Criminal Law - Quashing of Proceedings - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 482 - Banking Fraud and Settlement - Appellant No 2 was a proprietary firm managed by the elder brother of Appellant No 1 which availed credit facilities from UCO Bank starting in 2006 - Following the death of the elder brother in 2009 Appellant No 1 took over management - Due to financial constraints the account was declared as NPA in 2010 and SARFAESI proceedings were initiated - Bank filed an Original Application before DRT Jabalpur for recovery of Rs 6.49 crores - A compromise proposal of Rs 4.25 crores was approved by the Bank Management Committee in 2015 certifying that there were no lapses in documentation - Appellants paid the entire amount and a no dues certificate was issued - DRT recorded the settlement and dismissed the bank recovery application as withdrawn in October 2015 - After a gap of more than two years in February 2018 the Bank lodged a complaint with the CBI alleging that the Appellants in collusion with bank officials defrauded the bank by substituting valuable mortgaged property with encroached property and using forged audit reports for limit enhancement - CBI filed a chargesheet under Sections 420 and 471 IPC while dropping PC Act charges as no proactive role was found for bank officials - High Court dismissed the quashing petition holding that a triable offence was made out - Supreme Court noted that the dispute arose from banking transactions having an overwhelmingly civil flavour and had reached a voluntary and final settlement - Held - continuation of criminal proceedings after a full settlement of dues which had the imprimatur of a judicial forum like the DRT would be oppressive and would amount to an abuse of the process of the court - the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak - appeal allowed and proceedings quashed - [Paras 1-29].

Criminal Law - Inherent Power - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 482 - Commercial Disputes - Guidelines for quashing non-compoundable offences - Distinction between compounding under Section 320 CrPC and quashing under Section 482 CrPC - Power to quash is of wide plenitude and must be exercised to secure ends of justice or prevent abuse of process - While heinous crimes like murder or rape cannot be quashed based on settlement criminal cases having a predominantly civil flavour arising from commercial or financial transactions stand on a different footing - Held - in such cases where the offender and victim have settled their dispute and the continuation of the case would cause oppression the High Court is justified in quashing proceedings - timing of the settlement is a crucial factor especially when reached after long-standing litigation - [Paras 19-21.1 and 27].

Criminal Law - Good Faith and Delay - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 420 and 471 - Fraud in Banking Transactions - Bank suspected fraud in 2013 but chose to wait and maximize recovery through a compromise settlement in 2015 - Complaint was lodged with CBI only after three years of settlement - Compromise agreement itself stated no document tampering or irregularities existed - Held - the conduct of the respondent bank betrays a lack of good faith as they treated the matter as a fraud only as an afterthought after liquidating the account - permitting such prosecution would adversely impact the sanctity of banking settlements and the overall economy - [Paras 25-28].

Evidence Law - Forgery and Cheating - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 415, 420, 464, 470 and 471 - Essential ingredients - Section 420 requires fraudulent or dishonest inducement leading to delivery of property - Section 471 requires use of a forged document as genuine with knowledge of it being forged - Sine qua non is the presence of fraudulence or dishonesty - Held - where the transaction was a banking one and the bank itself verified properties and audit reports before enhancement and subsequently signed an unconditional compromise the elements of cheating are not sustainable after settlement - [Paras 16-16.3 and 17].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court order dated 05.07.2024 set aside – Chargesheet dated 27.11.2018 and charge framing order dated 20.02.2023 quashed.

Criminal Law - Kidnapping for Ransom - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 364A and 368 - Appellants convicted for the broad daylight abduction of an 8-year-old boy at pistol point from the company of his sisters - Trial Court sentenced them to life imprisonment which was upheld by the High Court - Appellants challenged the conviction arguing lack of evidence for threat to life and failure to prove ransom demand due to absence of Call Detail Records - Supreme Court observed that the act of brandishing a firearm to stop children and abduct them inherently constitutes a severe threat to cause death or hurt - The court found the chain of evidence complete including eyewitness testimony and recoveries of the child and weapon under Section 27 Evidence Act - Held - Conviction and life sentence sustained - Appeals dismissed - [Paras 1-34].

Criminal Law - Essential Ingredients - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 364A - Requirement of threat to cause death or hurt - Defense argued that the victim was treated with love and affection and not explicitly threatened during detention - Court held that the initial act of stopping young children by brandishing a .315 bore country-made pistol to compel compliance satisfies the condition of threatening to cause death or hurt - Treatment during detention does not absolve the initial violent abduction or the terror inflicted on the family - Held - Second condition of Section 364A is perfectly satisfied by the use of a lethal firearm - [Paras 20-21].

Evidence Law - Proof of Ransom - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 364A - Electronic Evidence - Appellants contended that absence of Call Detail Records and Section 65-B certificate was fatal to the prosecution claim of ransom demand - Court noted that the case featured unshaken and corroborative oral testimonies from multiple family members and the Investigating Officer - Held - Lack of CDR from a rural telephone exchange in 2003 cannot paralyze the justice system when substantive oral evidence remains cogent and credible - [Paras 22-24].

Evidence Law - Identification - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 9 - Test Identification Parade - Appellants disputed identification in court without a preceding TIP - Court held that TIP is merely corroborative and not substantive evidence - Witnesses had clear daylight opportunity to observe the kidnappers during a confrontation lasting several minutes - Identity was decisively cemented by recoveries made pursuant to disclosures under Section 27 Evidence Act - Held - Recoveries of the child and the crime weapon negate the necessity of a formal TIP - [Paras 25-28].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Judgment and order of conviction and life sentence under Sections 364A and 368 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act affirmed.

Writ Law - Jurisdiction and Taxation - Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act 1949 - Sections 3 127 and 128A - Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act 1966 - Section 159A and Clause 7(1) of First Schedule - Dispute regarding levy of property tax by Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation NMMC on industrial units within Trans Thane Creek TTC Industrial Area of Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation MIDC - Appellants challenged NMMC jurisdiction and claimed exemption based on MIDC providing all amenities and charging service fees - High Court dismissed writ petition holding MIDC area falls within NMMC and no exemption exists - Supreme Court analyzed boundaries in notification dated 17.12.1991 and interplay between MID Act MRTP Act and MMC Act - Held - TTC MIDC area falls within territorial jurisdiction of NMMC - Distinction between tax and fee maintained - Exemption under Clause 7(1) of First Schedule of MRTP Act is applicable to lands and buildings vested in MIDC including those occupied by lessees - Exemption ceased to operate from 01.12.2005 upon MIDC handing over maintenance of infrastructure to NMMC via Memorandum of Understanding - Appeals partly allowed - [Paras 1-107].

Civil Law - Taxation vs Fee - Constitution of India - Article 366(28) - Maharashtra Industrial Development Act 1961 - Sections 15 and 17 - Distinction between compulsory exaction for public purpose and charges for services rendered - MIDC collects service charges for specific amenities provided to plot holders which entails element of quid pro quo - NMMC is authorized to impose property tax under Section 127 of MMC Act for general revenue - Held - MIDC has no power to impose tax - Payment of service charges to MIDC does not equate to tax and does not bar NMMC from exercising its statutory power to levy property tax - [Paras 65-89].

Writ Law - Statutory Exemption - Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act 1966 - Clause 7(1) of First Schedule - Beneficial construction of fiscal statutes - Provision exempts relevant authority from paying taxes to local authority if it provides amenities - High Court took narrow view that exemption applies only to MIDC and not to unit holders - Supreme Court found such interpretation would render provision otiose as all land and buildings in industrial area vest in MIDC - Held - Benefit of exemption goes to everyone holding land within jurisdiction as long as MIDC provides facilities - Exemption expires upon transfer of maintenance responsibilities to local authority - [Paras 90-105].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – Appellants and unit holders are exempt from property tax till 01.12.2005 – NMMC authorized to realize property tax after said date in respect of properties transferred to it for maintenance.

Criminal Law - Externment - Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam 1990 - Section 9 - Condonation of delay - Appellant was issued a show-cause notice by District Magistrate followed by an externment order dated 18.06.2025 directing removal from District Balodabazar-Bhatapara for one year - Statutory appeal under Section 9 was filed with a delay of approximately 50 days beyond the prescribed 30-day period - State Government dismissed the appeal on 03.10.2025 holding the delay was incapable of condonation under the statutory scheme - High Court in WPCR No. 548 of 2025 declined to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution - Supreme Court examined Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act 1963 and noted that the Adhiniyam does not expressly or by necessary implication exclude Section 5 - Observed absence of restrictive expressions like but not thereafter or not exceeding - Held - High Court and State Government erred in treating the limitation period as absolute - Delay condoned and appeal restored for decision on merits - [Paras 1-27].

Criminal Law - Limitation - Limitation Act 1963 - Section 29(2) - Applicability to Special Laws - General rule is that Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act apply to special or local laws unless expressly excluded - Exclusion can be inferred from the scheme and object of the statute - Restrictive phrases like not exceeding or but not thereafter indicate legislative intent to exclude Section 5 - Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam lacks such phrases - Held - Mere prescription of a different limitation period does not automatically exclude Section 5 - [Paras 19-24.3].

Writ Law - Principles of Natural Justice - Constitution of India - Articles 19(1)(d) and 21 - Right of Appeal - Externment orders have serious civil and criminal consequences affecting liberty and movement - Appellate remedy is a procedural safeguard against arbitrary power - Technical grounds of limitation should not defeat the right to appeal unless the statute mandates strict exclusion - Held - Purposive interpretation favoring access to justice must be adopted for externment proceedings - [Paras 24.4-25].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court judgment dated 16.10.2025 set aside – Delay in filing the appeal before the State Government condoned – Appeal restored for decision on merits by 15.06.2026 – Appellant directed to appear before the State Government on 01.06.2026.

Criminal Law - Death by Negligence - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 279 and 304A - Appellant bus driver convicted for causing death of passenger who fell while alighting - Trial Court and Appellate Court found driver negligent for moving vehicle before passenger safely disembarked - High Court maintained conviction but set aside sentence under Section 279 IPC citing doctrine of merger - Supreme Court analyzed testimony of Conductor PW6 who stated he signaled the driver to move after passengers got down - Held - Driver is duty-bound to follow conductor's signals for stopping and starting the bus - Unreasonable to attribute negligence when driver acts bona fide on mandatory instructions - Conviction set aside - [Paras 1-11].

Criminal Law - Negligence and Rashness - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 304A - Culpable negligence - Distinction between carelessness and recklessness - Negligence involves failure to exercise care demanded by circumstances while rashness involves acting with consciousness of potential consequences but hoping they will not follow - Driver followed conductor's whistle to start bus - Held - Criminality arises from deliberation in mind risking life - Factor of deliberation absent as driver followed normal and natural conduct by relying on conductor - Case of res ipsa loquitur not made out - [Paras 5.5-5.7].

Evidence Law - Appreciation of Evidence - Common Sense Canon - Law as common sense - Truth often emanates from common sense in judging human conduct - Testimony of conductor PW6 remained intact during cross-examination confirming he signaled the driver to move - Held - Lower courts committed manifest error by failing to appreciate that the conductor ensures due movement and regulates passengers - Driver discharged his duty by acting on instructive signals - [Paras 6-8].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court and confirmed/modified by the High Court are set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges and directed to be released forthwith.

Service Law - Promotion - Recruitment Rules - Appellants being Head Constables in Andaman and Nicobar Police Department challenged the 2008 and 2010 Rules which introduced matriculation and selection tests for promotion to ASI-Executive - During litigation 2016 Rules were notified substituting previous rules and restoring 100 percent seniority-cum-fitness basis without educational hurdles - Tribunal dismissed the original application as infructuous noting that the 2016 Rules satisfied the appellants' prayers - High Court set aside the Tribunal's order holding that vacancies must be filled as per rules prevailing when they accrued while relying on Marripati Nagaraja - Supreme Court noted that the previous principle in Y.V. Rangaiah was expressly overruled in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raj Kumar - Held - Public servants do not possess a vested right to be considered under old rules - Right to be considered for promotion is governed exclusively by rules in force at the time the promotion is considered - High Court judgment set aside - [Paras 1-32].

Service Law - Applicability of Rules - Vested Rights - Rule in force at time of consideration - Dispute over whether old vacancies must be filled under repealed 2010 Rules or new 2016 Rules - Court relied on Raj Kumar precedent - Held - There is no rule of universal application that vacancies must be filled on the basis of the law existing when they arose - Government is entitled to take a conscious policy decision to restructure cadres for efficiency - Candidates only have a right to be considered in light of the rule in force on the date consideration takes place - [Paras 18-24].

Service Law - Statutory Interpretation - Word Substitution - Effect of amendment by substitution - Analysis of the impact of 2016 Rules on 2010 Rules - Held - Substitution typically results in the repeal of the earlier provision and its replacement by the new provision - The process involves the old rule ceasing to exist and the new rule being brought into its place - Unless a contrary intention is shown the new rule becomes the sole legal basis for regular promotions - [Paras 28-30].

Service Law - Ad hoc Promotion - Vested Rights - Respondent Nos. 1 to 28 were promoted on an ad hoc basis subject to the outcome of litigation - Held - Ad hoc promotions with explicit riders denying seniority do not confer permanent rights - Such promotions are not completed acts and do not create vested rights to retain positions once rules are substituted - [Paras 27-29].

Decision: Civil Appeal allowed – Judgment of the High Court dated 10.08.2016 set aside – Existing vacancies of ASI-Executive directed to be filled under the 2016 Rules within two months.

Civil Law - Specific Performance - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 100 - Scope of Second Appeal - Appellant-purchaser entered into sale agreement for Rs 9.30 lakhs and paid Rs 9 lakhs as earnest money - Trial Court decreed specific performance finding agreement genuine - First Appellate Court denied specific performance citing lack of readiness and willingness - High Court in Second Appeal modified order holding agreement was merely security for a different transaction - Supreme Court held that High Court exceeded jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC by reversing concurrent findings of fact on genuineness of agreement without finding perversity or material illegality - Held - High Court cannot reappreciate evidence just to replace findings of lower courts especially when two inferences are possible - appeal allowed - [Paras 2-16].

Civil Law - Specific Performance - Specific Relief Act 1963 - Section 16(c) - Readiness and Willingness - Plaintiff paid 93 percent of total sale consideration - Legal notice issued shortly after four-month stipulated period - Suit filed within limitation - High Court and First Appellate Court denied relief stating delay in issuing notice proved lack of readiness - Supreme Court observed that readiness and willingness must be gathered from entirety of facts including overall conduct - Payment of substantial portion of consideration and filing suit within limitation demonstrate continuous willingness - Held - In India mere delay cannot be ground for refusing specific performance if suit is filed within limitation period - plaintiff sufficiently established continuous readiness - [Paras 17-21].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned High Court judgment and First Appellate Court judgment set aside – Trial Court judgment and decree for specific performance dated 21.12.2012 restored.

Civil Law - Matrimonial Dispute - Constitution of India - Article 142 - Irretrievable breakdown of marriage - Parties married in 2017 and living separately for over eight years - Long standing acrimony between parties with multiplicity of civil and criminal proceedings initiated by both sides including maintenance under Army Act and CrPC - Settlement agreement reached in 2019 for mutual divorce but wife withdrew consent before second motion - Family Court disposed of proceedings and High Court upheld dismissal - Supreme Court observed ties of matrimony severed in every meaningful sense and marriage exists only on paper - Respondent wife opposed grant of divorce under Article 142 seeking to pursue contested petition on ground of adultery - Court found no possibility of reconciliation whatsoever - Held - appropriate case to invoke plenary powers under Article 142 to dissolve marriage despite lack of mutual consent at final stage to provide genuine finality and do complete justice - [Paras 7-12].

Civil Law - Permanent Alimony - Constitution of India - Article 142 - One time final settlement - Husband originally agreed to pay thirty two lakhs alimony but later returned twenty lakhs during proceedings - Court evaluated earning capacity and duration of separation and respondent wife needs for financial security - Held - sum of fifty lakhs fixed as fair and adequate amount for full and final settlement of all past and future claims arising from marriage - amount to be paid in two instalments - no further claims for maintenance under CrPC or Army Act and Rules shall survive - [Paras 8-12].

Civil Law - Closure of Proceedings - Constitution of India - Article 142 - Quashing of multiplicity of litigation - Directions for formal closure of all pending litigation including Domestic Violence Act complaint and maintenance proceedings and contempt cases - Registry directed to communicate order to respective Courts - Held - all cases pending between parties stand closed and disposed of and no further steps shall be taken therein by either party - [Paras 13-14].

Decision: Appeal disposed of – Marriage dissolved under Article 142 of the Constitution of India – Appellant directed to pay Rs. 50,00,000/- as permanent alimony in two instalments – All pending cases between parties stand closed.

Civil Law - Insolvency and Bankruptcy - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 - Section 62 - Letter of Intent - Conditional acceptance - Appellant being the Promoter of the Corporate Debtor challenged the validity of the Letter of Intent issued by the Resolution Professional alleging it was conditional because of clauses making it subject to pending third-party applications and employee litigation risks - Appellant also contested the reduction of time for submitting the performance guarantee from 45 to 7 days - The NCLT and NCLAT dismissed the objections holding that the appellant was aware of litigations during Committee of Creditors meetings and had expressly agreed to the terms - The Supreme Court found the stand of the appellant bereft of merit observing that stipulations regarding judicial decisions are part of the legal reality and do not allow an applicant to renege - Held - The objections were a clear subterfuge to shift blame on the Committee of Creditors for the unwillingness of the appellant to implement the plan - Appeals dismissed - [Paras 1-22].

Civil Law - Doctrine of Election - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 - Section 31 - Approbate and Reprobate - Appellant participated in various Committee of Creditors meetings and initially requested the issuance of a Letter of Intent but later raised preliminary objections regarding its conditional nature to avoid performance guarantee obligations - Supreme Court applied the doctrine of acquiescence and election noting a party cannot blow hot and cold or accept benefits while denying validity - Held - The conduct of the appellant was an indirect attempt to renege from the plan after it had been approved by the Committee of Creditors - [Paras 26-30].

Civil Law - Resolution Plan - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 - Sections 30 and 31 - Irrevocability - Once the Committee of Creditors after applying its commercial wisdom has approved a resolution plan the successful resolution applicant is prohibited from negotiating further or seeking modifications - The only remaining conditionality is the approval of the adjudicating authority which has limited jurisdiction under Section 31 - Held - A submitted resolution plan is binding and irrevocable between the Committee of Creditors and the successful resolution applicant to ensure the purpose of the Code is achieved - [Paras 31-32].

Civil Law - Liquidation - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 - Section 33 - Commercial Wisdom - The Committee of Creditors voted for the liquidation of the Corporate Debtor with a voting majority of 99.61 percent after the successful resolution applicant failed to comply with the terms of the Letter of Intent - Appellant challenged the liquidation as being contrary to Section 33 - Supreme Court observed that the Committee of Creditors is statutorily empowered to decide on liquidation at any time before the confirmation of the resolution plan as per the explanation to Section 33 clause 2 - Held - The decision of the Committee of Creditors is a business decision taken in exercise of commercial wisdom and is not amenable to judicial review - [Paras 36-42].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – All interim orders stand vacated – Respondent No. 3 Liquidator directed to proceed with the remaining part of the liquidation in accordance with the Code.