Trial Court's Acquittal and High Court's Reversal – The Trial Court acquitted the accused in a murder case involving the death of Marthandappa, but the High Court reversed this decision, convicting the appellants based on the testimonies of PW-3 and PW-4 (Paras 1, 2, 11-14, 18, 34).

Eyewitness Credibility and Conduct – Questioning of the credibility of PW-3 and PW-4's testimonies, citing inconsistencies, unreasonable behavior, and contradictions with medical reports. PW-3's failure to seek help or inform police immediately, and PW-4's contradictory accounts regarding his own injuries raised doubts about their presence and accounts of the incident (Paras 27-33, 35).

Principles of Appeal in Acquittal Cases – Emphasis on comprehensive evidence appreciation, preferring accused's innocence in case of two plausible views, and the necessity for appellate courts to address reasons for Trial Court's acquittal before reversing it (Paras 24-26, 34-36).

Circumstantial Evidence and Legal Standards – The prosecution's reliance on circumstantial evidence was deemed inadequate to form a conclusive chain of evidence excluding all hypotheses except the guilt of the accused, thereby failing to prove the "must have" standard required for conviction (Paras 37-38).

Final Decision – Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, restored the Trial Court's order of acquittal, and directed the release of the appellants, concluding no illegality or perversity in the Trial Court's reasoning (Paras 39-40).

High Court Order Challenged – Accused facing trial under NDPS Act requested call details of Seizure Officer and police officials – High Court directed immediate decision on such applications – Challenged by State of Rajasthan. [Paras 3-4]

Legal Position of Section 91 Cr.P.C. – Established by State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi (2005) 1 SCC 568 – Accused's right to invoke Section 91 typically arises at the defence stage, not at the charge framing stage. [Para 6]

Nitya Dharmananda Case Reference – Emphasizes the court's obligation to justice but maintains that Section 91 cannot be invoked by accused at charge framing stage. [Para 7]

Supreme Court's Decision – Overturned High Court's order – Held that the accused can file application at appropriate stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. [Para 8-10]

Election Petition – Validity and Compliance with Provisions – Appellant's appeal against the High Court of Kerala's decision to not reject the election petition at the threshold – High Court's decision upheld by the Supreme Court – Non-compliance with Section 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, regarding the number of copies not considered fatal – Appeal dismissed. [Para 1, 7, 16]

Election Practices – Allegations of Corrupt Practices and Non-Compliance with Statutory Provisions – Appellant's election victory challenged on grounds of corrupt practices and non-compliance with Sections 81, 83, and 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 – High Court found sufficient cause of action for trial – Supreme Court upheld High Court's decision on non-compliance not warranting peremptory rejection of the petition. [Para 3-5, 8, 11, 16]

Representation of the People Act, 1951 – Interpretation and Application – Sections 81(3) and 86(1) – High Court and Supreme Court's interpretation that non-compliance with Section 81(3) related to the number of copies submitted does not lead to automatic dismissal of the petition – Emphasis on the need for compliance with statutory requirements without overextension. [Para 10, 13-15]

Judicial Review – Scope and Limitation – The Supreme Court's affirmation of the High Court's decision on procedural aspects of the election petition – Limited scope for interference in the High Court's decision on triable issues under Section 123(3) of the Act of 1951 – Upheld the decision to proceed with the trial on identified issues. [Para 11, 12, 16]

Decision – Supreme Court's Dismissal of Appeal – Upholding of High Court's decision to proceed with the election petition – Rejection of appellant's contentions on non-compliance with statutory provisions and lack of material facts in the petition – Interim order vacated and miscellaneous applications dismissed – Parties to bear their own costs. [Para 16]

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Section 62 - Appeals against National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) order – NCLAT upheld National Company Law Tribunal's (NCLT) dismissal of appellant’s applications under Section 60(5) of the IBC – Supreme Court found that neither NCLT nor NCLAT adequately addressed the appellant's claim and status as a secured creditor, resulting in setting aside of their orders. [Para 1, 54, 55]

Statutory Authority as Creditor – Sections 13, 13A of U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 - Claim of Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA) as a creditor for unpaid lease instalments – GNIDA’s claim as a secured creditor by virtue of statutory charge over the Corporate Debtor’s assets – Misrepresentation in the resolution plan regarding GNIDA’s claim affecting the feasibility and viability of the plan. [Para 3, 5, 54(b), 54(c)]

Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process – Form of Claim Submission - Importance of proof of claim rather than the form of submission – Resolution plan failed to acknowledge GNIDA's claim submitted in a different form, leading to incorrect representation of outstanding dues and affecting the rights of GNIDA in the Committee of Creditors (COC). [Para 54(a)]

Resolution Plan – Compliance with IBC Requirements - Examination of the resolution plan for conformity with IBC – Plan’s failure to categorize GNIDA correctly and to account for necessary approvals for using GNIDA's land – NCLT and NCLAT failed to address these key aspects, affecting the viability of the plan. [Para 54(b), 54(c)]

Inherent Powers of Tribunal – Rule 11 of NCLT Rules, 2016 - NCLT’s inherent power to recall its order – Recall application maintainable on grounds of non-service of notice to GNIDA, misrepresentation in resolution plan, and ex parte proceedings affecting the interests of GNIDA. [Para 50, 51]

Decision - Supreme Court set aside the orders of NCLT and NCLAT, directing the resolution plan to be sent back to COC for re-submission after satisfying the parameters set out by the Code. [Para 55]

Appeals of Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority allowed.

Order of NCLAT dated 24.11.2022 set aside.

NCLT’s order dated 04.08.2020 approving the resolution plan is set aside.

Resolution plan to be sent back to COC for re-submission complying with the IBC's parameters

Unit Headquarters Quota Recruitment – Recruitment under Unit Headquarters Quota for Indian Army – Instructions allowed enrollment of certain priority categories, including general category candidates – Appellants recruited by Maratha Light Infantry Regimental Centre (MLIRC) under this quota. [Para 2, 17]

Dismissal for False Certificates – Appellants served show cause notices and subsequently dismissed for allegedly enrolling using fake relationship certificates – Claims of being recruited under general category, not on the basis of fake relationship certificates. [Para 3, 8, 12, 18]

Legal Scrutiny of Dismissal – Supreme Court considered whether appellants were enrolled as general category candidates and the validity of their dismissal based on allegedly fake relationship certificates. [Para 7, 14, 24]

Non-consideration of Appellants' Defence – Dismissal orders and Tribunal’s judgment found deficient for not considering appellants' claim of being general category recruits – Dismissal orders not supported by evidence of appellants actually submitting fake relationship certificates. [Para 17, 19, 20, 24]

Setting Aside Dismissal Orders – Supreme Court set aside dismissal orders and Tribunal's judgment – Appellants reinstated with all consequential benefits. [Para 27]

Decision – Appeals allowed – Dismissal orders and Tribunal’s judgments set aside – Appellants reinstated with all consequential benefits. [Para 27-28]

Conversion from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II IPC – Appellant’s sentence modified – Special Leave Petition partly allowed – The Supreme Court, after examining the details of the case, finds merit in the argument that the appellant's action leading to the death of the deceased was without intent to kill. The Court alters the conviction from Section 302 (Murder) to Section 304 Part II (Culpable Homicide not amounting to Murder) of the IPC. Acknowledging the appellant’s 14 years of imprisonment excluding remission, the Court orders his immediate release, as he has served more than the maximum punishment for the modified offence. The appeal is thus partially allowed. [Paras 2, 6-9]

Intention in Commission of Offense – Analysis – The Supreme Court notes the lack of intention on the part of the appellant to commit murder. The incident resulted from a fight where the deceased intervened, leading to his unintentional death. This observation forms the basis for converting the offence from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II IPC. [Paras 3, 6]

Period of Custody Considered – The Court takes into account the period already served by the appellant in custody (14 years excluding remission), which surpasses the maximum sentence under Section 304 Part II IPC, leading to the decision for immediate release. [Para 8]

Decision – Immediate Release of Appellant – The Court directs the immediate release of the appellant from Amaravati Central Prison, contingent on his non-involvement in any other offence. [Para 9]

Civil Appeal – Chartered Accountant's Professional Conduct – Appeal against High Court's decision upholding Rule 9(3)(b) of the Chartered Accountants’ (Procedure of Investigation of Professional and Other Misconduct and Conduct of Cases) Rules, 2007 – Challenged rule allows Board of Discipline to disagree with Director (Discipline) and refer matter to Disciplinary Committee – Upheld as in line with the objectives of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949. [Para 8, 37-38]

Auditing and Reporting – Failure to Report Suspicious Transactions – Appellant, a Chartered Accountant, did not report unusual transactions in an audit of Sahara India, Aliganj, Lucknow Branch – Complaint filed against the appellant for not fulfilling professional obligations. [Para 1-2]

Investigation Process – Role of Director (Discipline) and Board of Discipline – Director (Discipline) initially found appellant not guilty of misconduct – Board of Discipline disagreed and referred the case to the Disciplinary Committee – Validity of this process examined and upheld. [Para 4-7, 38]

Rule-making Authority – Scope and Application – Examination of Rule 9(3) of Rules, 2007 in the context of Section 29A of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 – Rule 9(3) extends beyond the explicit provision of Section 29A but is in line with the Act's purpose – Rule upheld as a valid exercise of the rule-making authority. [Para 20-38]

Legislative Delegation – “Generality vs Enumeration” Principle – Elucidation of principles for evaluating whether delegated legislation is ultra vires the parent statute – Application of these principles in upholding Rule 9(3). [Para 22-37]

Decision – Supreme Court dismisses the appeal, affirming the High Court's decision and the validity of Rule 9(3)(b) – No order as to costs. [Para 38]

Accused Conviction and Sentencing – Kishore, Bala, and Banaras (appellants) convicted for offences under Sections 148, 460, and 302 read with Section 149 of IPC – Sentences ranged from two years to life imprisonment - Acquittal of two co-accused by High Court upheld, casting doubt on formation of unlawful assembly [Paras 1-2, 7, 15].

Eyewitness Testimonies – PW-8 and PW-9's identification of appellants in court, not preceded by Test Identification Parade – Reliability of their testimony questioned due to vague descriptions and failure to identify assailants clearly [Paras 4, 10-12].

Non-examination of Key Witnesses – Non-examination of Lovepreet Kaur, Amritpal Kaur, and Satbir Singh (injured witness) – Their testimonies were crucial for establishing the involvement of appellants in the crime [Para 12].

Injuries and Liability – Accused no.3 (Bala) and accused no.5 (Banaras) linked to non-fatal assaults – Accused no.2 (Kishore) associated with more serious assault, but insufficient evidence for murder charges [Para 13].

Recovery of Stolen Ornaments – Doubts raised about the identification of recovered ornaments by PW-9, and failure to examine goldsmith or person who arranged other ornaments for identification - This weakens the prosecution's case on recovery of stolen items [Para 14].

Conviction under Section 460 IPC – Lack of specific roles attributed to accused by key witnesses, and absence of unlawful assembly, makes Section 149 IPC inapplicable – High Court did not alter the charge to apply Section 34 IPC [Para 15].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Convictions of Kishore, Bala, and Banaras set aside due to insufficient and unreliable evidence - Appellants acquitted of all charges [Para 16].

Bail Denial Upheld – Involvement with Terrorist Organization – Appellant's appeal against the High Court's decision upholding the Special Judge’s rejection of bail in a case involving activities related to “Sikhs for Justice,” a banned terrorist organization – Sufficient material indicating appellant's involvement in the conspiracy and preparatory acts related to terrorism, as per Sections 17, 18, 19 of UAP Act and relevant IPC sections. [Paras 29-33]

Disclosure Statements and Communication Records – Disclosure statements from co-accused and the appellant, along with Call Detail Records (CDRs), substantiate the involvement in planned terror activities, including a trip to Srinagar for weapon procurement – CDRs show consistent communication with co-accused. [Paras 29-31]

UAP Act Bail Provisions – Section 43D(5) of UAP Act emphasizes the restrictive approach to bail in cases involving terrorism – Bail to be denied if there are reasonable grounds to believe the accusations are prima facie true, assessed with a 'prima facie' standard. [Paras 14-22]

Delay in Trial Not Ground for Bail – Considering the gravity of offenses and ongoing trial progress with 22 witnesses examined, delay in trial does not merit bail – Risk of influencing key witnesses if appellant is released. [Para 32]

Observations Not on Merits – Court clarifies that observations made are solely for deciding the bail application and not to be construed as an expression on the merits of the matter before the trial court. [Para 34]