Criminal Law - Administrative Action vs Criminal Proceedings – Clear Distinction – Court held that administrative actions (declaring fraud) and criminal proceedings (FIRs) are distinct – Setting aside administrative orders for violation of principles of natural justice does not automatically invalidate criminal proceedings based on the same facts [Paras 6-10].

Scope of Natural Justice – Limited Application to Criminal Process – Court reiterated that principles of natural justice apply to administrative actions but not to the registration of FIRs – No opportunity of hearing required before initiation of criminal proceedings [Paras 7-9, 10].

Misinterpretation of Rajesh Agarwal Case – Error by High Courts – High Courts wrongly relied on State Bank of India v. Rajesh Agarwal (2023) 6 SCC 1 to quash criminal proceedings – Court clarified that criminal investigation proceeds independently of administrative classification of fraud [Paras 5, 9, 10].

Restoration of FIRs – Categorization of Cases – Matters classified into five categories – Criminal proceedings restored with directions depending on the status of investigation and interim protection granted by High Courts [Paras 13.1-13.7].

Opportunity to Respondents – Fresh Remedies – In cases where FIRs were quashed despite no challenge, respondents granted liberty to avail appropriate remedies within two weeks, CBI to be impleaded as necessary party [Para 13.2].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Impugned judgments of various High Courts set aside – Criminal proceedings restored – Matters remitted to High Courts for fresh adjudication, to be disposed of preferably within 4 months – Directions given regarding interim protection, ongoing investigations, and impleadment of CBI [Paras 13-15].
 

Civil Law - Tender Cancellation – Judicial Review – Scope of Interference – Court held that in matters relating to tenders and contracts, judicial review is limited to checking arbitrariness, mala fide, and public interest – Unless mala fides or illegality is proved, administrative decisions like retendering cannot be interfered with by Courts [Paras 12-19].

Right to Cancel Tender – Government’s Freedom of Contract – Cancellation of tender justified if aimed at protecting the financial interests of the State – Decision to retender due to limited participation caused by Covid-19 restrictions held to be within the DFO’s administrative discretion and not arbitrary [Paras 15, 20-22].

Fairness and Public Interest – Retendering Promotes Equal Opportunity – Fresh tender gives fair opportunity to all eligible contractors and advances public interest – Retendering after Covid-related complaints was neither malicious nor unreasonable and furthers transparency [Paras 17, 20, 23].

Kerala High Court’s Error – Misapplication of Law – High Court incorrectly set aside the DFO's order without finding any mala fide intent – The Supreme Court held that commercial decisions must be respected if taken bonafide, particularly in matters of State revenue and public interest [Paras 16, 22-24].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Judgment dated 19.01.2021 passed by the High Court of Kerala in Writ Appeals Nos. 1568, 1577, and 1589 of 2020 set aside – Cancellation of the earlier tender and fresh tender process upheld [Paras 24].
 

Service Law – Financial Upgradation – MACP vs. ACP Scheme – No Interference – The respondent, an employee of Doordarshan, sought higher Grade Pay under the ACP Scheme despite having accepted financial upgradations under the MACP Scheme without protest – Tribunal allowed the claim relying on B.D. Kadam and was upheld by the High Court – Held: Though subsequent decisions like N.M. Raut clarified inapplicability in certain scenarios, facts in this case were materially different – No ground for interference with High Court’s order [Paras 3-13].

Limitation – Maintainability of Original Application under Administrative Tribunals Act – O.A. Held Time-Barred – Representation made in 2016 against financial upgradation orders passed years earlier was not under any statutory provision – Held: Limitation starts from date of cause of action, and making a non-statutory representation does not postpone limitation – The Tribunal and High Court erred in not ruling on limitation issue, which was a sound objection by appellants [Paras 14-27, 33-36].

Discretion under Article 142 – No Recovery Ordered – Respondent retired in 2018 and had received benefits post-implementation of Tribunal’s order – Considering age, Article 15(3) and Article 41 of the Constitution, Court exercised powers under Article 142 – Held: Despite finding the O.A. time-barred, no recovery of excess amount directed in the interest of equity and justice [Para 38].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed in Part – Tribunal’s order declared erroneous due to limitation but not interfered with – Respondent allowed to retain the financial benefit already received without refund obligation – Appeal disposed of accordingly [Paras 38-39].

Tenancy Law - Eviction on Bona Fide Need – Application under Section 21(1)(a) – Bona fide requirement upheld – The Prescribed Authority had ordered eviction based on the landlord’s pressing need to start his own business and sustain his family – The Appellate Authority reversed the order without sufficient reasoning, and the High Court upheld the same – Held: The bona fide requirement was well-established by documents and the landlord’s financial status, including negative wealth and minimal income – Eviction order restored [Paras 1, 8-10, 13, 23-27].

Comparative Hardship – Evaluation of circumstances – Greater hardship on landlord – The landlord, being young with family and no business, was found to suffer greater hardship than the elderly tenant who had other properties and settled heirs – Tenant had not made any attempt to find alternative premises during 63 years of overstay – Held: Balance of hardship tilted in favour of the landlord [Paras 10, 16, 27-30].

Effect of Landlord’s Death – Maintainability of proceedings by legal representatives – Section 21(7) of the 1972 Act – Legal heirs of landlord entitled to continue eviction proceedings based on their own need – Objection to maintainability of appeal rejected as the son of deceased landlord proved his own financial hardship and disability – Held: Legal representatives have standing under Section 21(7) and are entitled to succeed [Paras 19, 24-26].

Rejection of Respondent’s Business Claims – Tenants failed to prove that the landlord’s family had substantial business income – Appellate Authority wrongly assumed that speculative or minor income discredited bona fide need – Held: Existence of minimal or speculative income does not negate genuine need – Prescribed Authority's findings were based on sound appreciation of evidence [Paras 12-13, 27].

Final Decision – Eviction Decreed – The appeal was allowed – Judgment of the High Court set aside – Tenant granted time till 31.12.2025 to vacate the premises subject to conditions – No order as to costs [Para 33].

Civil Law - Contempt Proceedings – Non-payment of Arrears – Civil Contempt Established – Despite clear directions issued by the Supreme Court on 07.11.2022 for payment of arrears and monthly occupation charges, respondent failed to comply – Wilful and deliberate disobedience established by continued possession and benefit without payment [Paras 1-13, 19-23, 29-30].

Financial Inability Plea – Rejection of Defence – Plea of financial incapacity rejected – Court observed previous communications from respondent indicated financial capability – No efforts made to modify the Court’s order or surrender possession – Conduct amounted to intentional non-compliance [Paras 16-18, 27-28].

Misuse of Judicial Process – Malafide Conduct – Court found respondent deliberately misused judicial proceedings to retain possession and reap financial benefits from the property – Conduct amounted to misleading the Court and abuse of legal process [Paras 19-21, 30-33, 36-38].

Power to Punish Contempt – Upholding Sanctity of Judicial Process – Supreme Court emphasized that contempt jurisdiction exists to protect the authority and dignity of Courts – Misleading conduct resulting in disobedience of judicial orders undermines public trust and mandates strict action [Paras 31-37].

Decision – Respondent held guilty of Civil Contempt – Punishment of three months’ Simple Imprisonment and a fine of INR 20,000 imposed, with an additional one month’s imprisonment in default – 30 days granted to purge the contempt by complying with the order dated 07.11.2022, failing which sentence to come into effect [Paras 40-42].

Section 138 NI Act – Personal Criminal Liability of Director – Insolvency of Company No Bar – Appeals Dismissed – Appellant convicted for cheque dishonour and sentenced to two years imprisonment with ₹2.5 crore compensation – He claimed protection due to company liquidation and moratorium under IBC – Supreme Court held director’s criminal liability under NI Act is personal and survives insolvency proceedings of the company [Paras 1–19].

Moratorium Under IBC – Not Applicable to Penal Proceedings – Proceedings Under NI Act Permitted – Court affirmed ruling in Rakesh Bhanot vs. Gurdas Agro (P) Ltd., holding that IBC moratorium under Sections 96 and 101 is limited to debt recovery actions – Penal prosecutions like those under Section 138 NI Act continue unaffected by insolvency process [Paras 16–18].

Failure to Comply with Bail Condition – No Right to Hearing Without Deposit – Deposit Condition Upheld – Appellant failed to deposit 25% of cheque amount as required for suspension of sentence during revision – High Court recalled bail – Supreme Court upheld the condition and denied any protection from consequences [Paras 10–12, 20–22].

Relief – Final Opportunity to Comply – Conditional Protection from Arrest – Court granted final eight-week extension to deposit 25% of cheque amount – Failure to do so would expose appellant to custody; if deposited, High Court to hear revision on merits [Paras 20–24].
 

Criminal Law – Murder – Appeal Against Conviction - Section 313 CrPC – Inadequate Examination of Accused – Prejudice Caused – Conviction Set Aside – Appellant’s examination under Section 313 CrPC merely summarized the prosecution's case rather than presenting specific evidence against him – Supreme Court held this as fatal irregularity causing inherent prejudice – Trial court failed to present material circumstances for the accused to respond meaningfully [Paras 7–13].

Conviction Under Section 302 IPC – Defective Trial – No Effective Defence Opportunity – Acquittal Granted – Appellant’s right to fair trial violated due to non-compliance with mandatory requirements under Section 313(1) CrPC – Court held that prosecution must put each incriminating circumstance specifically to the accused – In absence of such examination, appeal allowed and appellant acquitted [Paras 10–15].

Remand – Not Feasible Due to Passage of Time – 14 Years Elapsed – Acquittal Ordered – Although such procedural defects are curable, Supreme Court declined remand due to long delay since incident (2011) and prolonged custody (14 years served) – Appellant ordered to be released forthwith unless required in another case [Paras 14–17].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges – Supreme Court directed his immediate release [Paras 15–17].
 

Service Law - Leave Encashment – Re-employment After Superannuation – Interpretation of Leave Rules – Appeal Allowed – The respondent, a government servant, retired after attaining 58 years and was granted leave encashment for 300 days – He was re-employed and on relieving, was again granted leave encashment for another 300 days – The State later issued a clarification and withdrew the second benefit, prompting writ proceedings – Held: Rule 36 applies only to retirement from regular service and not re-employment; Rule 32, which treats re-employed officers as new appointees for leave purposes, does not entitle a second round of leave encashment under Rule 36 – High Court's interpretation allowing such benefit was erroneous – The clarification by the State was found to be consistent with the Leave Rules [Paras 19-24].

Principles of Leave Encashment – Public Service and Financial Prudence – Re-employment Benefit Disallowed – The Court underscored the importance of balancing individual employee rights with institutional and financial sustainability – Leave encashment is a welfare provision linked to service rendered without availing leave, not an entitlement during re-employment – Allowing multiple encashments would amount to unjust enrichment and strain public finances [Paras 25-29].

Natural Justice – Cancellation Without Hearing – Procedural Challenge Repelled – Although the respondent argued that the cancellation order was passed without notice, the Court held that no prejudice was caused as the claim lacked legal basis – Violation of natural justice was not established in the circumstances [Para 32].

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgments of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court of Sikkim, and held that the respondent was not entitled to leave encashment for the period of re-employment beyond the first 300 days granted at the time of his initial retirement. No costs were awarded [Para 33].

Bail – Long Incarceration without Trial – Bail Granted – The petitioner had been in custody for over four years in a case involving charges under IPC and MCOCA – Only four of 67 prosecution witnesses had been examined – Supreme Court noted prolonged trial and granted bail subject to stringent conditions, without commenting on merits [Paras 6–9].

MCOCA Charges – Premeditated Crime and Alleged Syndicate Membership – Allegation Not Prejudged – State alleged petitioner was a contract killer within a crime syndicate led by co-accused Yogesh Sawant – Court refrained from expressing opinion on evidence while granting bail – Emphasised that framing of charges and partial trial progress warranted conditional release [Paras 3, 6, 9].

Conditions for Bail – Passport Surrender and Police Reporting – Compliance Mandated – Petitioner directed to deposit passport with Trial Court and report fortnightly to local police – Also mandated to attend all trial dates – Misuse of bail to attract cancellation [Paras 10–11].

Final Relief – Special Leave Petition Disposed – Bail Directed – The Court disposed of the SLP by granting conditional bail and warning of strict consequences in case of misuse or witness tampering [Paras 9–12].