Civil Procedure – Withdrawal of Appeal – Interim Relief – High Court allowed withdrawal of appeal but extended interim relief until 10th May 2010 – Appellants challenged continuation of interim relief after appeal withdrawal – Supreme Court held High Court did not err, interim relief extension was justified to facilitate appellants' alternative legal remedy [Paras 1-20].

Judicial Process – Functus Officio – High Court’s jurisdiction post-disposal – High Court retains limited jurisdiction to extend interim relief even after permitting withdrawal of an appeal – Ensures no prejudice to parties seeking alternative remedy – Supreme Court finds High Court acted within its powers, dismisses appeal [Paras 12-19].

Constitutional Law – Article 226 – Interim Relief – Court’s power to grant interim relief ancillary to main relief – Supreme Court reiterates interim relief can be continued post-disposal to aid justice – High Court’s decision to extend relief upheld [Paras 16-18].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – High Court’s order extending interim relief upheld – Interim relief by Supreme Court stands vacated – No costs awarded [Paras 20-21].

Preventive Detention – Pre-Execution Challenge – Detention orders challenged at pre-execution stage on grounds beyond the five exceptions in Alka Subhash Gadia – Supreme Court held right of proposed detenue to challenge preventive detention orders on grounds other than five exceptions – Matters listed for final hearing on all grounds of challenge [Paras 1-7, 52-58].

Staleness of Detention Orders – Long interval between passing and execution of detention order – Detention order loses purpose if not executed timely – No material indicating continued prejudicial activity by detenue – Orders quashed as stale [Paras 9-11, 53].

Right to Freedom and Preventive Detention – Right to challenge detention at pre-execution stage – Importance of right to freedom – Examination of new grounds of challenge not considered in Alka Subhash Gadia – Preventive detention as a measure of caution not punishment [Paras 3-5, 7, 57-58].

Decision:

Writ Petitions allowed, detention orders quashed – Orders of preventive detention must be timely executed and relevant – Long delay erodes purpose – Absconding detenue cannot use delay to challenge detention [Para 53].

Criminal Procedure – Jurisdiction of Magistrate vs. Sessions Court – Appeal involves the hierarchy of courts concerning the committal of cases – The issue is whether the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate could commit the case to the Sessions Court for trial when the offences are not exclusively triable by the Sessions Court [Paras 1-10].

Section 306 CrPC – Tender of Pardon to Accomplice – Analysis of the procedures under Section 306 of the CrPC for granting pardon to an accomplice and the subsequent commitment of the case to the appropriate court – Court emphasized proper application of Section 306(5) CrPC, delineating the circumstances under which a case should be committed to the Sessions Court or Chief Judicial Magistrate [Paras 8-10].

Judicial Interpretation – Committal Orders – The Supreme Court critiqued the High Court's interpretation of committal orders, holding that the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate improperly committed the case to the Sessions Court – Reinforced that offences not exclusively triable by the Sessions Court should remain with the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for trial [Paras 11-13].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – High Court's order set aside – Case restored to the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for trial – Appellants granted liberty to apply for cancellation of the pardon granted to the approver, to be decided by the Magistrate [Paras 13-15].

Custody of Minor Child – Habeas Corpus – Foreign Court Orders – High Court directed mother to submit to U.S. court jurisdiction, facilitating child custody as per foreign court order – Supreme Court reviewed welfare of child, considering prolonged stay in India and best interests – Reinforced principles of comity of courts and modern conflict of laws, emphasizing jurisdiction with most intimate contact [Paras 1-10, 18-24].

Violation of Foreign Court Orders – Custodial Rights – Examination of mother’s defiance in removing child from U.S. despite court orders – Importance of enforcing foreign custody decisions to prevent jurisdictional manipulation and forum shopping – Supreme Court held such actions undermine legal processes [Paras 21, 27].

Child Welfare – Judicial Scrutiny – Comprehensive review of child’s welfare paramount – Summarily returning child to native jurisdiction for custody determination aligns with best interests and judicial propriety – Supreme Court supported High Court’s summary jurisdiction decision [Paras 25-30].

Decision:

Appeals dismissed – Directions by High Court upheld with modifications for ensuring compliance and child welfare – Order facilitated return of child to U.S. jurisdiction, balancing parental rights and child’s stability [Paras 31-33].

Banking Regulation – Compliance with RBI Act – Appellant challenged the rejection of its scheme of arrangement by the High Court – High Court held that the scheme did not comply with Section 45QA of the RBI Act – Appellant’s non-disclosure of RBI’s actions and violations deemed material – Appeals dismissed [Paras 1-59].

Scheme of Arrangement under Companies Act – Role of Company Court – Statutory obligation to ensure scheme is not a camouflage – Need for disclosure of material facts under Sections 391(1) and 393(1) of the Companies Act – High Court’s rejection of the scheme upheld [Paras 1-40].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Held – Scheme must comply with provisions of Chapter IIIB of the RBI Act – Non-disclosure of material facts undermines the scheme's bona fides – High Court’s conclusions do not require interference [Paras 41-59].

Industrial Law – Termination of Employment – Respondent's employment on a daily wage basis terminated after 54 days under fixed-term contracts – Industrial dispute raised and referred to Labour Court – Labour Court ordered reinstatement, citing violations of Sections 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act – High Court upheld Labour Court's decision – Supreme Court examined scope of Section 2(oo) and Section 2(bb) – Held that termination on expiry of the contract does not constitute retrenchment – Appeals allowed, Labour Court and High Court orders set aside [Paras 1-13].

Contractual Employment – Fixed-term Contracts – Applicability of Industrial Disputes Act – Supreme Court emphasized importance of contract terms – Determined that fixed-term nature of employment excluded application of Sections 25G and 25H [Paras 1-13].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Held – Termination on expiry of fixed-term contracts does not amount to retrenchment – Labour Court and High Court orders set aside – No order as to costs [Para 13].

Water Distribution Policy – Judicial Review – Appellants challenged the meager water allocation to the Kutch district from the Sardar Sarovar Project – High Court dismissed the plea, stating policy decisions on resource allocation lack judicially manageable standards – Supreme Court affirmed, emphasizing the expertise required for such policy decisions, and upheld the High Court's view that the allocation was a matter for the executive, not judicial intervention [Paras 1-16].

Constitutional Obligations – Directive Principles – Appellants argued that the State failed to distribute water equitably as mandated by Articles 38(2) and 39(b) – Court held that while these principles guide the State, the judicial review of such policies is limited to cases of clear arbitrariness or constitutional violations, which were not established in this case [Paras 1-16].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Held – Allocation of water is a complex policy decision involving various factors and expert considerations, and judicial intervention is unwarranted unless policies are clearly arbitrary or unconstitutional – No costs awarded [Paras 1-16].

Family Law – Domicile and Jurisdiction – Appellant-husband contested the jurisdiction of the Family Court in Mumbai to entertain a petition for judicial separation filed by the Respondent-wife, arguing that both parties had acquired Swedish citizenship and domicile – High Court held the petition maintainable, stating the husband failed to prove abandonment of Indian domicile and acquiring Australian domicile – Supreme Court upheld, emphasizing the requirement of domicile in India under Section 1(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-29].

Interpretation of Hindu Marriage Act – Extra-territorial Operation – Examination of Section 1(2) indicating that the Act applies to Hindus domiciled in India, even if residing outside India – Court clarified that the Act’s extra-territorial operation is justified when there is a nexus with India – Analysis of various High Court judgments, leading to the conclusion that the Act applies only to Hindus domiciled in India [Paras 12-20].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Held – Both parties domiciled in India, hence the Family Court in Mumbai has jurisdiction under the Hindu Marriage Act – Other contentions rendered academic due to this finding – No costs awarded [Paras 29-30].

Company Law – Transfer of Shares – Appellant sought to register the transfer of shares acquired through loan repayment – Respondent refused, citing non-compliance with Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act – Company Law Board and High Court upheld refusal – Supreme Court examined the applicability of Sections 13 and 16 of the Act to unlisted public company shares – Affirmed that the provisions of the Act apply to unlisted securities – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-35].

Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act – Marketable Securities – Interpretation – Defined 'securities' to include shares of a public limited company regardless of stock exchange listing – Rejected Appellant's argument that unlisted shares are not 'securities' under the Act – Emphasized the Act's intent to regulate transactions in securities, not limited to stock exchanges [Paras 10-30].

Spot Delivery Contract – Definition and Application – Evaluated whether the transaction qualified as a spot delivery contract – Determined it did not meet criteria due to deferred consideration – Upheld Company's refusal to register shares based on illegality of the contract [Paras 31-35].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Held – Transfer of shares invalid under Sections 13 and 16 of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act – High Court and Company Law Board decisions affirmed – No costs awarded [Para 35].