Criminal Law - Discharge in Rape Case – Consent Given in Relationship – Section 376 IPC – Discharge Restored - FIR was filed after the appellant allegedly refused to marry the complainant following years of consensual relationship – Sessions Court discharged the accused on the ground that consent was not vitiated by deception – Held: FIR and charge-sheet show relationship was consensual and not induced by false promise [Paras 6–10, 15].

False Promise to Marry – Distinction Between Breach and False Promise – No Offence Made Out – Supreme Court reiterated distinction between breach of promise and false promise – Held: There is no material to suggest that the appellant never intended to marry from the outset – Relationship sustained for years and included shared domestic moments, thus excluding deceit [Paras 13–14].

Criminal Intimidation – Section 506 IPC – Lack of Prima Facie Evidence – The complaint about threats lacked supporting material – Held: No case of criminal intimidation made out on facts presented in FIR or charge-sheet [Para 15(ii)].

Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction – Improper Interference by High Court – Section 397 CrPC – High Court reversed well-reasoned discharge order despite lack of error or perversity – Held: Revisional jurisdiction must be exercised sparingly and not for re-evaluation of evidence at charging stage [Paras 16–17].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court's reversal of discharge set aside – Sessions Court's order discharging the appellant from offences under Sections 376 and 506 IPC restored – FIR and all criminal proceedings quashed [Para 18].

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR - Prevention of Corruption – FIR Quashed – No Prima Facie Material Against Co-op MD – Respondent, Managing Director of JKCHC, was implicated for land transaction approved in 1989 – FIR registered in 2021 alleged undue benefit and conspiracy with revenue officials – Held: No allegation of personal benefit or active criminal intent—mere position in society insufficient to sustain FIR [Paras 1, 4, 8].

Agrarian Reforms Act – Violation of Transfer Prohibition – Reversionary Consequences Only – Sections 28 & 28-A – FIR Not Maintainable - High Court rightly held that the alleged violation of land transfer provisions under Agrarian Reforms Act attracted only civil consequences of reversion, not criminal liability – No basis for invoking IPC or Corruption Act against society MD [Paras 5–6, 8].

Delay in FIR – Transaction Dated 1989 – FIR Registered in 2021 – Supreme Court observed unreasonable delay in initiating proceedings without fresh material – Absence of prior objection or action against developed colony negates mala fides [Paras 1, 4, 8].

Allegation of Conspiracy – Bland Accusations Insufficient – Section 120-B IPC – FIR contained general allegations of collusion without any specific overt act or unlawful benefit to respondent – Held: FIR rightly quashed as it failed to disclose any actionable offence [Paras 4, 8].

Decision – Special Leave Petition Dismissed – Supreme Court finds no ground to interfere with High Court's order quashing FIR – No personal gain or criminal intent alleged against respondent – Pending applications disposed [Paras 8–10].

Tenancy Law - Deemed Tenancy – Limitation on Successor Rights – Five-Year Cap – Defendant Not Protected – The petitioner, son of the deceased tenant, continued in possession after father’s death in 2016 – Held: As per Section 2(g) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, tenancy of dependent heirs (except spouse) is limited to five years – Plaintiff entitled to possession as statutory tenancy ceased in 2021 [Paras 4-6, 16-18].

Judgment on Admission – Order XII Rule 6 CPC – Decree Upheld – Plaintiff relied on specific admissions in written statement, including acknowledgment of tenancy under father and cessation of rent payment post 2021 – Held: Trial court rightly decreed suit under Order XII Rule 6 CPC based on clear, unambiguous admissions; upheld by High Court and Supreme Court [Paras 9-12, 44].

Admissions in Pleadings – Legal Effect – Defendant Bound by Own Statements – Admission of deceased father’s status as tenant, and acknowledgment of rent cessation after statutory period proved sufficient to constitute judgment on admission – Held: Court not bound to permit trial where admissions conclusively determine claim [Paras 26-35].

No Right to Raise New Grounds at SLP Stage – Argument on Inapplicability of Tenancy Act Rejected – Petitioner claimed WBPT Act not applicable – Held: This argument was never raised before trial court or High Court and contradicts petitioner’s earlier conduct, including application under Sections 7(1) & 7(2) of the Act – Argument barred [Paras 45-46].

Judicial Efficiency – Dissemination of Judgment – Circulation Ordered – Supreme Court directed this judgment to be circulated to all High Courts and through them to District Judiciary to streamline disposal of eviction cases based on admission [Para 48].

Final Decision – SLP Dismissed – Supreme Court affirmed eviction decree passed by trial court and upheld by High Court based on admissions in written statement and application of Section 2(g) of the 1997 Act [Paras 44, 47].

Civil Law - Recruitment – Possession of Qualification – Last Date for Eligibility – Rule Does Not Prescribe Cut-off – Supreme Court held that Rule 6(2) of the 2016 Recruitment Rules does not prescribe a fixed cut-off date for possessing the educational qualification – Interpretation by High Court treating 29.09.2022 as the cut-off date was held to be erroneous – Eligibility must be judged based on rules or, in absence, the recruitment notification or last date of application [Paras 21-27].

Education Law – Delay in Course Completion Due to Pandemic – No Disqualification –

Candidates who were TET-qualified and had completed Part-I of the 2020–2022

D.El.Ed. course were permitted to participate per the Board's assurance before the

Single Judge – Course was delayed due to COVID-19 and administrative dysfunction – Held: Participation valid as long as candidates attained qualification before final selection [Paras 7-10, 28-30].

Interpretation – Notification of 21.10.2022 Held as Recruitment Notification – High Court incorrectly treated 29.09.2022 as the recruitment notification – Supreme Court held 21.10.2022 was the actual recruitment notification, which explicitly allowed “appearing” candidates to apply – Rule 6(2) was never intended to fix a rigid cut-off date [Paras 13-14, 20-21, 27].

Article 142 – Equitable Relief – Recruitment Process Validated – Supreme Court exercised powers under Article 142 to uphold the recruitment process commenced under the 21.10.2022 notification – Held: No illegality in permitting candidates to apply where delay was due to administrative or systemic issues beyond their control [Paras 31-32].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Recruitment Process to Proceed – Judgment of Division Bench set aside – Recruitment process under 21.10.2022 notification to continue and be completed expeditiously by the Board [Paras 33-35].

Employment Law – Recognition of 18-Month D.El.Ed. – In-Service

Teachers Protected – Exclusion Set Aside – Teachers who were inservice as on 10th August 2017 and completed the 18-month D.El.Ed. course via NIOS before 1st April 2019 were entitled to be treated at par with 2-year D.El.Ed. holders – Supreme Court held that the one-time window provided under the NCTE Recognition Order dated 22/09/2017 was valid for such teachers – Blanket exclusion from recruitment held erroneous [Paras 12-28, 33-35].

Recruitment – Validity of Diploma – High Court Erred in Blanket Ban – The Calcutta High Court wrongly imposed a blanket ban on NIOStrained 18-month diploma holders from the 2022 teacher recruitment process – Held: High Court misapplied the judgment in Jaiveer Singh, which only excluded non-in-service candidates – Judgment quashed [Paras 19, 30-34].

Judicial Clarification – Viswanath Order Reaffirmed Equivalence – The Court reaffirmed that such teachers (in-service as on 10/08/2017 and completed the diploma before 01/04/2019) are valid diploma holders for appointments and promotions – Clarification issued in Viswanath (Review Order dated 10/12/2024) upheld [Paras 36-38].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court Orders Quashed – Writ Petition Dismissed – The Supreme Court quashed both the single and division bench orders of the High Court, upheld the eligibility of the appellants, and directed appointment of eligible candidates within three months [Paras 39-40].

Criminal Law – Murder – Appeal against conviction – Circumstantial Evidence – Key Witnesses Disbelieved – Conviction Set Aside – The prosecution’s case based on eye witness, last seen evidence, and extrajudicial confession was disbelieved by the High Court itself – The Supreme Court held that the benefit of such findings must equally apply to similarly placed appellant – Chain of circumstances was not complete to sustain conviction under Section 302 IPC – Acquittal ordered [Paras 17-22].

Last Seen Theory – Delay in Disclosure and Contradictions – Evidence Disbelieved – The testimony of PW-12 who claimed to have last seen the accused was found untrustworthy due to unexplained delay of 17 days in reporting despite knowing the deceased and being present at the postmortem – Such belated statement could not form the basis for conviction [Paras 20-21].

Delay in FIR – Inordinate Delay Without Satisfactory Explanation – The FIR was presented to the Magistrate 10 hours after recovery of the body – The prosecution’s explanation based on the Magistrate’s transfer was not supported by any record – Held: Delay casts serious doubt on the authenticity of the FIR and the prosecution version [Para 18].

Prosecution Failure – No Recovery of Contraband – No Sand Found – The entire motive of the crime rested on illegal sand smuggling, yet no sand was found in the tractor-trailer or at the site – This fundamental contradiction undermined the prosecution story [Para 11].

Conviction Based on Fingerprints – Insufficient – No Corroborative Evidence – Mere recovery of a wheel spanner with fingerprints of the appellant was held insufficient in absence of direct or corroborative evidence linking the appellant to the murder – Held: Such evidence alone cannot sustain conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 23].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Acquittal Ordered – The Supreme Court set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court and High Court – Appellant ordered to be released unless required in any other case [Paras 24-25].

Service Law – Recovery of Excess Payment – No Misrepresentation or

Fraud – Recovery Held Illegal – The appellants, retired Stenographers, were granted financial benefits based on retrospective promotions linked to Shetty Commission recommendations – After their retirement, recovery orders were issued on the basis of an erroneous interpretation of such recommendations – Held: Where no fraud or misrepresentation is alleged and employees have already retired, recovery after several years is arbitrary and impermissible – Relief granted in equity due to resultant hardship [Paras 4-11].

Natural Justice – Recovery Without Opportunity of Hearing – Violation of Principles – The impugned recovery orders were passed without notice or opportunity of hearing to the appellants – Held: Such unilateral action violates principles of natural justice and cannot be sustained – Recovery orders set aside [Paras 4, 11].

Equitable Relief – Application of Supreme Court Precedents – Relief

Against Recovery Granted – Relying on precedent including Thomas Daniel, Rafiq Masih, and Sahib Ram – Held: Recovery from Class III employees after retirement and lapse of more than five years is inequitable – Courts can invoke discretion to relieve such retired employees from repayment burdens [Paras 8-10].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Recovery Orders Set Aside – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s dismissal of the writ petition and quashing the recovery orders dated 08.09.2023 and 12.09.2023 issued to the appellants [Para 12].

Civil Law - Specific Performance – Readiness and Willingness – Buyer Accepted Refund – Decree Set Aside – The Respondent-buyer accepted five demand drafts refunding majority of the earnest money after the seller issued a cancellation letter – The Supreme Court held that such acceptance and encashment evidenced unwillingness to perform the contract – Mere plea of willingness was not sufficient in absence of continuous conduct to that effect – Relief of specific performance denied [Paras 15-20].

Contract Law – Cancellation of Agreement – Repudiation Accepted – Agreement Terminated – The seller issued a letter cancelling the agreement to sell and enclosed refund via demand drafts and returned post-dated cheques – Buyer encashed the drafts without protest – Held: The buyer’s acceptance of refund amounted to acceptance of repudiation, resulting in cancellation of the agreement – Specific performance cannot be sought thereafter [Paras 2123].

Maintainability of Suit – No Prayer for Declaration – Suit Not Maintainable – The agreement having been cancelled prior to filing of the suit, it was incumbent on the buyer to seek a declaratory relief that such cancellation was invalid – Held: In absence of such prayer, suit for specific performance was not maintainable – Trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit [Paras 24-27].

Equitable Relief – Suppression of Material Facts – Discretionary Relief Denied – The buyer failed to disclose the fact of cancellation letter and receipt of refund in the plaint – Held: Suppression of material facts disentitles party from equitable and discretionary relief of specific performance – Sale deed executed pursuant to trial court’s decree declared null and void [Paras 29-30].

Locus Standi – Beneficiary Under Will – Appeal Maintainable – Appellant, as a legatee under a Will executed by the original seller, was impleaded in the suit – Held: She had sufficient interest in the property and was a necessary party with locus to file the appeal [Para 28].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Sale Deed Cancelled – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments of the Trial Court and High Court, and directed refund of balance consideration deposited by the buyer – Sale deed executed in pursuance of the decree declared null and void [Para 30].

IBC – Limitation for Filing Appeal – Strict Time Frame – Appeal Dismissed – Appellant failed to file appeals within the 30-day period mandated under Section 61(2) of IBC, and no sufficient cause shown for condonation within the further 15-day period – Supreme Court upheld NCLAT’s view that delay beyond permissible period is fatal – Liberal interpretation not allowed in a time-bound insolvency regime [Paras 11-14, 18].

Certified Copy Requirement – No Application for Certified Copy – Appeal Barred – The appellant did not apply for certified copies of the impugned NCLT orders – Supreme Court held that benefit of exclusion under Section 12(2) of Limitation Act can only be granted when such an application is made – Filing appeal without certified copy or exemption justified rejection by NCLAT [Paras 12, 20-21, 26-27].

Misstatement and Suppression – Appellant Misrepresented Facts in Grounds of Appeal – The Court took serious note of contradictory stands and misstatements made in appeal and condonation applications – Held: Appellant suppressed facts, took inconsistent pleas and failed to approach the tribunal with clean hands – No interference warranted with NCLAT’s decision [Paras 5, 9, 28-29].

Primacy of IBC over Companies Act – Strict Interpretation Mandated – Supreme Court reaffirmed that limitation provisions under Section 61 of IBC override those under the Companies Act, and refusal to file appeal within statutory time frame cannot be excused by referring to lenient procedural laws – Cited precedents reaffirm time-bound nature of IBC [Paras 13-15, 17-18].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Condonation Denied – Supreme Court upheld NCLAT’s decision, dismissed both appeals, and held that no indulgence is warranted in cases where delay exceeds statutory limits and no sufficient cause is shown [Paras 30-32].