Criminal Trial – Transfer of Case – Allegations Against Presiding Officer – Transfer Directed - The petitioner sought transfer of his pending trial from the current Presiding Officer alleging lack of fairness and transparency – The Delhi High Court rejected the transfer plea – On hearing the Special Leave Petition, the Supreme Court invoked its powers to direct the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Shahdara, to either retain the matter on his own file or assign it to another Court of equivalent jurisdiction – Held: To ensure impartiality and protect the fairness of trial, transfer ordered without expressing any opinion on allegations – Allegations against judicial officer to be unconditionally withdrawn by petitioner [Paras 2-5, 10].

Expeditious Trial – Directions to Trial Court – Three-Month Deadline – The Supreme Court directed the transferee Court to complete the trial within three months from the date of transfer – The parties were instructed to cooperate fully, and in case of non-cooperation, the Court concerned may take strict steps as per law – The State assured full cooperation in production of witnesses – Held: Trial Court must adhere strictly to the fixed timeline and manage its calendar accordingly [Paras 7-9].

Conduct of Litigants – Allegations Against Judicial Officers – Unconditional Withdrawal – During proceedings, the petitioner was queried about the allegations against the trial Judge – Petitioner’s counsel unconditionally withdrew the same and undertook not to make such insinuations in future – Held: Supreme Court accepted the withdrawal and cautioned parties to maintain decorum in judicial proceedings [Paras 10-11].

Decision – SLP Disposed – Transfer and Time-Bound Trial Ordered – In view of the agreement between the parties and interest of justice, the SLP was disposed with specific directions for transfer and expeditious disposal – Registry was directed to communicate the order to the District Judge concerned – Held: No opinion expressed on merits; matter disposed with procedural directions to ensure fair trial [Paras 5-6, 12-15].

Motor Accident Claim – Functional Disability – Medical Board Certificate – Acceptance Limited - Claimant suffered hemipelvectomy and produced 90% disability certificate – Supreme Court accepted the medical evidence but held that for compensation purposes, 50% functional disability was rightly assessed by High Court based on actual earning capacity and use of prosthetic limb – Held: Functional disability determines loss of income, not the medical percentage per se [Paras 7-8].

Loss of Income – Income Tax Returns Accepted – Estimation Based on Documentary Evidence - The Court found that income tax and sales tax returns submitted prior to the accident could not be disregarded – Held: Income of ₹1,91,000 (net of tax) for 2007-08 accepted; applying multiplier of 18 and 50% disability, total loss of income calculated at ₹17,19,000 [Paras 8-9].

Future Prospects – No Addition Permitted – Functional Earning Capacity Sufficient - The claimant, fitted with a prosthetic limb, could continue his business and did not require enhancement for future prospects – Held: 40% addition for future income prospects disallowed, as loss already compensated through disability-based income loss [Para 9].

Medical Expenses – Full Reimbursement Allowed – Lack of Reasoning by Lower Courts Cured - Tribunal awarded ₹3.39 lakh and High Court increased to ₹8 lakh without reasoning – Supreme Court allowed full ₹12.54 lakh based on vouchers submitted – Held: Entire verified medical expense payable in absence of valid rebuttal by insurer [Para 10].

Future Medical Expenses – Replacement of Prosthetic Limb – Additional Compensation Awarded - Recognizing that prosthetic limbs need periodic replacement and servicing, though no authenticated receipts were filed, the Court granted ₹10 lakh towards future medical needs – Held: Compensation must include realistic provision for ongoing disability management [Paras 12].

Compensation Recalculated – Enhancements Over High Court Award - Supreme Court restored ₹1 lakh for attendant expenses and ₹4.70 lakh for initial prosthetic limb purchase omitted by High Court – Combined total compensation recalculated and awarded at ₹48,44,790 with 6% interest from date of application, after deducting amounts already paid [Paras 11, 13-14].

Regular Bail – Sexual Offences – Allegations Under IPC Sections 376, 377, 384, etc. – Bail Granted - The appellant was accused of serious offences including rape, blackmail, and assault by a woman nearly twice his age – The FIR was followed by a charge sheet including multiple IPC provisions – The High Court had rejected regular bail – Supreme Court noted interim bail had been granted earlier, and the complainant did not appear despite notice – Held: Considering the nature of relationship, age gap, alleged business dealings, and prolonged custody since 07.08.2024, regular bail is justified – Impugned order set aside – Bail granted on conditions to be imposed by Sessions Court [Paras 1-3, 7].

Frivolous Allegations – Consensual Relationship Plea – Age Disparity – Accused’s Argument Accepted - The appellant contended that the complainant was 42 years old while he was only 21, and that the relationship was consensual and commercial – Supreme Court did not delve into the truth of the claims but acknowledged the argument as relevant for bail consideration – Held: Charges not yet framed; allegations appear doubtful prima facie – No justification to keep appellant in further custody [Paras 2-3].

Failure to Prosecute – Non-Appearance of Complainant – Interim Bail Made Absolute – Despite prior notice and adjournment, the complainant did not appear – Court recorded counsel’s submission that he had no vakalatnama or instructions – Held: Absence of complainant and prolonged interim bail weighed in favour of granting regular bail [Para 2].

Decision  – Impugned Order Set Aside – Appeal Allowed – Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Delhi High Court’s rejection of bail, and directed that the appellant be released on regular bail upon appearance before Sessions Court on 19.09.2025 – Held: Sessions Court to impose appropriate conditions for bail – Pending applications also disposed of [Paras 6-8].

Limitation Law - Motor Accident Claim – Disbursement of Compensation – Review Rejected – Delay Not Condoned – Appellant sought review of Tribunal's disbursement order alleging unfair distribution of compensation among legal heirs – Tribunal rejected review on grounds of delay (6 months, 22 days) and absence of medical evidence – High Court affirmed dismissal – Supreme Court upheld findings – Held: Appellant signed joint application and accepted cheque without protest – Review rightly dismissed [Paras 1–7].

Limitation – Review Application – Sufficient Cause Not Proved – Tribunal and High Court found no credible explanation for delay – Appellant failed to produce medical records to support claim of illness or surgery – Delay appeared to be afterthought – Courts below correctly applied settled principles of limitation law [Paras 3.4, 5, 6.4].

Estoppel – Approbat and Reprobat – Conduct Precludes Challenge – Appellant signed joint disbursal application and received ₹1,00,000/- without demur – Later attempt to challenge disbursement order treated as reversal of conscious conduct – Held: A party who voluntarily accepts benefits under a court order cannot later dispute its validity – No question of fraud or suppression arose [Paras 5.4, 6.1–6.3].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – No Interference Warranted – Supreme Court found no error in decisions of Tribunal or High Court – Appellant’s challenge to disbursement treated as legally unsustainable – Appeal dismissed with observations on conduct [Para 7].

Civil Law - Will – Testamentary Succession – Section 67 of Indian Succession Act – High Court’s Finding Set Aside – Appellant claimed rights under joint will by parents – Trial and Appellate Courts upheld validity of will – High Court invoked Section 67 to void bequest due to attestation by beneficiary’s wife – Held: High Court framed additional substantial question of law without pleadings, issues, or suggestions in evidence – Introduction of Section 67 changed nature of case from factual to legal without procedural safeguards – Judgment set aside, testamentary succession upheld [Paras 1–23].

Section 100 CPC – Additional Substantial Question of Law – High Threshold – Proviso Invoked Improperly – High Court invoked proviso to Section 100(5) to frame new legal issue under Section 67 – Supreme Court held such invocation must be exceptional, with strong reasons recorded and based on pleadings – Found no foundation in plaint for applying Section 67 – Application of Section 67 in Second Appeal was legally unsustainable [Paras 16–20].

Evidence – Absence of Cross-Examination Suggestion – Application of Browne v. Dunn Principle – Court emphasized that where a party relies on new legal issue, contradiction must be suggested in cross-examination – No suggestion made to attesting witness (DW5) about disqualification – Held: Entire line of attack on will based on assumed relationship was contrary to fair procedure – Admission in pleadings or suggestion in evidence is essential [Paras 21–22].

Execution of Will – Validity Upheld – Free Will and Sound Disposing State – Trial Court and Appellate Court found will duly executed, with attestation proved under Section 63 – Medical evidence confirmed testator’s mental capacity – Held: No suspicion or infirmity in execution – Findings of lower courts reinstated [Paras 13–14].

Final Relief – Appeal Allowed – Monetary Obligations Under Will Enhanced – Though testamentary succession upheld, Supreme Court enhanced the monetary amounts payable to legal heirs under the will from ₹1 lakh / ₹50,000 to ₹10 lakhs / ₹5 lakhs respectively – Directed Appellant to pay within 3 months with interest @6% on default – Charge to be created over schedule properties [Para 24–25].

Anticipatory Bail – Cryptic High Court Order – Supreme Court Intervention – The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in relation to a 2021 FIR for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act – The High Court instead of deciding the bail application on merits, adjourned the matter directing the DGP to file an affidavit explaining non-arrest of the petitioner for four years – Held: High Court erred in not deciding the application on merits – The fact that the petitioner was not arrested for four years itself was a good ground to consider anticipatory bail – Supreme Court exercised its discretion and granted protection [Paras 2-5, 7-8].

Judicial Duty – Anticipatory Bail Application – Manner of Disposal – Held: High Court ought to have either granted or rejected anticipatory bail on merits – Asking irrelevant questions to the investigating agency reflected improper exercise of jurisdiction – Supreme Court disapproved the High Court’s approach [Paras 5-6].

Bail Principles – Delay in Arrest – Significance – Held: Non-arrest of the petitioner for four years was by itself a strong ground to grant anticipatory bail – Discretion under Section 438 CrPC must be exercised to protect liberty when there is no bona fide attempt to arrest during investigation [Para 7].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – Supreme Court ordered that in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail subject to conditions imposed by the Investigating Officer – SLP disposed of [Para 8-9].

Negotiable Instruments Act – S.138, 141 – Criminal Liability of Sick Company – BIFR Restraint Order – Recall of Summons – Appeals Allowed – [Paras 13-25]

Background – Appellant (complainant) supplied goods to respondent-company (accused), which issued multiple cheques in 2001 – Cheques dishonoured for “insufficient funds” – Appellant filed complaints under Ss.138/141 NI Act – Magistrate summoned accused – Accused sought recall of process citing BIFR restraint order (21.08.2000) under S.22A SICA – Magistrate rejected recall – Revisional court set aside Magistrate’s order and discharged accused – High Court (05.10.2023) upheld revision – Present appeals filed – [Paras 2-8]

Maintainability of Recall Plea – Power of Magistrate to recall summons absent – Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal, affirmed in Constitution Bench decision In re: Expeditious Trial of Cases under S.138 NI Act – Revisional court erred in entertaining recall plea – High Court erred in not correcting it – [Paras 10-11, 24]

SICA and NI Act – Interplay – Section 22 SICA creates embargo only on disposal of assets, not on initiation/prosecution of criminal complaints – Kusum Ingots & Alloys clarified that criminal proceedings under S.138 NI Act are not barred per se; effect of S.22A restraint depends on facts, nature of cheque, timing – Presumption u/s 118(b) NI Act that cheques dated 2001 were issued on those dates – Whether issued for day-to-day operations is a matter for trial, not threshold discharge – [Paras 14-20, 23]

Precedents – Southern Steel Ltd. v. Jindal Vijayanagar Steel Ltd. applied – Mere status as “sick” company cannot defeat prosecution under S.138 NI Act when cheques issued with knowledge of liabilities – [Para 21]

Result – Appeals allowed – Orders of revisional court and High Court set aside – Complaints restored before Magistrate – Proceedings to continue in accordance with law – [Paras 25-26]

Decision: Criminal appeals allowed – Impugned orders dated 05.10.2023 of the High Court and revisional court set aside – Complaints under Ss.138/141 NI Act restored to Magistrate’s file – Magistrate to proceed to logical conclusion – [Paras 25-26]

Quashing of Summoning Order – Delay in Complaint – Vague Allegations – Criminal Proceedings Quashed – Supreme Court quashed proceedings initiated under a private complaint after finding four-year delay in lodging FIR for alleged 2010 incident – Allegations of rape and caste abuse were held to be vague, inconsistent, and unsupported by material evidence – Summoning of accused and parents held to be gross abuse of process [Paras 4–15, 22–24].

Frivolous and Vexatious Litigation – Judicial Caution Emphasized – Summons Must Not Be Issued Lightly – Citing Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 951, Court reiterated that false, motivated criminal proceedings deserve closer scrutiny – Summoning based on fabricated or exaggerated narrative can seriously harm reputation – Courts must carefully assess allegations, context, and delay [Paras 16–17].

Consensual Relationship vs. Rape – False Promise of Marriage – Legal Test Restated – Court reiterated that failed promise of marriage does not automatically amount to rape – Referred to Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana, 2013 Cri LJ 2990 – Held: Distinction must be made between false promise made with intent to deceive and mere failure to marry due to changed circumstances [Paras 18–19].

Section 482 CrPC – Principles for Quashing Restated – Four-Step Test – Reiterated the Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor framework – Courts must consider if evidence is unimpeachable, rebuts complaint, and prosecution cannot reasonably refute it – If yes, continuation of proceedings is abuse of process [Para 20].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – Criminal Case Quashed – Supreme Court allowed appeal, set aside Allahabad High Court’s order, and quashed proceedings in Criminal Case No. 655/2014 pending before Additional CJM, Allahabad [Paras 24–25].

Company Law – Oppression & Mismanagement – Jurisdiction – Gift/Share Transfer – Board Meetings – NCLAT interference set aside – Appeals allowed – NCLT order restored – Parties to bear own costs – [Paras 17, 19, 24-31, 42-46, 47-53, 55-56]

Background – Private company (Sargam Exim Pvt. Ltd., later Satori Global Ltd.) incorporated in 2006 – Appellant initially held 39,500/40,000 shares (>98%) after transfers and fresh issue – Marital discord with R-2 – Alleged resignation and gift of entire shareholding to mother-in-law (R-4) dated 17.12.2010 – Board meetings on 15.12.2010 and 17.12.2010 – Conversion to public company in June 2011 – Appellant lodged police complaints alleging coercion/blank papers – NCLT (04.09.2018) allowed petition under Ss. 397/398 (1956 Act), restored appellant as director and shareholder, set aside transfers and meetings – NCLAT (02.06.2023) reversed on maintainability/jurisdiction – Present civil appeals against NCLAT – [Paras 2-18, 19]

Maintainability – Petition under Ss. 397/398 (1956 Act) held maintainable – NCLT’s reasoning approved – Allegations of fraud/coercion/fabrication justified invoking oppression/mismanagement jurisdiction notwithstanding S.399 threshold objection – [Paras 24-25]

NCLT’s Jurisdiction – Wide, plenary powers under Ss. 397/398 read with jurisprudence (Radharamanan – Kamal Kumar Dutta – TCS v. Cyrus) – Tribunal can decide issues integral/incidental to oppression/mismanagement, including validity of gift deed/transfer when central to controversy – No specific statutory bar shown – NCLAT erred in holding otherwise – [Paras 26-31]

Oppression & Mismanagement – Tests reaffirmed (Meyer – Harmer – Shanti Prasad Jain – Needle Industries – Hind Overseas – Dale & Carrington – Sangramsinh Gaekwad – V.S. Krishnan) – Series of actions lacking probity and fair dealing, burdensome/harsh/wrong to appellant, prejudicing proprietary rights – Present facts satisfy the tests – [Paras 32-42, 54]

Gift Deed – Invalid under Articles – Article 16 does not permit gift transfer to “mother-in-law” – Actions contrary to AoA cannot defeat member’s rights (ref. VB Rangaraj) – Surrounding circumstances suspect: deed recites “love and affection” yet FIR by transferee (R-4) regarding jewellery on same date 17.12.2010 undermines narrative – [Paras 43-44]

Share Transfer Forms – Vitiated – Executed/used beyond validity – Overwriting/mismatch of dates to fit within purported extension – Transfers set aside – Court declines to rule on Registrar’s extension power since RoC not a party and decision unnecessary given invalidity otherwise – [Paras 45-46]

Board Meetings – Invalidly conducted – Mandatory notice to all directors (AoA cls. 30, 61; S.286, 1956 Act) not proved – Absence of minutes – Reliance on guard’s receipt pertains to EOGM (20.06.2011), not board meetings in issue – Inconsistent stands by respondents across fora – [Paras 48-50]

Quorum – AoA cl. 53 requires two validly appointed directors – On 15.12.2010 only appellant and R-3 were directors; in appellant’s absence quorum not met – Induction of R-5 as additional director on 15.12.2010 itself illegal, hence his presence on 17.12.2010 could not cure defect – Resolutions including acceptance of alleged resignation invalid – [Paras 51-53]

Result – Series of acts demonstrate oppression/mismanagement – NCLAT’s interference unwarranted – Supreme Court sets aside NCLAT and restores NCLT’s order – Civil appeals allowed – No order as to costs – [Paras 54-56]

Decision: Appeals allowed – NCLAT judgment dated 02.06.2023 set aside – NCLT judgment dated 04.09.2018 restored (including restoration of appellant as director and shareholder; invalidation of gift/transfer and impugned board resolutions) – Parties to bear own costs – [Paras 17, 55-56]