Companies Act – Composition of Offences –

Power to compound offences under Section 621A of the Companies Act 1956 discussed. Appeal challenging the jurisdiction of the Company Law Board (CLB) to compound offences punishable under Section 211(7) without court permission dismissed. Held that the CLB has parallel powers to the court for compounding such offences without requiring prior court permission [Paras 1-20].

Jurisdiction of Company Law Board –

Sections 621A(1) and 621A(7) confer similar powers on both the court and the CLB for compounding offences punishable with imprisonment or fine or both. These powers are parallel and independent, allowing the CLB to compound offences either before or after prosecution is initiated, without the need for prior court approval [Paras 11-19].

Statutory Interpretation – Non-obstante Clauses –

The use of non-obstante clauses in Sections 621A(1) and 621A(7) underscores the independent authority of the CLB to compound offences, ensuring no additional requirement for prior court permission which would otherwise alter the legislative intent [Paras 17-18].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed –

The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Company Law Board, allowing it to compound offences under Section 211(7) without prior court permission. The court emphasized the necessity of leniency and administrative efficiency in handling technical defaults under the Companies Act [Paras 19-20].

Motor Vehicles Act – Definition and Regulation of Motor Vehicles –

Determination of 'Jugaad' as a motor vehicle under Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Court held that 'Jugaad' falls within the definition of a motor vehicle and must comply with all statutory requirements, including registration, insurance, and valid driving licenses for drivers [Paras 1-32].

Judicial Directions – Interim Measures –

Court's power to issue interim directions in the absence of specific legislation under Articles 32 and 142 of the Constitution to ensure enforcement of existing laws until the legislature enacts appropriate provisions. Directions issued to statutory authorities to enforce the Motor Vehicles Act against 'Jugaad' vehicles [Paras 8-15].

Legislative Authority – Separation of Powers –

Reinforcement of judicial authority to fill legislative gaps through interim directions while respecting the doctrine of separation of powers. The decision emphasizes that courts can provide temporary solutions until formal legislation is enacted [Paras 8-15].

Decision – Petition Dismissed –

Supreme Court dismissed the petition and mandated strict compliance with the Motor Vehicles Act for 'Jugaad' vehicles. Statutory authorities directed to ensure that 'Jugaad' vehicles meet legal requirements or be prohibited from plying on roads [Paras 31-32].

Criminal Law – Bail – Economic Offences –

Considerations for granting bail in economic offences. The Supreme Court emphasized the severity and repercussions of economic offences on the country's economic structure, noting that they require a different approach compared to other crimes. Bail denied due to the serious nature of the allegations, the ongoing investigation, and the potential influence on witnesses [Paras 1-30].

Economic Offences – Seriousness and Impact –

Economic offences involving deep-rooted conspiracies and significant public fund losses are considered grave offences that pose a serious threat to the financial health of the country. The Court underscored the need for stringent measures in handling such offences [Paras 26-28].

Investigation and Judicial Custody –

The Court recognized the ongoing investigation by the CBI and the substantial evidence required to establish the allegations. The appellant's prolonged custody was justified due to the complexities involved in the investigation and the potential impact on the judicial process [Paras 10-25].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed –

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, directing the CBI to complete the investigation within four months and permitting the appellant to renew his bail application post-investigation. The trial court was instructed to consider the bail application independently [Paras 29-30].

Landlord and Tenant – Eviction – Bona Fide Requirement –

The trial court and first appellate court decreed eviction of the entire premises for the landlady's personal use. The High Court remitted the matter, directing consideration of partial eviction. The Supreme Court held that both lower courts had sufficiently considered the landlady’s bona fide requirement and the question of partial eviction, ruling in favor of the landlady for the entire premises [Paras 16-20].

Partial Eviction – Consideration under West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act –

The courts are required to consider whether the landlord's need can be met by partial eviction. However, in this case, both the trial court and appellate court determined that the entire premises were necessary for the landlady's use, complying with the statutory mandate [Paras 18-19].

Judicial Review – Concurrent Findings –

The Supreme Court emphasized that concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and appellate court, particularly regarding the landlady’s requirement and the unsuitability of partial eviction, should not have been disturbed by the High Court [Paras 18-19].

Decision – Appeal Allowed –

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and reinstated the trial court's decree of eviction for the entire premises, granting the landlady vacant possession [Paras 20-21].

Arbitration – Appointment of Arbitrator –

Under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Chief Justice or designated Judge may decide whether the claim is dead or barred by limitation. However, it is not mandatory to do so at the threshold, and such questions can be left to the Arbitral Tribunal. If a claim is evidently and patently long time-barred, it can be dismissed without detailed consideration of evidence, but if it involves disputed questions of fact regarding limitation, it should be referred to the Tribunal [Paras 16-17].

Limitation in Arbitration – Section 43 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act –

Limitation Act, 1963 applies to arbitrations as it does to court proceedings. Arbitration is deemed to commence on the date a request for arbitration is received by the respondent. Claims slightly beyond three years of completing the work should be referred to the Tribunal, while those patently time-barred should be dismissed at the threshold [Paras 14-16].

Judicial Discretion – Referral to Arbitral Tribunal –

In cases involving disputed facts about the receipt of notices and the section where they were received, it is appropriate to leave the matter to the Arbitral Tribunal to decide based on evidence [Paras 17-18].

Decision – Arbitration Petition Allowed –

The Supreme Court appointed an Arbitral Tribunal comprising Justice V.N. Khare (Chairman), Justice D.P. Wadhwa, and Justice S.N. Variava, former Judges of the Supreme Court, to adjudicate the disputes. The arbitrators shall fix their remuneration in consultation with the parties [Paras 18-19].

Criminal Law – Bail – Economic Offences –

The Supreme Court reiterated that economic offences constitute a distinct category of crimes requiring a different approach for bail. Given the deep-rooted conspiracies and significant public fund losses, the release of the appellant at this stage would hamper ongoing investigations and potentially influence witnesses and tamper with evidence [Paras 15-16].

Investigation Status and Judicial Custody –

The Court noted the substantial progress in the CBI investigation, the complexity of the case, and the appellant's significant influence and potential to interfere with the investigation. Despite the appellant being in custody for nearly a year, the magnitude and nature of the offences justified continued detention until the investigation is completed [Paras 14-17].

Judicial Discretion – Consideration of Bail –

The Court emphasized the need to balance the interests of justice with the rights of the accused, highlighting the criteria for bail, including the nature of accusations, evidence, potential punishment, character of the accused, and the larger public interest [Para 16].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed –

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, directing the CBI to complete the investigation and file the charge sheet(s) within four months. The appellant was allowed to renew his bail application post-investigation, with the trial court to consider it independently on its merits [Paras 17-18].

Criminal Law – Extra-Judicial Confession – Reliability –

The extra-judicial confession made by the accused to a neighbor (PW-2) was considered reliable and credible due to the circumstances of the confession and the witness’s consistent testimony. The confession was corroborated by other evidence and circumstances, establishing the accused's guilt [Paras 7-10].

Murder and Rape – Circumstantial Evidence –

The prosecution's case was supported by strong circumstantial evidence, including the accused's motive, the sequence of events, and forensic evidence. The trial and High Court correctly concluded that the accused committed the offences of rape and murder, attempting to cover up the crime by burning the bodies [Paras 11-18].

Medical Evidence – Supporting Conviction –

The medical evidence, including the post-mortem report and forensic analysis, corroborated the prosecution's case. Despite the absence of direct evidence of rape, the medical and forensic findings supported the conviction for rape followed by murder [Paras 15-18].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed –

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction and sentence, agreeing with the lower courts' findings and appreciating the thorough investigation by the police team. The Court highlighted the need for stringent punishment in cases involving heinous crimes against women [Paras 19-23].

Public Interest Litigation – Economic Decision Making – Judicial Review –

The Supreme Court emphasized that it is not justified in interfering with economic decisions taken by the state or its instrumentalities unless the decisions are contrary to law, mala fide, or based on irrelevant considerations. The court underscored the importance of allowing competent authorities to make decisions based on economic and commercial prudence [Paras 30-31, 38].

Role of Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) –

The court noted that the CAG’s report is subject to parliamentary scrutiny and is not the final word on matters. The report commands respect but must be considered along with the government’s responses and the scrutiny by the Public Accounts Committee (PAC). Judicial intervention based solely on the CAG’s report is not warranted without considering these aspects [Paras 44-57].

Decision – Petition Dismissed –

The court dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in the arguments presented. The decisions by ONGC and the Government of India regarding the Cairn-Vedanta deal were found to be prudent commercial decisions made in public interest [Paras 58].

Criminal Law – Bail – Economic Offences –

The Supreme Court emphasized that courts must carefully consider the nature of accusations, evidence, and the severity of the crime when granting bail in economic offences. In this case, the bail was improperly granted by the Special Judge and affirmed by the High Court without considering relevant materials and ignoring the nature of the allegations [Paras 9-31].

Judicial Review – Cancellation of Bail –

The court highlighted that cancellation of bail involves a review of the decision already made and should be exercised sparingly. In this case, the High Court failed to consider the seriousness of the allegations and the ongoing investigation, leading to the cancellation of bail granted to V. Vijay Sai Reddy [Paras 28-31].

Decision – Appeal Allowed –

The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the Special Judge and the High Court granting bail to V. Vijay Sai Reddy. The CBI was directed to complete the investigation and file a report within four months. The respondent was allowed to renew his bail application post-investigation [Paras 31-33].