Civil Appeal – Property Dispute – Inheritance Rights – Appeal against High Court’s order in a property dispute involving settlement deeds and inheritance rights. A mother transferred property to her sons and daughter in 1947, leading to legal battles over subsequent settlement deeds and claims of inheritance rights by various family members. [Para 1-14]

Settlement Deeds – Validity and Legal Sanctity – Examination of the validity and legal sanctity of multiple settlement deeds executed by family members over the years, impacting the inheritance rights and distribution of property. [Para 3-7.1]

Limitation Act – Applicability and Interpretation – Analysis of the applicability and interpretation of the Limitation Act in the context of property disputes and inheritance claims, specifically focusing on the time frame for filing suits and claiming rights. [Para 12-17, 22-23, 32]

Adverse Possession – Concept and Legal Requirements – Discussion on the concept of adverse possession, its legal requirements, and its application in property disputes, particularly in the context of long-term possession and inheritance rights. [Para 20-21]

Specific Relief Act – Declaration of Status or Right – Exploration of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, regarding the discretion of courts in declaring status or right, and the necessity of seeking further relief beyond mere declaration of title in property disputes. [Para 24-31]

Decision – Restoration of Trial and First Appellate Court Judgments – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment in Second Appeal No. 1926 of 2004, restoring the decisions of the Learned Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, which dismissed Gopalakrishnan’s suit on the grounds of limitation and non-maintainability. [Para 35-36]

Defamation Allegation Based on Public Statement - Petitioner, Tejashwi Prasad Yadav, accused of defaming Gujarati community through a public statement - Complaint filed in Ahmedabad court, with petitioner seeking transfer to Delhi [Para 1-2].

Petitioner's Statement and Subsequent Affidavits - Original statement made in the context of a question about Mehul Choksi - Petitioner's affidavits clarify context and withdraw the offending statement, asserting no intention to defame Gujaratis [Paras 3-5, 8].

Quashing of Defamation Case - Court's consideration under Article 142 of the Constitution of India for complete justice - Acknowledgment of petitioner's withdrawal and clarification of statement - Decision to quash the complaint as continuation of prosecution deemed unjust [Paras 9-11].

Disposal of Transfer Petition - With quashing of the complaint, the need for transfer petition becomes irrelevant - Petition disposed of [Para 12].

Trial Court's Acquittal and High Court's Reversal – The Trial Court acquitted the accused in a murder case involving the death of Marthandappa, but the High Court reversed this decision, convicting the appellants based on the testimonies of PW-3 and PW-4 (Paras 1, 2, 11-14, 18, 34).

Eyewitness Credibility and Conduct – Questioning of the credibility of PW-3 and PW-4's testimonies, citing inconsistencies, unreasonable behavior, and contradictions with medical reports. PW-3's failure to seek help or inform police immediately, and PW-4's contradictory accounts regarding his own injuries raised doubts about their presence and accounts of the incident (Paras 27-33, 35).

Principles of Appeal in Acquittal Cases – Emphasis on comprehensive evidence appreciation, preferring accused's innocence in case of two plausible views, and the necessity for appellate courts to address reasons for Trial Court's acquittal before reversing it (Paras 24-26, 34-36).

Circumstantial Evidence and Legal Standards – The prosecution's reliance on circumstantial evidence was deemed inadequate to form a conclusive chain of evidence excluding all hypotheses except the guilt of the accused, thereby failing to prove the "must have" standard required for conviction (Paras 37-38).

Final Decision – Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, restored the Trial Court's order of acquittal, and directed the release of the appellants, concluding no illegality or perversity in the Trial Court's reasoning (Paras 39-40).

High Court Order Challenged – Accused facing trial under NDPS Act requested call details of Seizure Officer and police officials – High Court directed immediate decision on such applications – Challenged by State of Rajasthan. [Paras 3-4]

Legal Position of Section 91 Cr.P.C. – Established by State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi (2005) 1 SCC 568 – Accused's right to invoke Section 91 typically arises at the defence stage, not at the charge framing stage. [Para 6]

Nitya Dharmananda Case Reference – Emphasizes the court's obligation to justice but maintains that Section 91 cannot be invoked by accused at charge framing stage. [Para 7]

Supreme Court's Decision – Overturned High Court's order – Held that the accused can file application at appropriate stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. [Para 8-10]

Right to Legal Representation – Fundamental Rights Violation: Challenge to the resolution of the Mysore Bar Association, dated 16th March 2019, prohibiting its members from filing vakalatnama on behalf of the petitioner – Considered a violation of the petitioner's fundamental right to legal representation and the lawyers' right to practice their profession – Supreme Court quashed the resolution as unconstitutional [Paras 2, 3].

Non-Appearance of Respondent No. 3: Despite repeated notices and orders to be served through the Commissioner of Police, Mysore, respondent no. 3 (Mysore Bar Association) failed to appear before the Court – Proceedings continued ex-parte [Paras 1, 2].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – The impugned resolution of the Mysore Bar Association quashed for being in violation of fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution – Pending application(s), if any, disposed of [Paras 3, 4, 5].

Grant of Anticipatory Bail Challenged – State's appeal against the High Court's decision granting anticipatory bail to the respondent-accused in connection with the seizure of 232.5 kg of ganja, exceeding the commercial quantity as defined in the NDPS Act. [Para 2]

Involvement in Drug Offences – Respondent-accused indicted as a conspirator for procurement/supply of ganja. High Court ignored respondent's previous involvement in similar NDPS Act cases. [Paras 3, 6]

High Court's Approach Criticized – Supreme Court noted the High Court's failure to consider the commercial quantity of the drugs and the respondent's criminal history. Also, the peculiar conditions imposed by the High Court for anticipatory bail, including a financial deposit to an advocate's association, criticized as unrelated to bail jurisprudence. [Paras 5, 6, 13]

Requirements for Bail Under NDPS Act – Section 37 of the NDPS Act requires courts to be satisfied with the accused's non-guilt and non-commitment of any offence while on bail, especially in cases involving commercial quantities of drugs. [Para 9]

Quashing of Anticipatory Bail – Supreme Court found the High Court's order cryptic and perverse, quashing the anticipatory bail and setting aside the order. Respondent-accused directed to surrender within 10 days. [Paras 14, 15, 17]

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Section 62 - Appeals against National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) order – NCLAT upheld National Company Law Tribunal's (NCLT) dismissal of appellant’s applications under Section 60(5) of the IBC – Supreme Court found that neither NCLT nor NCLAT adequately addressed the appellant's claim and status as a secured creditor, resulting in setting aside of their orders. [Para 1, 54, 55]

Statutory Authority as Creditor – Sections 13, 13A of U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 - Claim of Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA) as a creditor for unpaid lease instalments – GNIDA’s claim as a secured creditor by virtue of statutory charge over the Corporate Debtor’s assets – Misrepresentation in the resolution plan regarding GNIDA’s claim affecting the feasibility and viability of the plan. [Para 3, 5, 54(b), 54(c)]

Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process – Form of Claim Submission - Importance of proof of claim rather than the form of submission – Resolution plan failed to acknowledge GNIDA's claim submitted in a different form, leading to incorrect representation of outstanding dues and affecting the rights of GNIDA in the Committee of Creditors (COC). [Para 54(a)]

Resolution Plan – Compliance with IBC Requirements - Examination of the resolution plan for conformity with IBC – Plan’s failure to categorize GNIDA correctly and to account for necessary approvals for using GNIDA's land – NCLT and NCLAT failed to address these key aspects, affecting the viability of the plan. [Para 54(b), 54(c)]

Inherent Powers of Tribunal – Rule 11 of NCLT Rules, 2016 - NCLT’s inherent power to recall its order – Recall application maintainable on grounds of non-service of notice to GNIDA, misrepresentation in resolution plan, and ex parte proceedings affecting the interests of GNIDA. [Para 50, 51]

Decision - Supreme Court set aside the orders of NCLT and NCLAT, directing the resolution plan to be sent back to COC for re-submission after satisfying the parameters set out by the Code. [Para 55]

Appeals of Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority allowed.

Order of NCLAT dated 24.11.2022 set aside.

NCLT’s order dated 04.08.2020 approving the resolution plan is set aside.

Resolution plan to be sent back to COC for re-submission complying with the IBC's parameters

Election Petition – Validity and Compliance with Provisions – Appellant's appeal against the High Court of Kerala's decision to not reject the election petition at the threshold – High Court's decision upheld by the Supreme Court – Non-compliance with Section 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, regarding the number of copies not considered fatal – Appeal dismissed. [Para 1, 7, 16]

Election Practices – Allegations of Corrupt Practices and Non-Compliance with Statutory Provisions – Appellant's election victory challenged on grounds of corrupt practices and non-compliance with Sections 81, 83, and 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 – High Court found sufficient cause of action for trial – Supreme Court upheld High Court's decision on non-compliance not warranting peremptory rejection of the petition. [Para 3-5, 8, 11, 16]

Representation of the People Act, 1951 – Interpretation and Application – Sections 81(3) and 86(1) – High Court and Supreme Court's interpretation that non-compliance with Section 81(3) related to the number of copies submitted does not lead to automatic dismissal of the petition – Emphasis on the need for compliance with statutory requirements without overextension. [Para 10, 13-15]

Judicial Review – Scope and Limitation – The Supreme Court's affirmation of the High Court's decision on procedural aspects of the election petition – Limited scope for interference in the High Court's decision on triable issues under Section 123(3) of the Act of 1951 – Upheld the decision to proceed with the trial on identified issues. [Para 11, 12, 16]

Decision – Supreme Court's Dismissal of Appeal – Upholding of High Court's decision to proceed with the election petition – Rejection of appellant's contentions on non-compliance with statutory provisions and lack of material facts in the petition – Interim order vacated and miscellaneous applications dismissed – Parties to bear their own costs. [Para 16]

Conversion from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II IPC – Appellant’s sentence modified – Special Leave Petition partly allowed – The Supreme Court, after examining the details of the case, finds merit in the argument that the appellant's action leading to the death of the deceased was without intent to kill. The Court alters the conviction from Section 302 (Murder) to Section 304 Part II (Culpable Homicide not amounting to Murder) of the IPC. Acknowledging the appellant’s 14 years of imprisonment excluding remission, the Court orders his immediate release, as he has served more than the maximum punishment for the modified offence. The appeal is thus partially allowed. [Paras 2, 6-9]

Intention in Commission of Offense – Analysis – The Supreme Court notes the lack of intention on the part of the appellant to commit murder. The incident resulted from a fight where the deceased intervened, leading to his unintentional death. This observation forms the basis for converting the offence from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II IPC. [Paras 3, 6]

Period of Custody Considered – The Court takes into account the period already served by the appellant in custody (14 years excluding remission), which surpasses the maximum sentence under Section 304 Part II IPC, leading to the decision for immediate release. [Para 8]

Decision – Immediate Release of Appellant – The Court directs the immediate release of the appellant from Amaravati Central Prison, contingent on his non-involvement in any other offence. [Para 9]