Loan Repayment - Interpretation of loan documents between Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services Ltd. (IL&FS) and HDFC Bank Ltd. - Dispute over the nature of loan and security - Assignment of receivables as security for loan repayment - Whether the assignment constituted a transfer of title or a security interest - Determination of the legal status of receivables in the Escrow Account. [Para 1-17]

Asset and Security Freeze Order - Issuance of an order by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) superseding the existing board of directors of IL&FS - Restriction on legal actions against IL&FS and its group companies - Suspension of actions to recover or enforce security interests - Impact of the freeze order on the dispute between IL&FS and HDFC. [Para 3-5]

Interpretation of Loan Transaction - Arguments presented by IL&FS and HDFC regarding the nature of the loan facility - IL&FS's contention that the loan was secured by the assignment of receivables as security, not a transfer of ownership - HDFC's assertion that it was a Lease Rental Discounting (LRD) loan involving the sale of rent receivables - Examination of relevant clauses in the loan agreements and Facility Agreement. [Para 9-17]

Assignment of Rents – Nature of Transaction - Whether the assignment of rents payable by tenants, lessees, and licensees constitutes an actionable claim - Interpretation of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Determining the true nature of the transaction from the terms of the documents rather than the nomenclature - Application of the rule that contemporaneous documents should be read together to discern the true purport of the contract - Assignment of debts as actionable claims - The effect of assigning rents payable to the creditor - The distinction between assignment and pledge - The validity of the assignment of rents in the context of commercial property ownership and financing - The enforceability of such assignments under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Legal precedent supporting the assignment of debts as actionable claims - Conclusion that the challenge to the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal's (NCLAT) conclusions has no merit and the appeal is dismissed. [Para 18-40]

Sexual Harassment at Workplace – Implementation of the POSH Act and Rules – Writ petition seeking directions to implement the provisions of the Sexual Harassment at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 and the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Rules, 2013 – Detailed claims made by the petitioner organization – In-depth consideration of the lacunae in the implementation of the Act – Specific focus on setting up Nodal Cells and Local Committees – Emphasis on District Officers' pivotal role in the Act's implementation – Lack of uniformity in state governments' implementation efforts – Need for notification of District Officers, appointment of nodal officers, and proper constitution of Local Committees – Necessity for training and sensitizing these officials on their roles and obligations. [Para 1-13]

Labor Law - Sexual Harassment - Implementation of the POSH Act and Rules - Issues regarding the operationalization of the Act for the unorganized sector - Definitions of 'employee,' 'employer,' and 'workplace' expand the scope of the Act - Inclusion of definitions for 'domestic worker' and 'unorganized sector' - Importance of LC (Local Committee) in the redressal framework for the unorganized sector - LCs headed by eminent women in social work - Nominees from NGOs helpful for approachability - Limitation in disbursal of funds by Union Government to States - Budget setting for Act's implementation crucial at district and state levels - Operationalizing LCs key to making remedies accessible to the unorganized sector. [Para 14-17]

Directions to Ensure Effective Implementation of the POSH Act:

A. Coordination between Union Government and State/UT Governments:

   i. Appointment of 'nodal person' within State/UT Women and Child Development Ministry for coordination.

   ii. States/UTs to submit compliance reports within 8 weeks, Union Government to consolidate and remedy lapses within 12 weeks.

B. Appointment of Public Authorities:

   iii. Appointment of district officers within 4 weeks.

   iv. District officers to appoint nodal officers and constitute LCs.

   v. Publication of contact details of district officers and nodal officers on the department's website within 6 weeks.

C. Amendments and Gaps in Rules:

   vi. Amendment of Rules to operationalize Section 26 of the Act.

   vii. Consideration of amending Rules to identify a 'nodal person' post within the Women and Child Department for uniform implementation.

D. Training and Capacity Building:

   viii. Mandatory training for District Officers, LCs, and nodal officers.

E. Larger Efforts Towards Awareness:

   ix. Allocation of financial resources for awareness material and training programs.

   x. Identification of non-governmental organizations working with women for awareness.

   xi. Spreading awareness about LCs' existence and approachability.

   xii. Utilization of modules prepared by NALSA for sensitization.

F. Annual Compliance Reports:

   xiii. Compliance with Sections 21(1) and 22 by District Officers.

   xiv. Creation of Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for monitoring implementation and maintaining data by State/UT Governments.

G. Monitoring of ICs and Compliance by Employers:

   xv. Reiteration of directions for the constitution of ICs in public establishments.

   xvi. Directions for hospitals, nursing homes, sports institutes, stadiums, sports complexes, or competition venues to establish ICs.

   xvii. Supplying District Officers with a list of establishments for enforcement.                                                                                                                                                                          

                                                                                                                                      [Para 18-23]

Civil Appeal - Landlord-Tenant Dispute - Termination of tenancy - Discrepancy in notice for termination of tenancy - Extent of land to be resumed to the landlord - Question of whether the landlord's holding exceeds one economic holding and the nature of the landlord's livelihood - Remand order by High Court - Special leave granted. [Para 1-17]

Land Tenancy Dispute – Interpretation of statutory provisions regarding the termination of land leases – Examination of relevant provisions and notifications under the Tenancy Act, 1948 – Special focus on Section 43A – Amended notification dated 08/10/1969 – Conditions governing leases for cultivation of sugarcane – Determination of economic holdings – Applicability of Section 33B(5)(b) in cases of joint tenancies – Calculation of land to be restored to the landlord – Final decision on land entitlement. [Para 18-30]

Land Tenancy Dispute – Application of Section 33B(5)(b) – Interpretation of the phrase "holding thereafter in the total an equal area for personal cultivation" – Notional division of leased land in cases of joint tenants – Illustration of how land entitlement is calculated under Section 33B(5)(b). [Para 26-28]

Land Tenancy Dispute – Remand order – Examination of the High Court's remand decision – Clarification of the crucial date for determining the landlord's bona fide requirement – Emphasis on events occurring after the date of the eviction application having no bearing on the determination of bona fides – Critique of the High Court's remand order. [Para 29-30]

Criminal Appeal – Quashing of FIR – Alleged theft, house trespass, and criminal intimidation – FIR registered under sections 457, 380, and 506 of the IPC – High Court quashed the FIR – Appeal allowed, High Court judgment set aside, and the matter ordered to proceed in accordance with the law. [Para 16-17]

Partnership Dispute – Dispute between family members regarding a partnership – Injunction granted to preserve the assets and belongings of the firm – Surrender of possession by one partner – Alleged theft of assets from the jointly held property – Prima facie case of theft and house trespass made out – Cognizable offenses – FIR not liable to be quashed. [Para 6-15]

Legal Proceedings – Arbitration and Conciliation Act – Orders passed under section 9 of the Act – Obligation to preserve property – Failure to inform the other party about court orders – Possible participation in the crime – Defense against the allegations not considered in this order. [Para 16]

Civil Appeal – Challenge to arbitral award – Delay in execution of construction contract – Claim for loss of profit due to delay – Arbitrator awarded loss of profit – First award set aside by High Court – Second award for loss of profit maintained by Arbitrator – Challenge to second award – Whether the second award in conflict with the public policy of India – Public policy includes compliance with fundamental policy of Indian law and judicial precedents – Arbitrator ignored binding judicial decision in making second award – Second award in conflict with public policy. [Para 8-14]

Claim for Loss of Profit – Conditions for a claim of loss of profit to succeed – Delay in completion of contract not attributable to claimant – Claimant an established contractor handling substantial projects – Requirement of credible evidence to substantiate the claim of loss of profitability – Failure to establish loss of profit with evidence renders the claim unsustainable. [Para 19]

Arbitral Award – Requirement of evidence to substantiate claims – Award based on no evidence and outrightly perverse – In conflict with public policy as contemplated by Section 34(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. [Para 20]

Dismissal of Appeal – Lack of merit in the appeal – Cost awarded by the learned Single Judge upheld. [Para 21]

Tenant-Landlord Dispute – Non-payment of Rent – Appellants (landlords) filed suit for eviction of respondent (tenant) for non-payment of rent – Respondent tenant stopped paying rent from February 2005 – Eviction notice served in October 2013. [Para 1]

West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 – Respondent filed an application under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) – Application rejected by Trial Court for being filed after a delay of ten months, beyond the statutory period of one month – No application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. [Para 2-3]

High Court’s Intervention – Set aside the Trial Court’s judgment – Granted liberty to respondent to file an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 – Directed the Trial Court to dispose of the application, if filed, within a stipulated period. [Para 4-5]

Grounds for Delay – Respondent cited ill-advice from his advocate for his failure to deposit arrears – High Court directed Trial Court to consider this when disposing of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. [Para 5]

Statutory Provisions – Discussion of relevant sections of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, and Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 7 of the said Act allows for protection against eviction if arrears and monthly rent are deposited under specified conditions. [Para 7-11]

Interplay between Limitation Act and State Act – Appellants argued that the general provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 could not override the specific limitations stated in the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 – Reliance placed on previous judgments. [Para 12-16]

Legal Precedents – A Two-Judge Bench ruling cited by appellants states that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply in instances like this – Respondent cited a Three-Judge Bench ruling but conceded that the ruling had been referred to in the Two-Judge Bench case. [Para 13-15]

Decision – Supreme Court upheld the application of specific timelines set forth in the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 – Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 not applicable to expand these timelines – Tenant must comply with statutory timelines to seek protection under the State Act. [Para 16]

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code – Application filed by the State Bank of India as a financial creditor against Totem Infrastructures Limited, a corporate debtor, for default in repaying financial facilities – Total claim of Rs. 613,27,01,598.23 – Proceedings initiated before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) – Appellant, the managing director of the corporate debtor, appealed against the NCLT's decision – Main grounds of appeal include limitation and the validity of the RBI circular dated 12.02.2018 – NCLAT upheld the NCLT's decision – Appellant's pleas primarily based on procedural grounds – Appellant's challenge to the RBI circular and limitation – NCLAT's observations on the need for the Adjudicating Authority to disclose its reasoning – NCLAT's conclusion on the maintainability of the application – Appeal dismissed. [Para 1-5]

Limitation Act - Application of Limitation Act in insolvency proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) - Determination of the starting point for the limitation period - Examination of whether a letter acknowledging debt can extend the limitation period in an ongoing insolvency proceeding - Distinguishing between acknowledgment under Section 18 of the Limitation Act and a promise within the meaning of Section 25 of the Contract Act - Clarification that a promise to pay can only extend the limitation period when clear and unconditional - Emphasis on the requirement of specific pleading on facts constituting acknowledgment or admission of claim. [Para 7-9]

Date of Default - Treatment of the date of default as the starting point for the limitation period in insolvency proceedings - Comparison with previous judgments regarding the date of default - Analysis of the effect of a recovery certificate as a deemed decree - Clarification of the time limit for initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) based on a recovery certificate - Determination that a recovery certificate retains the character of a decree to lodge a claim in an IBC proceeding - Segregation of claims based on different recovery certificates when necessary. [Para 10-16]

Doctrine of Election - Examination of the doctrine of election in the context of banks approaching Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) and the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) for recovery of debts - Clarification that the doctrine of election does not apply to prevent financial creditors from approaching the NCLT for initiation of CIRP - Recognition that the reliefs under the Debt Recovery Act and the IBC are different, and the choice between them depends on various factors, including the issuance of a recovery certificate. [Para 11]

Application of Limitation Act - Application of Article 137 of the Limitation Act for computing the limitation period for filing an application under Section 7 of the IBC - Acknowledgment of the authority that time for computing limitation for filing an application under Section 7 of the IBC is guided by Article 137 - Analysis of the provision of Section 19(22A) of the Debt Recovery Act, which deems a recovery certificate as a decree or order of the court - Clarification that the character of a recovery certificate as a deemed decree extends to lodging a claim in an IBC proceeding - Direction to segregate claims based on different recovery certificates if necessary. [Para 14-16]

Dismissal of Appeal - Dismissal of the appeal with observations and directions, including the dissolution of interim orders and disposal of pending applications - No order as to costs [Para 16-18]

Criminal Appeal – Conviction under Section 302 IPC – Appellant convicted of life imprisonment for setting the deceased on fire – Multiple dying declarations by the deceased – Trial Court found them consistent and credible – High Court upheld the conviction and rejected the appeal. [Para 1-7]

Criminal Appeal – Conviction based on multiple dying declarations – Scrutiny of the evidentiary value of dying declarations –

Examination of principles related to dying declarations laid down by previous court decisions. [Para 8-12]

Reliability of Dying Declarations – Principles to consider when dealing with multiple dying declarations:

• Dying declarations must be voluntary, reliable, and made by a person in a fit state of mind.

• Consistency among multiple dying declarations is crucial; material inconsistencies may affect credibility.

• Other evidence may be considered for corroboration when inconsistencies exist.

• Dying declarations must be examined in the context of surrounding facts and circumstances.

• Each declaration should be scrutinized independently.

• Declarations recorded by higher authorities can be relied upon if free from suspicion.

• The mental and physical condition of the deceased is essential.                  [Para 9]                                                                                                                     

Impact of burn injuries on the credibility of dying declarations – No strict rule based on the percentage of burns; it depends on various factors, including the nature and location of burns and their effect on mental faculties. [Para 10-12]

Examination of specific dying declarations (DD-I, DD-II, DD-III, DD-IV) – Concerns regarding hearsay, interested witnesses, and inconsistencies in the statements. [Para 13-27]

Evaluation of the evidence – Questions raised about the investigation, identification of the accused, and gaps in the prosecution’s case. [Para 28-34]

Decision – Appeal allowed, and bail granted to the convict-appellant is confirmed. [Para 35-36]

Administrative Law – Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution – Challenge to UPSC's decision not to include petitioner for personality test – Allegation of submitting Income and Asset Certificate after the closing date of online application – Personality test ongoing – Notice issued, Dasti service permitted – Results to be kept in a sealed cover – UPSC directed to ensure compliance with the order – Listed for further hearing on 20th November, 2023. [Para 1-8]