Employment Law – Appointment of Assistant Teachers – Validity of appointments questioned due to alleged manipulation by school management – State stopped disbursement of salaries – Appellants' service not terminated – Appellants seeking redress for unpaid salaries and reinstatement. [Paras 1-6]

Judicial Review – High Court’s dismissal of writ petitions challenging the stoppage of salary – Division Bench upholding Single Judge’s findings – Supreme Court's analysis of appellants' culpability and State's actions. [Paras 7-12]

Employment Law – Inquiry Report findings – No collusion or blameworthy conduct by appellants in alleged manipulation of sanctioned posts – State participation in selection process – Absence of any order terminating appellants' services. [Paras 13-19]

Legal Principle – Innocence of candidates in fraudulent selection process – Candidates not to be prejudiced for faults at institutional level – Protection of appointments in absence of individual malpractice. [Paras 20-31]

Supreme Court Judgment – High Court’s orders set aside – Direction to State to pay full salaries for certain period and 50% backwages from a specified date – Declaration of appellants' continuous service and entitlement to consequential benefits. [Para 34]

Directions to State – Liberty to State to act against school management if found guilty of manipulation – Possible recovery of a portion of arrears from management if culpable. [Para 35]

Decision – Appeals allowed – No order as to costs. [Para 36]

Writ Petition – Supreme Court Jurisdiction Over SEBI's Regulatory Domain – SEBI's regulatory and delegated legislative powers scrutinized – Court refrains from substituting its own wisdom over SEBI’s regulatory policies – Judicial review limited to scrutinizing violations of fundamental rights, constitutional provisions, statutory provisions, or manifest arbitrariness. [Para 11-17]

SEBI Investigations – Adani Group – SEBI conducted comprehensive investigation into allegations against Adani Group – 22 out of 24 investigations completed – Court directs SEBI to complete pending investigations within three months – No evidence of SEBI’s inaction or inadequacy in investigation. [Para 18-37]

Expert Committee on Market Volatility – Recommendations – SEBI and Government of India directed to consider Committee's suggestions – Measures proposed for strengthening regulatory framework and protecting investors – Importance of market stability and investor awareness emphasized. [Para 51-65]

Short Selling Regulation – Hindenburg Research's impact on market – SEBI and Union Government to probe any legal infractions by entities engaging in short-selling – Losses incurred by Indian investors due to short positions to be investigated. [Para 56-58]

Investor Awareness – Expert Committee’s findings and recommendations – SEBI and Government to consider measures for enhancing investor education and protecting interests – Focus on financial literacy and effective information dissemination. [Para 59-63]

Conflict of Interest – Allegations against Expert Committee members – Claims found unsubstantiated – Court rejects allegations and appreciates Committee's efforts. [Para 45-50]

Petitions disposed with directives to SEBI and Government – Emphasis on public interest jurisprudence and responsible use of Article 32 – Acknowledgment of Expert Committee's contributions. [Para 67-70]

Decision – SEBI’s regulatory framework upheld – Court’s limited role in policy matters reaffirmed – SEBI’s investigations into Adani Group recognized – Expert Committee’s recommendations to be considered for enhancing market regulation and investor protection. [Para 71]

Judicial Discipline and Precedent - Importance of adhering to judicial discipline and doctrine of precedents emphasized - Binding nature of decisions of co-equal benches of the same High Court, subject to the right to refer to a larger bench - Ensures certainty and consistency in judicial decisions. [Para 1]

Property Rights Dispute - Appeal against the judgment of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court - Original suit filed for declaration of title, possession, and permanent injunction - Initial suits and appeals culminated in a High Court decision, deemed final. [Paras 2-4]

Property Possession and Title - Trial Court's partial decree and subsequent modifications by the appellate courts - Controversy over whether the High Court's earlier decision covered the entire property or only a part - Issue of interpreting the scope of the previous High Court judgment. [Paras 5-12]

Doctrine of Merger - Legal principle that lower court judgments merge into the appellate court's decision - Ensures a single operative order on a subject matter - Trial Court and First Appellate Court decisions merged with the High Court's decision in the first round of litigation. [Paras 13, 17]

Judicial Discipline Violation - High Court's second round decision seen as contrary to its own previous judgment - Accusations of breaching judicial discipline by not adhering to the established facts and conclusions of the earlier judgment. [Paras 14-16, 20]

Property Boundaries and Possession Claims - Analysis of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court judgments in the context of property boundaries and possession claims - Clarification of the property in dispute and the basis of possession claims. [Paras 22-23]

Decision - Supreme Court allows the appeal - Sets aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and restores the judgment of the First Appellate Court dated 13.10.2003 - Upholds the principle of judicial discipline and correct interpretation of prior judgments. [Paras 24-25]

Insolvency and Bankruptcy – Application of Section 30(2)(b)(ii) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) to dissenting financial creditors – Entitlement to payment not less than the liquidation value of their security interest – Applicability of the IBC (Amendment) Act, 2019 to pending proceedings and appeals. [Para 22, 23, 24]

Secured Creditors – Different treatment of secured financial creditors based on the nature of their security – Protection of minority autonomy of creditors under Section 30(2)(b)(ii) of the IBC – Requirement for payment to dissenting financial creditors equivalent to their security interest value. [Para 25, 26, 27]

Committee of Creditors (CoC) – Authority to decide the distribution of resolution proceeds – Commercial wisdom of CoC respected – Minimum payment protection for operational creditors and dissenting financial creditors under Section 30(2)(b)(ii). [Para 25, 30, 35, 36]

Legal Interpretation – Interpretation of Section 30(2)(b)(ii) and its application to dissenting financial creditors – Ensuring fair and equitable treatment in the resolution process – Dissenting financial creditors entitled to liquidation value of their security interest. [Para 33, 34, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49]

Judicial Discrepancy – Contradiction in judicial reasoning in India Resurgence ARC Private Limited case – Referral to a larger bench for clarification on the interpretation of Section 30(2)(b)(ii) of the IBC. [Para 31, 37, 49]

Decision – Resolution plan approval by NCLT and NCLAT challenged – Dissenting creditor’s claim for liquidation value of security interest under scrutiny – Matter referred to a larger bench for definitive interpretation of Section 30(2)(b)(ii) of the IBC. [Para 17, 18, 49]

Title and Possession of Property – Ownership Claim through Sale Deed Validated – Plaintiff appellant’s ownership of disputed land established through registered sale deed dated 21.01.1966 from erstwhile Zamindar. Attempt to construct on land led to dispute in 1975. Trial Court and First Appellate Court's findings upheld, decreeing suit for possession in plaintiff's favor. High Court's dismissal on grounds of limitation, based on adverse possession claim by defendants, set aside. [Paras 1-9.6]

Adverse Possession – Incorrect Application by High Court – High Court erred in applying concept of adverse possession. First, plaintiff's ownership was not disputed; second, the defendants' possession, originating from tenancy, could not be adverse to the Zamindars or the subsequent owner, plaintiff appellant. The suit filed in 1975 was within 12 years of the sale deed, negating adverse possession claim. [Paras 9-9.5]

Non-Agricultural Land – Relevance in Zamindari Abolition – First Appellate Court found the disputed land to be non-agricultural, negating defendants' claim of ownership through Zamindari abolition. This finding, not disturbed by the High Court, supported the plaintiff’s title claim. [Para 9.6]

Decision – High Court's Judgment Set Aside, First Appellate Court’s Decree Upheld – Supreme Court allows the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment on limitation grounds. Upholds the First Appellate Court's decree for possession in favor of the plaintiff appellant. [Para 10]

Sale Deed Dispute – Land ownership dispute involving land measuring 71 kanals 8 marlas – Discrepancy between original and interpolated sale deed – Original sale deed showing sale of entire land, while interpolated version showing sale of only 1/3rd of the land. [Paras 1, 11]

Interpretation of Registered Document – Application of Section 47 of the Registration Act, 1908 – Emphasis on the operation of a registered document from the time it would have commenced if no registration was required – In this case, the registered sale deed operates from the date of its execution. [Paras 5, 6, 11]

Legal Position of Sale Completion – Reference to the Constitution Bench decision in Ram Saran Lall v. Domini Kuer – Section 47 of the Registration Act does not determine the completion of sale but the operation date of the registered document. [Paras 7, 8]

Role of Consideration in Sale Deeds – Consideration fully paid on date of execution of sale deed – Sale deed operates from date of execution as per Section 47, Registration Act. [Paras 10, 11]

Invalidity of Unilateral Interpolation – Interpolation made by the seller after execution but before registration, without the buyer’s consent, deemed invalid – Sale deed to be considered in its original form at the time of execution. [Paras 11, 12]

High Court’s Decision Upheld – Supreme Court finds no error in High Court's decision restoring the Trial Court's decree – Dismissal of appeal with no order as to costs. [Paras 12, 13, 14]

Error in Date of Birth on Application – Minor Discrepancy – Appellant's candidature for Police Constable was rejected due to a mismatch in the date of birth in the application form (08.12.1997) and educational certificates (18.12.1997). The appellant contended the error was inadvertent, with no advantage gained, as he met the age criteria regardless. [Paras 2-4, 11, 18]

High Court Decision – Dismissal of Writ Petition – The High Court dismissed the appellant's writ petition, agreeing with the respondents that the error constituted misleading information, warranting rejection of the candidature per the terms of the advertisement. [Paras 6-7]

Supreme Court Analysis – Trivial Error – The Supreme Court found the error to be trivial and not impacting the selection process. The appellant's lack of awareness about the error and success in all stages of selection were noted. The principle 'De minimis non curat lex' (law does not concern itself with trifles) was applied. [Paras 14, 19, 20]

Precedents Considered – The Supreme Court considered various precedents where similar trivial errors in application forms were condoned. [Paras 16-17]

Supreme Court Decision – Candidature Restoration – The Court set aside the High Court's judgment, directing the State to consider the appellant as having passed the selection process and issue an appointment letter, if otherwise qualified. In case of no vacancy, an appointment letter is still to be issued, with the possibility of adjusting the vacancy in future recruitments. [Paras 25-26]

Arrest Procedure under PMLA – Appellant's arrest by ED challenged – Question of law: legality of ED's practice of not furnishing a copy of arrest grounds to the arrestee at the time of arrest – Appellant contends violation of Section 19 of PMLA and fundamental rights under the Constitution. [Para 3]

Factual Background – Appellant, founder of M/s Supertech Limited, faced multiple FIRs and a PMLA investigation – Arrested without a copy of the arrest grounds provided at the time, which led to the legal challenge. [Paras 4(i)-(vi)]

ED's Compliance Assertion – ED asserts compliance with Section 19 of PMLA – Claimed to have provided the arrest grounds document, which the appellant read and signed. [Para 5]

Appellant's Rejoinder – Appellant argues non-service of arrest grounds at the time of arrest is an illegality, stressing the importance of serving the grounds as per Supreme Court precedents. [Para 6]

Supreme Court's Analysis – Reviewed the constitutionality and interpretation of Section 19 of PMLA – Considered the mandate of informing the arrestee of arrest grounds. [Paras 10-22]

Decision and Rationale – Appeal dismissed – Court held that informing the appellant orally about the arrest grounds and providing a written communication within 24 hours is compliant with Section 19 of PMLA and the Constitution – The practice prior to the Pankaj Bansal judgment was deemed sufficient. [Paras 23-25]

Slum Rehabilitation Scheme – Mumbai Slums – Legal challenge to the allotment process of a Slum Rehabilitation Scheme under the Maharashtra Slum Areas Act, 1971. The appeal contests the High Court’s decision dismissing a writ petition concerning the Slum Rehabilitation Authority’s allotment methods in the redevelopment of slums in Lower Parel Division, Mumbai. [Paras 1-2, 3-5, 7, 8]

Development and Allotment Dispute – A dispute arose over the allotment of residential units in towers D, E, and F, with claims based on a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between a minority group of slum dwellers (Appellants) and a Developer. The High Court found the MoU, which deviated from standard SRA procedures, legally untenable. [Paras 9-14, 16-19, 22]

Legal Provisions for Allotment – The SRA’s guidelines under DCR 1991 and Circular No. 162, dated 23.10.2015, mandate the allotment of rehabilitation tenements through a lottery system, ensuring fairness and compliance with the law. [Paras 21, 25-26]

Court’s Decision – The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, dismissing the appeal. The Court emphasized the statutory authority of the SRA and the non-enforceability of private agreements like the MoU in matters of public policy and welfare. It directed SRA to proceed with the allotment as per legal norms and reprimanded the Developer for bypassing statutory procedures. [Paras 22-26]