Company Law - Corporate Insolvency - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 - Section 14 - Scope of moratorium - Homebuyers filed consumer complaint against developer and its directors and landowners for delayed possession - NCLT subsequently initiated CIRP against the developer corporate debtor and imposed moratorium under Section 14 IBC - Appellants filed applications to proceed with complaint against remaining non-corporate debtor respondents - NCDRC rejected applications adjourning complaint sine die holding that liability could not be split or independently examined - Supreme Court held that moratorium under Section 14 applies only to the corporate debtor and not to directors or promoters or landowners - NCDRC erred in declining inquiry at interlocutory stage without adjudicating on merits - Held - Appeals partly allowed - NCDRC directed to proceed with hearing of consumer complaint against non-corporate debtor respondents in accordance with law - [Paras 1-17].

Civil Law - Corporate Insolvency - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 - Section 14 - Applicability to non-corporate debtors - The protective sweep of a moratorium must remain within the four walls carved out by the statute - It operates against the corporate debtor alone - No other category including subsidiary companies or managers or directors or personal guarantors can be added unless specifically provided - Proceeding with statutory remedies under the Consumer Protection Act against such distinct legal entities is not barred by the corporate debtor moratorium - Held - Interlocutory applications seeking continuation of proceedings against non-corporate debtor respondents are allowed - [Paras 5-13].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – Rejection of interlocutory applications by NCDRC set aside – NCDRC directed to hear the Consumer Complaint No. 13 of 2023 against Respondent Nos. 2 to 7 in accordance with law – Proceedings against Respondent No. 1 shall remain governed by the moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC.

Civil Law - Land Acquisition - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 - Section 24 - Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act 1997 - Section 7 - Land Acquisition Act 1894 - State initiated acquisition of land in 2009 under the 1997 Act and notification under Section 3(2) was issued - No award was passed prior to the enforcement of the 2013 Act on 01.01.2014 despite interim orders passed by the High Court in 2012-2013 - High Court held that landowners were entitled to compensation under the 2013 Act based on market value as on 01.01.2014 - Supreme Court upheld High Court judgment noting that Section 7(6) of the State Act guides compensation through the Central Act and pending proceedings without awards must be concluded under Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act - Held - High Court justified in granting compensation under the 2013 Act - appeals dismissed with liberty to release land if acquisition is unviable - [Paras 1-13].

Decision: Appeals dismissed - High Court judgment affirmed - Appellants directed to proceed in accordance with law with liberty given to the State of Tamil Nadu to release the subject land from acquisition within eight weeks if acquisition is not viable in public interest.

Arbitration Law - Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 - Sections 34 and 37 - Arbitration award upheld by Commercial Court and High Court - High Court also allowed writ petition for respondent to avail 'Vivaad se Vishwaas II' Scheme - Petitioner Paradip Port Trust challenged these orders before Supreme Court, contending that lower courts' orders were non-speaking and that applying the scheme would cause significant public exchequer loss - Supreme Court had previously directed Union of India to clarify the applicability of the scheme - Union of India filed an affidavit confirming scheme applicability and directing the procuring entity (petitioner) to determine and disburse the amount - Held - In light of Union of India's clear stance on the scheme's applicability, it is unnecessary to delve into the merits of the arbitration award or the challenges to the orders under Sections 34 and 37 - respondent shall be extended the benefit of the scheme - [Paras 1-8].

Writ Law - Vivaad se Vishwaas II Scheme - Contractual Disputes Scheme 2023 - Applicability - High Court allowed respondent to avail scheme - Union of India clarified scheme applicability via affidavit and directed petitioner to act accordingly - Held - Scheme benefits to be extended to the respondent - [Paras 1-8].

Decision: Petitions disposed of – Respondent No.1 to be extended the benefit of the ‘Vivaad se Vishwaas II’ Scheme – Petitioner-Trust directed to determine and pay the requisite amount within two months.

Criminal Law - Bail - Unlawful Activities Prevention Act 1967 - Section 43D5 - Petitioners incarcerated for nearly twelve years in connection with terrorist activities and explosives-related offences registered under FIR No 54 of 2011 - Trial court and High Court rejected bail applications - Supreme Court noted that out of 197 prosecution witnesses only a few examined and trial progress extremely slow with no prospect of early conclusion - Co-accused already enlarged on bail and petitioners' sentences suspended in connected Rajasthan cases - Held - continued incarceration violates right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India - bail granted - [Paras 1-21].

Constitutional Law - Right to Life and Personal Liberty - Constitution of India 1950 - Article 21 - Speedy trial - Prolonged pre-trial detention of nearly 12 years without prospect of early conclusion of trial - Held - right to speedy trial is an integral part of right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 - [Paras 13-18].

Criminal Law - Statutory Bail and Discretionary Bail - Unlawful Activities Prevention Act 1967 - Section 43D5 - Overlapping allegations across multiple FIRs resulting in conviction and subsequent suspension of sentence in one state and pending trial in another - Held - parity with co-accused and prolonged detention warrant grant of bail despite statutory rigours - [Paras 15-18].

Decision: Special Leave Petitions disposed of – Petitioners directed to be released on bail on terms and conditions to be imposed by the trial Court subject to specified stipulations.

Civil Law - Res Judicata in Interlocutory Applications - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 11 and Order XXII Rule 10 - Application for impleadment by subsequent purchasers - Earlier application under Order I Rule 10 dismissed by High Court based on erroneous factual assumption regarding injunction violation - Subsequent application filed under Order XXII Rule 10 for impleadment in main appeal and cross-objections after main appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution - High Court allowed subsequent application holding erroneous previous decision does not operate as res judicata - Supreme Court observed judicial decisions bind parties whether right or wrong unless related to jurisdiction - Erroneous decision on merits attains finality and operates as res judicata for subsequent stages of same proceedings - Remedies under Order I Rule 10 and Order XXII Rule 10 overlap in seeking impleadment - Previous rejection on merits bars subsequent application for main appeal - However earlier application did not seek impleadment in cross-objections therefore principle of res judicata does not apply to cross-objections - Held - High Court order restoring main appeal and impleading purchasers therein set aside while order allowing impleadment in cross-objections upheld - Appeal partly allowed - [Paras 1-45].

Civil Law - Impleadment of pendente lite purchaser - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order I Rule 10 and Order XXII Rule 10 - Distinction and overlap - Order I Rule 10 governs addition of necessary parties ab initio while Order XXII Rule 10 governs devolution of interest during pendency of suit - Both provisions address similar remedy of impleadment - Dismissal of Order I Rule 10 application on merits bars subsequent Order XXII Rule 10 application on same facts due to res judicata - Bar inapplicable only if earlier rejection was on technical grounds without adjudicating transferee interest or upon fresh devolution - Held - Re-agitation of settled impleadment issue by switching statutory provision is impermissible - [Paras 33-38].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – The impugned judgment is set aside to the extent that it directs the restoration of the main appeal and the impleadment of subsequent purchasers therein – The High Court order allowing the application for impleadment of the subsequent purchasers as respondents in the cross-objections is sustained and upheld – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law - Interim Custody of Property - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Sections 451 and 457 - Dispute over interim custody of seized commercial vehicles between appellant and respondent company - Appellant claimed custody relying solely on registration certificates in the name of his proprietary concern - Respondent company alleged appellant being a former director misappropriated company funds to purchase vehicles and had executed an undertaking allowing the company continued use - High Court granted interim custody to respondent company - Supreme Court observed that exercise of power under Section 451 requires only a prima facie assessment of who is best entitled to possession without adjudicating title - Registration certificate is a relevant evidentiary factor but not determinative or conclusive of entitlement to interim possession - Cumulative circumstances including pending criminal proceedings for misappropriation against appellant the continued possession of vehicles by respondent company undisputed payment of EMI installments by respondent company and the written undertaking executed by the appellant outweigh the registration certificates - Held - High Court rightly granted interim possession to the respondent company - Appeals dismissed - [Paras 12-39].

Criminal Law - Release of seized property - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Sections 451 and 457 - Interpretation of precedent on interim custody - Appellant relied on Sunder Bhai Ambalal Desai case to contend that vehicles must invariably be released in favour of the registered owner - Supreme Court clarified that the said judgment does not lay down an inflexible rule that custody must follow the registration certificate irrespective of all other attending circumstances - The limited object of the provisions is to ensure property does not suffer waste misuse or deterioration and remains available for production before the Court - Court has discretion to determine who is best entitled to possession pending trial - Held - Registration certificate stands weakened given the ongoing criminal proceedings for misappropriation of funds used to acquire the subject vehicles - [Paras 26-34].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – The order of the High Court granting interim possession of the subject vehicles to the respondent company is upheld – Observations made are confined to the question of interim custody and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the rival claims in the pending appropriate proceedings.

Civil Law - Land Acquisition and Compensation - Gujarat Land Ceiling Act 1960 - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 - Land Acquisition Act 1894 - Appellant purchased subject land in 2016 after ceiling proceedings were dropped in 2014 and obtained twenty fully developed industrial plots from GIDC in exchange through a mala fide exchange deed - High Court cancelled the exchange deed - Supreme Court upheld the cancellation due to mala fides but examined the limited issue of compensation for the agricultural plots - Held - appellant entitled to compensation only on the valuation of agricultural lands under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 amounting to Rs. 11716090 with nine percent interest from July 2016 after deducting consideration received for plots already transferred to third parties - appeal disposed of - [Paras 1-13].

Civil Law - Compensation - Land Acquisition Act 1894 - Section 18 - Determination of reasonable compensation - Appellant claimed compensation under the 2013 Act or based on the valuation of developed industrial lands on the date of the exchange deed - Supreme Court noted that the land was agricultural when taken over for the Sarigam Industrial Estate in 1980 and the appellant purchased it surreptitiously in 2016 knowing it was already developed - Held - appellant not entitled to compensation under the 2013 Act or as non-agricultural developed land but only as agricultural land under the 1894 Act - [Paras 8-10].

Decision: Appeals disposed of – Cancellation of exchange deeds and finding of mala fide action affirmed – Appellant awarded compensation of Rs. 11716090 with nine percent simple interest from July 2016 subject to statutory deductions for plots already alienated to third parties.

Service Law - Recruitment - Uttar Pradesh Industrial Training Institutes (Instructors) Service Rules 2014 - Rules 9(B) and 16(3) - Arbitrariness in selection process - Appellants possessing CITS certificates applied for the posts of Instructors under 2014 and 2015 advertisements - Appellants were excluded from the zone of consideration for failing to secure arbitrary qualifying cut-off marks for interview - High Court dismissed writ petitions upholding the selection process - Supreme Court observed that Rule 16(3)(b)(i) permitted shortlisting of candidates to four times the number of vacancies only if applications were large in number - Selection Committee and State superimposed an unprescribed additional eligibility threshold of cut-off marks - Despite advertised vacancies many eligible candidates were ousted and substantial vacancies remained unfilled - Held - Fixation of cut-off marks was arbitrary and contrary to the recruitment procedure - Rules of the game cannot be changed mid way - Appeals allowed with directions to consider eligible appellants against vacant posts - [Paras 1-25].

Service Law - Estoppel - Selection process - Challenge after participation - State raised preliminary objection that appellants applied under the advertisements with full awareness of the diluted qualification criteria and participated without objection - Held - Objection upheld as no question was raised before participation - However candidate can challenge the process in situations where arbitrariness or illegality is writ large - State committed illegality mid way by fixing unprescribed cut-off marks which vitiated the process - Participation does not preclude relief when such blatant illegality is demonstrated - [Paras 9-11 and 18-19].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Respondents directed to hold interviews for appellants at the earliest and appoint eligible candidates with prospective effect along with consequential benefits including pension and gratuity but excluding back wages – Supernumerary posts to be created if eligible appellants exceed available vacancies.

Telecom Law - Regulatory powers of TRAI - Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act 1997 - Sections 11 13 14 and 29 - Appellant TRAI issued show cause notice to Respondent Multi System Operator for violating interconnection regulations by abruptly disconnecting signals to Local Cable Operators - Respondent challenged notice before TDSAT contending TRAI lacked adjudicatory jurisdiction - TDSAT allowed appeal holding TRAI had no jurisdiction to adjudicate contractual disputes between service providers - Supreme Court reversed TDSAT order noting TRAI was merely enforcing its regulations under Sections 11 and 13 which constitutes a regulatory function and not an adjudication of a dispute - Issuing a show cause notice for non compliance does not usurp the adjudicatory jurisdiction of TDSAT under Section 14 - Held - TDSAT erred in equating regulatory enforcement with adjudication - Impugned judgment set aside and civil appeal allowed - [Paras 1-20].

Telecom Law - Adjudicatory versus Regulatory functions - Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act 1997 - Sections 13 14 and 34 - Distinction between adjudication of disputes by TDSAT and enforcement of regulations by TRAI - True adjudicatory determination presupposes an existing dispute between parties and culminates in a binding decision adjusting equities or awarding damages - TRAI issuing directions to obey regulations operates upon the regulated entity in the discharge of regulatory functions and does not determine a lis inter se - Upon non compliance with a valid direction TRAI role is confined to that of a complainant under Section 34 - Held - TRAI has not trespassed upon the exclusive adjudicatory jurisdiction of TDSAT - [Paras 18-19].

Telecom Law - Power to issue directions - Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act 1997 - Section 13 read with Section 36 - Extent of TRAI authority - Section 36 confers wide and pervasive power upon TRAI to make regulations to carry out the purposes of the Act - TRAI is empowered to issue directions to secure compliance with subsisting regulations - Disobedience of such directions attracts penalty under Section 29 to be determined by a competent criminal court and not by TRAI itself - Held - TRAI can record a prima facie finding of non compliance for enforcement purposes but cannot render a final and binding adjudication of rights - [Paras 13-19].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment of the TDSAT set aside – Pending applications disposed of with no order as to costs.