional consideration – Held: High Court erred in discarding endorsement without addressing findings of first appellate court – No perversity or misreading shown – Findings of fact binding under Section 100 CPC – Acceptance of further consideration after stipulated period proved contract remained subsisting [Paras 4, 6, 7, 14-21]

Termination of Contract – Necessity of Declaratory Relief – Respondents contended that without challenging the termination notice dated 20.08.2010, suit for specific performance was not maintainable – Supreme Court held: Agreement did not contain automatic termination clause – Vendor accepted additional Rs. 1,95,000 after six-month period, thereby waiving right to terminate – Plaintiff could treat agreement as subsisting and sue for enforcement – Suit for specific performance not barred for want of declaratory relief – Declaratory relief becomes necessary only where a cloud exists on title or subsistence of contract – Not applicable when termination itself is invalid or waived by conduct [Paras 21-33]

Readiness and Willingness – Plaintiff paid over 90% of consideration upfront and further agreed to pay additional amount demanded by vendors – No reason to doubt readiness and willingness to perform contract – High Court erred in holding otherwise – Acceptance of Rs. 1,95,000 after expiry of six-month term showed that time was not of the essence and defendants treated contract as ongoing – Mere delay in tendering balance Rs. 10,000 not fatal – Ready and willing conduct to be assessed holistically, based on facts and conduct of parties [Paras 18-21]

Discretion to Grant Relief – Clean Hands – Allegation of False Plea – High Court refused specific performance on grounds that plaintiff falsely claimed possession and fabricated additional consideration – Held: Absence of recital in agreement regarding possession not sufficient to prove falsehood – Claim may be unproved, but not necessarily false or dishonest – Additional consideration proved by endorsement and admitted signatures – No fraudulent conduct attributable to plaintiff – Court must consider substantial acts done in pursuance of contract and unjust enrichment of vendor – D-3 (Vasanthi), daughter of D-1, not a bona fide purchaser – Plaintiff entitled to relief under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Paras 34-39]

Interpretation – Time Not of the Essence – In contracts involving immovable property, time is ordinarily not of the essence unless specifically stipulated – Defendants' conduct of accepting additional consideration after expiry of six months indicated waiver of time clause – No notice given requiring performance within fixed time – Contract subsisted – Plaintiff’s failure to issue demand within six months not fatal in such circumstances [Paras 18-20]

Second Appeal – Scope under Section 100 CPC – High Court reversed concurrent findings of fact without framing substantial question of law – Findings regarding genuineness of agreement, additional payment, readiness and willingness, were based on evidence and reasoning – No perversity, misreading, or exclusion of admissible evidence established – Held: High Court exceeded jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC – Interference with factual findings was unwarranted [Paras 15-17, 20, 38]

Appeal Allowed – Judgment and decree of High Court dated 02.02.2018 set aside – Decree of first appellate court restored – Plaintiff to deposit balance amount of Rs. 10,000 within one month in execution court if not already deposited – Specific performance of contract granted – Parties to bear own costs [Paras 40-41]

Practice and Procedure – Adverse Remarks Against Counsel – Modification of Order – Supreme Court had imposed Rs. 2 lakh costs and made adverse observations against State Election Commission’s counsel for persistent insistence despite repeated disinclination expressed by the Bench – Counsel filed Miscellaneous Application seeking expungement and waiver of cost – Held: Once Court indicates its mind, further insistence by counsel is inappropriate and undermines courtroom decorum – However, considering unqualified apology and first-time conduct, adverse remarks and cost are deleted with caution against future recurrence [Paras 3, 6–9].

Advocacy – Duty Towards Court vs Client – Counsel must strike balance between duty to client and maintaining decorum of court – Persistent submissions after clear judicial indication disturb dignified functioning of Court – Assurances from senior bar members considered in granting relief [Paras 6–7].

Decision: Application allowed – Remarks against counsel expunged – Cost of Rs. 2,00,000 deleted – Counsel cautioned not to repeat such conduct [Para 9].

Criminal Law – Prevention of Corruption – Demand and Acceptance – Appellant, a Labour Officer, allegedly demanded ₹9,000 bribe and accepted ₹3,000 for license renewal – Trap set by ACB, tainted currency recovered from drawer of appellant's desk – Trial Court acquitted appellant citing inconsistencies in complainant’s account, procedural lapses, negative phenolphthalein test, and credible defence witnesses – High Court reversed acquittal – Held: Acquittal based on plausible view grounded in evidence – High Court failed to consider key contradictions and defence version – Demand and acceptance not proved beyond reasonable doubt – Presumption under Section 20 PC Act not attracted [Paras 1, 10–14, 18–20, 33].

Evidence – Hostile Witness – Credibility – Office attendant (PW-4) turned hostile, admitted to pressure from ACB and supported defence in contemporaneous letter – Defence witnesses (DW-1, DW-2) corroborated absence of accused during alleged bribery moment – High Court unjustifiably rejected their testimony – Held: Defence version plausible, supported by consistent independent evidence – Cannot be discarded merely due to official relationship with accused [Paras 26–30].

Criminal Procedure – Reversal of Acquittal – Appellate Interference – Appellate court must show perversity or grave error in Trial Court's view – High Court failed to address material inconsistencies, speculative reasoning on motive – Suspicion cannot replace proof – Held: Trial Court’s acquittal restored as it was reasonable and based on cogent evaluation of record – No justification for appellate reversal [Paras 11–13, 33].

Public Servants – Legal Authority – Inspection of Registers – High Court held demand for registers by appellant was coercive tactic – Held: Such findings unwarranted – Labour Officers empowered by law to call for records – Written notice issued by appellant validated his actions – No illegality in procedure followed [Para 34].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction set aside – Acquittal restored – Bail bonds discharged [Para 35].

POCSO – Conviction – Quashed Under Article 142 – Appellant convicted under Section 366 IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act – During pendency of appeal, appellant married victim and they had a child – Victim (now wife) expressed desire to live peacefully with appellant and opposed continuation of proceedings – Complainant (victim's father) raised no objection – Held: Though offence under POCSO is serious and ordinarily not compoundable, in unique facts, continuation of proceedings would defeat justice and harm victim and child – Criminal proceedings quashed in exercise of powers under Article 142 to render complete justice [Paras 1-3, 5, 9-11, 14-15].

Constitution of India – Article 142 – Complete Justice – Extraordinary power invoked to balance justice, deterrence, and rehabilitation – Court emphasized justice must not be rigid, but responsive to human realities – Appellant’s act found to be one of love, not lust – Continuation of punishment would irreparably harm familial life and cause injustice to dependent wife and child – Power under Article 142 used to override statutory bar on compounding serious offences in interest of social harmony and restorative justice [Paras 6-10, 11].

Criminal Procedure – Compromise in Heinous Offences – Statutory bar to compounding offences under POCSO Act not a constraint on constitutional power under Article 142 – Court clarified that in exceptional and unique circumstances, it may quash criminal proceedings despite statutory prohibition if continuation undermines the ends of justice – Decision not to be treated as precedent [Paras 9, 15].

Conditions Imposed – Quashing Conditional on Marital Responsibility – Court imposed continuing obligation on appellant to not desert wife and child and to maintain them with dignity – Non-compliance may invite future action – Interim relief converting exemption from surrender into absolute discharge of bail bonds granted [Paras 12-13].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 366 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act quashed – Appellant discharged from bail bonds – Directions issued to ensure welfare of victim and child – Order passed in unique circumstances and not to be treated as precedent [Paras 11-15].

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code – Maintainability of Section 7 IBC Petition – Preference Shareholders – Financial Debt – Appellant, a preference shareholder, filed Section 7 petition for non-payment of redemption amount of CRPS – NCLT and NCLAT dismissed petition, holding CRPS did not constitute financial debt – Supreme Court upheld dismissal – Held: Preference shares are part of share capital, not debt – Redemption contingent on company having profits or proceeds of fresh issue – Appellant ceased to be creditor upon accepting preference shares in lieu of receivables – No default under IBC established – Petition under Section 7 IBC not maintainable [Paras 1, 2, 19, 20, 24-26, 29-34, 36, 38-39, 46-47, 50].

Company Law – Nature of Preference Shares – CRPS do not constitute debt – As per Section 55 of Companies Act, redemption of preference shares only permissible from profits or fresh share issue – Preference shareholders are not creditors – Preference shares are part of capital structure – Non-redemption does not convert them into debt – Held: Even after maturity, preference shares remain share capital, not enforceable debt – No right to initiate insolvency proceedings arises [Paras 19-24, 26-27].

Interpretation of IBC – Financial Debt – Essential elements – For a claim to be financial debt under Section 5(8) IBC, there must be disbursal against consideration for time value of money – CRPS not disbursed amount – No loan or borrowing established – No commercial effect of borrowing under Section 5(8)(f) IBC – Held: Preference share capital lacks foundational elements of financial debt – Conversion of receivables into CRPS extinguished earlier debt – CRPS issuance was an equity infusion, not a debt transaction [Paras 28-31, 46-48].

Default under IBC – Applicability of Section 3(12) – Default requires due and payable debt that remains unpaid – Redemption of CRPS not due as company had no profits or fresh issue proceeds – No default within meaning of Section 3(12) IBC – Petition under Section 7 rightly rejected on this ground [Paras 34-36].

Corporate Insolvency – Entries in Books of Account – Not conclusive – Treatment of CRPS in financial statements as unsecured loan or financial liability irrelevant – Accounting treatment cannot override statutory provisions or alter legal nature of transaction – Entries in accounts do not determine existence of financial debt under IBC [Paras 43-45].

Distinction between Creditor and Shareholder – Redeemable Preference Shareholder cannot be equated with creditor – Supreme Court reiterated that redemption obligation does not create creditor-debtor relationship – Conversion of outstanding receivables into CRPS amounted to capital restructuring, not a borrowing – No right to recover via insolvency proceedings [Paras 38-39, 49].

Precedents Distinguished – Case law cited by appellant including Sanjay D Kakade, Global Credit Capital, and Pioneer Urban Land held inapplicable – Each case turned on distinct facts or involved different forms of debt – Present case involved clear and conscious conversion of dues into equity capital – Earlier receivables stood extinguished – No underlying intent to mask borrowing established [Paras 38, 41-42, 49].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Application under Section 7 IBC held not maintainable – Appellant, being a preference shareholder, is not a financial creditor – No order as to costs [Para 50].

Criminal Law – Double Homicide – Unlawful Assembly – Common Object – Boundary dispute between related villagers escalated into a violent clash – Appellants armed with sharp-edged spades (phawaras) attacked complainant side causing instantaneous death of two persons and grievous injuries to others – Evidence revealed appellants came armed and initiated attack – Held: Assembly had common object to commit murder and cause injuries; findings of guilt under Sections 302/149 and 307/149 IPC fully justified – No perversity in concurrent findings of Trial Court and High Court [Paras 29-31, 45, 51-52].

Appellate Review – Scope under Article 136 – Concurrent findings on fact and law – Supreme Court reiterates that interference is warranted only when findings are manifestly perverse, based on no evidence, or result in grave miscarriage of justice – Since both courts below had examined the evidence threadbare and reached concurrent conclusions supported by record, no ground to interfere made out [Paras 23-25].

Evidence – Ocular vs Medical – Injured Eyewitness Testimony – Reliability – PW-2 (injured eyewitness) sustained multiple wounds consistent with prosecution case – Presence at scene admitted even by defence – Her version corroborated by medical evidence and by PW-3 and PW-4 – Minor discrepancies or omissions in narration do not dilute overall credibility – Medical evidence fully supports ocular account regarding use of sharp weapons and location of injuries – Held: Injured eyewitness testimony has greater evidentiary value and cannot be discarded on trivial inconsistencies [Paras 33-41].

Motive – Not Sine Qua Non where Direct Evidence Exists – Existence of long-standing enmity over partition of agricultural fields and a recently demolished ridge (mendh) established motive for assault – Court reiterates that where credible eyewitness evidence is available, motive assumes secondary importance – However, motive here corroborates the prosecution narrative, showing premeditated aggression by accused party [Paras 42-43].

Culpable Homicide – Section 300 Exception 4 – Plea of Sudden Fight and Free Fight Rejected – The incident was not a spontaneous brawl but a deliberate attack by armed assailants – The nature of injuries on vital parts such as skull and head, inflicted with lethal implements, demonstrates intention and knowledge necessary to constitute murder – Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC not applicable – Conviction rightly under Section 302 IPC and not reduced to Section 304 IPC [Paras 44-45].

FIR – Delay in Lodging – Explanation Acceptable – Cross-FIR filed after taking injured to hospital in Chandigarh – Delay reasonably explained and caused by priority of medical care – Law well settled that delay in lodging FIR is not fatal when satisfactorily explained – Held: Delay in filing cross-case does not undermine prosecution version supported by consistent eyewitness and medical evidence [Paras 46-48].

Investigation – Non-Recovery of Weapon – Not Fatal to Prosecution Case – Though weapons (phawaras and lathis) were not recovered, the ocular testimony and post-mortem reports conclusively established use of such instruments – Non-recovery or non-production of weapons not fatal when other evidence is unimpeachable – Prosecution evidence found natural, consistent, and trustworthy [Paras 49-50].

Defence Plea – Self-Defence and Suppression of Genesis – Defence plea of self-defence and suppression of genesis rejected – No convincing evidence to show complainant side was aggressor – Injuries on accused were superficial and not contemporaneous – Held: Defence version an afterthought and cannot displace consistent prosecution case [Paras 27-30, 34].

Principles Reiterated – Credibility of injured witnesses; limited interference under Article 136; delay in FIR not fatal; non-recovery of weapons immaterial when supported by medical and ocular evidence; motive though not indispensable strengthens prosecution version; Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC not attracted in premeditated assault cases [Paras 23-52].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302/149 and 307/149 IPC affirmed – Appellants directed to surrender forthwith; bail bonds cancelled – Liberty granted to seek remission as per statutory policy – Judgment of the High Court upheld in toto [Paras 51-53].