ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: Cognizance — No Pre-Cognizance Summons under Secti...Cognizance — No Pre-Cognizance Summons under Section 223 BNSS. (Para 36(E)) Magistrate need not issue summons under Section 223 BNSS before taking cognizance; NI Act is special statute governed by Section 142. Ratio Decidendi: Pre-cognizance notice to accused is not mandatory in Section 138 complaints. Methods of Service of Summons — Mandatory Multi-Modal Mechanism. (Paras 36(A), 36(B), 36(I)) Service shall not be confined to ordinary modes. It must include: Dasti service by complainant in addition to court process. Electronic service under BNSS rules (email, mobile, messaging platforms). Affidavit verifying accused’s contact particulars at filing stage. Affidavit of service to be filed; false affidavit invites legal consequences. Post-service matters to be listed before physical courts to promote settlement. Ratio Decidendi: Multi-modal, technology-enabled and complainant-assisted service of summons is mandatory to prevent procedural delay in Section 138 cases.

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: Cognizance — No Pre-Cognizance Summons under Secti...: advocatemmmohan Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Chapter XVII — Object and Interpretation. (Paras 11–14) The criminalisation of cheque dis...

advocatemmmohan

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Chapter XVII — Object and Interpretation. (Paras 11–14)

The criminalisation of cheque dishonour was introduced to restore credibility of cheques as substitutes for cash and ensure financial discipline. Interpretation must advance this legislative intent and not dilute statutory presumptions.

Ratio Decidendi: Courts must construe Sections 138–148 NI Act in a manner that reinforces cheque credibility and avoids converting proceedings into ordinary civil recovery suits.

---

Sections 118 & 139 NI Act — Presumptions — Trigger and Burden of Rebuttal. (Paras 15–18)

Upon admission of signature/execution, presumptions of consideration and legally enforceable debt arise. Observations in Krishna Janardhan Bhat stand overruled by Rangappa v. Sri Mohan.

Ratio Decidendi: Admission of signature mandates drawing of statutory presumptions; accused bears initial burden to rebut by credible, probable defence.

---

Rebuttal — Financial Capacity — Evidentiary Standard. (Paras 22–24, 29)

Complainant need not initially prove financial capacity unless specifically challenged with material foundation. Non-reply to statutory notice strengthens complainant’s case.

Reliance on Tedhi Singh v. Narayan Dass Mahant and MMTC Ltd. v. Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd..

Ratio Decidendi: Burden shifts back to complainant only after accused discharges initial evidentiary onus.

---

Section 269SS Income Tax Act — Effect on Legally Enforceable Debt. (Paras 19–20)

Violation of Section 269SS attracts fiscal penalty under Section 271D but does not render the transaction void or unenforceable. Kerala High Court view set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Breach of fiscal restriction on cash transactions does not negate enforceability under Section 138 NI Act nor rebut statutory presumption.

---

Revisional Jurisdiction — Limits of Interference. (Paras 27–28)

High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence and upset concurrent findings absent perversity.

Ratio Decidendi: Revisional jurisdiction is supervisory, not appellate; interference requires jurisdictional error or manifest perversity.

---

Blank Signed Cheque Defence. (Para 32)

Plea that cheque was issued blank for facilitating bank loan was rejected as implausible.

Ratio Decidendi: Bare plea of “security cheque” or “blank cheque” without supporting evidence does not rebut presumption under Sections 118 and 139.

---

Nature of Proceedings — Quasi-Criminal — Compensatory Character. (Paras 33–35)

Reiterating P. Mohanraj v. Shah Brothers Ispat Pvt. Ltd., proceedings are compensatory in substance; object is securing payment, not retribution.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 138 is a “civil sheep in criminal wolf’s clothing”; primary focus is monetary restitution.

---

Probation of Offenders Act — Applicability. (Para 35)

Benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 may be extended in appropriate Section 138 cases; contrary view disapproved.

Ratio Decidendi: Conviction under Section 138 does not automatically exclude reformative sentencing options.

---

PROCEDURAL AND SYSTEMIC REFORMS

---

Cognizance — No Pre-Cognizance Summons under Section 223 BNSS. (Para 36(E))

Magistrate need not issue summons under Section 223 BNSS before taking cognizance; NI Act is special statute governed by Section 142.

Ratio Decidendi: Pre-cognizance notice to accused is not mandatory in Section 138 complaints.

---

Methods of Service of Summons — Mandatory Multi-Modal Mechanism. (Paras 36(A), 36(B), 36(I))

Service shall not be confined to ordinary modes. It must include:

Dasti service by complainant in addition to court process.
Electronic service under BNSS rules (email, mobile, messaging platforms).
Affidavit verifying accused’s contact particulars at filing stage.
Affidavit of service to be filed; false affidavit invites legal consequences.
Post-service matters to be listed before physical courts to promote settlement.

Ratio Decidendi: Multi-modal, technology-enabled and complainant-assisted service of summons is mandatory to prevent procedural delay in Section 138 cases.

---

Summary Trial — Admission Questions at Initial Stage. (Para 36(F))

Trial Courts may put structured admission questions under Section 251 CrPC / Section 274 BNSS regarding cheque, signature, liability and defence.

Ratio Decidendi: Early crystallisation of defence is essential to preserve summary nature of trial; conversion to summons trial requires recorded reasons.

---

Interim Compensation — Section 143A NI Act. (Para 36(H))

Trial Courts shall exercise power to order interim compensation at earliest appropriate stage.

Ratio Decidendi: Early interim compensation furthers compensatory objective and discourages dilatory defence.

---

Online Payment Mechanism — QR/UPI Settlement Framework. (Para 36(C))

District Courts to operationalise secure digital payment systems for direct payment of cheque amount at threshold stage.

Ratio Decidendi: Institutional facilitation of immediate payment promotes compounding and reduces pendency.

---

Monitoring and Dashboard Mechanism — Metropolitan Courts. (Para 36(K)–(L))

District Judges in Delhi, Mumbai, Calcutta to maintain dashboards tracking pendency, disposal, adjournments and settlement rates; High Courts to constitute monitoring committees.

Ratio Decidendi: Administrative oversight and data-driven monitoring are necessary to address systemic backlog in NI Act litigation.

---

Revised Compounding Scheme — Modification of Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H.. (Paras 37–38)

Before defence evidence — no cost.
After defence evidence, before judgment — 5%.
Before Sessions/High Court — 7.5%.
Before Supreme Court — 10%.

Ratio Decidendi: Reduced graded cost structure incentivises early compounding while preserving judicial efficiency.

---

Instalment-Based Compliance — Appellate Power. (Para 40)

Supreme Court restored conviction and directed payment of Rs.7,50,000/- in 15 EMIs.

Ratio Decidendi: Appellate courts may structure instalment-based restitution orders to achieve substantive compensatory justice.

---

Final Order

High Court acquittal set aside.
Concurrent conviction restored.
Payment directed in 15 monthly instalments.
Guidelines to be implemented nationwide by 01.11.2025.

U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 — Section 123 — Regularisation of occupation by members of SC/ST — Deeming fiction — Effect on private title. (Paras 2, 4.4–4.6, 8–10) The dispute concerned Plot No. 2362, Shamli, Muzaffarnagar. The appellants purchased the land in 1984 and obtained a declaration under Section 143 converting its use from agricultural to abadi. The private respondents, members of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community, were in occupation since 1976–1977 and had constructed houses prior to 30.06.1985. The Sub-Divisional Officer, acting under Section 123, directed recording of the occupants’ names. The High Court upheld the order, holding that Section 123(2) creates a statutory deeming fiction whereby land is deemed settled with eligible house-owners in possession as on 30.06.1985. Consent or lack thereof of the tenure-holder is immaterial. The Supreme Court affirmed that the purchase by the appellants was subject to the statutory rights available to occupants under Section 123. Ratio Decidendi: Where eligible persons belonging to SC/ST categories had constructed houses on land prior to 30.06.1985, Section 123 creates a statutory deeming settlement in their favour, and subsequent purchasers cannot defeat such statutory regularisation.

U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 — Section 123 — Regularisation of occupation by members of SC/ST — Deeming fiction — Effect on private title. (Paras 2, 4.4–4.6, 8–10)

The dispute concerned Plot No. 2362, Shamli, Muzaffarnagar. The appellants purchased the land in 1984 and obtained a declaration under Section 143 converting its use from agricultural to abadi. The private respondents, members of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community, were in occupation since 1976–1977 and had constructed houses prior to 30.06.1985.

The Sub-Divisional Officer, acting under Section 123, directed recording of the occupants’ names. The High Court upheld the order, holding that Section 123(2) creates a statutory deeming fiction whereby land is deemed settled with eligible house-owners in possession as on 30.06.1985. Consent or lack thereof of the tenure-holder is immaterial.

The Supreme Court affirmed that the purchase by the appellants was subject to the statutory rights available to occupants under Section 123.

Ratio Decidendi: Where eligible persons belonging to SC/ST categories had constructed houses on land prior to 30.06.1985, Section 123 creates a statutory deeming settlement in their favour, and subsequent purchasers cannot defeat such statutory regularisation.

---

Section 143, U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act — Conversion to non-agricultural use — Scope and limitation. (Paras 3, 4.3, 8–9)

The appellants relied on Section 143 declaration (conversion of land use) to contend that proceedings under Section 123 were inapplicable.

The Court noted that a declaration under Section 143 excludes application of Chapter VIII but does not oust Chapter VII containing Section 123. Further, the private respondents were not parties to Section 143 proceedings and were not bound thereby.

Ratio Decidendi: A declaration under Section 143 does not bar operation of Section 123, nor does it extinguish statutory regularisation rights of eligible occupants.

---

Nature of Possession — Consent immaterial — Legislative intent. (Paras 4.4–4.5)

The appellants admitted in pleadings that respondents were in possession and had constructed houses since 1976–1977.

The Court held that the legislative object of Section 123 is socio-economic protection. The deeming fiction operates irrespective of whether possession was permissive, forceful, or unauthorised.

Ratio Decidendi: For purposes of Section 123, the character of initial possession (authorised or unauthorised) is irrelevant once statutory conditions are satisfied before the cut-off date.

---

Jurisdiction of Civil Court — Effect of statutory regularisation — Pending suits. (Paras 4.6, 8–9)

The High Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 227, quashed pending civil suits seeking eviction after holding that statutory settlement had already taken effect.

The Supreme Court declined interference, observing that the purchase was subject to statutory remedy available to occupants and that the appellants’ claim could not override statutory fiction.

Ratio Decidendi: Once statutory settlement under Section 123 operates, continuation of civil suits for eviction against statutorily recognised occupants is untenable.

---

Disposition

Civil Appeal dismissed. High Court judgment affirmed.

---

Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 3822–3823 of 2023

Tagged with the Civil Appeal. In view of dismissal of the Civil Appeal and affirmation of statutory regularisation under Section 123, no ground for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution was made out.

SLPs dismissed.

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Section 60(5) — Jurisdiction of NCLT — Challenge to attachment under Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 — Maintainability. (Paras 16, 20–20.8, 26) The question was whether provisional attachment and confirmation orders passed under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (“Benami Act”) could be assailed before the NCLT/NCLAT by invoking Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”). The Court held that the Benami Act is a complete and self-contained code with its own adjudicatory and appellate hierarchy. The NCLT, being a creature of statute under IBC, cannot sit in appeal over attachment or confiscation proceedings undertaken under a distinct public law enactment. Section 60(5) does not extend to reviewing sovereign actions undertaken under penal statutes. Permitting such adjudication would amount to elevating NCLT into a judicial review forum over statutory authorities under the Benami Act, which is impermissible. Ratio Decidendi: Orders of attachment and confiscation under the Benami Act cannot be challenged before NCLT/NCLAT under IBC; the exclusive remedy lies within the statutory framework of the Benami Act.

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Section 60(5) — Jurisdiction of NCLT — Challenge to attachment under Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 — Maintainability. (Paras 16, 20–20.8, 26)

The question was whether provisional attachment and confirmation orders passed under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (“Benami Act”) could be assailed before the NCLT/NCLAT by invoking Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”).

The Court held that the Benami Act is a complete and self-contained code with its own adjudicatory and appellate hierarchy. The NCLT, being a creature of statute under IBC, cannot sit in appeal over attachment or confiscation proceedings undertaken under a distinct public law enactment.

Section 60(5) does not extend to reviewing sovereign actions undertaken under penal statutes. Permitting such adjudication would amount to elevating NCLT into a judicial review forum over statutory authorities under the Benami Act, which is impermissible.

Ratio Decidendi: Orders of attachment and confiscation under the Benami Act cannot be challenged before NCLT/NCLAT under IBC; the exclusive remedy lies within the statutory framework of the Benami Act.

---

Benami Act — Nature of proceedings — Sovereign, in rem, penal character — Vesting under Section 27. (Paras 17–17.6, 20.6–20.8)

The Benami Act, especially post-amendment, provides a structured mechanism: notice (Section 24), adjudication (Section 26), confiscation and vesting (Section 27), and appellate remedies (Sections 46–49).

Confiscation results in vesting of property in the Central Government free from encumbrances. Proceedings are in rem and operate in the public law domain, distinct from inter se civil disputes or debt recovery.

Ratio Decidendi: Attachment and confiscation under the Benami Act are sovereign statutory actions in rem, and once property vests under Section 27, it stands outside the insolvency estate and beyond IBC jurisdiction.

---

IBC — Section 36 — Liquidation estate — Beneficial ownership — Exclusion of benami property. (Paras 21–22)

Under Section 36, only assets beneficially owned by the corporate debtor form part of the liquidation estate. Property held benami is held in a fiduciary or representative capacity; beneficial ownership lies with the real owner.

Section 36(4)(a)(i) excludes assets held in trust for third parties. Once the Benami Adjudicating Authority determines that the corporate debtor is a benamidar, beneficial ownership is negated.

Ratio Decidendi: Property determined to be held benami does not form part of the liquidation estate under Section 36 of the IBC and cannot be distributed among creditors.

---

IBC — Section 14 (Moratorium) — Scope — Applicability to sovereign proceedings. (Paras 13.2, 24)

The moratorium under Section 14 protects the corporate debtor from creditor enforcement actions. It does not bar sovereign proceedings undertaken in public interest for confiscation of tainted property under penal statutes.

Benami proceedings are not debt recovery proceedings but statutory forfeiture actions.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 14 moratorium does not interdict attachment or confiscation proceedings initiated under the Benami Act.

---

IBC — Section 32A — Limited immunity — Event-based operation. (Para 23)

Section 32A operates only upon approval of a resolution plan or completion of liquidation sale to an unconnected third party. It does not cure defective title or legitimise benami property.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 32A does not prevent attachment or confiscation of benami property unless statutory conditions are fulfilled; it does not override independent findings under the Benami Act.

---

Conflict between Special Statutes — Harmonious construction — Dominant purpose test. (Paras 19–20.5)

Both the IBC and the Benami Act are special enactments. The Court applied principles governing conflicts between special statutes, emphasising harmonious construction and dominant purpose.

IBC governs insolvency resolution of lawfully owned assets. The Benami Act governs identification and confiscation of illegally held property. Each statute operates in its own field.

Ratio Decidendi: Where property is subject to sovereign confiscatory proceedings under the Benami Act, the IBC cannot be invoked to override or bypass the statutory mechanism; both statutes must operate within their respective spheres.

---

Disposition

1. Appeals dismissed.

2. Costs of ₹5 lakhs imposed in each appeal.

3. Amount to be deposited with the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association within four weeks

Contract of Guarantee — Sections 133 and 139 — Indian Contract Act, 1872 — Overdrawing beyond sanctioned limit without surety’s consent — Extent of discharge. (Paras 3–4.4, 7–7.4) The principal debtor was sanctioned a cash-credit facility of ₹4,00,000/-. The sureties executed guarantees limited to this amount. Subsequently, the bank permitted withdrawals far exceeding the sanctioned limit without the sureties’ consent. The High Court held that the sureties must either be liable for the entire outstanding amount or not liable at all. The Supreme Court reversed this view. Under Section 133, any variance in the terms of the contract between the creditor and the principal debtor, made without the surety’s consent, discharges the surety only in respect of transactions subsequent to the variance. The discharge is not absolute. Ratio Decidendi: Where a creditor permits overdrawing beyond the sanctioned limit without the surety’s consent, the surety stands discharged only qua the excess amount constituting variance; liability continues to the extent originally guaranteed.

Contract of Guarantee — Sections 133 and 139 — Indian Contract Act, 1872 — Overdrawing beyond sanctioned limit without surety’s consent — Extent of discharge. (Paras 3–4.4, 7–7.4)

The principal debtor was sanctioned a cash-credit facility of ₹4,00,000/-. The sureties executed guarantees limited to this amount. Subsequently, the bank permitted withdrawals far exceeding the sanctioned limit without the sureties’ consent.

The High Court held that the sureties must either be liable for the entire outstanding amount or not liable at all. The Supreme Court reversed this view.

Under Section 133, any variance in the terms of the contract between the creditor and the principal debtor, made without the surety’s consent, discharges the surety only in respect of transactions subsequent to the variance. The discharge is not absolute.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a creditor permits overdrawing beyond the sanctioned limit without the surety’s consent, the surety stands discharged only qua the excess amount constituting variance; liability continues to the extent originally guaranteed.

---

Section 139 — Discharge by impairment of surety’s eventual remedy — Inapplicability in absence of prejudice to subrogation rights. (Paras 4.8–4.10, 6.1, 7.1)

Section 139 requires (i) an act inconsistent with the surety’s rights or omission of duty by the creditor, and (ii) impairment of the surety’s eventual remedy against the principal debtor.

Although permitting excess withdrawals may affect the surety’s contractual exposure, there was no impairment of the surety’s eventual remedy against the principal debtor. The surety retained full rights of recovery upon payment.

Ratio Decidendi: Mere variance in contractual exposure does not attract Section 139 unless the creditor’s act or omission impairs the surety’s eventual remedy against the principal debtor; absence of such impairment excludes discharge under Section 139.

---

Liability of Surety — Co-extensive nature — Subject to contractual limit. (Paras 4.1, 5.2, 5.3)

The liability of a surety is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor unless otherwise provided in the contract (Section 128). However, co-extensiveness operates within the limits of the guarantee.

The surety cannot be made liable beyond the scope of the guarantee. The creditor is not required to first exhaust remedies against the principal debtor before proceeding against the surety.

Ratio Decidendi: Co-extensive liability does not enlarge the quantum of guarantee; it operates only within the contractual limits to which the surety consented.

---

Material Variation — Consent of Surety — Necessity. (Paras 4.4–4.6)

A surety cannot be bound to altered obligations without consent. Material variation of the principal contract without consent discharges the surety to the extent of the variation. Consent must be proved by the creditor seeking enforcement.

Ratio Decidendi: Any material variation in the underlying contract, without the surety’s consent, releases the surety from liability for transactions subsequent to such variation.

---

Error of High Court — “All or Nothing” Approach Rejected. (Paras 7, 7.3)

The High Court erred in holding that the surety must be liable either for the entire outstanding sum or not at all. Section 133 expressly contemplates partial discharge limited to subsequent transactions after variance.

Ratio Decidendi: The statute mandates bifurcation of liability where variance occurs; an “all or nothing” approach is contrary to Section 133.

---

Operative Conclusion

1. Appeal allowed.

2. Judgment of the High Court of Gujarat dated 25.06.2008 set aside.

3. Sureties (Respondent Nos. 1 and 2) held liable only to the extent of ₹4,00,000/- with applicable interest — being the originally sanctioned amount guaranteed.

4. Sureties not liable for excess amounts withdrawn beyond the sanctioned limit.

5. Parties to bear their respective costs.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 173 — Compensation — Deduction of financial assistance under Haryana Compassionate Assistance to Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 — Overlapping pecuniary benefit — Double recovery impermissible. (Paras 5–6.3, 8) The issue was whether amounts received by the claimants under the 2006 Rules are deductible from compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Relying upon Reliance General Insurance v. Shashi Sharma, the Court held that financial assistance under the 2006 Rules, to the extent it corresponds to “pay and allowances” substituting loss of income, must be deducted to prevent double recovery. However, benefits not overlapping with loss of income (e.g., pension, provident fund, insurance) are not deductible. The subsequent decision in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Birender does not dilute this principle; it clarifies only the procedural stage and evidentiary requirement for deduction, namely that actual receipt or eligibility must be established before adjustment. Ratio Decidendi: Amounts received or receivable under the 2006 Rules, insofar as they represent compensation equivalent to pay and allowances lost due to death, are liable to deduction from motor accident compensation to avoid double recovery; however, deduction must be based on proof of receipt or entitlement.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 173 — Compensation — Deduction of financial assistance under Haryana Compassionate Assistance to Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 — Overlapping pecuniary benefit — Double recovery impermissible. (Paras 5–6.3, 8)

The issue was whether amounts received by the claimants under the 2006 Rules are deductible from compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Relying upon Reliance General Insurance v. Shashi Sharma, the Court held that financial assistance under the 2006 Rules, to the extent it corresponds to “pay and allowances” substituting loss of income, must be deducted to prevent double recovery. However, benefits not overlapping with loss of income (e.g., pension, provident fund, insurance) are not deductible.

The subsequent decision in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Birender does not dilute this principle; it clarifies only the procedural stage and evidentiary requirement for deduction, namely that actual receipt or eligibility must be established before adjustment.

Ratio Decidendi: Amounts received or receivable under the 2006 Rules, insofar as they represent compensation equivalent to pay and allowances lost due to death, are liable to deduction from motor accident compensation to avoid double recovery; however, deduction must be based on proof of receipt or entitlement.

---

Sub silentio / Per incuriam — Allegation rejected — Harmonious reading of precedents. (Para 6.3)

The contention that Birender was sub silentio or per incuriam to Shashi Sharma was rejected. The Court held both judgments operate in distinct but complementary spheres:

Shashi Sharma defines the nature and scope of deductible benefits;
Birender prescribes procedural safeguards for effecting such deduction.

Ratio Decidendi: A later judgment clarifying procedural safeguards does not overrule or conflict with an earlier judgment laying down substantive principles; both must be harmoniously construed.

---

High Court — Clarification Application — Scope under Sections 151 and 152 CPC — Substantive modification impermissible. (Paras 7–7.3)

An appellate judgment under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act cannot be substantively altered through a “clarification” application.

Section 152 CPC permits correction only of clerical or arithmetical errors or accidental slips, as held in Jayalakshmi Coelho v. Oswald Joseph Coelho and State of Punjab v. Darshan Singh.

Section 151 CPC cannot be invoked to modify substantive rights or alter the operative portion of the decree, as clarified in Padam Sen v. State of Uttar Pradesh and My Palace Mutually Aided Coop. Society v. B. Mahesh.

The High Court, by reversing its earlier deduction through a clarification order, effectively modified substantive rights without satisfying review jurisdiction requirements under Order XLVII CPC.

Ratio Decidendi: A clarification application cannot be used to alter substantive findings or modify quantum of compensation; any such change amounts to review and must satisfy statutory requirements.

---

Procedural Safeguard — Affidavit mechanism for adjustment. (Para 8)

The claimants are required to file an affidavit before the Tribunal disclosing amounts received under the 2006 Rules. Deduction, if any, shall be made accordingly. If no such amount is received or receivable, the entire enhanced compensation shall be payable.

Ratio Decidendi: Deduction must be founded on factual disclosure and proof; speculative or assumed adjustment is impermissible.

---

Operative Conclusion

1. Appeals allowed.

2. Clarification Order set aside.

3. Main Order restored.

4. Amount received under the 2006 Rules to be deducted from compensation awarded under the Main Order, subject to affidavit verification.

5. Interest rate as awarded by the Tribunal maintained.

Pending applications stood closed. No order as to costs.

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Section 7 — Scope of adjudication — Financial debt and default — Pre-existing dispute irrelevant. (Paras 12, 18, 22–23) For admission of an application under Section 7, the Adjudicating Authority is required only to satisfy itself that a financial debt exists and that default has occurred. The concept of “pre-existing dispute”, relevant under Section 9 in proceedings by an operational creditor, has no application to proceedings under Section 7. The NCLT and NCLAT erred in proceeding on considerations extraneous to the limited jurisdiction under Section 7, including alleged restructuring discussions and equitable considerations. Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings under Section 7 of the Code, once existence of financial debt and default is established, admission must follow; pre-existing disputes or restructuring negotiations do not defeat a financial creditor’s statutory right unless the debt is not due in law.

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Section 7 — Scope of adjudication — Financial debt and default — Pre-existing dispute irrelevant. (Paras 12, 18, 22–23)

For admission of an application under Section 7, the Adjudicating Authority is required only to satisfy itself that a financial debt exists and that default has occurred. The concept of “pre-existing dispute”, relevant under Section 9 in proceedings by an operational creditor, has no application to proceedings under Section 7.

The NCLT and NCLAT erred in proceeding on considerations extraneous to the limited jurisdiction under Section 7, including alleged restructuring discussions and equitable considerations.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings under Section 7 of the Code, once existence of financial debt and default is established, admission must follow; pre-existing disputes or restructuring negotiations do not defeat a financial creditor’s statutory right unless the debt is not due in law.

---

Debenture Trust Deed — Modification and novation — Mandatory compliance with contractual procedure — No implied waiver or oral restructuring. (Paras 14–18)

Clause 33 of the Debenture Trust Deed required prior written consent of debenture holders through “approved instructions” passed by Special Resolution in a duly convened meeting. Clause 33.4 mandated that amendments must be in writing and signed by all parties. Clause 37 barred implied waiver and required written waiver.

Admittedly, no such procedure was followed. Correspondence between the corporate debtor and a single debenture holder (ECLF) did not amount to modification or novation under Section 62 of the Contract Act, 1872.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a debenture trust deed prescribes a specific written procedure for amendment or waiver, no restructuring or moratorium can be inferred in absence of compliance; unilateral exchanges or informal negotiations cannot effect novation.

---

Authority of a single debenture holder — Absence of express authorization — No binding effect on other holders. (Para 13)

Restructuring discussions were held only with one debenture holder. No express authorization was shown empowering it to bind other debenture holders. Separate legal entities holding debentures independently cannot be presumed to have acted through one entity absent written authorization.

Ratio Decidendi: In absence of express authorization, negotiations by one debenture holder cannot bind other holders; collective consent must conform strictly to contractual governance mechanism.

---

Release of secured assets — Contractual entitlement distinct from restructuring. (Para 17)

Release of the Bandra property was referable to Clause 28.3 of the Debenture Trust Deed, permitting release upon specified payment. It could not be construed as evidence of acceptance of restructuring proposal.

Ratio Decidendi: Exercise of contractual rights for release of security in terms of the deed cannot be equated with acceptance of a restructuring proposal unless expressly linked thereto in accordance with contractual procedure.

---

Legitimate expectation — Inapplicability against clear contractual stipulations. (Para 19)

The inference drawn by the NCLAT that the corporate debtor had a legitimate expectation of moratorium was unsustainable. The Debenture Trust Deed contained a detailed modification mechanism; unilateral expectations cannot override express contractual terms.

Ratio Decidendi: Doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot override express contractual stipulations governing amendment or waiver; commercial contracts must be enforced as written.

---

Role and duty of Debenture Trustee — Protection of debenture holders — No obligation to protect corporate debtor. (Para 20)

The debenture trustee’s duty under the Debenture Trust Deed was to safeguard the interests of debenture holders. The NCLAT erred in holding that the trustee was obliged to act in fairness towards the corporate debtor or that it colluded to engineer default.

Ratio Decidendi: A debenture trustee’s fiduciary duty is owed to debenture holders in accordance with the trust deed; it cannot be faulted for enforcing contractual rights upon occurrence of default.

---

Perversity of concurrent findings — Scope of interference under Section 62 of the Code. (Para 22)

Though ordinarily this Court does not interfere with concurrent findings of NCLT and NCLAT, interference is warranted where such findings are perverse and contrary to record.

Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court may interfere under Section 62 where concurrent findings of NCLT and NCLAT are manifestly perverse or ignore binding contractual terms.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 28(3), 31(7)(a) — Contractual bar on interest — Clauses 16(3) and 64(5) of GCC — Award of pre-award / pendente lite interest impermissible. (Paras 31–45, 52–53, 61(A)) Clause 16(3) of the General Conditions of Contract expressly stipulated that “no interest will be payable upon the Earnest Money and Security Deposit or amounts payable to the Contractor under the Contract.” Clause 64(5) barred payment of interest “till the date on which the award is made.” Section 31(7)(a) makes the arbitral power to award interest expressly subject to party agreement. Once the contract excludes interest on amounts payable under the contract, the Arbitral Tribunal, being a creature of the contract, cannot award pre-award or pendente lite interest, even if styled as “compensation.” The principle of ejusdem generis was held inapplicable, as the expression “amounts payable to the contractor under the contract” is disjunctive and of wide amplitude. Ratio Decidendi: Where the contract expressly prohibits payment of interest on amounts payable under the contract, Section 31(7)(a) mandates adherence to such prohibition; the Arbitral Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to award pre-award or pendente lite interest, whether termed as interest or compensation.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 28(3), 31(7)(a) — Contractual bar on interest — Clauses 16(3) and 64(5) of GCC — Award of pre-award / pendente lite interest impermissible. (Paras 31–45, 52–53, 61(A))

Clause 16(3) of the General Conditions of Contract expressly stipulated that “no interest will be payable upon the Earnest Money and Security Deposit or amounts payable to the Contractor under the Contract.” Clause 64(5) barred payment of interest “till the date on which the award is made.”

Section 31(7)(a) makes the arbitral power to award interest expressly subject to party agreement. Once the contract excludes interest on amounts payable under the contract, the Arbitral Tribunal, being a creature of the contract, cannot award pre-award or pendente lite interest, even if styled as “compensation.”

The principle of ejusdem generis was held inapplicable, as the expression “amounts payable to the contractor under the contract” is disjunctive and of wide amplitude.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the contract expressly prohibits payment of interest on amounts payable under the contract, Section 31(7)(a) mandates adherence to such prohibition; the Arbitral Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to award pre-award or pendente lite interest, whether termed as interest or compensation.

---

Contract Interpretation — Ejusdem Generis — Inapplicability where general words are disjunctive and independent. (Paras 37–39)

The respondent’s contention that “amounts payable under the contract” should be read ejusdem generis with earnest money and security deposit was rejected. The word “or” denotes disjunction, and the clause cannot be read restrictively.

Ratio Decidendi: The rule of ejusdem generis does not apply where the contractual language is clear, disjunctive, and of independent amplitude; courts must give effect to plain meaning.

---

Arbitration Act, 1996 — Distinction between 1940 Act and 1996 Act — Contractual primacy under Section 31(7)(a). (Paras 44–45)

Decisions under the Arbitration Act, 1940 permitting pendente lite interest despite contractual bar were distinguished. Under the 1996 Act, Section 31(7)(a) expressly subordinates arbitral discretion to party agreement.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, arbitral discretion to award pre-award interest is expressly subordinate to contractual stipulation; precedents under the 1940 Act are inapplicable where statutory scheme materially differs.

---

Section 31(7)(b) — Post-award interest — Independent statutory regime — Not subject to contractual bar unless expressly excluded. (Paras 47–58, 61(B))

Post-award interest operates under Section 31(7)(b), which is distinct from Section 31(7)(a). Unlike clause (a), clause (b) is not subject to party autonomy except as to rate. Clause 64(5) barred interest only “till the date of award” and did not exclude post-award interest.

Therefore, post-award interest was legally sustainable notwithstanding the contractual bar on pre-award interest.

Ratio Decidendi: Post-award interest under Section 31(7)(b) is a statutory consequence and cannot be denied unless the contract expressly and unequivocally excludes it; a bar confined to pre-award interest cannot, by implication, extend to post-award interest.

---

Modification of Post-Award Interest — Judicial power to adjust rate — Reasonableness and proportionality. (Paras 58–60)

Although post-award interest was upheld, the rate of 12% per annum was found excessive in absence of reasoning and considering prevailing economic conditions. Exercising judicial power to modify, the rate was reduced to 8% per annum from date of award till realization.

Ratio Decidendi: Courts possess power to modify the rate of post-award interest under Section 31(7)(b) where the rate awarded is unreasonable or unsupported by reasons; modification avoids setting aside the award in entirety.

---

Scope of Interference under Sections 34 and 37 — Award contrary to express contractual bar — Patent illegality. (Paras 52–53, 61(C))

Failure by the Commercial Court and High Court to interfere with the award of pendente lite interest, despite clear contractual prohibition, constituted an error attracting correction even within limited supervisory jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: An arbitral award granting interest contrary to an express contractual prohibition suffers from patent illegality and warrants interference under Sections 34 and 37 of the Act.

---

Operative Conclusion

The appeal was partly allowed.

1. The Arbitral Award dated 25.12.2018 was set aside to the extent it granted pre-award / pendente lite interest or amounts in the nature of interest under Claim Nos. 1, 3 and 6.

2. Post-award interest was upheld but modified from 12% per annum to 8% per annum from the date of award till realization.

3. Orders of the Commercial Court and High Court were set aside to the aforesaid extent.

Pending applications disposed of.

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Section 7 — Section 60(2) & (3) — Simultaneous initiation of CIRP against principal borrower and corporate guarantor — Maintainability. (Paras 2–4, 73–79) The issue whether simultaneous proceedings for Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) may be maintained against the principal debtor and its corporate guarantor stands covered by the decision in BRS Ventures Investments Ltd. v. SREI Infrastructure Finance Ltd.. Section 60(2) of the IBC contemplates filing of proceedings relating to the corporate debtor and its guarantor before the same Adjudicating Authority. The liability of the guarantor being co-extensive with that of the principal debtor under Section 128 of the Contract Act, the IBC permits separate or simultaneous proceedings against both. Ratio Decidendi: The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code permits initiation and continuation of simultaneous CIRP proceedings against a corporate debtor and its corporate guarantor; admission of one proceeding does not bar admission of the other for the same debt.

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Section 7 — Section 60(2) & (3) — Simultaneous initiation of CIRP against principal borrower and corporate guarantor — Maintainability. (Paras 2–4, 73–79)

The issue whether simultaneous proceedings for Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) may be maintained against the principal debtor and its corporate guarantor stands covered by the decision in BRS Ventures Investments Ltd. v. SREI Infrastructure Finance Ltd.. Section 60(2) of the IBC contemplates filing of proceedings relating to the corporate debtor and its guarantor before the same Adjudicating Authority.

The liability of the guarantor being co-extensive with that of the principal debtor under Section 128 of the Contract Act, the IBC permits separate or simultaneous proceedings against both.

Ratio Decidendi: The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code permits initiation and continuation of simultaneous CIRP proceedings against a corporate debtor and its corporate guarantor; admission of one proceeding does not bar admission of the other for the same debt.

---

IBC — Rejection of ‘one debt–one proceeding’ theory — Interpretation of Vishnu Kumar Agarwal — Clarification of law. (Paras 73–79)

The view in Vishnu Kumar Agarwal that once a Section 7 application is admitted against one corporate debtor, a second application for the same claim cannot be admitted against another, does not represent the correct legal position in view of subsequent authoritative pronouncement in BRS Ventures.

Ratio Decidendi: Admission of CIRP against one obligor (principal borrower or guarantor) does not legally preclude admission of CIRP against the other obligor in respect of the same debt.

---

IBC — Nature of proceedings — Not mere recovery proceedings — Scope of discretion under Section 7(5)(a). (Paras 80–86)

IBC proceedings are not pure recovery proceedings; they are aimed at insolvency resolution and maximization of asset value. However, if statutory conditions of “debt” and “default” are satisfied, admission cannot be denied solely on the ground that recovery may incidentally follow.

Reliance placed on Axis Bank Ltd. v. Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd. regarding discretion under Section 7(5)(a).

Ratio Decidendi: While the Adjudicating Authority has limited discretion under Section 7(5)(a), simultaneous CIRP against debtor and guarantor cannot be refused merely because IBC is not intended as a recovery mechanism.

---

Doctrine of Election — Applicability to IBC — Rejected. (Paras 87–95)

The doctrine of election requires (i) existence of two or more remedies, (ii) inconsistency between such remedies, and (iii) a choice of one. Simultaneous proceedings under IBC against debtor and guarantor do not satisfy these conditions.

The Code contains no statutory mandate compelling a financial creditor to elect between remedies against principal borrower and guarantor.

Ratio Decidendi: The doctrine of election is inapplicable to simultaneous insolvency proceedings against principal borrower and guarantor; creditor cannot be compelled to restrict or split its claim.

---

Clean Slate Principle — Filing of full claim necessary — No compulsory bifurcation of debt. (Paras 90–93)

In light of the ‘clean slate’ principle explained in Ghanshyam Mishra & Sons (P) Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd. and Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Ltd. v. Satish Kumar Gupta, if a creditor fails to lodge its full claim in a CIRP, it risks extinguishment of the unpaid portion upon approval of the resolution plan.

Ratio Decidendi: A financial creditor is entitled to file its entire claim in each CIRP proceeding against obligors jointly and severally liable; mandatory election or bifurcation would undermine statutory rights under the Code.

---

Double Enrichment — Safeguards under Regulations 12A and 14 of CIRP Regulations, 2016. (Paras 96–100)

Though simultaneous proceedings are permissible, a creditor cannot recover more than the debt due. Regulation 12A obligates updating of claims when satisfied wholly or partly; Regulation 14 requires revision of admitted claims upon additional information.

Reliance placed on Maitreya Doshi v. Anand Rathi Global Finance Ltd..

Ratio Decidendi: While simultaneous CIRP is maintainable, recovery cannot exceed the debt due; regulatory safeguards prevent double enrichment.

---

Judicial Restraint — Refusal to frame additional guidelines on group insolvency. (Paras 101–104)

Though submissions were made seeking guidelines on modalities of simultaneous proceedings and group insolvency, the Court declined to legislate judicially, leaving the matter to legislative and regulatory authorities.

Ratio Decidendi: Policy refinements concerning group insolvency or procedural modalities fall within the legislative/regulatory domain and not judicial prescription.

Criminal Procedure — Quashing of FIR — Civil dispute given criminal colour — Scope of judicial scrutiny under Article 226/Section 482 CrPC — Duty to examine admitted documents along with FIR. (Paras 15, 29–30) While ordinarily the allegations in the FIR are to be taken at face value, where the dispute is essentially civil in nature, the Court must examine attending circumstances and admitted documents to ascertain whether a criminal offence is prima facie made out or whether the proceedings amount to abuse of process. Ratio Decidendi: Where the foundational dispute arises from a contractual arrangement and admitted documents negate the essential ingredients of alleged offences, continuation of criminal proceedings constitutes abuse of process and warrants quashing.

Criminal Procedure — Quashing of FIR — Civil dispute given criminal colour — Scope of judicial scrutiny under Article 226/Section 482 CrPC — Duty to examine admitted documents along with FIR. (Paras 15, 29–30)

While ordinarily the allegations in the FIR are to be taken at face value, where the dispute is essentially civil in nature, the Court must examine attending circumstances and admitted documents to ascertain whether a criminal offence is prima facie made out or whether the proceedings amount to abuse of process.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the foundational dispute arises from a contractual arrangement and admitted documents negate the essential ingredients of alleged offences, continuation of criminal proceedings constitutes abuse of process and warrants quashing.

---

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 420, 406 — Cheating and Criminal Breach of Trust — Absence of dishonest intention at inception — Non-fulfilment of contractual obligations. (Paras 25–28)

The Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) dated 16.08.2010 governed the rights and obligations of the parties. Allegations of non-performance, non-refund of security deposit and breach of contractual terms, absent evidence of dishonest intention at inception, do not constitute offences of cheating or criminal breach of trust.

Security money under Clause 5 was non-refundable and adjustable against the share of the first party; hence, non-refund could at best give rise to civil consequences.

Ratio Decidendi: Mere breach of contract or failure to perform contractual obligations, without fraudulent or dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction, does not attract Sections 420 or 406 IPC.

---

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 467, 468, 471 — Forgery — Meaning of “false document” under Section 464 IPC — Non-traceability of certificate insufficient. (Paras 23–24)

A letter issued by the Tehsildar was alleged to be forged merely because it was not traceable in official records after several years. The Court held that absence of record does not ipso facto establish fabrication. A document constitutes a “false document” only if it satisfies the ingredients of Section 464 IPC, including dishonest or fraudulent making, alteration or execution.

Ratio Decidendi: Non-traceability of an official certificate in departmental records does not establish forgery; criminal liability for forgery arises only when the document satisfies the statutory ingredients of a “false document” under Section 464 IPC.

---

Cheating — False representation regarding title — Construction of contractual assurances — No explicit statement of “no litigation pending.” (Paras 19–21, 26)

The JVA contained assurances regarding absence of attachment, restraint orders, and indemnification for marketable title, but did not contain any specific representation that no litigation was pending. Allegations in the FIR that the accused falsely represented absence of litigation were unsupported by the terms of the agreement.

Ratio Decidendi: Where contractual covenants do not contain the alleged misrepresentation and no falsity in declared assurances is demonstrated, the offence of cheating is not made out.

---

Delay in lodging FIR — Indicative of civil dispute — Absence of prompt allegation of fraud. (Para 25)

The JVA was executed in 2010; FIR was lodged in 2021. The prolonged delay without intervening allegation of fraudulent conduct indicates a contractual dispute rather than criminality at inception.

Ratio Decidendi: Long delay in initiating criminal proceedings in a purely contractual dispute, without contemporaneous allegation of fraud, reinforces the inference that the matter is civil in nature.

---

Final Holding

The dispute arose from a Joint Venture Agreement and disclosed, at best, a civil cause of action. Essential ingredients of offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC were not made out even on a complete reading of the FIR along with admitted documents.

The judgment of the High Court was set aside. FIR No. 0112 of 2021 dated 14.03.2021 and all consequential proceedings were quashed.

Pending applications disposed of.

Constitution of India — Articles 14, 15, 21 — Prison administration — Right to life and dignity of prisoners — Rehabilitative justice — Open Correctional Institutions (OCIs) as constitutional instruments of reform. (Paras 33–42, 74–76) This Court reaffirmed that incarceration does not extinguish fundamental rights and that Article 21 guarantees prisoners the right to live with dignity, including access to reformative and rehabilitative avenues. Open Correctional Institutions, premised on graded liberty, trust and self-discipline, are constitutionally aligned mechanisms for decongestion, reformation and reintegration. Ratio Decidendi: The constitutional guarantee of dignity under Article 21 obliges the State to operationalise reformative penology through effective establishment, expansion and humane governance of Open Correctional Institutions; prison administration must be rehabilitation-oriented and equality-compliant.

Constitution of India — Articles 14, 15, 21 — Prison administration — Right to life and dignity of prisoners — Rehabilitative justice — Open Correctional Institutions (OCIs) as constitutional instruments of reform. (Paras 33–42, 74–76)

This Court reaffirmed that incarceration does not extinguish fundamental rights and that Article 21 guarantees prisoners the right to live with dignity, including access to reformative and rehabilitative avenues. Open Correctional Institutions, premised on graded liberty, trust and self-discipline, are constitutionally aligned mechanisms for decongestion, reformation and reintegration.

Ratio Decidendi: The constitutional guarantee of dignity under Article 21 obliges the State to operationalise reformative penology through effective establishment, expansion and humane governance of Open Correctional Institutions; prison administration must be rehabilitation-oriented and equality-compliant.

---

Prison Overcrowding — Under-utilisation of Open Correctional Institutions — Duty of States and Union Territories — Judicial enforcement of reformative framework. (Paras 45–48, 73–74)

Despite prior directions in In Re: Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, existing OCIs remained substantially under-utilised and several States/UTs lacked such facilities altogether. The Court held that failure to utilise or establish OCIs defeats both reformative objectives and constitutional mandates. States/UTs were directed to assess feasibility, frame time-bound protocols, fill vacancies, and expand infrastructure.

Ratio Decidendi: Where empirical material demonstrates chronic overcrowding and simultaneous under-utilisation of OCIs, States are constitutionally obligated to establish, expand and optimally utilise open correctional infrastructure through structured, time-bound measures.

---

Gender Equality in Prison Administration — Exclusion of women from OCIs — Violation of Articles 14, 15 and 21 — Mandate for gender-sensitive inclusion. (Paras 49–54, 110–112)

Several States excluded women prisoners from eligibility for OCIs or failed to operationalise transfer despite legal permissibility. Relying upon constitutional equality guarantees and international norms (Nelson Mandela Rules; Bangkok Rules), the Court held such exclusion to be impermissible. States were directed to restructure capacity, amend rules, and ensure timely transfer of eligible women prisoners.

Ratio Decidendi: Denial or exclusion of women prisoners from access to Open Correctional Institutions constitutes gender discrimination violative of Articles 14 and 15(1) and infringes the right to dignity under Article 21; States must ensure gender-sensitive and non-discriminatory access.

---

Eligibility Criteria — Rigid incarceration thresholds — Need for individualised reformative assessment — Prohibition against labour-camp model. (Paras 55–61, 113–117)

Stringent requirements of 4–21 years of prior incarceration and agriculture-centric functioning diluted the reformative character of OCIs. The Court mandated rationalisation of eligibility criteria based on reformative potential and institutional conduct, diversification of vocational training, fair wages, healthcare, banking access, education, grievance redressal and family integration.

Ratio Decidendi: Eligibility for transfer to OCIs must be based on individualised reformative assessment rather than rigid temporal thresholds; OCIs must function as structured rehabilitation centres and not as custodial labour camps.

---

Uniform Standards — Fragmented governance across States — Constitution of High-Powered Committee for Common Minimum Standards. (Paras 62–65, 118–126)

Noting disparities in eligibility norms, wages, healthcare, family integration and discipline, the Court directed constitution of a High-Powered Committee headed by a former Judge of this Court to formulate Common Minimum Standards for governance of OCIs, harmonise practices, and recommend systemic reforms.

Ratio Decidendi: To secure equality and uniform constitutional compliance in prison administration, nationally consistent Common Minimum Standards for Open Correctional Institutions are necessary and may be judicially mandated through expert institutional mechanisms.

---

Cost-Effectiveness of OCIs — Fiscal prudence and administrative sustainability — Expansion mandated. (Paras 66–72, 127–129)

Empirical data from Rajasthan demonstrated stark cost differentials: per-prisoner per-day expenditure of approximately Rs.333.12 in closed prisons versus Rs.49.60 in open prisons. Open prisons required minimal staffing and infrastructure, with inmates largely self-sustaining. The Court held that expansion of OCIs advances both constitutional and fiscal rationality.

Ratio Decidendi: Open Correctional Institutions are demonstrably more cost-effective and administratively sustainable than closed prisons; expansion of open correctional infrastructure is constitutionally justified and fiscally prudent.

---

Continuing Mandamus — Monitoring by High Courts — Institutional accountability. (Paras 129–133)

To ensure effective implementation, High Courts were directed to register suo motu writ petitions as continuing mandamus; State-level Monitoring Committees were mandated; and periodic reporting mechanisms were instituted.

Ratio Decidendi: Where structural reform of prison administration is required to enforce fundamental rights, this Court may invoke continuing mandamus and multi-tiered monitoring to secure effective compliance.

---

Operative Outcome

Comprehensive directions issued for:
• Establishment and optimal utilisation of OCIs;
• Inclusion of women prisoners;
• Rationalisation of eligibility norms;
• Strengthening of rehabilitative frameworks;
• Constitution of a High-Powered Committee for Common Minimum Standards;
• Expansion of open correctional infrastructure; and
• Judicial monitoring through High Courts and State Committees.

Matter listed for periodic compliance review.

Evidence before Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal — FIR/Criminal proceedings — Limited evidentiary value — Tribunal to be guided by evidence led before it. (Paras 7–9) The respondent relied on documents relating to a criminal case allegedly involving confession of the trailer driver. The Court declined to place reliance on such documents, observing that the FIR details were unclear and that criminal proceedings concluded much before disposal of the claim petition were not proved before the Tribunal. Following National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Chamundeswari, it was reiterated that what matters before the Tribunal is the evidence adduced therein, and contents of FIR or criminal proceedings cannot override clear oral evidence recorded in the claim proceedings. Ratio Decidendi: In motor accident claims, findings on negligence must be based on evidence adduced before the Tribunal; FIR contents or criminal case outcomes do not by themselves determine civil liability

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Motor accident — Collision between vehicle in front and vehicle behind — Duty to maintain safe distance — Regulation 23 of the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989 — Liability of insurer. (Paras 6, 10–11)

The accident involved a trailer moving in front and a truck following behind. The claimant, a Cleaner travelling in the truck, deposed that the truck was travelling at a distance of only 20 feet behind the trailer and that at a speed of 30–40 km per hour, a gap of 40–50 feet was necessary to ensure effective control. He admitted that had such distance been maintained, the accident could have been averted.

Relying on Nishan Singh v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Regulation 23 of the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989, the Court reiterated that the driver of a vehicle following another must maintain sufficient distance to avoid collision in case of sudden braking. Failure to maintain such distance amounts to negligent driving.

The Tribunal had rightly fastened negligence on the truck driver. The High Court erred in reversing the finding.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a vehicle travelling behind fails to maintain sufficient distance as mandated by Regulation 23, and collision occurs upon sudden braking of the vehicle ahead, negligence lies primarily on the following vehicle.

---

Evidence before Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal — FIR/Criminal proceedings — Limited evidentiary value — Tribunal to be guided by evidence led before it. (Paras 7–9)

The respondent relied on documents relating to a criminal case allegedly involving confession of the trailer driver. The Court declined to place reliance on such documents, observing that the FIR details were unclear and that criminal proceedings concluded much before disposal of the claim petition were not proved before the Tribunal.

Following National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Chamundeswari, it was reiterated that what matters before the Tribunal is the evidence adduced therein, and contents of FIR or criminal proceedings cannot override clear oral evidence recorded in the claim proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: In motor accident claims, findings on negligence must be based on evidence adduced before the Tribunal; FIR contents or criminal case outcomes do not by themselves determine civil liability.

---

Contributory negligence — Plea — Absence of evidence — Rejection. (Para 12)

The attempt to attribute contributory negligence was rejected for want of any valid evidence establishing negligence on the part of the trailer driver sufficient to displace the primary negligence of the truck driver.

Ratio Decidendi: Contributory negligence must be established by cogent evidence; mere suggestion in cross-examination without substantive proof is insufficient.

---

Final Order

Order of the High Court set aside. Award of the Tribunal restored, fastening liability on the insurer of the truck, namely Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited. Appeal allowed. Pending applications disposed of.

Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 — Sections 98, 156 — Execution of award — Property of judgment-debtor liable to attachment and sale — Challenge to validity of mortgage after award attained finality — Impermissible. (Paras 21–23) An ex parte award dated 04.04.1994 under Section 91 attained finality; application to set aside the award was rejected. The award operated as a money decree executable under Section 98 as a decree of a Civil Court. The predecessor-in-interest of respondents being a judgment-debtor, his property was amenable to attachment and sale for recovery of decretal dues. Objection regarding absence of prior Government permission for mortgage was held irrelevant at the stage of execution of a final award. Ratio Decidendi: Once an award under the 1960 Act attains finality and becomes executable as a civil decree under Section 98, property of the judgment-debtor can be attached and sold for realization of dues; validity of the underlying mortgage cannot be re-opened in execution.

Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 — Sections 98, 156 — Execution of award — Property of judgment-debtor liable to attachment and sale — Challenge to validity of mortgage after award attained finality — Impermissible. (Paras 21–23)

An ex parte award dated 04.04.1994 under Section 91 attained finality; application to set aside the award was rejected. The award operated as a money decree executable under Section 98 as a decree of a Civil Court. The predecessor-in-interest of respondents being a judgment-debtor, his property was amenable to attachment and sale for recovery of decretal dues. Objection regarding absence of prior Government permission for mortgage was held irrelevant at the stage of execution of a final award.

Ratio Decidendi: Once an award under the 1960 Act attains finality and becomes executable as a civil decree under Section 98, property of the judgment-debtor can be attached and sold for realization of dues; validity of the underlying mortgage cannot be re-opened in execution.

---

Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 — Section 154 — Revisional jurisdiction — Scope — Maintainability against confirmation of sale — Not curtailed by Rule 107 remedies — No pre-deposit required when revision not against recovery certificate. (Paras 24–42)

The legal representatives of the borrower filed revision under Section 154 challenging confirmation of auction sale. It was contended that remedy lay exclusively under Rule 107(13) or (14) of the 1961 Rules and that revision was not maintainable. The Court held that Section 154 confers wide revisional power to examine legality or propriety of any decision or order of a subordinate officer where no appeal lies. Remedies under Rule 107 are applications to set aside sale on specified grounds and do not eclipse statutory revisional power. Pre-deposit under Section 154(2-A) is attracted only when revision is against a recovery certificate; here revision was against confirmation of sale.

Ratio Decidendi: The revisional power under Section 154 of the 1960 Act is plenary and cannot be restricted by procedural remedies under Rule 107; revision is maintainable against confirmation of sale without pre-deposit where challenge is not to the recovery certificate.

---

Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961 — Rule 107(11)(g) & (h) — Deposit of 15% at auction and balance within stipulated period — Mandatory requirement — Non-compliance renders sale a nullity — No discretion to extend time for balance payment. (Paras 45–48, 55)

Under Rule 107(11)(g), 15% of purchase price must be deposited at the time of sale; under Rule 107(11)(h), the remainder must be paid within 15 days (as applicable at the time). No provision authorises extension of time for payment of the balance purchase money. Consequences of default include forfeiture and resale after fresh proclamation under Rule 107(11)(i) & (j). Relying on Shilpa Shares & Securities v. National Co-operative Bank Ltd. and earlier precedents, the Court affirmed that non-deposit within prescribed time renders the sale void, not merely irregular.

Ratio Decidendi: Compliance with Rule 107(11)(g) and (h) is mandatory; failure to deposit the balance purchase money within the stipulated period vitiates the sale, rendering confirmation a nullity.

---

Waiver — Applicability — Auction conditions under Rule 107 — Not confined to creditor’s benefit — Serve public purpose — No waiver by borrower. (Paras 50–55)

The auction purchaser relied on General Manager, Sri Siddheshwara Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Ikbal to contend that time stipulation could be waived. The Court distinguished the decision, noting that Rule 9(4) of the SARFAESI Enforcement Rules expressly permitted extension by written agreement, whereas Rule 107 contains no such provision. Moreover, the stipulation under Rule 107 serves broader public interest in maintaining sanctity of public auctions and preventing manipulation. There was no material indicating waiver by the borrower or his heirs.

Ratio Decidendi: Time stipulation under Rule 107(11)(h) is not merely for the creditor’s benefit and cannot be waived in absence of statutory provision; absence of timely deposit invalidates the sale notwithstanding creditor’s acceptance.

---

Relief — Consequence of void auction — Appropriate order — Fresh auction — Refund with interest — Protection of equities. (Paras 57–58)

While upholding that the sale and its confirmation were void, the Court modified the High Court’s directions. The property was directed to be put to fresh auction under Rule 107(11)(j). The auction purchaser, having deposited the entire amount as permitted by the Recovery Officer, was held entitled to refund with 6% interest per annum from date of deposit till repayment. Liberty was reserved to the Bank and judgment-debtors to arrive at settlement before the Recovery Officer.

Ratio Decidendi: Upon declaring an auction void for non-compliance with mandatory rules, the proper course is to direct resale in accordance with law and order refund of the purchase money with reasonable interest to the auction purchaser.

---

Final Order

Auction sale dated 29.01.2005 and confirmation dated 18.03.2005 declared null and void. Property to be re-auctioned under Rule 107(11)(j). Bank to refund Rs.1,51,00,000 to M/s. Adishakti Developers with 6% interest from date of deposit till repayment. Liberty for settlement between decree-holder and judgment-debtors reserved. Appeals disposed of. No order as to costs.

Registration Act, 1908 and Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — Unilateral cancellation of registered lease — Impermissible — Absence of forfeiture clause — Determination under Section 111 TPA not established. (Paras 10.2, 21) The lease deed contained no clause permitting unilateral cancellation by the lessor. There was no proof of determination in terms of Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act. Hence, the unilateral deed of cancellation dated 03.12.2003 was illegal and non est. Ratio Decidendi: In absence of contractual stipulation or statutory ground under Section 111 TPA, a registered lease cannot be unilaterally cancelled by the lessor; such cancellation is void.

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — Section 105 — Lease v. Licence — Tests for determination — Intention of parties — Literal construction preferred — Exclusive possession of demised portion decisive unless contrary intention established. (Paras 14–16, 18–21)

The substantial question concerned whether Ext. 1 dated 23.03.1998 created a lease for 99 years or merely a licence. The High Court treated the document as a licence, relying inter alia on subsequent conduct and retention of first floor by the owner. The Supreme Court, applying the settled principles in Associated Hotels of India Ltd. v. R.N. Kapoor and M.N. Clubwala v. Fida Hussain Saheb, held that the decisive test is intention gathered from the substance of the document.

Ext. 1 expressly used the words “demise”, fixed a term of 99 years, stipulated yearly rent of Rs.1,000/-, permitted alterations by the lessee, and extended the benefit to heirs, successors and assigns. These clauses unequivocally created an interest in immovable property. Retention of occupation of the first floor by the lessor did not negate lease, as exclusive possession is assessed qua the demised portion.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the document, read as a whole, transfers an interest in immovable property for a definite term in consideration of rent and grants exclusive possession of the demised portion, it constitutes a lease under Section 105 TPA notwithstanding nomenclature or partial retention of occupation by the owner.

---

Construction of Documents — Literal rule — Limited scope for purposive or ex-post facto interpretation — Subsequent conduct not primary guide when language is clear. (Paras 17–21)

The Court reiterated the principles governing interpretation of deeds, including literal, golden and purposive rules, referring to Annaya Kocha Shetty v. Laxmi Narayan Satose. When the language of the instrument is clear and unambiguous, courts must give effect to its plain meaning. Reliance on post-execution conduct to infer intention is unwarranted unless ambiguity exists.

The High Court erred in relying on cross-examination and subsequent conduct to construe Ext. 1 as a licence, despite clear covenants creating leasehold interest.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the terms of a written instrument are clear, intention must be gathered from the plain language of the document itself; recourse to subsequent conduct is impermissible in absence of ambiguity.

---

Registration Act, 1908 and Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — Unilateral cancellation of registered lease — Impermissible — Absence of forfeiture clause — Determination under Section 111 TPA not established. (Paras 10.2, 21)

The lease deed contained no clause permitting unilateral cancellation by the lessor. There was no proof of determination in terms of Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act. Hence, the unilateral deed of cancellation dated 03.12.2003 was illegal and non est.

Ratio Decidendi: In absence of contractual stipulation or statutory ground under Section 111 TPA, a registered lease cannot be unilaterally cancelled by the lessor; such cancellation is void.

---

Doctrine of Lis Pendens — Purchasers during pendency of suit — Rights subject to outcome — Bona fide purchaser plea rejected on facts. (Paras 10.3, 22)

Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 purchased the property during pendency of the suit and with knowledge of the 99-year lease reflected in the encumbrance certificate. Their rights were subject to the leasehold interest and outcome of litigation.

Ratio Decidendi: A transferee pendente lite takes the property subject to subsisting rights and pending litigation; knowledge of prior encumbrance negates plea of bona fide purchase without notice.

---

Final Order

The impugned judgment of the High Court in RSA No. 123 of 2021 set aside. Judgments and decrees of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court restored. Ext. 1 held to be a valid 99-year lease; unilateral cancellation illegal. Civil Appeal allowed. No order as to costs. (Paras 21–23)**

Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 — Section 30(1) — Search and seizure — Decision to authorize search must be of the ‘Appropriate Authority’ collectively — Search ordered by Chairperson alone — Illegal — Applicability of precedent. (Paras 41–45, 50) The communication/order dated 17.09.2015 directing raid was issued by the Civil Surgeon acting as Chairperson of the District Appropriate Authority without evidence of collective decision by all members. Applying the ratio in Ravindra Kumar v. State of Haryana, the Court held that authorization of search under Section 30(1) must be by the Appropriate Authority as a body; unilateral decision by Chairperson vitiates the search. Ratio Decidendi: Authorization of search under Section 30(1) of the PCPNDT Act must emanate from the Appropriate Authority collectively; a unilateral decision of the Chairperson renders the search illegal.

Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 — Section 30(1) — Search and seizure — Decision to authorize search must be of the ‘Appropriate Authority’ collectively — Search ordered by Chairperson alone — Illegal — Applicability of precedent. (Paras 41–45, 50)

The communication/order dated 17.09.2015 directing raid was issued by the Civil Surgeon acting as Chairperson of the District Appropriate Authority without evidence of collective decision by all members. Applying the ratio in Ravindra Kumar v. State of Haryana, the Court held that authorization of search under Section 30(1) must be by the Appropriate Authority as a body; unilateral decision by Chairperson vitiates the search.

Ratio Decidendi: Authorization of search under Section 30(1) of the PCPNDT Act must emanate from the Appropriate Authority collectively; a unilateral decision of the Chairperson renders the search illegal.

---

Criminal Evidence — Effect of illegal search — Admissibility of evidence seized — Relevancy test — Evidence not automatically excluded — Subject to admissibility and fairness. (Paras 50–53)

Despite holding the search illegal, the Court held that materials seized cannot be discarded altogether. Relying on Radha Kishan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra and the Constitution Bench decision in Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection, it was reiterated that illegality of search does not per se render seized material inadmissible; relevancy is the governing test, subject to judicial discretion to prevent unfairness.

Ratio Decidendi: Evidence obtained through an illegal search is not per se inadmissible; unless expressly barred by statute, relevant material may be relied upon subject to admissibility and fairness.

---

PCPNDT Act — Sections 4(3), 5, 6, 23, 29 — Maintenance of Form F and records — Mandatory nature — Non-maintenance amounts to contravention — Burden on practitioner. (Paras 21, 39–40, 54, 56)

The Court reiterated that maintenance of complete record in Form F is mandatory and any deficiency constitutes contravention of Sections 5 or 6 unless proved otherwise by the practitioner. Reliance was placed on Federation of Obstetrics and Gynaecological Societies of India v. Union of India, holding that non-maintenance of record is not a clerical lapse but the “springboard” for commission of the offence.

Ratio Decidendi: Complete and accurate maintenance of Form F and statutory records is mandatory under the PCPNDT regime; deficiency therein prima facie constitutes contravention attracting penal consequences under Section 23.

---

PCPNDT Act — Section 28 — Cognizance only on complaint by Appropriate Authority — Police discharge in FIR case — No bar to statutory complaint. (Paras 54)

The appellant had been discharged in a police case arising from FIR. The Court held that offences under the PCPNDT Act are cognizable only upon complaint by the Appropriate Authority under Section 28. Police discharge does not preclude initiation of independent complaint proceedings by the statutory authority.

Ratio Decidendi: Discharge in a police-registered FIR does not bar prosecution under the PCPNDT Act, which mandates cognizance only upon complaint by the Appropriate Authority.

---

PCPNDT Rules — Rule 18A(2)(ii) — Membership of Advisory Committee — Alleged conflict of interest — Scope — Directory nature of code of conduct. (Paras 55)

The contention that a member of the raiding team was also part of the Advisory Committee was rejected. Rule 18A(2)(ii) applies only to persons forming part of the “investigating machinery”. The concerned individual was not part of such machinery. Moreover, the provisions under Rule 18A form part of a general code of conduct and are directory.

Ratio Decidendi: Rule 18A(2)(ii) prohibits inclusion in the Advisory Committee only of persons forming part of the investigating machinery; incidental participation in raid does not ipso facto attract disqualification.

---

Exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC — Quashing of complaint — Scope — Social welfare legislation — Trial not to be stifled at threshold where prima facie contravention alleged. (Paras 56–57)

The Court emphasized the object of the PCPNDT Act in combating female foeticide and held that where prima facie non-maintenance of statutory records is alleged, the prosecution should not be quashed at inception. Issues of admissibility, reliability and defence are matters for trial.

Ratio Decidendi: In prosecutions under the PCPNDT Act involving alleged statutory record violations, quashing at threshold is unwarranted where prima facie material exists; disputed factual issues must be adjudicated at trial.

---

Final Order

The criminal complaint No. COMA/116/2018 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurugram upheld. Appeal dismissed. Observations confined to adjudication of quashing; merits left open. No order as to costs. (Paras 57–58)**