SERVICE LAW — Recruitment — Select List — No indefeasible right to appointment Para 9, 10, 17 Inclusion in select list — Whether confers right to appointment — Held, No — Select list only confers eligibility — Appointment must be strictly in accordance with statutory rules — No vested or enforceable right arises unless rules so provide.

advocatemmmohan

SERVICE LAW — Recruitment — Select List — No indefeasible right to appointment

Para 9, 10, 17
Inclusion in select list — Whether confers right to appointment — Held, No — Select list only confers eligibility — Appointment must be strictly in accordance with statutory rules — No vested or enforceable right arises unless rules so provide.

---

RECRUITMENT RULES — Operation of select list — Scope and limitation

Para 7, 8, 19
Select list prepared equal to notified vacancies — Not an open-ended reservoir — Cannot be operated beyond notified vacancies — Absence of provision for waiting list/reserve list bars further operation of list.

---

VACANCY — Non-joining of selected candidate — Effect

Para 10, 12, 15, 19
Non-joining or failure to complete pre-appointment formalities — Does not entitle next candidate to automatic appointment — In absence of enabling provision, vacancy to be treated as fresh vacancy.

---

RECRUITMENT — Preference system — Effect on selection

Para 6, 13, 16
Selection based on service-wise preference — Allocation not linear — Cannot shift candidate to another post after process concludes — Post facto adjustment impermissible.

---

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW — Mandamus — When not grantable

Para 14
Where entitlement is uncertain or dependent on interpretation of rules — Mandamus cannot be issued — Court cannot create right not contemplated by statute.

---

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION — Recruitment Rules — Strict adherence

Para 6, 8, 19
Recruitment must strictly conform to governing rules — Courts cannot expand scope of rules to create additional rights — Absence of provision is decisive.

---

VALIDATION ACT — Finality of selection process

Para 18
Legislative validation of selection — Indicates intent to give finality to recruitment — Reopening process contrary to statutory scheme impermissible.

---

RESULT

Para 20–22
Appeal allowed — High Court judgment set aside — Tribunal order restored — Respondent not entitled to appointment.

INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY CODE, 2016 — Section 14 — Moratorium — Scope — Adjustment of dues Para 3, 4, 20, 25 Moratorium under Section 14 — Effect — Adjustment/appropriation of amounts after insolvency commencement date — Impermissible insofar as pre-CIRP dues — Any recovery or adjustment of pre-CIRP dues after commencement violates moratorium — Only post-CIRP dues permissible for adjustment.

advocatemmmohan

---

INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY CODE, 2016 — Section 14 — Moratorium — Scope — Adjustment of dues

Para 3, 4, 20, 25
Moratorium under Section 14 — Effect — Adjustment/appropriation of amounts after insolvency commencement date — Impermissible insofar as pre-CIRP dues — Any recovery or adjustment of pre-CIRP dues after commencement violates moratorium — Only post-CIRP dues permissible for adjustment.

---

SET-OFF — Applicability under IBC — CIRP stage

Para 15, 16, 17, 24
Set-off — Not generally permissible during CIRP — Insolvency set-off not recognised under IBC — Only limited contractual set-off permissible prior to commencement of CIRP — Post-CIRP adjustment of pre-CIRP dues barred — Set-off contrary to pari passu principle.

---

SECURITY DEPOSIT — Nature — Whether security interest

Para 4, 22
Security deposit made in lieu of Letter of Credit — Remains property of Corporate Debtor till valid appropriation — Not equivalent to bank guarantee or independent security contract — Cannot be treated as secured interest permitting enforcement during moratorium.

---

OPERATIONAL CREDITOR — Rights during CIRP

Para 3, 22, 24
Operational creditor — Entitled to submit claim before Resolution Professional — Cannot unilaterally recover dues outside CIRP framework — Recovery must follow statutory mechanism under IBC.

---

MORATORIUM — Effect on contractual rights

Para 20, 22
Even contractual rights (including security enforcement) stand restricted post commencement of CIRP — Moratorium overrides contractual stipulations — No enforcement or appropriation of pre-CIRP dues permissible.

---

IBC — Scheme — Priority and pari passu principle

Para 24
IBC envisages collective resolution and equitable distribution — Allowing set-off or unilateral adjustment would defeat pari passu principle and statutory scheme.

---

RESOLUTION PLAN — Finality — Binding nature

Para 23, 24
Resolution plan approved and implemented — Claims stand crystallised — Assets (including deposits) form part of insolvency estate — Cannot be altered subsequently by unilateral action of creditor.

---

RESULT

Para 26
Appeals dismissed — Orders of NCLT and NCLAT affirmed — Adjustment of pre-CIRP dues held illegal — Direction for re-adjustment in accordance with IBC upheld.

Though dismissal for default does not operate as res judicata, a party who abandons earlier proceedings cannot re-agitate the same issues in subsequent or execution proceedings, as such conduct constitutes abuse of process and disentitles equitable relief.

advocatemmmohan

1. Res Judicata — Dismissal for default — Not applicable
   (Para 29, 30)
   Dismissal of a suit for default does not amount to a matter “heard and finally decided” under Section 11 CPC and therefore does not operate as res judicata.

---

2. Abandonment of proceedings — Bar on re-agitation — Public policy principle
   (Para 33, 34, 45, 49)
   Even where res judicata is not strictly applicable, a party who had the opportunity to pursue a claim but abandoned it cannot subsequently re-agitate the same issue. This principle is grounded in public policy and the maxim nemo debet bis vexari.

---

3. Abuse of process of court — Re-litigation impermissible
   (Para 45, 47)
   Re-agitating issues which were earlier raised or could have been pursued amounts to abuse of process, even if strict res judicata does not apply. Courts are empowered to prevent such misuse.

---

4. Conduct of party — Equitable relief — Disentitlement
   (Para 32, 40, 48)
   Relief such as specific performance being equitable in nature, the conduct of the party is crucial. A party who acts negligently, suppresses facts, or adopts inconsistent stands is disentitled to equitable relief.

---

5. Order IX Rule 9 CPC — Effect of dismissal for default
   (Para 39)
   Where a suit is dismissed for default, the plaintiff is barred from instituting a fresh suit on the same cause of action, and the only remedy is restoration of the original suit.

---

6. Execution proceedings — Cannot reopen abandoned issues
   (Para 45, 50, 52)
   A party cannot bypass earlier abandonment of substantive claims and seek to indirectly achieve the same result through execution proceedings.

---

7. Finality of litigation — Judicial policy
   (Para 46, 49)
   Courts must uphold finality of litigation and prevent repeated or vexatious proceedings, in line with public policy and judicial efficiency.

---

Core Ratio (One-Line Proposition)

Though dismissal for default does not operate as res judicata, a party who abandons earlier proceedings cannot re-agitate the same issues in subsequent or execution proceedings, as such conduct constitutes abuse of process and disentitles equitable relief.

Quashing of FIR — Vague and omnibus allegations — Impermissibility of prosecution (Para 21, 22, 26, 27) Criminal proceedings against relatives of the husband cannot be sustained on the basis of vague, omnibus and unsubstantiated allegations. Mere general assertions without specific details or supporting material do not constitute a prima facie offence.

advocatemmmohan

1. Quashing of FIR — Vague and omnibus allegations — Impermissibility of prosecution
   (Para 21, 22, 26, 27)
   Criminal proceedings against relatives of the husband cannot be sustained on the basis of vague, omnibus and unsubstantiated allegations. Mere general assertions without specific details or supporting material do not constitute a prima facie offence.

---

2. Delay in lodging FIR — Effect on prosecution
   (Para 21, 24)
   Unexplained and inordinate delay (here, more than six years) in lodging FIR casts serious doubt on the veracity of allegations, particularly in matrimonial disputes, and may render prosecution unsustainable.

---

3. Requirement of specific material evidence — Essential for criminal prosecution
   (Para 21, 23, 25, 26)
   Allegations must be supported by cogent material evidence. Bald statements without medical, documentary, or corroborative evidence are insufficient to proceed with criminal prosecution.

---

4. Misuse of Section 498A IPC — Judicial caution
   (Para 22)
   Courts must guard against misuse of Section 498A IPC, especially where entire family members are implicated without specific allegations. Generalised accusations should be scrutinized to prevent abuse of criminal process.

---

5. Ingredients of offence must be satisfied — Otherwise quashing justified
   (Para 20, 27, 28)
   If allegations, even when taken at face value, do not satisfy essential ingredients of offences alleged, continuation of proceedings amounts to abuse of process and is liable to be quashed.

---

6. Application of Bhajan Lal principles — Quashing justified
   (Para 27, 28)
   Where allegations are inherently improbable, unsupported, mala fide, or do not disclose any offence, the case falls within the categories laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, justifying exercise of inherent powers to quash proceedings.

---

7. Role of accused relatives — Separate consideration
   (Para 21, 28)
   Liability of in-laws and relatives must be assessed independently; absence of specific role or involvement disentitles prosecution against them.

---

Core Ratio (One-Line Proposition)

Criminal proceedings in matrimonial disputes against in-laws cannot be sustained on vague, delayed, and unsubstantiated allegations lacking specific material evidence, and are liable to be quashed under Bhajan Lal principles to prevent abuse of process.

Cancellation of Bail — Violation of specific conditions — Governing principle (Para 40, 17, 18) Bail granted subject to specific conditions can be cancelled where such conditions are not complied with in letter and spirit. Post-bail conduct of the accused, including failure to adhere to imposed obligations, is a valid ground for cancellation of bail.

advocatemmmohan

1. Cancellation of Bail — Violation of specific conditions — Governing principle
   (Para 40, 17, 18)
   Bail granted subject to specific conditions can be cancelled where such conditions are not complied with in letter and spirit. Post-bail conduct of the accused, including failure to adhere to imposed obligations, is a valid ground for cancellation of bail.

---

2. Conditional Bail — Settlement obligation — Non-compliance as ground for cancellation
   (Para 3, 14, 16, 17)
   Where bail is granted on the express condition that the accused shall make genuine efforts to settle claims of victims/allottees, failure to make bona fide efforts or deliberate non-compliance constitutes a breach warranting cancellation of bail.

---

3. Bonafide compliance — Requirement — Mere assertion insufficient
   (Para 13, 14, 16)
   The accused must demonstrate genuine, effective, and complete compliance with settlement conditions. Mere claims of partial settlements or efforts, without actual resolution of claims, are insufficient to satisfy bail conditions.

---

4. Abuse of liberty of bail — Conduct of accused
   (Para 15, 16)
   Where the accused, after grant of bail, engages in conduct such as deflecting responsibility, delaying settlement, or failing to cooperate with authorities, such conduct amounts to abuse of the liberty granted by the Court.

---

5. Deposit condition — Compliance must be lawful and bonafide
   (Para 46–52)
   Where deposit of money is a pre-condition for grant of bail, such deposit must be made in compliance with law and bonafide manner. Use of company funds in violation of statutory provisions to secure personal bail amounts to breach of the condition.

---

6. Cognizance of surrounding circumstances — Wider factual matrix relevant
   (Para 29)
   While considering cancellation of bail, the Court can examine the broader factual context, including insolvency proceedings, financial conduct, and role of statutory authorities (such as IRP), where such facts are intrinsically linked to the alleged breach.

---

7. Protection of victims/allottees — Paramount consideration
   (Para 20, 21)
   In cases involving large number of victims (such as homebuyers/allottees), the Court must prioritize their interests and ensure effective resolution of their claims while considering continuation or cancellation of bail.

---

8. Forfeiture of deposit — Consequence of breach
   (Para 18)
   Upon breach of bail conditions, the Court is empowered to order forfeiture (wholly or partially) of amounts deposited as a condition for grant of bail.

---

Core Ratio (One-Line Proposition)

Where bail is granted subject to conditions requiring bona fide settlement and lawful compliance, failure to fulfill such conditions—coupled with improper conduct and misuse of funds—constitutes abuse of bail and justifies its cancellation along with consequential forfeiture.

In disciplinary proceedings, where charges are denied, failure to conduct an oral enquiry by examining witnesses and affording opportunity of cross-examination vitiates the enquiry and renders the punishment unsustainable in law.

advocatemmmohan

1. Departmental Enquiry — Mandatory requirement of oral enquiry where charges are denied
   (Para 14, 17, 18)
   Where charges in a disciplinary proceeding are denied, it is mandatory for the employer to conduct a proper enquiry by leading evidence. Failure to examine witnesses and to hold oral enquiry renders the entire disciplinary proceeding vitiated.

---

2. Burden of proof in disciplinary proceedings
   (Para 14, 17)
   In a departmental enquiry, unless the delinquent employee admits the charges in clear terms, the burden lies on the employer/department to prove the charges by adducing evidence. An evasive or general denial cannot be treated as admission of guilt.

---

3. Right to cross-examination and defence — Principles of natural justice
   (Para 15, 17)
   The delinquent employee must be afforded an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and to produce evidence in defence. Even where reliance is placed on documents, such documents must be proved through witnesses unless expressly admitted.

---

4. No enquiry worth the name — Effect
   (Para 16, 18)
   An enquiry conducted without examining witnesses and without affording opportunity of cross-examination is no enquiry in the eye of law and violates principles of natural justice as well as statutory service rules.

---

5. Consequential punishment — Unsustainable
   (Para 18)
   Where the enquiry is vitiated, the order of punishment (dismissal and recovery) cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.

---

6. Relief — De novo enquiry permissible
   (Para 18)
   Upon setting aside the punishment on account of defective enquiry, the employer is at liberty to conduct a de novo enquiry in accordance with law within a stipulated time. Failure to do so entitles the employee to reinstatement with consequential benefits.

---

Core Ratio (One-Line Proposition)

In disciplinary proceedings, where charges are denied, failure to conduct an oral enquiry by examining witnesses and affording opportunity of cross-examination vitiates the enquiry and renders the punishment unsustainable in law.

Protection under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is determined at the stage of cognizance and applies only to those public servants who are removable only with Government sanction; such protection cannot be extended retrospectively nor claimed by co-accused unless independently satisfied.

advocatemmmohan

1. Section 197 Cr.P.C. — Requirement of sanction — Determinative test
   (Para 7, 9, 10)
   Protection under Section 197(1) Cr.P.C. is available only to such public servants who are not removable from office save by or with the sanction of the Government. Subordinate rank police officers, who can be removed by authorities other than the Government, do not fall within this protected category; hence, no prior sanction is required for their prosecution.

---

2. Benefit of co-accused judgment — Not automatic
   (Para 7, 10)
   Where proceedings against a co-accused are quashed for want of sanction, such benefit does not automatically extend to other accused unless they independently satisfy the statutory requirement of Section 197 Cr.P.C. The applicability depends on the status and service conditions of each accused.

---

3. Stage of applicability of Section 197 — Cognizance stage decisive
   (Para 14, 15)
   The bar under Section 197 Cr.P.C. operates at the stage of taking cognizance. If, on the date of cognizance, no sanction is required, subsequent events (such as later notifications extending protection) do not invalidate the proceedings. A valid cognizance cannot be nullified retrospectively.

---

4. Effect of subsequent Government notification under Section 197(3)
   (Para 11–14)
   Notifications issued under Section 197(3) Cr.P.C. extending protection to additional categories (e.g., subordinate police officers) operate prospectively and do not affect proceedings where cognizance was already validly taken prior to such notification.

---

5. Post-cognizance sanction — Ineffective
   (Para 14)
   A sanction obtained after cognizance does not cure the defect where sanction was required at the initial stage; conversely, where no sanction was required at cognizance, later requirement or protection is irrelevant.

---

Core Ratio (One-Line Proposition)

Protection under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is determined at the stage of cognizance and applies only to those public servants who are removable only with Government sanction; such protection cannot be extended retrospectively nor claimed by co-accused unless independently satisfied.

Application of Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC to Section 11 proceedings (Para 15, 19) The principles underlying Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC apply to proceedings under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act. Where a party withdraws or abandons earlier proceedings without liberty, a fresh proceeding on the same cause of action is barred. This bar is founded on public policy to prevent multiplicity and abuse of process.

advocatemmmohan

1. Section 11 Arbitration Act — Limited scope — Res judicata not to be examined
   (Para 15)
   The jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is confined to examining the existence of an arbitration agreement. Issues such as res judicata are not to be adjudicated at this stage and are to be left to the arbitral tribunal.

---

2. Application of Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC to Section 11 proceedings
   (Para 15, 19)
   The principles underlying Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC apply to proceedings under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act. Where a party withdraws or abandons earlier proceedings without liberty, a fresh proceeding on the same cause of action is barred. This bar is founded on public policy to prevent multiplicity and abuse of process.

---

3. Abandonment of arbitration proceedings — Test
   (Para 16, 17)
   Abandonment of proceedings is not to be lightly inferred; however, where conduct of a party clearly indicates unwillingness to pursue the claim (such as refusal to participate and communication declining authority of arbitrator), abandonment can be conclusively established.

---

4. Fresh Section 11 application — Maintainability — Same cause of action
   (Para 17, 19)
   Where a party had earlier invoked arbitration, participated initially, and thereafter abandoned proceedings, a subsequent application under Section 11 based on the same agreements and disputes is not maintainable, in the absence of liberty to re-initiate proceedings.

---

5. Fresh cause of action — Determination
   (Para 18, 19)
   A subsequent judicial decision in separate proceedings (relating to different subject matter) does not give rise to a fresh cause of action for arbitration between parties when the underlying disputes already existed and had been earlier invoked.

---

6. Abuse of process — Re-initiation of proceedings
   (Para 19)
   Filing a fresh application under Section 11 on the same cause of action after abandonment of earlier arbitration proceedings constitutes abuse of process of Court and is impermissible in law.

---

Core Ratio (One-Line Proposition)

A party who abandons earlier arbitration proceedings without liberty cannot invoke Section 11 of the Arbitration Act afresh on the same cause of action, as such re-initiation is barred by the principles of Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC and constitutes abuse of process.

Scope of Order IX Rule 13 CPC — Independent and wider remedy (Para 7, 9) The Supreme Court held that proceedings under Order IX Rule 13 CPC are distinct from an appeal under Section 96 CPC. Even where an appeal against the original order has been dismissed, an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC is maintainable if the applicant establishes non-service of summons or sufficient cause for non-appearance. The jurisdiction under Order IX Rule 13 is wider in enabling the Court to set aside an ex parte decree upon such satisfaction.

advocatemmmohan

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 — Order IX Rule 13 — Scope and applicability — Distinction from appeal under Section 96 CPC

Para 7, 8, 9

Order IX Rule 13 CPC provides an independent and wider remedy enabling a party to seek setting aside of an ex parte decree upon establishing (i) non-service of summons or (ii) sufficient cause preventing appearance — Held, remedy under Order IX Rule 13 is distinct from appellate remedy under Section 96 CPC — Even after dismissal of appeal, application under Order IX Rule 13 is maintainable if sufficient cause is shown — Courts below erred in rejecting application solely on ground of prior participation in appeal.

---

SUCCESSION CERTIFICATE — Sections 372 & 383, Indian Succession Act, 1925 — Suppression/misstatement of material facts — Effect

Para 8

Where application for succession certificate contains material discrepancies or suppression of relevant facts, such certificate is liable to be revoked under Section 383 — Misdescription of parties and incorrect particulars affecting identity of legal heirs vitiate proceedings — Held, factual matrix justified invocation of Section 383.

---

MINOR — Non-impleadment — Legal incapacity — Effect on proceedings

Para 8, 9

Non-impleadment of minor legal heir in succession proceedings — Minor incapable of responding to public notice or asserting rights independently — Failure to appoint lawful guardian despite knowledge of minor’s existence — Held, proceedings suffer from serious legal infirmity — Minor entitled to challenge proceedings upon attaining majority.

---

EX PARTE DECREE — Setting aside — “Sufficient cause” — Consideration

Para 7, 8

Primary considerations under Order IX Rule 13 are due service of summons and existence of sufficient cause for non-appearance — Where party is minor and not properly represented, absence constitutes sufficient cause — Public notice not clearly indicating nature of proceedings further vitiates service.

---

PARTIES — Necessary party — Determination

Para 6, 9

High Court erred in holding that appellant was not a necessary party — Legal heir having potential claim in estate is a necessary party — Non-impleadment results in denial of opportunity and prejudice — Such finding held unsustainable.

---

JUDGMENT — Interference — When warranted

Para 9, 10

Concurrent findings of courts below liable to be interfered with where conclusions suffer from perversity and legal infirmity — Failure to appreciate rights of minor and statutory scheme under Succession Act and CPC — Impugned orders set aside.

---

RESULT

Para 10, 11

Appeal allowed — Impugned orders set aside — Application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC allowed — Ex parte succession certificate quashed — Matter restored to trial court for fresh adjudication — Direction for expeditious disposal within one year.