Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 - Sections 316(2) and 318(4) - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 482 - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Informant granted distributorship of camphor for Jharkhand by the Company for three years - Agreement executed and advance payments made - Disputes arose regarding product pricing and supplies - Company stopped supplies and terminated agreement - Informant filed FIR alleging cheating and criminal breach of trust - High Court dismissed writ petitions seeking quashing - Supreme Court held that FIR did not disclose ingredients of cheating as no dishonest intention at inception was alleged - held that money paid as advance under a contract does not constitute entrustment for criminal breach of trust - held that civil commercial dispute was given a criminal overtone - held that continuation of proceedings is an abuse of the process of the court - appeals allowed and FIR quashed - [Paras 1-26].

Criminal Law - Cheating - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 - Section 318(4) - Essential ingredients - Dishonest or fraudulent intention at inception - Promise of future advantage - Informant alleged false promises of gifts and benefits - Supreme Court held that a promise as to future advantage without intention to perform requires factual foundation showing inception dishonesty - mere breach of contract does not give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating - [Paras 8-16].

Criminal Law - Criminal Breach of Trust - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 - Section 316(2) - Essential ingredients - Entrustment of property - Money paid to supplier as price or advance for goods - Supreme Court held that money paid as advance passes to the supplier as consideration under a contract - supplier holds it as owner and is neither trustee nor bailee - absence of entrustment vitiates the charge - [Paras 18-20].

Decision: Both appeals are allowed - the common judgment and order dated 19.02.2025 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi is set aside - FIR registered as Kotwali P.S. Case No. 323 of 2024 and all proceedings arising therefrom stand quashed - [Paras 24-26].

Criminal Law - Anticipatory bail - Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 - Sections 69 and 70 - Directorate General of GST Intelligence investigating group entities for wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit - Respondent issued summons under Section 70 and subsequently filed for anticipatory bail which was rejected by Sessions Court and High Court - High Court dismissed pre-arrest bail application on ground that no order under Section 69 had been passed and hence no apprehension of arrest existed but granted protection for one week from intimation of order under Section 69 - Supreme Court held that once a petition seeking pre-arrest bail is dismissed as not maintainable or lacking merits the court cannot grant interim protection - Supreme Court further held that an order under Section 69 of the CGST Act is a sine qua non to seek anticipatory bail and therefore must be communicated to the person sought to be arrested to enable them to seek legal remedies - Held - impugned protection set aside and Commissioner directed to communicate Section 69 order prior to arrest - appeal disposed of - [Paras 1-25].

Constitutional Law - Personal Liberty - Constitution of India 1950 - Article 21 - Right to personal liberty and procedure established by law - Supreme Court held that withholding reasons recorded under Section 69 of the CGST Act would have drastic consequences on the right to liberty of the accused - communication of the order under Section 69 is mandatory to satisfy the principles of fairness and reasonableness under Article 21 - Held - without communication of the order under Section 69 the question of arrest does not arise - [Paras 18-22].

Criminal Law - Interim Relief - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 438 - Interim relief upon dismissal of main petition - Supreme Court relying on Madan Gopal Rungta and Hema Mishra principles reiterated that interim relief can only be in aid of and ancillary to main relief and once a petition seeking pre-arrest bail is dismissed no interim protection can be granted - Held - High Court erred in granting one week protection after dismissing the pre-arrest bail application - [Paras 8-11].

Decision: Criminal appeal disposed of – Protection granted by the High Court set aside – Commissioner directed to communicate the order under Section 69 of the CGST Act to the respondent prior to effecting arrest.

Civil Law - Civil Procedure Code - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 96 and Order XLI Rule 1 - Maintainability of composite appeal - Predecessor of appellants filed two separate suits for declaration and injunction which were consolidated upon defendant request and dismissed vide common judgment - Appellants filed a single composite appeal under Section 96 CPC along with certified copies of both decrees and court fees for both suits - First appellate court allowed the appeal and decreed both suits - High Court in second appeal set aside the first appellate court judgment holding that separate appeals were mandatory - Supreme Court held that the composite appeal was maintainable since proper court fees were paid and copies of both decrees were filed - deficiency if any of not filing separate memoranda was purely formal and curable - form should not prevail over substance - Held - High Court erred in non-suiting the appellants on technical grounds - appeals allowed - [Paras 1-21].

Civil Law - Consolidation of Suits - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 151 - Effect of consolidation - Trial court clubbed two suits upon request of common defendant resulting in common evidence and common judgment - Held - consolidated suits have no independent existence and do not attract res judicata inter se when appealed together - [Paras 11-15].

Civil Law - Procedural Defect - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order XLI Rule 1 - Handmaid of justice - Right of appeal being substantive cannot be defeated by procedural defects of form - Appellate court ought to have afforded opportunity to cure defect by filing separate memoranda rather than dismissing without merits - Held - procedural rules are handmaid of justice - [Paras 16-17].

Decision: Civil appeals allowed – Judgment of the High Court set aside – Second appeals restored before the High Court for adjudication afresh on merits.

Company Law - Insolvency and Bankruptcy - IBC 2016 - Sections 3, 5, 8, 9, 238A - Limitation Act 1963 - Section 18 - Appellant corporate debtor awarded EPC contract for 225 MW power station - work suspended in 2011 for non-payment - respondent issued legal notices in 2014 and 2015 and filed Section 9 application in 2018 after statutory demand notice - NCLT and NCLAT admitted application - Supreme Court held that the claim was barred by limitation as default occurred in 2011-2012 and limitation is not extended by mere subsistence of contract or unacknowledged legal notices - Held - Section 9 application was time-barred and appeal allowed - [Paras 1-102].

Civil Law - Contract Law - Indian Contract Act 1872 - Section 56 - Frustration of contract - EPC contract suspended due to non-payment - neither party terminated contract under termination clauses - Held - contract continued to subsist and doctrine of frustration does not apply to self-induced suspension arising from non-performance - [Paras 37-47, 89-91].

Civil Law - Insolvency and Bankruptcy - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 - Section 5 - Operational debt versus damages - Amounts due under payment milestones of EPC contract constitute operational debt - suspension idling and demobilization charges are unliquidated damages requiring adjudication and cannot be treated as operational debt - [Paras 48-54, 92-93].

Civil Law - Insolvency and Bankruptcy - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 - Sections 8 and 9 - Pre-existing dispute - Corporate debtor maintained total silence across multiple legal notices over seven years - Held - silence in such circumstances indicates absence of pre-existing dispute and defence raised for the first time in reply is an afterthought - [Paras 55-64, 94-96].

Civil Law - Limitation - Limitation Act 1963 - Section 18 - Starting point of limitation - Each default generates its own date and subsistence of contract does not provide continuing cause of action for unpaid debt - Held - silence on legal notices without written acknowledgment does not extend limitation under Section 18 - [Paras 65-88, 97-100].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned NCLAT and NCLT judgments set aside – Liberty granted to the respondent to approach the appropriate dispute resolution forum as provided in the EPC contract.

Civil Law - Temporary Injunction - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 - Order XLIII Rule 1(r) - Appellants challenged High Court Division Bench judgment setting aside Single Judge interim injunction restraining defendants from alienating corporate assets and properties - Original plaintiff claimed undue influence by granddaughter in executing gift deeds and transfers of family-holding entities - Single Judge granted injunction on finding prima facie case of undue influence and alter ego entities - Division Bench reversed holding transfers were voluntary and barred by Section 89 of Companies Act 2013 - Supreme Court held that appellate court under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) cannot substitute its view unless discretion below was arbitrary or perverse - trial court correctly found a serious triable issue and balance of convenience - Held - High Court erred in conducting a mini-trial on merits - appeal allowed and Single Judge order restored - [Paras 1-42].

Civil Law - Appellate Review of Discretion - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order XLIII Rule 1(r) - Scope of interference - Grant of temporary injunction is discretionary - Appellate court must not interfere merely because a different view is possible on the same material unless the discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely - Held - Division Bench impermissibly substituted its own appreciation of evidence and merits - [Paras 36-41].

Civil Law - Interlocutory Procedure - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order XXXIX - Prohibition of mini-trials - Courts must not conduct a detailed merits-based analysis or decide difficult questions of law and fact at the interlocutory stage - Held - interlocutory orders must remain confined to recording findings on prima facie case balance of convenience and irreparable injury without prejudging the main suit - [Paras 37-40].

Civil Law - Balance of Convenience - Specific Relief Act 1963 - Section 36 - Preservation of subject-matter - Balance of convenience lies in preserving the subject-matter of the suit when alienating family shareholding would render any eventual decree an empty formality - Held - defendants lose nothing of substance by being restrained from alienating disputed assets pending trial - [Paras 28-30].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Judgment of the Division Bench set aside – Order of the learned Single Judge granting interim injunction restored with directions for expeditious disposal of the suit – [Paras 41-42].

Criminal Law - Murder and Robbery - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 302, 392 and 34 - Appellant convicted for murdering a taxi driver and robbing the vehicle - Trial Court and High Court accepted the circumstantial chain involving last seen evidence recovery of the taxi and discovery of personal articles - Supreme Court affirmed the conviction holding the chain of circumstances to be complete and foolproof - Held - conviction under Sections 302/34 and 392/34 IPC affirmed - [Paras 1-23].

Juvenile Justice Law - Juvenility - Juvenile Justice Care and Protection of Children Act 2000 - Sections 7A, 15, 19 and 20 - Appellant claimed juvenility during appeal and produced Juvenile Justice Board order declaring him a juvenile on the date of offence - Supreme Court accepted the juvenility declaration - noting that the appellant had already undergone detention exceeding the maximum permissible period of three years under the Act and discharged his bail bonds - Held - adult sentence set aside and appeal partly allowed - [Paras 24-34].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed - Conviction under Sections 302/34 and 392/34 IPC affirmed - Sentences imposed by the courts below set aside in view of the appellant being a juvenile on the date of the offence - Appellant having already undergone detention exceeding the statutory maximum period released and bail bonds discharged without suffering disqualifications under Section 19 of the 2000 Act - [Paras 32-33].

Civil Law - Compassionate Appointment - National Coal Wage Agreement - Clause 9.3.4 - Age Eligibility - Appellant No. 2 applied for compassionate appointment following the death of his father in harness - Respondent authorities directed police verification while appellant was within the age limit - Claim subsequently rejected after inordinate delay on the ground that he had crossed 35 years by the time the formal application was processed - High Court dismissed writ petition - Supreme Court held that authorities cannot take advantage of their own administrative delay - process commenced when appellant was eligible - Held - judgment of High Court set aside - appeal allowed - [Paras 1-27].

Writ Law - Administrative Delay - Constitution of India - Article 14 - Arbitrariness - Departmental delay in processing compassionate appointment applications - Eligible candidate made to suffer due to procedural sluggishness and pandemic disruptions - Held - arbitrary and violative of Article 14 to penalize applicant for circumstances beyond his control - [Paras 18-22].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of the High Court set aside – Respondent authorities directed to reconsider the claim of appellant No. 2 treating him as eligible in age within 8 weeks – [Paras 25-26].

Criminal Law - Custodial Death - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 176 - Petitioners being the legal heirs of the deceased approached the Supreme Court against the Chhattisgarh High Court judgment that awarded a pittance compensation of rupees one lakh for a custodial death while failing to direct registration of an FIR or investigation - The Supreme Court noted that the deceased died due to head injuries sustained in custody while accused under the Excise Act - The State authorities and Director General of Police adopted an intransigent and evasive stance claiming ignorance of the Section 176 judicial inquiry report - The Supreme Court held that the investigation must be transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation and awarded an interim compensation of rupees twenty-five lakhs - Held - investigation entrusted to CBI and interim compensation of twenty-five lakhs ordered - [Paras 1-24].

Writ Law - Public Law Remedy - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Compensation for violation of fundamental rights - The High Court awarded a nominal compensation of rupees one lakh for custodial violence resulting in death - The Supreme Court found the amount completely inadequate and disproportionate to the gravity of the loss suffered by the family of the deceased sole breadwinner - Held - State is liable to pay substantial interim compensation and face prosecution for custodial violence - [Paras 8-22].

Decision: Special leave petition allowed in part – Investigation entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation – State of Chhattisgarh directed to pay an interim compensation of Rs 2500000 to the first petitioner – Matter listed for further directions.

Civil Law - Customs Classification - Customs Tariff Act 1975 - Customs Tariff Heading 9018 90 19 and 9033 00 00 - Appellant imported laser imagers and classified them under CTH 9018 90 19 as other diagnostic instruments and apparatus - Revenue reclassified them under residuary CTH 9033 00 00 as accessories not specified elsewhere in Chapter 90 - Assistant Commissioner Commissioner of Customs Appeals and CESTAT concurrently ruled in favour of Revenue - Supreme Court held that the laser imager has no independent diagnostic capabilities and functions merely as an accessory - because it is compatible with machines falling under different tariff headings namely CTH 9018 and CTH 9022 Rule 2(b) of Chapter Notes does not apply and it falls under residuary CTH 9033 00 00 - appeal dismissed - [Paras 1-19].

Civil Law - Interpretation of Tariff Rules - Customs Tariff Act 1975 - Chapter 90 Note 2(b) and 2(c) - Accessories suitable for use solely or principally with machines of the same tariff heading fall under Rule 2(b) - accessories compatible with machines falling under multiple distinct tariff headings cannot invoke Rule 2(b) and are attracted by residuary Rule 2(c) - Held - laser imagers compatible with both CTH 9018 and CTH 9022 equipment must be classified under residuary CTH 9033 00 00 - [Paras 11-18].

Decision: Appeal dismissed - Pending applications disposed of.