Civil Appeal – Review Petitions – Challenge to a common judgment and order dated 06.09.2022 passed by this Court in Civil Appeal No. 1661 of 2020 and Civil Appeal No. 2568 of 2020 – Review Petitioners aggrieved by the judgment seek a review – Scope of review discussed. [Para 1-6]

Review Jurisdiction – The power to review judgments is conferred by Article 137 of the Constitution of India, subject to applicable laws and rules – Supreme Court Rules, 2013, and Order XLVII CPC govern the procedure for review – Review can be sought not only by parties to the judgment but also by “aggrieved persons.” [Para 7]

Review Criteria – Review is allowed only on specific grounds, such as the existence of an error apparent on the face of the record – The purpose of a review is not to reargue the case but to correct manifest errors. [Para 8-10]

Coordination Bench – A co-ordinate Bench cannot comment on the judgment of another co-ordinate Bench of equal strength – Subsequent decisions of co-ordinate or larger Benches by themselves cannot be grounds for review. [Para 20-23]

Scope of Review – The Review Petitioners failed to establish an error apparent on the face of the record in the impugned judgment – The judgment had considered the relevant provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and the Waterfall mechanism under Section 53 – Review dismissed. [Para 24-27]

Civil Appeal - Challenge to the High Court's order in a Writ Appeal - Appellant's representation for appointment as Assistant Engineer and seniority dispute - Appellant's appointment as Assistant Engineer - Seniority dispute between appellant and private-respondents - Chief Engineer's provisional and final seniority lists - Promotion and correction of promotion dates - Writ petition filed by private-respondents - High Court's direction to consider private-respondents' representation - Appeal against the High Court's order. [Para 1-13]

Seniority Dispute - Challenge to the seniority list - Delay in challenging the seniority list - Examination of applicability of precedent - Different quotas for promotion based on different categories - Appellant and private-respondents falling in different categories with separate quotas - Dismissal of the appeal as meritless. [Para 18-21]

Criminal Appeal – Bail Application – Appellant seeks bail in prosecutions related to RC No. 0032022A00553 under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Enforcement Case Information Report No. HIU-II/14/2022 under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Various legal issues raised – Scope of constitutional protection, interpretation of PML Act, prosecution under PML Act, and more – Lengthy trial expected – Allegations of kickback and money laundering – Co-accused granted bail – Hearsay statements and evidence challenged – Destruction of evidence alleged – Complex web of transactions through hawala route – Appellant's possession of proceeds of crime – Destruction of mobile phones – Appellant's power and influence – Statements of witnesses and documents at risk. [Para 2-7]

Statutory Interpretation – Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act - court's role in bail applications is not to determine guilt but to assess broad probabilities. It underlined the importance of a tentative finding based on the available evidence while considering bail applications, and that such findings won't prejudice the merits of the case during the trial. [Para 8]

Bribery Allegation Examination – scrutinized the allegation regarding a bribe payment of Rs. 2,20,00,000 to the appellant, Manish Sisodia, which was not included in the CBI's chargesheet, making it difficult to regard as 'proceeds of crime' under the PML Act. [Para 10]

Proceeds of Crime Utilization – Analyzed the claim of proceeds of crime being used for election funding in Goa by AAP, a juristic person, and the alleged transfer of Rs. 45,00,00,000 through Hawala for the same purpose - lack of specific allegations on the involvement of the appellant, Manish Sisodia, in this transfer. [Para 11-12]

Money Laundering - Offence Scope – examining the terms 'generation', 'possession', and their implications in light of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Mohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan. It also referred to the judgment in Y. Balaji v. Karthik Desari and Another for understanding the three 'P's principle - person, process or activity, and the product, in the context of money laundering offence under Section 3 of the PML Act. [Para 13-17]

Conspiracy and Abetment Exclusion – offence of conspiracy and abetment under Sections 120/120B and Sections 107/108 of the IPC are not applicable to offences under the PML Act, elaborating on the wide scope of Section 3 of the PML Act concerning involvement in money laundering activities. [Para 18]

Mobile Phone Destruction Allegation – its correctness would be determined post evidence recording, but it's not a weighty factor for bail decision given the detention period undergone by the appellant. [Para 20]

Proceeds of Crime Calculation – The Court deliberated on the calculation of proceeds of crime based on the new excise policy's operation, analyzing the difference in profit margins and the one-time license fee collected from wholesale distributors. The Court highlighted the alleged unlawful gains to private individuals at the expense of the government exchequer and the public, as per the complaint filed under the PML Act and the charge-sheet under the Prevention of Corruption (PoC) Act. [Para 21-22]

PoC Act Section 7 - Applicability: Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 7 -  where a public servant engages in corrupt practices, either directly or indirectly, by abusing their position for undue advantage, regardless of the performance of their public duty. The definitions and examples provided elucidate the scope and intent of these clauses, emphasizing the criminality of obtaining, accepting, or attempting to obtain undue advantage through corrupt or illegal means. [Para 23]

Excise Policy Alteration and Conspiracy - alteration in excise policy, led by appellant Manish Sisodia, aimed at enhancing commission rates to facilitate kickbacks and bribes from wholesale distributors, highlighting a well-orchestrated conspiracy. [Para 24]

Bail Denial - Economic Offence - Despite the grave economic offence allegations against appellant Manish Sisodia, the Court expressed concerns over the prolonged incarceration. The references to previous judgments reiterate the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution, and the necessity for case-by-case consideration for bail, even in grave economic offences, emphasizing the importance of securing the accused's presence for trial. [Para 25-28]

Court provides liberty to appellant Manish Sisodia to seek bail afresh in case of changed circumstances or protracted trial. The provision for interim bail in case of medical emergencies and the overarching emphasis on the right to a speedy trial reflect the Court's inclination towards upholding constitutional mandates while ensuring law enforcement. [Para 29]

Bail Dismissal - appeals are dismissed with a clarifying note that observations made herein are for disposal purposes of the present appeals, not to influence the trial court's proceedings on the merits of the case, ensuring the adherence to legal protocols and a fair evaluation of evidence in the subsequent trial. [Para 30]

Maintainability of Second Petition – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Core question of whether a second petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable when the grounds for challenge were available during the filing of the first petition. [Para 1-2]

Factual Background – Case involved allegations of irregularities in the construction of toilets and embezzlement of public funds under various Sections of the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner was among the accused. [Para 4-5]

First Petition – Petitioner's first petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was to challenge the Government’s sanction order. The High Court granted liberty to approach the Trial Court for this matter. [Para 6]

Second Petition – Petitioner filed a second petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the charge sheet and cognizance order, which was dismissed by the Allahabad High Court on grounds of maintainability. [Para 7]

Judicial Precedents – Reference to various judgments that dealt with the maintainability of a second petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in different circumstances. [Para 8-10]

Court's View – Court concurs with the Madras High Court's observations, stressing that a second petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable if the grounds were available at the time of the first petition. [Para 11]

Decision – Allahabad High Court's order upheld, stating that the petitioner was not at liberty to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court a second time for the same issue. Special Leave Petition dismissed as devoid of merit. [Para 12]

Civil Appeal – Recruitment of Ex-Servicemen as Village Development Officers – Appeal against High Court’s rejection of appellants’ claims for recruitment due to non-fulfillment of Ex-Servicemen status and essential qualification at the time of application – Appellants argued issuance of appointment letters and later release from Armed Forces as a valid claim for Ex-Servicemen status – Essential qualification of C.C.C. Certificate argued as met through equivalent qualifications. [Para 3-7]

Ex-Servicemen Eligibility – State argues appellants’ ineligibility as Ex-Servicemen on cut-off date of application based on continued employment in Armed Forces – Lack of C.C.C. Certificate on advertisement date further contended as grave misconduct – Mention of prospective release dates in certificates not accepted as proof of Ex-Servicemen status on essential date. [Para 8-12]

Judicial Analysis – Supreme Court upholds High Court’s judgment on basis of established law regarding eligibility cut-off on last date of application submission – Arguments of prospective Ex-Servicemen status and equivalent qualifications rejected – Reference to precedents emphasizing eligibility assessment as per advertisement’s terms unless extended by recruiting authority. [Para 14-18]

Decision – Appeal dismissed for lack of merit with Impugned Judgment upheld – No recovery of payments for period worked as Village Development Officers – Emphasis on adherence to recruitment advertisement’s eligibility criteria and cut-off dates. [Para 19-21]

Civil Appeal – Execution Proceedings under Order XXI of the CPC – Appeal by landlord against the delay and abuse of process in execution proceedings by the tenants – Historical delay in execution of decrees highlighted – Initial eviction decree obtained on the grounds of non-payment of rent, with decree holder entitled to execute the decree as per order dated 12.02.2013 – Challenge by judgment debtors of the order dated 12.02.2013, almost four years later, rejected by executing court but allowed in revision, leading to further appeal. [Para 1-3]

Section 47 CPC – Scope and Limitation – Section 47 mandates all questions relating to execution, discharge, or satisfaction of the decree to be determined by the executing court, without going behind the decree – Executing court’s jurisdiction is limited, not allowing a re-examination of the validity of the order allowing the execution of the decree unless such order is without jurisdiction. [Para 4-5]

Delay in Execution – Concern of the Court – Reiteration of the Supreme Court’s concern over inordinate delays in execution proceedings – Reference to case law (Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi and Others) condemning abuse of process in execution, with directions for expedited execution provided. [Para 6]

Specific Case Facts – Res Judicata – Application of principles of res judicata in execution proceedings – Initial order (12.02.2013) allowing execution was never challenged, establishing finality – Attempt by judgment debtors to challenge this order on 19.01.2017, rejected by executing court on grounds of maintainability, but allowed in revision – Further appeal to Bombay High Court, raising res judicata, but High Court refrained from addressing the issue due to its non-raising in earlier stages. [Para 7-9]

Decision – Setting Aside Lower Courts’ Orders – Supreme Court finding error in High Court’s non-interference and appellate court’s allowance of revision against executing court’s order – Orders of appellate court and High Court set aside, upholding the order of the executing court dated 28.09.2017 – Direction to executing court to complete execution expeditiously within a stipulated timeframe of six months. [Para 8]

Conviction Appeal – Rape under Section 376 IPC – Appellant convicted for rape by Trial Court, upheld by High Court – Challenging both the validity of the conviction and the determination of the prosecutrix’s age crucial for the case – Appeal before Supreme Court for adjudication. [Para 1]

Prosecution Case – Allegation of rape on minor prosecutrix by appellant – Initial settlement attempt through marriage proposal, failed leading to filing of FIR – Prosecution brought forward school register, medical examination report and testimonies to establish the case. [Para 2-3]

Age Discrepancy – Conflict between school register and medical examination regarding prosecutrix’s age – Critical to ascertain whether consent for sexual intercourse could be considered – Lack of solid evidence and failure to conduct bone ossification test leaves age undetermined. [Para 4, 8-9]

Testimony of Prosecutrix – Delay in reporting the incident, improbabilities in narrative, and initial willingness for marriage settlement casts doubt on the credibility of the rape allegation – Sole testimony of prosecutrix requires cautious examination, especially when conflicting with other evidences. [Para 5-6]

Medical Examination – Medical report indicating no force used, and well-developed secondary sex characteristics – medical evidence not conclusively determining the age of the prosecutrix – Failure to conduct further tests to ascertain age leaves crucial gaps in prosecution’s case. [Para 7, 9]

Consensual Act Vs Rape – Uncertainty around prosecutrix’s age and circumstances suggesting possibility of consensual act – Absence of clear evidence establishing non-consensual sexual intercourse – Prosecution’s failure to prove beyond doubt the age and the non-consensual nature of act. [Para 10-11]

Decision – Supreme Court finds prosecution’s evidence inadequate in establishing the age of prosecutrix and the non-consensual act – Acquittal of appellant from charges of Section 376 IPC – Appeal allowed, previous judgments set aside, bail bonds of appellant discharged. [Para 12]

Civil Appeal – Rejection of Plaint – Examination of Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) concerning the legality of partial plaint rejection – High Court’s erroneous application on both counts; misapplication of principles governing Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, and impermissible partial rejection of the plaint. Appeal allowed, impugned order set aside, and application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC dismissed restoring the suit concerning properties mentioned under Schedule A of the Plaint. [Para 2, 10, 12]

Legal Principles – Order VII Rule 11, CPC – Thorough examination of the principles pertaining to the rejection of plaints under Order VII Rule 11, CPC, as enumerated in recent precedents – The court’s duty to scrutinize the plaint for disclosure of a cause of action, strict adherence to conditions, and the mandatory nature of the provision highlighted. [Para 6-7]

Property Dispute – Joint Family Property – Dispute concerning the true ownership and possession of joint family properties amidst allegations of nominal sale deeds, reconveyance practices, and requests for partition – Examination of averments in the plaint disclosing a cause of action concerning joint family properties, erroneous pre-judgment of facts by the High Court. [Para 8-10]

Precedential Analysis – Reference to prior judgments clarifying the impermissibility of partial plaint rejection under Order VII Rule 11, CPC – Emphasis on the principle that a plaint can either be rejected as a whole or not at all, but not in part, as upheld in previous Supreme Court decisions. [Para 11-12]

Direction for Expeditious Trial – Due to the long pendency since the institution of the suit in 2005, the Trial Court is urged to expedite the trial process and dispose of the suit promptly. [Para 14]

Insurance Appeal – Recovery Right – Challenge against the High Court’s reversal of Tribunal Award granting recovery right to the petitioner-insurance company from vehicle owners, following a motor accident due to a driver with a fake license – Special Leave Petition filed by aggrieved insurance company. [Para 1]

Motor Vehicle Accident – Fatal Accident Compensation – Dependents of deceased seeking compensation under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 from Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – Tribunal’s Award in favor of dependents but denial of liability by petitioner-insurance company due to driver’s fake license – Appeal by vehicle owners leading to High Court’s order in favor of vehicle owners. [Para 2-3]

Insurance Policy Breach – Driving License Verification – High Court’s finding against insurance company’s claim of policy breach by vehicle owners – Absence of stipulation for verification of driver’s license in policy or statute – Rejection of insurance company’s recovery claim from vehicle owners. [Para 3-8]

Judicial Precedents – Previous Supreme Court decisions regarding insurance company’s liability in case of driver’s fake license – Emphasis on proving willful breach by insured to absolve insurer of liability – Requirement for insurance company to prove breach, with burden of proof on insurer. [Para 9-13]

Insurance Company’s Liability – Due Diligence by Vehicle Owner – Absence of evidence proving vehicle owner’s negligence in verifying driver’s license – Dismissal of insurance company’s recovery claim and Special Leave Petition – Criticism towards insurance companies for raising unmerited pleas and pursuing appeals, wasting judicial resources. Appeal Dismissed. [Para 14-16]