Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code (IBC) – Homebuyers’ Claims – Resolution Plan – Appeal Allowed – Appellants booked flat in 2010, paid nearly entire consideration; Corporate Debtor (IREO) went into CIRP; claim submitted and admitted by Resolution Professional – NCLT and NCLAT held claim was belated, granted only 50% refund – Held: Once claim is verified and reflected in creditors’ list, cannot be relegated to residual category – Appellants entitled to possession – [Paras 28–37, 39–42].

Homebuyers – Verified Claims – Binding Effect – Once a claim is verified, admitted, and published in creditors’ list, it acquires full legal recognition – To disregard such claims undermines CIRP fairness – Clause 18.4(ii) read with (vi)(a) governs; Clause 18.4(xi) applies only to unverified or uninformed claims – [Paras 32–36].

Resolution Plan – Distinction Between Verified and Belated Claims – Clause 18.4 draws clear lines – Verified claims must be honoured; only unverified/belated ones fall to refund – Misapplication by NCLT/NCLAT corrected – [Paras 34–37].

Equitable Consideration – Protection of Homebuyers – Court emphasised hardships of individual buyers investing life savings – Relegating them to refund despite admitted claims runs contrary to IBC framework – [Para 38].

Decision – Judgment of NCLAT (10.01.2025) and NCLT (26.07.2023) set aside – Respondents directed to execute conveyance deed and hand over possession of Apartment No. GBD-00-001, Block D, IREO Rise (Gardenia), Mohali, within two months – Appeal allowed – No order as to costs – [Paras 39–42].

Tender Law – NIT Clauses 5(D) & 5(B) – JV Agreement – Appeal Partly Allowed – Appellant disqualified for not submitting JV agreement though submitted work execution certificate confirming 45% share in prior consortium – High Court upheld disqualification and also held appellant lacked spare washery capacity – Held: Clause 5(D) did not mandate JV agreement itself; certificate sufficed; rejection contrary to NIT terms – However, spare capacity issue under Clause 5(B) requires reconsideration – Matter remanded – [Paras 14–21, 22–25].

NIT Clause 5(D) – Past Experience – Proof of Proportionate Share – Certificate vs. JV Agreement – Work execution certificate from MSMC confirming 45% JV share and completed works satisfied Clause 5(D) – Absence of JV agreement not fatal where NIT did not expressly require it – Tender authority erred in disqualifying bid – [Paras 15–20].

Scope of Judicial Review – High Court’s Overreach – Revisional Court cannot travel beyond reasons given by Tender Committee – High Court erred in disqualifying appellant on spare capacity (Clause 5(B)) without issue being raised or tested – [Paras 22–24].

Decision – Impugned judgment and Committee decision set aside insofar as Clause 5(D) disqualification – Issue of spare washery capacity under Clause 5(B) remanded to High Court for fresh determination – Appeal partly allowed – [Paras 25–26].

Criminal Appeal – Conviction for Trespass and Assault – IPC Ss. 447 & 323 – Acquittal – Appellants convicted by Trial Court and affirmed by High Court despite closure report finding land belonged to State – Complainant admitted prior enmity and gave only self-serving testimony corroborated by interested witnesses – Held: Prosecution evidence weak, no proof of ownership or possession by complainant, complaint a counterblast to proceedings under S.107 CrPC – Conviction unsustainable – Appeal allowed; appellants acquitted [Paras 6–10].

Probation of Offenders Act – Trial Court had granted probation under S.4 despite conviction – However, since conviction itself found unsustainable by Supreme Court, benefit of probation became redundant [Paras 2, 5, 10].

Appellate Scrutiny – High Court erred in mechanically affirming trial court findings without appreciating lack of independent corroboration and ignoring Investigating Officer’s closure report – Supreme Court intervened to prevent miscarriage of justice [Paras 7–8].

Decision – Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; appellants acquitted; bail bonds discharged [Para 10].

Consumer Law - Medical Negligence – Scope of Pleadings – Consumer Fora Jurisdiction – Complaint alleged negligence only in post-delivery treatment – NCDRC held negligence in antenatal care despite no such pleading – Held: Fora cannot build a new case for complainant; decision must rest within pleadings [Paras 26-30].

Medical Negligence – Expert Opinion – Reports of five independent Medical Boards – All concluded no gross negligence in treatment of deceased mother and newborn – Findings entitled to weight; Courts and Fora not to substitute themselves as medical experts [Paras 17-22, 23-24].

Medical Negligence – Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur – Not applicable merely because patient died – Death due to atonic postpartum haemorrhage (PPH), a known complication with high mortality, does not by itself prove negligence – Failure of treatment ≠ negligence unless supported by cogent evidence [Paras 22-23].

Consumer Protection – Jurisdiction – Fora must adjudicate on pleaded case – NCDRC erred in introducing new ground of liability based on antenatal care, contrary to complainant’s pleadings – Such approach beyond its power and unsustainable [Paras 26-30].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Orders of SCDRC (2007) and NCDRC (2012) set aside – Complaint dismissed – Respondent directed to refund ₹10,00,000 received in interim, in monthly instalments of ₹1,00,000, apportioned between insurer and doctors – Parties to bear own costs [Paras 30-31].

Industrial Disputes—Section 11A—Scope of interference by Tribunal—Domestic enquiry held fair—Tribunal cannot re-appreciate evidence as an appellate forum – Tribunal and High Court exceeded jurisdiction by re-evaluating evidence after the enquiry’s fairness had attained finality – Held: Interference impermissible when Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities’ findings are based on evidence and are not perverse [Paras 12, 39-41]

Service Law—Bank employees—Integrity and probity—Higher standard in banking sector – Supreme Court reiterates that absolute devotion, integrity and honesty are sine qua non for bank employees—Courts should be slow to dilute discipline in such cases [Para 38]

Departmental proceedings vs Criminal trial—Standards of proof—Acquittal in criminal case does not vitiate concluded departmental findings – Standard of proof differs—Subsequent criminal acquittal has no effect on earlier domestic enquiry or the punishment if enquiry was otherwise valid [Para 10]

Evidence in Disciplinary Enquiry—Non-examination of some witnesses—Admissions and documentary material – Where the record (including employee’s statements and contemporaneous bank documents) supports guilt, adequacy/reliability of evidence cannot be canvassed before Tribunal—Findings tested on preponderance of probabilities [Paras 16-19, 39]

Punishment—Compulsory retirement—Nature of consequences—Retiral benefits – Compulsory retirement does not deny gratuity and other pensionary benefits—which are denied only on dismissal—Tribunal’s view that reinstatement was necessary for retiral benefits is erroneous [Paras 40-41]

Decision Appeal Allowed – Orders of Tribunal and High Court set aside—Order of Disciplinary Authority imposing compulsory retirement affirmed—Respondent entitled to gratuity and other pensionary benefits as per law—Appeal disposed of [Paras 41-43]

Expunction of Adverse Remarks – Counsel’s duty of candour – Article 136 – Remarks Expunged – High Court, while deciding W.P. No. 6228 of 2022, recorded displeasure at the conduct of counsel (appellant) for not disclosing that the constitutional validity of amended Rule 6 (upheld in W.P. No. 18699/2020) had not been overturned – Appellant tendered unconditional apology and asserted he was not counsel in the Arushi Mahant matter; omission, if any, was bona fide – Held: In the facts, adverse observations in para 7 of the High Court’s order were avoidable and are expunged as against the appellant [Paras 4–5, 7, 9–10].

Procedural Consequence – Order on modification application – Article 136 – High Court order quashed – Since the adverse remarks stand expunged, the Supreme Court also set aside the High Court’s order dated 05/01/2024 dismissing IA No. 17812/2023 (seeking modification to delete the remarks) – Appeals disposed of accordingly [Paras 11–12].

Non-appearance of Respondents – Proceeding ex parte – Despite service, no one appeared for the State/Respondents; Court proceeded on record and submissions of appellant – Did not affect the merits of expunction granted in peculiar facts [Para 8].

Professional Impropriety – Standard for judicial censure – Appellate caution – While counsel owe a duty of full disclosure when citing precedent, courts should exercise restraint in recording personal strictures unless clearly warranted – In this case, possibility of bona fide oversight justified expunction [Paras 4, 9–10].

Motor Accident Claim – Compensation – Income Assessment – Appeal Allowed – Deceased with diploma in pharmacy engaged in distributorship and cooperative bank activities – Tribunal fixed monthly income at Rs.6,000/-, High Court reduced to Rs.5,500/- without reasons – Held: Unjustified – Considering overall circumstances, monthly income reasonably fixed at Rs.12,000/- – Compensation recalculated at Rs.20,80,000/- – [Paras 2–5, 6–7].

Assessment of Income – Incremental Approach – Following Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. (2011) 13 SCC 236, daily wagers earned Rs.4,500/- in 2004; by 2010 could earn Rs.7,500/- – Deceased with higher qualifications/business reasonably taken at Rs.12,000/- p.m. – [Paras 5–6].

Consortium – Wider Entitlement – As per Somwati, not just spouse but children and parents also entitled to consortium – Rs.40,000/- each awarded – [Para 6].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Compensation enhanced to Rs.20,80,000/- with 6% interest – Deduction of amounts already paid – To be disbursed as per Tribunal’s apportionment within 3 months – [Paras 7–8].

Property Law – Declaratory Relief – Section 34 Specific Relief Act – Appeal Dismissed – Plaintiff relied on sale deed (150 sq.m); trial and first appellate courts dismissed suit citing discrepancies in revenue records (109.70 sq.m) and manure/waste presence – High Court reversed, holding findings perverse – SC upheld High Court: mere dumping waste cannot establish possession; corrected revenue records support plaintiff’s title and possession – Appeal dismissed – [Paras 2–12, 14].

Declaratory Relief – Scope under Section 34 SRA – Even without explicit recovery claim, declaration maintainable where defendant fails to prove possession – Defendant’s oral partition claim unsupported by evidence – [Paras 6–12].

Revenue Records – Evidentiary Value – Corrections made before suit maintain sanctity unless disproved – Trial Court erred in doubting correction without evidence – [Paras 10–11].

Possession – Dumping Manure/Waste – Not Equivalent to Lawful Possession – Plaintiff’s title deed and evidence of vendor’s possession prevail over defendant’s assertions – [Paras 8–9, 12].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – High Court judgment affirming plaintiff’s ownership and possession upheld – Pending applications disposed of – [Paras 14–15].

Bail in UAPA Case – Continued Incarceration – Bail Granted – Accused facing charges under UAPA and IPC for alleged association with banned organization and money transactions – Appellant incarcerated for over 2 years and 7 months – Only 3 witnesses examined so far – Trial likely to be prolonged – Some co-accused already granted bail – Court finds overt act attributable to appellant not so grave to deny bail – Held: Bail granted with conditions imposed by Trial Court [Paras 3–8].

Trial Expeditiousness – Direction to Trial Court – Supreme Court directs Trial Court to conclude trial within one year considering prolonged incarceration and slow pace of trial [Para 10].

Consequences of Non-Cooperation – Conditions for Cancellation of Bail – Court grants liberty to prosecution to seek cancellation of bail if the appellant is involved in future illegal activity or does not cooperate in trial – Preventive safeguards added to balance liberty and security [Para 9].

Decision – Impugned order denying bail set aside – Appeal allowed – Bail granted to appellant subject to trial court’s terms and conditions [Paras 8, 11].