Service Law – Reservation – Migration to Open Category – Relaxation in Qualifying Examination – Reserved category candidates excluded from general merit list despite securing higher marks in TAIT on ground of availing TET relaxation – Held: Relaxation in qualifying examination only enables entry into zone of consideration and does not affect merit determined in main examination – In absence of express prohibition in recruitment rules, such candidates are entitled to migrate to open category [Paras 3, 19, 28, 32].

Eligibility vs Merit – Distinction – TET as qualifying examination and TAIT as merit-based selection – Relaxation in TET marks affects only eligibility and not inter se merit – Merit must be determined solely on performance in main examination without any concession – Level playing field maintained as no relaxation granted in TAIT [Paras 13, 28].

Reservation Principles – Concessions and Level Playing Field – Concessions like relaxation in qualifying marks are intended to bring candidates within zone of consideration and cannot be treated as advantage in final selection – Such concessions do not dilute merit-based competition [Paras 19(i), (ii)].

Non-Migration Rule – Applicability – Principle barring migration applies only where candidate does not meet essential eligibility criteria or where recruitment rules expressly prohibit migration – Where rules are silent, migration permissible – Administrative instructions cannot override statutory scheme [Paras 19(iii)-(v), 31].

Erroneous Reliance on Precedent – High Court relied on precedent dealing with failure to meet essential eligibility criteria – Supreme Court held such reliance misplaced as relaxation in TET was statutorily permitted and did not affect eligibility – Distinction between lack of eligibility and permissible relaxation reiterated [Paras 30-31].

Administrative Instructions – Validity – Commissioner’s directions issued on date of merit list restricting migration based on executive interpretation held unsustainable – Cannot override recruitment framework or settled legal principles [Paras 29-31].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Impugned High Court judgment set aside – Authorities directed to include appellants in open category merit list if they secured marks higher than last selected general category candidate – No order as to costs [Paras 33-35].

Motor Accident Compensation – Appeal by Insurer – Dismissal Without Merits – Tribunal awarded ₹2,72,03,416/- to 22-year-old claimant with 100% functional disability – Insurer’s first appeal dismissed by High Court solely on ground that local manager had given undertaking before Executing Court to satisfy award – No adjudication on merits – Held: Undertaking to comply with award cannot be treated as waiver of statutory right of appeal – High Court erred in not examining legality and correctness of compensation – Matter remitted for fresh consideration [Paras 10, 14–15].

Execution Proceedings – Coercive Attachment – Tribunal issued warrants under Order XXI Rule 43 CPC attaching office furniture, fixtures and computers of insurer – Action taken in haste despite insurer being public sector undertaking – Held: Procedure adopted lacked fairness and judicial application of mind – Alternative modes of recovery available – Coercive steps cannot deprive party of appellate remedy [Paras 11, 13–13.2].

Appellate Jurisdiction – First Appeal on Facts and Law – High Court, as first appellate court, obligated to examine award on law and facts – Mere statement of claimant’s counsel regarding undertaking insufficient to dismiss appeal – At most relevant for stay of execution – Failure to exercise jurisdiction warranted interference under Article 136 [Paras 14–14.1].

Review Petition – Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC – Review dismissed solely reiterating existence of undertaking – Supreme Court held that review rejection also unsustainable since foundational order itself erroneous [Paras 12.2, 15].

Interim Direction – Pending Remand – Considering non-disbursement of compensation and delay likely in remand, Supreme Court directed insurer to release ₹1,00,00,000/- to claimant within four weeks – Directions in Parminder Singh v. Honey Goyal, (2025) 9 SCC 539 to be followed [Para 16].

Judicial Administration – e-Courts and Handwritten Orders – Supreme Court deprecated practice of handwritten and illegible order sheets by Tribunal despite e-Courts project – Directed Registrar General to place order before Chief Justice and circulate to other High Courts for corrective steps – Emphasized transition towards paperless courts [Paras 17–19].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Impugned orders dated 19.11.2025 and 06.01.2026 set aside – Matter remitted to High Court for fresh decision on merits within six months – Direction to release ₹1,00,00,000/- to claimant – Pending applications disposed of.

Criminal Law - Bail – Regular Bail – Abetment of Suicide and Dowry Death Allegations – Appellant husband accused under Sections 108 and 80 BNS and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act in connection with death of wife – High Court rejected bail solely on seriousness of offence – Supreme Court examined FIR, case diary statements, post-mortem and surrounding circumstances – FIR initially alleged mental harassment due to alleged extra-marital relationship leading to suicide – No allegation of dowry demand in FIR or initial statements – Dowry allegations surfaced only in subsequent statements – Improvement in prosecution version noted – Held: Subsequent introduction of dowry allegations weakens prima facie case at bail stage [Paras 13–15].

Criminal Law – Abetment of Suicide vs. Murder – Medical Evidence – Post-mortem revealed multiple ante-mortem injuries including injection marks – Query report opined injuries (needle pricks, scratches) could be self-inflicted – No injury conclusively established as cause of death – Deceased was an anaesthetist and death prima facie due to Atracurium Besylate Injection – Absence of clear medical evidence pointing towards homicidal death – Held: At bail stage, material does not conclusively indicate murder [Paras 10–12, 15].

Evidence – Electronic Evidence – Suicide Note and Audio Recording – Recovery of photograph of handwritten suicide note, WhatsApp chats and audio recording indicating marital discord and emotional distress – Contents suggest suspicion of extra-marital affair and threat of self-harm – Held: Material indicates strained marital relationship but does not, by itself, establish abetment or homicidal intent for purposes of denying bail [Paras 10, 15].

Dowry Death – Prima Facie Assessment at Bail Stage – Allegations of demand of money/dowry absent in FIR and first statements of parents and brother of deceased – Allegations introduced later in investigation – Court cautioned against treating such improved statements as determinative at bail stage – Held: Prima facie case of dowry death not strong enough to justify continued incarceration [Paras 14–15].

Bail Jurisprudence – Post Charge-Sheet Custody – Appellant in custody since 25.03.2025 – Charge-sheet filed and charges framed – Appellant a dentist, not a hardened criminal – No likelihood of absconding or non-cooperation with trial – Continued detention not justified merely on gravity of allegations – Held: Bail deserved with conditions [Paras 15–16].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order of High Court rejecting bail set aside – Appellant directed to be released on regular bail subject to conditions imposed by Trial Court – Appellant to cooperate with trial and not influence witnesses – Observations confined to bail consideration and not to affect merits of trial [Paras 16–17].

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code – Section 60(5) – Residuary Jurisdiction – Limits – NCLT’s jurisdiction under Section 60(5)(c) extends only to questions of law or fact arising out of or in relation to insolvency resolution or liquidation proceedings – Jurisdiction cannot be invoked to adjudicate independent civil or proprietary disputes lacking direct nexus with insolvency – Adjudicating Authority cannot assume power to declare title to intellectual property merely because dispute surfaces during CIRP [Paras 24–26, 37].

Resolution Plan – Binding Nature – Sanctity and Finality – Once a resolution plan is approved by the Committee of Creditors and Adjudicating Authority under Section 31 IBC, it constitutes the charter governing rights and obligations of all stakeholders – NCLT cannot grant rights beyond or contrary to what is recognised in the approved plan – Any declaration conferring additional proprietary rights amounts to impermissible modification of the plan [Paras 19–23, 38].

Trademark Dispute – Declaration of Ownership – Impermissibility during CIRP – Approved resolution plan itself recorded existence of rival claims over trademark “Gloster” and merely reflected beliefs and understanding of Resolution Applicant – In absence of adjudication under appropriate forum or avoidance proceedings, NCLT could not declare trademark as asset of Corporate Debtor or vest ownership in SRA [Paras 11–16, 37–40].

IBC – Sections 43, 45 and 46 – Preferential and Undervalued Transactions – Mandatory Procedure – Adjudicating Authority cannot suo motu invoke Sections 43 or 45 to invalidate transactions in absence of a formal application by Resolution Professional or eligible party under Section 47 – Avoidance of transactions requires specific pleadings, rigorous scrutiny and compliance with principles of natural justice – Summary findings by NCLT held perverse and unsustainable [Paras 42–49].

Resolution Professional – Statutory Role – Failure to Initiate Avoidance Proceedings – Resolution Professional bears statutory responsibility to examine and move appropriate applications in respect of preferential or undervalued transactions – Failure to do so cannot be cured by collateral adjudication while deciding unrelated application under Section 60(5) [Paras 13–15, 48–49].

Section 60(5) IBC – Embassy Property and Gujarat Urja Explained – Embassy Property reiterated that NCLT cannot usurp jurisdiction of civil courts or statutory authorities in matters dehors insolvency – Gujarat Urja carved a narrow exception where dispute arose solely due to insolvency – Trademark ownership dispute herein pre-existed insolvency and did not arise solely from CIRP, thus falling outside Section 60(5) [Paras 26–31, 37].

Trademark Registration during Moratorium – No Automatic Vesting – Registration of trademark during CIRP does not conclusively determine ownership where title itself is disputed – Issues of assignment, effectiveness, moratorium and statutory compliance require adjudication before competent forum under Trade Marks Act or civil law [Paras 40–41].

Natural Justice – Adjudication beyond Pleadings – Illegality – Declaring assignment void as preferential or undervalued without pleadings, notice or opportunity of defence violates principles of natural justice – Parties cannot be rendered worse off in proceedings initiated by them [Paras 44–47].

Decision: Civil Appeal No. 2996 of 2024 dismissed – Civil Appeal No. 4493 of 2024 disposed of – Finding of NCLT declaring trademark “Gloster” as asset of Corporate Debtor set aside – Observations of NCLAT declaring vesting of title in GCL also set aside – All issues of trademark ownership left open to be decided by appropriate forum uninfluenced by observations herein – No order as to costs [Paras 50–52].

Property Law – Registered Sale Deed – Sham Transaction – Presumption of Validity – Threshold for Interference – Registered sale deed carries a strong presumption of validity and genuineness – Registration is a solemn act lending sanctity and certainty to title – Courts should not lightly or casually declare a registered deed to be sham – Burden lies heavily on the party challenging the deed to establish with cogent pleadings and evidence that it was never intended to be acted upon [Paras 31–33].

Evidence Act – Sections 91 & 92 – Oral Evidence – Scope and Limitation – Oral evidence barred where terms of registered document are clear and unambiguous – Exception permitting oral evidence applies only where plea is that document itself was never intended to operate – Mere allegation of nominal or sham nature, without strict proof, insufficient to override statutory bar [Paras 34–37, 41].

Civil Procedure – Pleadings – Order VI Rule 4 CPC – Rigorous Pleading Standard – Allegation that a registered deed is sham requires clear, specific and material particulars akin to fraud – Clever drafting creating illusion of cause of action impermissible – Absence of particulars and internal inconsistencies render claim unbelievable [Paras 34–35, 38–41].

Transfer of Property Act – Section 58(c) – Mortgage by Conditional Sale – Statutory Test – For a transaction to qualify as mortgage by conditional sale, condition of reconveyance must be embodied in the same document effecting the sale – In absence of such condition, transaction cannot be treated as mortgage – Sale deed dated 12.11.1971 held not to be a mortgage by conditional sale [Paras 44–49].

Sale Deed vs. Mortgage – Intention of Parties – Determination – Clear recitals of absolute transfer, full consideration, symbolic delivery of possession, and execution of contemporaneous registered rental agreement establish intent of outright sale – No ambiguity warranting resort to extrinsic evidence [Paras 43–45, 55, 58].

Conduct of Parties – Subsequent Events – Evidentiary Value – Payment of rent for fourteen months under registered lease and failure to seek reconveyance at earliest opportunity negate plea of mortgage – Delay in filing suit and silence in reply to legal notice undermine claim of sham transaction [Paras 52–54, 73].

Admissions – Reply to Legal Notice – Effect – Written reply admitting tenancy, default in rent and conceding right of eviction constitutes strong admission – Plea that reply was issued without understanding contents not pleaded and therefore rejected [Paras 41, 73–75].

Consideration – Inadequacy – Effect on Validity – Mere allegation of inadequacy of consideration does not render sale deed void – In absence of proof that no consideration passed, registered conveyance cannot be invalidated [Para 60].

Mutation and Municipal Records – Relevance – Non-mutation of purchaser’s name and subsequent payment of municipal taxes by vendor do not defeat title under registered sale deed – Revenue and municipal entries do not confer ownership [Paras 61–65].

Appellate Interference – Error by High Court – High Court erred in misapplying Gangabai v. Chhabubai and in discarding statutory presumptions attached to registered instruments – Judgment of first appellate court restoring validity of sale deed upheld [Paras 72–75].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of High Court of Karnataka dated 04.02.2010 set aside – Judgment of First Appellate Court dated 13.12.1999 restored – Suit O.S. No. 39 of 1977 dismissed with costs – Sale Deed and Rental Agreement dated 12.11.1971 held genuine and intended to be acted upon.

Foreign Trade Regulation – Delegated Legislation – Enforceability – Gazette Publication Mandatory – Notification imposing Minimum Import Price (MIP) on steel products uploaded on DGFT website on 05.02.2016 but published in Official Gazette on 11.02.2016 – Held that delegated legislation acquires force of law only upon publication in the Official Gazette as mandated by Section 3 of the FTD&R Act – Uploading on website or prior knowledge cannot substitute statutory mode of promulgation – Law to bind must first exist and be duly published [Paras 16–19, 23].

Interpretation of Statutory Notification – “Date of this Notification” – Expression occurring in Para 2 of Notification No. 38/2015–20 – Held that “date of this Notification” necessarily means the date of its publication in the Official Gazette and not the date of signing or website upload – Notification cannot operate in a fragmented or anticipatory manner – Rights and obligations arise only from Gazette publication [Paras 12, 19–22].

Foreign Trade Policy – Transitional Protection – Para 1.05(b) – Imports earlier freely permitted but subsequently restricted – Transitional safeguard available where irrevocable Letters of Credit were opened prior to imposition of restriction – Para 1.05(b) expressly incorporated into Para 2 of the Notification – Held that appellants who opened irrevocable Letters of Credit before 11.02.2016 and complied with registration requirement are entitled to protection – Denial would defeat certainty in trade and object of parent statute [Paras 20–22].

Minimum Import Price (MIP) – Letters of Credit – Commercial Certainty – Appellants opened irrevocable Letters of Credit on 05.02.2016 prior to Gazette publication – Imposition of MIP based on unpublished notification would offend rule of law and erode commercial confidence – MIP held inapplicable to imports covered by such Letters of Credit [Paras 21–22].

High Court Judgment – Interference by Supreme Court – Delhi High Court held that website uploading constituted sufficient notice though Gazette publication occurred later – Supreme Court set aside High Court judgment – Held that statutory requirement of Gazette publication cannot be diluted by alternative modes of notice – Appeals allowed [Paras 19, 24–25].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Impugned judgment dated 21.12.2018 quashed and set aside – Notification held operative only from 11.02.2016 – Appellants entitled to benefit of Para 1.05(b) of FTP – No order as to costs.

Arbitration – Subsequent Legislation – BOCW Act and Welfare Cess Act – Reimbursement of Cess – Batch of appeals arising out of arbitral awards between NHAI and contractors – Core issue whether BOCW Act, 1996 and Cess Act, 1996 could be treated as “subsequent legislation” under Clauses 14.3 and 70.8 of NHAI contracts – Arbitral tribunals held that liability to pay cess arose only after constitution of Welfare Boards and State notifications – Held: Though Acts were brought into force in 1995–96, they remained dormant and inoperative in absence of implementation machinery – Welfare Boards’ constitution is sine qua non for levy and collection of cess – Arbitral view upheld [Paras 1, 35–37, 50–52].

BOCW Act – Cess Act – Scheme and Implementation – Dormant Legislation – Detailed statutory analysis undertaken – Despite enactment, no effective steps taken by Central or State Governments for years – Welfare Boards not constituted, authorities not appointed – Supreme Court’s monitoring in National Campaign Committee cases noted – Held: Acts remained on paper and could not be enforced till Welfare Boards were constituted – Levy prior thereto impermissible [Paras 13–17, 35–37].

Cess – Fee vs Tax – Quid Pro Quo – Cess under Cess Act held to be a fee earmarked for Welfare Boards – Levy in absence of Boards would result in cess being credited to Consolidated Fund, destroying quid pro quo – Such levy would convert fee into tax and render collection constitutionally suspect – Reinforces necessity of Welfare Boards prior to levy [Paras 36–37, 45].

Contracts – NHAI Standard Clauses – Clause 14.3 and Clause 70.8 – Bid prices to include levies existing 28 days prior to bid submission – Any later statutory or regulatory change causing additional cost qualifies as “subsequent legislation” – Arbitral tribunals correctly linked enforceability of cess to date of State notifications and constitution of Welfare Boards – Interpretation found reasonable and plausible [Paras 38–40, 52].

Judicial Review – Arbitral Awards – Limited Scope – Reiterated settled law under Sections 34 and 37 of Arbitration Act – Courts cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute interpretation of contract – Interference permissible only where award is perverse, patently illegal or against fundamental policy of Indian law – None of these grounds established – Awards upheld [Paras 23–33, 52–53].

Precedents – Dewan Chand Builders and A. Prabhakara Reddy Explained – Observation in Dewan Chand Builders that Acts became operative only upon framing of Rules and constitution of Boards affirmed – A. Prabhakara Reddy clarified that Welfare Board constitution is condition precedent for levy, though registration of workers is not – Harmonious reading applied [Paras 21–22, 50, 53].

Prakash Atlanta (JV) – Execution Proceedings – Retrospective Recovery – Impermissible – Contract entered in 2001 and terminated in 2008 – UP notification enforcing cess issued in 2010 with effect from 04.02.2009 – NHAI sought adjustment during execution of arbitral award in 2012 – Held: Recovery after termination of contract and long after arbitral proceedings impermissible – Deduction held to be afterthought – Appeal allowed [Paras 41–43, 54].

State-wise Analysis – Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand, Gujarat, Odisha – In each case, contractors’ bids preceded State notifications constituting Welfare Boards or enforcing Rules – Liability to pay cess arose only thereafter – Contractors could not have factored cess into bids – Arbitral awards directing reimbursement upheld across all States [Paras 44–48, 51].

Decision: Civil Appeal Nos. 5301, 5302, 5304, 5412 and 5416 of 2025 filed by NHAI dismissed – Civil Appeal No. 4513 of 2025 filed by Prakash Atlanta (JV) allowed – Orders permitting deduction of cess set aside – NHAI directed to refund adjusted amount with interest as per arbitral award [Para 60].

Labour Law - Factories Act, 1948 – Overtime Wages – Interpretation of “Ordinary Rate of Wages” – Inclusion of Allowances – Appeals by Union of India challenging judgment of Madras High Court setting aside CAT order – Core issue whether compensatory allowances like HRA, TA, CWA and SFA form part of “ordinary rate of wages” under Section 59(2) – Held: Section 59(2) expressly includes basic wages plus such allowances as worker is entitled to, excluding only bonus and overtime wages – Executive instructions cannot introduce exclusions not contemplated by Parliament – High Court’s interpretation upheld – Appeals dismissed [Paras 2, 8, 15–17].

Statutory Interpretation – Beneficial Legislation – Literal Rule – Factories Act is a welfare legislation aimed at protecting workers from exploitation – Legislature consciously excluded only bonus and overtime wages – Principle that Legislature does not waste words applied – Any restrictive interpretation curtailing workers’ benefits must be avoided – Liberal construction in favour of employees reaffirmed [Paras 12, 13, 15].

Executive Instructions – Lack of Statutory Authority – Invalidity – Various Office Memorandums issued by Ministries of Defence, Labour and Finance excluding compensatory allowances from overtime calculation – Held: No power vested in Central Government or Ministries to issue clarifications altering Section 59(2) – Rule-making power lies exclusively with State Governments – Executive instructions without statutory backing cannot override the Act [Paras 9–11, 12.1].

Federal Scheme – Factories Act – Powers of State Government – Sections 64, 65, 112 and 113 examined – State Governments alone empowered to frame rules and issue exemptions under Chapter VI – Central Government limited to issuing directions to States for implementation – Ministries cannot assign divergent meanings to Parliamentary enactments [Paras 9–10].

Parity and Uniform Application of Law – Same statutory provision cannot be interpreted differently by different Ministries – Railway Ministry including HRA and TA for overtime calculation highlighted – Discriminatory interpretation by Defence Ministry rejected – Law must operate uniformly across establishments [Paras 14–14.1].

Precedents – Distinguishing Earlier Decisions – Bridge and Roofs Co. Ltd. case relating to production bonus under EPF Act held inapplicable – Govind Bapu Salvi and Suresh C. Baskey cases distinguished as relating to non-payment or notional inclusion of HRA where quarters allotted – None supported exclusion of allowances actually paid while computing overtime [Paras 11–11.2].

Overruling – Kerala High Court Judgment – Decision in V.E. Jossie & Ors. v. Flag Officers Commanding-in-Chief taking contrary view expressly held not to lay down correct law – Supreme Court affirms inclusion of compensatory allowances for overtime wages [Para 16].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Judgment of Madras High Court affirmed – Compensatory allowances includible in “ordinary rate of wages” for overtime computation – No order as to costs [Paras 17–18].

Family Law - Marriage – Irretrievable Breakdown – Article 142, Constitution of India – Divorce Granted Despite Opposition – Marriage solemnised in 2012 – Parties cohabited only for 65 days and living separately for more than a decade – More than 40 civil and criminal proceedings initiated inter se – Repeated failure of mediation including before Supreme Court – Held: Marriage completely shattered beyond repair – Continuation of marital tie would serve no purpose – Supreme Court competent to dissolve marriage notwithstanding lack of statutory ground under Hindu Marriage Act and despite objection of one spouse [Paras 10, 15, 20, 26].

Article 142 – Scope and Exercise – Complete Justice – Constitution Bench decision in Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan followed – Supreme Court can dissolve marriage where factual foundation of irretrievable breakdown is firmly established – Factors such as long separation, multiplicity of litigation, bitterness, failure of reconciliation and absence of children considered – Discretion exercised to do complete justice [Paras 11–11.2, 15–16].

Multiplicity of Litigation – Abuse of Judicial Process – Matrimonial Disputes – Parties engaged in extensive civil, criminal and execution proceedings across multiple courts for over a decade – Courts cannot be converted into battlegrounds for settling personal scores – Such litigation chokes judicial system and extinguishes possibility of reconciliation – Strong caution sounded against criminalisation of matrimonial disputes [Paras 21–25].

Transfer Petition – Conversion into Final Relief – Though petition initially sought transfer of proceedings, Court proceeded to finally decide matrimonial dispute invoking Article 142 – All pending matrimonial, civil and criminal proceedings arising out of marital relationship directed to be disposed of to give quietus to dispute [Paras 18, 26–28].

Perjury Proceedings – Exception Carved Out – Sanctity of Justice System – Proceedings under Section 340 CrPC and Section 379 r/w 215 BNSS alleging perjury and fabrication of evidence directed to continue – Held: No party can be permitted to pollute the stream of justice – Perjury proceedings stand on independent footing and cannot be quashed merely due to dissolution of marriage [Paras 28–29].

Alimony – Waiver – Petitioner-wife made no claim for permanent alimony – All prior claims held settled – No further financial directions issued [Para 26].

Costs – Deterrence – Both parties penalised with costs of ₹10,000 each for indulging in prolonged and acrimonious litigation – Amount directed to be deposited with Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association [Para 32].

Decision: Marriage dissolved by decree of divorce under Article 142 – All matrimonial and allied proceedings disposed of except specified perjury proceedings – Transfer Petition disposed of – Costs imposed on both parties [Paras 26–33].