Arbitration Law - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34 – Withdrawal of petitions – Revival by Supreme Court – Land owners whose lands were acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956 had withdrawn their Section 34 petitions following High Court judgment declaring Sections 3G and 3J unconstitutional – Supreme Court subsequently stayed the High Court judgment – Fresh petitions barred by limitation under Section 34(3) – Held: To avoid grave injustice and remedilessness, Supreme Court invoked Article 142 and set aside the withdrawal order – Section 34 petitions restored to their original stage [Paras 1–4].

Constitution of India – Article 142 – Complete justice – Exercise of plenary powers – Supreme Court found that withdrawal of arbitral challenges occurred due to an intervening High Court judgment later stayed by Supreme Court – Applicants would otherwise suffer irreparable prejudice – Held: Article 142 power rightly invoked to revive proceedings and restore status quo ante [Paras 2–4].

National Highways Act, 1956 – Sections 3G and 3J – Arbitral mechanism – Competent authority and notified arbitrators – Court noted that arbitration under Section 3G(5) is conducted by executive officers such as Collectors/Commissioners lacking judicial training and adequate time – Such mechanism raises concerns in adjudication of complex compensation issues [Paras 5–6].

Land Acquisition – Compensation – Comparative statutory regimes – Supreme Court contrasted remedies available under the National Highways Act, 1956 with those under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Held: Land owners under the 1956 Act form a disadvantaged class without intelligible differentia, leading to apparent inequality in violation of Article 300-A [Paras 7–9].

Legislative Policy – Infrastructure development versus property rights – While acknowledging the need for expeditious highway development, Supreme Court observed that parity in compensation determination mechanisms can coexist with speedy acquisition – Court urged reconsideration of the statutory framework to ensure fairness without undermining national infrastructure goals [Paras 10–12].

Judicial Restraint – Legislative domain – Supreme Court refrained from striking down provisions at this stage and left the matter to legislative wisdom – Attorney General requested to examine the issue – Registry directed to forward order to Attorney General and Solicitor General – Interim orders continued [Paras 12–16].

Decision: Interlocutory Applications allowed – Order dated 25.04.2025 of the Additional District Judge, Bhiwani set aside – All Section 34 petitions revived and to proceed from the stage of withdrawal – Matters posted for further consideration on 21.04.2026 – Interim orders to continue.

Consumer Law – Execution Proceedings – Liability of Directors and Promoters – Consumer complaints admitted only against company – Directors/promoters not proceeded against at adjudicatory stage – No notice issued, no pleadings, no findings recorded against them – Held: Execution must strictly conform to the decree – Persons against whom no adjudication of liability exists cannot be proceeded against in execution merely because they are directors/promoters of judgment-debtor company [Paras 9–13, 17, 23].

Execution of Decree – Scope and Limitations – Executing forum cannot go behind or enlarge decree – Liability cannot be shifted or expanded at execution stage – Decree binding exclusively on company cannot be enforced against non-judgment debtors – Settled principle reiterated – Executing court may construe decree but cannot travel beyond it [Paras 12–13].

Consumer Protection Act – Adjudicatory Safeguards – Necessity of pleadings, notice and findings – Personal liability cannot be fastened without foundational adjudication – Execution proceedings cannot operate as substitute for trial or adjudication – Absence of pleadings and findings fatal to execution against individuals [Paras 11, 17].

Insolvency Law – Moratorium under Section 14 IBC – Effect on execution proceedings – Moratorium shields only corporate debtor – Does not automatically extend to directors/promoters – However, execution against directors permissible only if independent liability is established – Moratorium cannot be indirectly bypassed by proceeding against non-liable directors [Paras 7, 15, 20–22].

Company Law – Separate Legal Entity – Company distinct from shareholders and directors – Liability of directors limited unless personal guarantees, undertakings or statutory exceptions shown – Doctrine of corporate personality reaffirmed – No material to show guarantees or statutory basis for fastening personal liability [Paras 13–16].

Corporate Veil – Piercing of – Exceptional doctrine – Requires specific pleadings and findings of fraud or misuse of corporate form – Invocation impermissible at execution stage without prior adjudication – Directors/promoters cannot be exposed to personal liability in absence of established grounds [Paras 18–19].

Effect of Prior Supreme Court Order – Scope clarified – Earlier order permitting continuation of execution against directors removed only moratorium-related bar – Did not adjudicate or declare personal liability – National Commission rightly examined executability on merits and declined execution against directors – No inconsistency with prior order [Paras 19–22].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Order of NCDRC declining execution against directors/promoters upheld – Decree executable only against corporate debtor – Liberty reserved to appellants to pursue other remedies available in law against directors/promoters in appropriate proceedings – No order as to costs [Paras 24–27].

Service Law – Government Employment – Suppression of Criminal Antecedents – Cancellation of Appointment – Respondent selected as Sahayak Samiksha Adhikari – Required to disclose pendency of criminal cases in attestation and verification forms – Respondent answered in the negative despite two criminal cases pending against him – Held: Proper and complete disclosure of criminal antecedents is a fundamental requirement rooted in fairness, integrity and public trust – Repeated non-disclosure amounts to deliberate concealment and is a serious lapse justifying cancellation of appointment [Paras 3–6, 8–9].

Service Law – Attestation / Verification Forms – Effect of Disclaimer – Forms contained clear stipulation that furnishing false information or suppressing material facts would render candidate unfit and ineligible for government service – Respondent submitted incorrect information twice in clear violation of disclaimer – Held: What is decisive is the status of criminal cases at the time of filling the forms – Subsequent acquittal or later disclosure does not efface the misconduct of suppression [Paras 7–9].

Service Law – Criminal Cases – Pending Investigation – Relevance at Time of Disclosure – At the time of filling forms, investigations in criminal cases were pending – Acquittal or dropping of proceedings occurred later – Held: Subsequent developments cannot accrue to benefit of candidate who furnished false information at the relevant time [Paras 8–9].

Service Law – Equity and Sympathy – Limits – High Court interfered on grounds of triviality of offences, absence of charge-sheet, subsequent disclosure and opinion of District Magistrate – Supreme Court held that sympathy cannot supplant law – Maxim “juda lex sed lex” applied – Loss of employment cannot justify overlooking deliberate concealment of material facts [Paras 9–10].

Precedents – Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Ravindra Kumar v. State of U.P. – Applicability – Principles relating to consideration of surrounding circumstances in cases of non-disclosure reiterated – Held: Facts of present case show demonstrated mal-intent due to repeated false declarations – Hence benefit of said precedents not available to respondent [Para 9].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgments of Single Judge and Division Bench of Allahabad High Court set aside – Cancellation of respondent’s appointment upheld – Pending applications disposed of [Para 10].

Consumer Law – Execution Proceedings – Liability of Directors and Promoters – Consumer complaints admitted only against company – Directors/promoters not proceeded against at adjudicatory stage – No notice issued, no pleadings, no findings recorded against them – Held: Execution must strictly conform to the decree – Persons against whom no adjudication of liability exists cannot be proceeded against in execution merely because they are directors/promoters of judgment-debtor company [Paras 9–13, 17, 23].

Execution of Decree – Scope and Limitations – Executing forum cannot go behind or enlarge decree – Liability cannot be shifted or expanded at execution stage – Decree binding exclusively on company cannot be enforced against non-judgment debtors – Settled principle reiterated – Executing court may construe decree but cannot travel beyond it [Paras 12–13].

Consumer Protection Act – Adjudicatory Safeguards – Necessity of pleadings, notice and findings – Personal liability cannot be fastened without foundational adjudication – Execution proceedings cannot operate as substitute for trial or adjudication – Absence of pleadings and findings fatal to execution against individuals [Paras 11, 17].

Insolvency Law – Moratorium under Section 14 IBC – Effect on execution proceedings – Moratorium shields only corporate debtor – Does not automatically extend to directors/promoters – However, execution against directors permissible only if independent liability is established – Moratorium cannot be indirectly bypassed by proceeding against non-liable directors [Paras 7, 15, 20–22].

Company Law – Separate Legal Entity – Company distinct from shareholders and directors – Liability of directors limited unless personal guarantees, undertakings or statutory exceptions shown – Doctrine of corporate personality reaffirmed – No material to show guarantees or statutory basis for fastening personal liability [Paras 13–16].

Corporate Veil – Piercing of – Exceptional doctrine – Requires specific pleadings and findings of fraud or misuse of corporate form – Invocation impermissible at execution stage without prior adjudication – Directors/promoters cannot be exposed to personal liability in absence of established grounds [Paras 18–19].

Effect of Prior Supreme Court Order – Scope clarified – Earlier order permitting continuation of execution against directors removed only moratorium-related bar – Did not adjudicate or declare personal liability – National Commission rightly examined executability on merits and declined execution against directors – No inconsistency with prior order [Paras 19–22].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Order of NCDRC declining execution against directors/promoters upheld – Decree executable only against corporate debtor – Liberty reserved to appellants to pursue other remedies available in law against directors/promoters in appropriate proceedings – No order as to costs [Paras 24–27].

Service Law – Misconduct – Impersonation and Use of Bogus Educational Certificate – Departmental Punishment – Workman initially engaged as contract labour and later absorbed as Helper – Disciplinary proceedings revealed impersonation of brother and use of forged educational certificate to secure employment – After domestic enquiry, workman dismissed from service – Labour Court modified punishment of dismissal to reduction of pay and increment cut for three years – Single Judge upheld award – Division Bench further modified punishment to compulsory retirement [Paras 4–6].

Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 – Effect of Release on Probation – Stigma of Conviction – Division Bench relied on fact that workman was granted benefit of probation in criminal case and held that conviction would not operate as a disqualification – Held: Release on probation does not obliterate stigma of conviction – Conviction remains intact; only sentence is substituted – Departmental action for misconduct leading to conviction is permissible notwithstanding grant of probation [Paras 7–10].

Section 12, Probation of Offenders Act – Scope and Interpretation – Section 12 removes statutory disqualifications attached to conviction under other laws – It does not exonerate misconduct nor bar departmental proceedings – Does not entitle a dismissed employee to reinstatement merely because benefit of probation was granted – Law reiterated from Union of India v. Bakshi Ram [Paras 10–11].

Precedent – Binding Nature – Error by High Court – High Court’s observation that conviction cannot be a ground to remove workman from service due to grant of probation held contrary to settled law – Supreme Court set aside said observation and reiterated correct legal position laid down in Bakshi Ram [Paras 11–12].

Equitable Consideration – Death of Workman – No Interference with Relief Granted – Though legal position clarified and erroneous observation of High Court set aside – Supreme Court declined to interfere with modified punishment of compulsory retirement considering that the workman had died and benefits had accrued to his legal heirs – Appeal disposed of accordingly [Paras 8, 13–14].

Decision: Civil Appeal disposed of – Observation of High Court holding that conviction does not disqualify the workman set aside – Law laid down in Union of India v. Bakshi Ram reiterated – Modification of punishment as ordered by High Court not disturbed due to death of workman – Pending applications disposed of.

Civil Law – Abatement of Appeal – Non-substitution of one legal heir – Estate sufficiently represented – No abatement – Vendor Kishorilal died during pendency of first appeal – All four legal heirs initially substituted – One heir (Murarilal) subsequently died – Remaining three legal heirs and transferees lis pendens continued on record – Held: Where estate of deceased party is substantially and sufficiently represented by other legal heirs already on record, appeal does not abate merely due to non-substitution of one heir – High Court erred in holding appeal abated [Paras 25, 26, 38–40, 43].

Specific Performance – Vendor as necessary party – Distinction between total non-representation and partial non-substitution – Vendor is a necessary party in suit for specific performance notwithstanding transfer of property – However, where vendor’s estate is represented by some legal heirs, absence of substitution of one heir does not render appeal incompetent – Decision in Dwarka Prasad distinguished on facts [Paras 32–36, 39–40].

Civil Procedure – Doctrine of Lis Pendens – Status of transferee pendente lite – Transfer during pendency of suit not void but subservient to decree – Transferee lis pendens can represent estate of vendor as intermeddler and maintain appeal – Such transferee not a substitute for vendor where vendor’s presence is totally absent – But can supplement representation where vendor’s heirs are on record [Paras 10, 36–38].

Civil Procedure – Res Judicata – Applicability at different stages of same proceedings – High Court earlier held that appeal had not abated and permitted impleadment of heirs – Subsequent contrary finding by same court impermissible – Principle of res judicata applies between different stages of same litigation – Earlier determination binding unless set aside in appeal [Paras 30, 41–42].

Civil Procedure – Clerical / Typographical Error – Power of correction – Order deleting name of Kishorilal passed despite his prior death and substitution of LRs – Error apparent on face of record – Such clerical mistake correctable at any stage under Sections 151 and 152 CPC – Party cannot take advantage of court’s inadvertent error [Para 44].

Order I Rule 10 CPC – Impleadment of legal heirs – Effect on abatement – Impleadment of heirs of deceased legal heir as pro forma respondents permissible where appeal had not abated – No necessity of formal order setting aside abatement when abatement itself had not occurred [Paras 45–46].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Orders of High Court dismissing First Appeal Nos. 213 of 2000 and 217 of 2000 as abated set aside – Both appeals restored to file of High Court for decision on merits in accordance with law [Paras 47–48].

Criminal Law – Quashing - SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) – Essential ingredients – Quashing of proceedings – FIR alleged caste-related abuses by accused persons – No specific role or utterance attributed to the appellant – Mere presence at the spot insufficient – Held: In absence of intentional insult or abuse by caste name with intent to humiliate, offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) not made out [Paras 9, 18–19].

SC/ST Act – Section 3(1)(r) – Intent to humiliate – Requirement of mens rea – Mere knowledge of complainant’s caste or general altercation not sufficient – Insult or intimidation must be on account of victim belonging to SC/ST – FIR and chargesheet silent as to any such intention on part of appellant – Prosecution unsustainable [Paras 12–14].

SC/ST Act – Section 3(1)(s) – Abuse by caste name – Scope – Mere abuse or mere reference to caste not enough – Allegations must disclose caste-based abuse intended to humiliate in public view – No such allegations against appellant – Charge not attracted [Paras 15–17, 19].

Criminal Law – Cognizance and Summoning – Vicarious liability – Presence at scene – Mere presence of accused with co-accused without specific overt act does not justify framing of charge – Criminal prosecution cannot be sustained on vague and omnibus allegations [Paras 8, 20].

Inherent Powers / Appellate Interference – Abuse of process – Continuation of prosecution without prima facie material against appellant would result in miscarriage of justice – Held: Putting appellant to trial would be travesty of justice [Paras 21–22].

Precedent – Interpretation of SC/ST Act – Reliance placed on Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2249 – Reiterated strict construction of penal provisions under SC/ST Act and necessity of clear allegations satisfying statutory ingredients [Paras 11–14].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order dated 15.02.2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.112 of 2023 set aside – Cognizance and summoning order dated 09.10.2020 quashed insofar as the appellant is concerned – Criminal proceedings against the appellant terminated – Pending interlocutory applications disposed of.

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 52 (Lis Pendens) – Applicability to Transferees Pendente Lite – Upheld – The doctrine of lis pendens, enshrined in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, applies with full force to transfers made during the pendency of a suit – Such transfers are not void ab initio but remain subservient to the decree that may be passed by the court – The Explanation to Section 52 clarifies that pendency commences from the date of plaint presentation and continues until final decree or satisfaction – The Maharashtra amendment requiring registration of lis pendens notice is for the benefit of third parties to prevent undue hardship, but its absence does not render the doctrine inapplicable or grant absolute title to subsequent purchasers who bought during pendency – Appellants, as transferees pendente lite, were bound by the decree for specific performance, and their rights were subservient to the decree holder – The High Court's finding that Section 52 TPA was applicable to the pendente lite transfers was affirmed [Paras 39-45, 65-66].

Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 19(b) (Relief against subsequent transferees) – Interaction with Section 52 TPA – Distinguished – Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which provides for specific performance against subsequent transferees for value without notice, operates at a stage prior to the institution of a suit or proceeding – Once a suit is instituted and the property is transferred during its pendency, Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, takes precedence – A transferee pendente lite cannot claim protection as a bona fide purchaser without notice under Section 19(b) because the doctrine of lis pendens binds them to the outcome of the litigation irrespective of their knowledge – The interpretation of Section 19(b) must align with Section 52 TPA to avoid incongruous situations [Paras 46-50].

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XXI Rules 97, 98, 101 (Execution, Resistance, Adjudication) – Powers of Executing Court – Affirmed – The Executing Court has wide powers under Order XXI Rules 97 to 103 CPC to adjudicate all questions, including those relating to right, title, and interest, arising between the parties to the proceeding or their representatives, when a decree holder seeks possession and is resisted or obstructed – Transferees pendente lite have no independent right or locus standi to obstruct the execution of a decree for possession as they step into the shoes of the judgment debtor and their title is extinguished under Section 52 TPA – The Bombay Amendment to Rule 98(2) CPC further empowers the Executing Court to order civil imprisonment and compensation for obstruction – The Executing Court's decision to allow the decree holder's application for removal of obstruction and reject the obstructionists' objections was upheld [Paras 51-60, 64.5, 65].

Limitation Act, 1963 – Articles 129, 134 (Execution of Decree) – Rejection of Limitation Plea – Upheld – A plea of limitation raised by the appellants at a belated stage, not having been pleaded before the High Court or framed as a substantial question of law, was rejected – The decree holder had sought execution within one year of the trial court's judgment and decree – The application for removal of obstruction was filed within 30 days of the resistance, as prescribed by Article 129 of the Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 134 was held not to be attracted to the facts of the present case – The High Court's view on this aspect was affirmed [Paras 69-71].

Constitution of India – Article 142 (Extraordinary Powers) – Directions to Prevent Frivolous Litigation – Issued – Considering the peculiar facts of the case, where the decree holder had to suffer multiple rounds of litigation for over three decades despite the decree attaining finality, the Supreme Court invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India – Directions were issued to ensure that no further application(s) or petition(s) by the appellants, the judgment debtor, or any other person claiming rights qua the suit property through them, shall be entertained by any court, to prevent further harassment and ensure the ends of justice [Paras 74].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Appellants directed to hand over actual physical possession of the suit property to respondent No. 1 (decree holder) on or before 15.02.2026 – No cost – No further application(s) or petition(s) by appellants, judgment debtor, or any person claiming through them regarding the suit property shall be entertained by any court [Paras 72, 73, 75].

Prevention of Corruption Act – Registration of FIR – Preliminary Inquiry – Not Mandatory in Every Case – FIRs registered by Karnataka Lokayukta Police on directions of Superintendent of Police without conducting preliminary inquiry – High Court quashed FIRs holding action to be without jurisdiction – Held: Issue no longer res integra in view of judgment in State of Karnataka v. T.N. Sudhakar Reddy – Preliminary inquiry not mandatory where source information is detailed and prima facie discloses commission of cognizable offence – High Court erred in quashing FIRs on this ground [Paras 3–6, 12].

Section 17, PC Act – Power of Superintendent of Police – Authorization of Investigation – Challenge raised that Superintendent of Police could not authorize Deputy Superintendent of Police to investigate offences under PC Act – Held: Superintendent of Police is competent to direct registration of FIR and simultaneously authorize investigation, subject to restrictions under Section 17 PC Act – Registration of FIR governed by CrPC and not fettered by Section 17 – Law settled by T.N. Sudhakar Reddy and followed in State of Karnataka v. Channakeshava H.D. [Paras 4–6, 12].

Writ Jurisdiction – FIR under PC Act – Adjudication on Merits – High Court allowed writ petitions solely on preliminary jurisdictional issues without examining other grounds touching upon merits including lack of foundational material for disproportionate assets cases – Held: Respondent deprived of adjudication on remaining grounds – Matter remitted to High Court for fresh consideration limited to grounds not earlier adjudicated [Paras 7–14].

Remand – Scope – Filing of Chargesheet During Pendency of Appeal – During pendency of appeal, chargesheets filed against respondent – Held: Respondent permitted to assail chargesheets in revived writ petitions post-remand – Liberty limited to challenge chargesheets filed during pendency of appeal – Remedies under CrPC/BNSS remain unaffected [Paras 15–16].

Interim Protection – Continuance on Remand – Respondent had interim protection during pendency of writ petitions – Held: No coercive steps to be taken against respondent till disposal of writ petitions by High Court post-remand [Para 17].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned order of the High Court set aside – Writ petitions restored to file of High Court of Karnataka for fresh adjudication on merits confined to grounds not earlier decided – Interim protection to continue till disposal – Pending applications disposed of.