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.

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.

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].

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.

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].

Criminal Law – Criminal Intimidation – Section 506 IPC – Essential Ingredients – Intention to Cause Alarm – Mere use of threatening words without intention to cause alarm does not constitute offence of criminal intimidation – Prosecution must prima facie establish intention to cause alarm irrespective of actual alarm caused – Vague and general allegations insufficient to sustain prosecution [Paras 6–7].

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of Proceedings – Improved Statement under Section 164 CrPC – Allegations against appellant absent in initial statement under Section 161 CrPC – Name of appellant surfaced after seven days through improved version in Section 164 statement – Such material improvement creates serious doubt about prosecution version – Proceedings based solely on such improved statement liable to be quashed [Paras 5–6].

Evidence – Contradictions Between Section 161 and Section 164 CrPC Statements – Statement under Section 161 CrPC contained no allegation of threat by appellant – Subsequent Section 164 CrPC statement introduced vague reference to “uncle” allegedly threatening prosecutrix – Timing and contradiction weaken prosecution case at threshold stage [Paras 5–6].

Criminal Law – Vague Allegations – Abuse of Process – Vague reference to “an uncle” without specific role or overt act cannot disclose offence under Section 506 IPC – Criminal prosecution cannot be sustained on conjectures or generalized accusations unsupported by cogent material [Para 7].

Advocates – Professional Duty – Criminal Liability – Mere presence of an advocate or giving advice in professional capacity, absent foundational facts of intimidation or coercion, cannot amount to criminal intimidation – Criminal law cannot be set in motion to harass professionals without prima facie material [Para 7].

Inherent Powers / Appellate Jurisdiction – Interference at Threshold – Where uncontroverted allegations do not disclose commission of offence, continuation of proceedings amounts to abuse of process of law – Appellate interference justified to prevent miscarriage of justice [Paras 6–8].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned order of High Court refusing to quash proceedings set aside – FIR No. 389/2022 and consequential proceedings quashed qua the appellant alone – Proceedings to continue against other accused before jurisdictional trial court [Para 8].

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].

Writ Jurisdiction – Abuse of Process – Civil Suit Pending – High Court allowed writ petition seeking demolition of appellant’s construction on disputed property without issuing notice – Held: Respondent No.1 had already filed a civil suit seeking identical relief – Filing writ petition was an abuse of process to bypass the suit – Petition not maintainable and liable to be dismissed [Paras 6–10]

Natural Justice – Violation – Appellant (respondent No.6 in writ petition) was not issued notice nor heard before adverse order passed – Held: Decision rendered without hearing affected party violates principles of natural justice – Impugned orders quashed [Paras 3, 7]

Civil Procedure – Order 2 Rule 2 CPC – Bar on Multiple Proceedings – Writ petition filed seeking same relief already claimed in pending civil suit – Held: Relief could not be pursued simultaneously in separate forums – Relief must be sought only through the suit [Paras 9–10]

Relief – Suit to Proceed Independently – Supreme Court clarifies that the suit before District Judge may continue unaffected by this decision – All actions taken pursuant to High Court order quashed – Appellant permitted to use premises subject to outcome of civil suit [Paras 12–14]

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s order in writ petition and review dismissed – Writ petition held to be an abuse of process – Suit may proceed independently – All consequential actions quashed – No costs imposed [Paras 10–15]

Writ Jurisdiction – Delay and Disputed Facts – Article 226, Constitution of India – High Court Erred – High Court entertained a writ petition filed after a gross and unexplained delay of over 10 years, involving seriously disputed questions of fact, despite previous similar litigation being withdrawn – Such belated petitions with disputed facts are generally not maintainable under Article 226 – The High Court's approach was self-contradictory and erroneous [Paras 30, 36, 41, 61, 70].

Contract Law – Apartment Buyers' Agreement – Fraud/Misrepresentation – High Court Erred – High Court's finding that developers duped buyers by misrepresenting facts in the Apartment Buyers' Agreement was conjectural and unsupported by foundational pleadings or credible evidence – The agreement itself was not challenged in the writ proceedings, and allegations of fraud were raised belatedly in a rejoinder – Such conclusions are unsustainable in law [Paras 61, 62, 77, 86-87].

Urban Planning Law – De-licensing of Land Use – Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 – Legally Permissible – High Court held that "de-licensing" of residential land for commercial purposes was without statutory authority – However, the DTCP's subsequent detailed reasoned order (5th August 2021) found such de-licensing and re-licensing for commercial use to be legally permissible, supported by prior legal opinion and retrospectively validated by Section 3(3A) of the 1975 Act, introduced by the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas (Second Amendment and Validation) Act, 2020 – The Supreme Court found the High Court's conclusion on this point erroneous [Paras 43-45, 51, 71, 83, 86].

Environmental Law – Jurisdiction of NGT – National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, Section 14 – NGT Lacked Jurisdiction – NGT intervened in issues related to building plan violations and land use changes that were already subject to High Court proceedings – The Supreme Court held that these issues did not constitute a "substantial question relating to environment" under Section 14 of the NGT Act, 2010, and were intrinsically connected to matters under adjudication before the High Court – NGT was not justified in interfering with such issues [Paras 94, 102, 104, 105, 107].

Criminal Procedure – CBI Investigation Direction – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 173(2) – Uncalled For – High Court's direction for a CBI investigation was based on unverified and inconclusive material – While CBI's subsequent chargesheet found misrepresentation in the Apartment Buyers' Agreement, it found no criminality in the de-licensing process – The direction was deemed uncalled for, and the High Court's judgment prejudiced the outcome of the pending criminal trial [Paras 37, 38, 75, 76].

Judicial Review – Effect of Subsequent Administrative Orders – Prejudice to Pending Litigation – High Court Erred – The DTCP, pursuant to a High Court direction in a connected writ petition, passed a detailed reasoned order on 5th August 2021, ruling out illegality in the developer's actions – This order is under challenge in a separate pending writ petition – The High Court's impugned judgment, by quashing the earlier orders, prejudiced the outcome of this pending writ petition and foreclosed available defenses of the appellants-developers [Paras 28, 39, 42, 63, 71, 74, 78].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment dated 10th July, 2020 rendered by the High Court is set aside – Proceedings before the NGT shall remain in abeyance till disposal of Civil Writ Petition No. 6047 of 2025 before the High Court, which shall proceed uninfluenced by this judgment – No order as to costs [Paras 77, 78, 79, 109, 110, 111].