Labour Law – Industrial Dispute – Termination – Delay in Raising Dispute – Respondent workman raised an industrial dispute after 15 years of termination from service – Labour Court held termination illegal and awarded full back wages – High Court upheld the award – Supreme Court held that although termination was illegal, delay of 16 years in raising the dispute is a relevant factor – Relief moulded to award only lump-sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages [Paras 2–13].

Industrial Disputes Act – Delay and Moulding of Relief – Court reiterated that delay in raising an industrial dispute does not per se bar relief, but is a valid ground to deny full back wages or reinstatement – Employer's failure to challenge reference under Article 226 does not estop them from raising delay before Labour Court – Relief moulded based on decisions in Ajaib Singh, Mohan Lal, and Shahaji – Held: Lump-sum compensation of ₹2,50,000 awarded instead of reinstatement or full back wages [Paras 6–11, 13].

Judicial Review – Challenge to Reference under Article 226 – High Court has jurisdiction to quash stale references – However, absence of such challenge does not preclude employer from raising delay before Labour Court – Distinction maintained between delay in making reference and consequences of delay in adjudication under ID Act [Paras 6–9].

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – Finding of illegal termination upheld – Orders of reinstatement and full back wages set aside – Respondent entitled to compensation of ₹2,50,000 to be paid within two months – Interest at 7% p.a. if delayed.

Succession Law – Validity of Will – Proof of Due Execution – Attestation – Witness Testimony – Exclusion of Legal Heir – Concurrent findings reversed – Will executed by testator excluding one out of nine children due to marriage outside the community – Sole attesting witness (DW-2) examined; trial and appellate courts held execution not proved as DW-2 did not attest to signature of second witness – Supreme Court held that cross-examination revealed DW-2 affirmed presence and signature of both attesting witnesses and testator – Held: Evidence satisfies Section 63(c) Succession Act and Section 68 Evidence Act – Leading questions in cross-examination can carry full probative value – No suspicious circumstances established regarding testator’s soundness of mind or voluntariness – Delay of 21 years in challenging will not fatal – Plaintiff failed to mount evidence or deny will in plaint – Judicial conscience satisfied regarding testator’s intent to exclude plaintiff – Res judicata not applicable due to nature of earlier injunction suit [Paras 2-10, 15, 22-29].

Wills – Exclusion of Heirs – Rule of Prudence – Disposition upheld – Court emphasized that testator’s intention must be respected and not substituted with judicial views – Exclusion of one heir justified by testator’s rationale – No evidence of undue influence, coercion, or fraud – Held: Courts must step into the testator’s shoes, not question motives when proof of will is adequate – Conscience of the court satisfied, will proved [Paras 23, 28-29].

Civil Procedure – Res Judicata – Earlier injunction suit not bar to partition claim – Title and validity of will not in issue in prior suit – Therefore, no estoppel or res judicata applies – Plaintiff not barred from filing partition suit but claim fails on merits due to valid will [Paras 10, 15].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Judgments of High Court and Trial Court set aside – Will held valid and properly executed – Plaintiff not entitled to partition – Suit dismissed [Paras 29-31].

Civil Law – Abatement – Impleadment of Legal Heirs – Delay – Appellant failed to timely implead legal heirs of deceased second respondent, who died in 2017 – Legal heirs’ details were brought on record in 2022, but application for condonation and impleadment filed only in 2024 – High Court dismissed entire revision petition as abated – Held: High Court erred – Abatement of revision against one respondent does not vitiate the entire proceeding when contest survives against remaining respondent – Delay in impleadment, though considerable, should not defeat justice [Paras 2–3, 7–8].

Civil Procedure – Restoration of Proceedings – Cause Survives Against Other Respondents – Held: Civil revision cannot be dismissed in entirety where contest survives against remaining respondents – Legal heirs of deceased respondent, who are desirous of participating, should be permitted to contest – Revision restored and matter remitted to High Court for decision on merits [Paras 8–10, 12].

Litigation Conduct – Laches by Counsel – Equity Consideration – Though there was laxity by counsel in taking timely steps to implead legal heirs, Court invoked equitable jurisdiction to avoid miscarriage of justice – Ensured full hearing of all parties, including legal heirs of deceased [Paras 3, 11].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court order dismissing revision petition set aside – Civil revision restored – Legal heirs of deceased second respondent permitted to be impleaded – Parties to appear before High Court on 23.01.2026 – Revision to be heard on merits.

Criminal Law – Rape and Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – DNA Match – Conviction Confirmed – Deceased last seen in same vicinity as accused – Witnesses (PWs 4, 5, 6) corroborated presence and suspicious behaviour of accused – Blood-stained clothes, victim’s shrieks, and disappearance of accused from village strengthened prosecution’s chain – Medical and DNA evidence matched A1 and A2 – Time of death matched with eyewitness accounts – Held: Circumstantial evidence forms a complete and cogent chain to establish guilt under Sections 302 and 376D read with Section 34 IPC – Conviction confirmed [Paras 5-12].

SC/ST Act – Caste-Based Offence – Absence of Knowledge of Victim’s Caste – Acquittal under SC/ST Act Provisions – Though caste of deceased was proved, prosecution failed to show that accused knew her caste – No acquaintance or motive related to caste established – Held: Essential ingredient under Sections 3(1)(w)(i) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act not proved – Conviction under SC/ST Act unsustainable – Acquittal directed [Paras 2, 13-14].

Evidence Act – Section 27 – Improper Recovery – Confessional Statements in Police Custody – No Concealment – Knife, mobile phone and cash alleged to be recovered not admissible under Section 27 – No independent concealment shown – Recovery from person during arrest, not based on disclosure – Confession made in police presence inadmissible – Held: Recovery and confessional evidence unreliable – Conviction under Section 404 IPC against A2 set aside [Paras 6-8, 14].

Sentencing – Life Imprisonment – Remission – Modification from Whole-Life Sentence to 25 Years – Trial Court imposed death sentence; High Court reduced it to imprisonment till last breath – Supreme Court found mitigating factors: A2 had no past criminal record, was 40 years old, had a dependent family, and showed reformation in custody – Held: Case not in ‘rarest of rare’ category – Sentence modified to 25 years rigorous imprisonment without remission under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC – Sentence under Section 376D read with Section 34 IPC to run concurrently [Paras 15-16].

Legal Aid – Direction for Appeal of Co-Convicts – Supreme Court noted that other two co-accused were convicted identically but had not filed appeals – Directed Telangana Legal Services Authority to assist in filing appeals for them via Supreme Court Legal Services Committee [Para 19].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under IPC upheld – Conviction under SC/ST Act and Section 404 IPC set aside – Sentence under Section 302 modified to 25 years without remission – Sentence under Section 376D to run concurrently.

Arbitration – Section 11 – Consortium Agreements – Existence of Arbitration Agreement – Referral to Arbitral Tribunal Upheld – First respondent (Tecpro Systems Ltd.), a member of a three-party consortium, invoked arbitration individually under Clause 22.2 of General Conditions of Contract – Appellant objected that only the Consortium could invoke arbitration, not individual member – Supreme Court held: At referral stage under Section 11(6-A), court’s role is limited to prima facie satisfaction of existence of arbitration agreement – Complex issues of party status, authority, consortium dissolution, and maintainability are to be adjudicated by Arbitral Tribunal under Section 16 – Held: Prima facie arbitration agreement existed and invocation not barred at referral stage – High Court order constituting Tribunal upheld [Paras 2, 14-19, 21].

Arbitration – Consortium Member’s Standing – Joinder of Non-Signatory – Prima Facie Test – Kompetenz-Kompetenz – Court emphasized limited jurisdiction under Section 11(6-A) – Referral court need not decide whether the member is a “veritable party” or “legal successor” to consortium – Such issues to be examined by AT applying doctrines of competence-competence and group of companies – Reference to Cox & Kings, Duro Felguera and Interplay Constitution Bench cases – Held: Consortium dissolution, insolvency, or loss of leadership by member does not automatically preclude referral – No “mini-trial” to be held at referral stage [Paras 15-18].

Contract Law – Incorporation by Reference – Arbitration Clause in GCC Validly Incorporated – Arbitration clause in GCC validly incorporated into Purchase Orders through reference – Despite separate jurisdiction clause in POs, not inconsistent with arbitration – Held: Arbitration clause survives as operative mechanism under composite contract – Distinguished from separate contractual regime argument [Paras 11.1, 14].

Judicial Discipline – Similar Arbitration Already Proceeding in Related Matter – Judicial Consistency Emphasized – Supreme Court noted similar arbitration proceedings were allowed in related case involving Telangana State Power Generation Corp. – Objections there also dismissed – Held: No reason to adopt contrary view when consortium and contract structure are materially the same [Paras 11.3, 20].

Decision: Civil Appeals dismissed – Order appointing Arbitral Tribunal affirmed – Tribunal to decide all objections including maintainability under Section 16.

Civil Law – Injunction – Title and Identification of Property – Rectification Deed – Suit Dismissed – Respondents filed suit for permanent injunction based on BDA auction and rectified sale deed – Trial court dismissed suit for want of title and property identification – High Court reversed based on unproven BDA survey – Supreme Court held rectification deed was executed after 20 years without clear reason – Site No. 66 was never constructed upon, violating auction conditions – Original allotment was in land whose acquisition was later quashed – Held: No title proved, rectification invalid, and no proper survey or boundary identification established – Deed lacked evidentiary value, no Commissioner deputed for identification – High Court erred in reversal – Trial court’s dismissal of suit restored [Paras 2-13].

Evidence – Burden of Proof – Production v. Proof – Survey Document Not Admissible – Survey document produced by plaintiff not authenticated or sealed – Author not examined – Document silent on metes and bounds – Held: Production is not proof – High Court’s reliance on unauthenticated survey unsustainable [Paras 11-12].

Civil Procedure – Bar to Subsequent Suit – Earlier Suit on Same Site and Parties – Plaint admitted earlier suit (O.S. No. 26629 of 2011) regarding same Site No. 66 – Second suit filed without leave of court and with changed survey numbers – Held: Improper exercise of jurisdiction – Plaintiff failed to pursue first suit – No explanation for second suit with altered property description [Para 7].

Land Acquisition – Allotment Based on Quashed Acquisition – Title Non-Est – Original allotment made on acquired land later released back to original owners – BDA had no title to transfer – Subsequent rectification deed unrelated to valid acquisition – Held: Respondents cannot claim rights over land acquired but later restored to appellants’ predecessor – Rectification lacked basis [Paras 8-9, 13].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court judgment set aside – Trial court decree dismissing suit for injunction restored.

Criminal Law – Rape – Conviction Based on Hostile Witnesses – Appellant, a medical practitioner, convicted for offence under Section 376(2)(d) IPC – Victim and her husband turned hostile during trial – Trial Court convicted accused and High Court not only affirmed conviction but enhanced sentence to ten years – Held: Conviction cannot be sustained when primary witnesses do not support prosecution and remaining evidence does not conclusively establish guilt. Acquittal. [Paras 1–5, 18–20].

Evidence – Hostile Witnesses – Reliability – Victim (PW-1) and her husband (PW-2) resiled from earlier statements and were declared hostile – High Court presumed that witnesses were won over by accused – Held: Court cannot presume that witnesses were won over in absence of prosecution case or cogent material to that effect – Testimony of hostile witnesses requires cautious scrutiny and corroboration [Paras 10–11, 18].

First Information Report – Evidentiary Value – FIR lodged by victim alleging rape – High Court relied upon contents of FIR through Investigating Officer – Held: FIR is not substantive evidence and allegations therein cannot form sole basis of conviction unless proved by reliable evidence during trial [Paras 6, 19].

Medical Evidence – Lack of Corroboration – Doctor examining victim found only minor abrasions on neck and no injuries on private parts – No signs of recent sexual intercourse found – Semen not detected on victim’s body – Held: Medical evidence did not corroborate prosecution version of forcible sexual intercourse [Paras 16–17, 19].

Forensic Evidence – Recovery Panchnama – Panch witnesses to recovery of clothes turned hostile – Witnesses stated signatures were taken on prepared papers at police instance – Held: Recovery of clothes and FSL report based on such panchnamas could not be relied upon to sustain conviction [Paras 13–15].

Investigation – Non-Examination of Material Witnesses – Independent witnesses present in clinic at time of alleged incident not examined despite being cited in chargesheet – Held: Non-examination of material independent witnesses further weakened prosecution case [Para 19].

Presumption and Proof – Burden on Prosecution – Serious offence of rape requires proof beyond reasonable doubt – Courts below erred in drawing presumptions against accused when prosecution evidence was shaky and unreliable – Held: Benefit of doubt must go to accused [Paras 18–20].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Conviction and sentence recorded by Trial Court and affirmed/enhanced by High Court set aside – Appellant acquitted – Bail bonds discharged [Paras 20–22].

Consumer Insurance Law – Fire Insurance – Repudiation of Claim – Theft Preceding Fire – Appellant’s factory suffered loss due to fire caused when miscreants attempted theft of transformer copper windings – Insurance claim repudiated on ground that burglary was proximate cause and excluded under RSMD clause – NCDRC upheld repudiation – Held: Once loss is caused by fire, which is a specified peril, the cause igniting the fire becomes immaterial unless expressly excluded [Paras 1–10, 20–21].

Fire Policy – Named Peril Policy – Interpretation of Exclusions – Fire listed as a separate specified peril with its own exclusions – Burglary/theft not included as an exclusion under “Fire” – Held: Exclusion under RSMD clause cannot be imported to defeat a claim arising under the independent peril of fire [Paras 20–22, 28].

Proximate Cause – Application in Fire Insurance – NCDRC relied on doctrine of proximate cause to treat burglary as active cause – Held: Doctrine of proximate cause has limited application where insured peril of fire is established and no exclusion applies – Courts need not investigate “cause of causes” in fire insurance claims [Paras 22–25].

Cause of Fire – Immateriality – Loss admittedly caused by fire and no allegation of fraud or wilful act by insured – Held: In fire insurance, cause of fire is immaterial so long as fire is accidental and not caused by insured’s wilful act – Theft preceding fire does not disentitle insured [Paras 23–26].

Construction of Insurance Contracts – Exclusion Clauses – Strict Interpretation – Exclusions must be construed narrowly and consistently with main purpose of policy – Where two interpretations possible, interpretation favouring insured must prevail – Held: RSMD exclusion could not be read so widely as to nullify coverage under fire peril [Paras 26–28].

Consumer Jurisdiction – Error by NCDRC – NCDRC failed to apply settled principles governing fire insurance and wrongly upheld repudiation – Held: Impugned judgment unsustainable in law [Paras 21, 29].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Repudiation letter dated 04.01.2008 and judgment of NCDRC set aside – Matter remanded to NCDRC for assessment of loss and grant of consequential relief – NCDRC directed to decide matter expeditiously, preferably within six months – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 29–31].

Banking and Finance Law – SARFAESI Act – Applicability in Nagaland – Appellant financial corporation invoked SARFAESI Act for recovery of dues from respondent borrower – High Court set aside SARFAESI proceedings holding action to be without jurisdiction – Held: SARFAESI Act was not applicable in the State of Nagaland prior to notification dated 10.12.2021 and could not have been invoked for recovery action initiated earlier [Paras 18–21].

Constitutional Law – Article 371A – Special Provisions for Nagaland – Ownership and transfer of land – Acts of Parliament relating to land not applicable unless adopted by State Legislature – SARFAESI Act envisages transfer of secured assets by sale – Held: In absence of resolution by Nagaland Legislative Assembly, SARFAESI Act could not override Article 371A prior to 2021 notification [Paras 18–20].

Security Interest – Essential Requirement – Secured Creditor – Appellant failed to establish creation of any mortgage or security interest in its favour – Properties were mortgaged in favour of Village Council and not the appellant – Held: Appellant was not a “secured creditor” within the meaning of Section 2(1)(zd) of the SARFAESI Act [Paras 24–28, 33].

Guarantee – Distinction Between Guarantee and Security Agreement – Deed of guarantee executed by Village Council did not create any right, title or interest in favour of appellant over immovable properties – Held: Mere guarantee does not amount to a “security agreement” enabling SARFAESI action [Paras 13, 27–28].

Jurisdiction – Invocation of SARFAESI Act – Absence of Security Interest – Action under Sections 13 and 14 of SARFAESI Act without jurisdiction where no enforceable security interest exists – Held: High Court rightly entertained writ petition despite alternative remedy under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act [Paras 36–37].

Precedents – Distinguishing Earlier Decisions – Reliance on M.D. Frozen Foods, UCO Bank and Satyawati Tondon – Held: Said judgments presuppose existence of valid security interest and secured creditor relationship – Not applicable where no security interest exists [Paras 29–35].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment of Gauhati High Court upheld – SARFAESI proceedings including notices and possession action declared without jurisdiction – Appellant left at liberty to pursue recovery against borrower or guarantor in accordance with law – Parties to bear their own costs [Paras 37–39].