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].

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].

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]

Criminal Writ – PIL - Constitutional Validity – Section 376DA IPC – Challenge to mandatory life imprisonment “for remainder of natural life” – Question left open – Petitioner assailed the provision as arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 & 21 for excluding judicial discretion and mitigating circumstances – Court held that validity cannot be examined in vacuum in a PIL without concrete factual backdrop; issue left to be raised in appropriate case – Petition disposed of [Paras 5–7, 10–12].

Sentencing – Scope of punishment under Section 376DA IPC – Though mandatory life imprisonment stipulated, accused retains constitutional and statutory rights of remission under Articles 72 & 161 of the Constitution, Section 432 CrPC, and equivalent provisions under BNSS – Each State’s remission policy applies even to sentences under Sections 376DA & 376DB IPC [Paras 9.2–9.5].

Judicial Remedies – Conviction and sentence under Section 376DA IPC subject to appeal before High Court and Supreme Court – Additional remedies of constitutional and statutory remission safeguard against rigidity – Prescription of punishment reflects legislative policy considering egregious nature of offence [Paras 7–9].

Decision – Writ Petition disposed of; question of law on constitutional validity of Section 376DA IPC kept open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case – Impleadment application also disposed [Paras 10–12].

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]

Family Law - Child Custody/Visitation – Best Interests of the Child – Sections 25 GWA & 13-B HMA – Video Interaction Directed – Matrimonial discord led to competing custody proceedings; High Court dismissed father’s appeal noting prior breach of interim custody and child’s residence with mother – Before Supreme Court, father confined relief to video-conference visitation – Held: Welfare and emotional needs of child paramount; without disturbing settled custody in Ireland, father to have structured video access – Directions: two hours on every alternate Sunday from 10:00 AM to 12:00 noon (Ireland time); parties to cooperate and resolve logistics – Appeal disposed with directions [Paras 5–12, esp. 8–11].

Overseas Relocation – Non-disturbance of Settled Environment – Child presently residing with mother in Ireland and appears settled – In the child’s best interest, existing caregiving arrangement not to be unsettled; access tailored via virtual contact to preserve father–child bond [Paras 8–10].

Visitation via Video-Conferencing – Child’s Right to Affection of Both Parents – Court emphasizes a child’s entitlement to love and guidance of both parents notwithstanding parental discord or residence in different countries – Regular virtual contact ordered as fair and necessary to sustain relationship [Paras 9–11].

Parental Conduct and Welfare Principle – Fault Not Determinative – Though conduct of both parents “not ideal”, custody/visitation must be fashioned around the child’s emotional, mental and physical well-being; welfare principle overrides adversarial positions [Paras 6–7].

Scope of Appeal – Limited Relief – Without reopening merits of custody or High Court’s dismissal, Supreme Court grants limited relief to secure virtual visitation in aid of the child’s welfare; prior proceedings and interim breaches do not preclude calibrated contact orders [Paras 3.8–3.13, 5, 8–11].

Decision – Appeal Disposed – Directions Issued – Structured video access granted to father: alternate Sundays, two hours, 10:00 AM–12:00 noon (Ireland time); cooperation mandated; logistical/technical issues to be mutually resolved in the child’s paramount interest – Appeal and pending applications disposed of [Paras 11–13].

Arbitration – Award of Interest – Contractual Bar – Clause 18.1 of ONGC Contract – Pendente Lite Interest Permissible – Appeal Dismissed – [Paras 11-27]

Arbitration – Award of Interest – Interpretation of Contractual Clause – Whether Clause 18.1 of the Agreement bars the Arbitral Tribunal from awarding pendente lite interest – Held: Clause 18.1 does not bar award of interest during pendency of arbitral proceedings – Arbitral tribunal has statutory power to award interest under Section 31(7)(a) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Award of 12% interest from date of affirmation of claim till award upheld – Appeal dismissed [Paras 14, 25, 26].

Arbitration – Statutory Framework – Section 31(7) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Power of arbitral tribunal to award interest explained – Three stages: pre-reference, pendente lite, and post-award – While pre-reference and pendente lite interest are subject to agreement between parties, post-award interest is statutory and cannot be contracted out [Paras 12, 13].

Contract – Interpretation – Clause 18.1 – Clause stating that “no interest shall be payable by ONGC on any delayed payment /disputed claim” – Held: This does not amount to an express or implied bar on award of pendente lite interest – Distinguished from clauses in cases like Sayeed Ahmed and THDC which categorically barred interest in all circumstances – Such general clause does not override arbitral tribunal’s discretion under statute [Paras 20, 21, 22, 25, 26].

Arbitrator’s Jurisdiction – Award of Interest – Pendente Lite Interest – Held: Arbitral tribunal’s discretion to award pendente lite interest remains intact unless expressly excluded – No such exclusion in present case – Tribunal rightly awarded interest from date of claim affirmation (12.12.1998) to award date (21.11.2004) at reasonable rate of 12% p.a. [Paras 14, 16, 26].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Arbitral award affirmed – ONGC to pay interest as awarded by arbitral tribunal – No error found warranting interference under Section 34 or 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [Para 26].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Section 482 CrPC – Vague Allegations and Delay – Proceedings Quashed – Private complaint filed in 2014 for alleged offences of 2010 including rape under Section 376 IPC and SC/ST Act – Magistrate summoned appellant after inquiry under Section 202 CrPC – High Court rejected quashing – Supreme Court held complaint vague, bereft of particulars, unexplained delay of 4 years, no corroborative evidence, complainant even avoided Court’s notice – Continuation of proceedings would be abuse of process – Summoning order and proceedings quashed [Paras 9–16, 21–24].

False Promise of Marriage – Distinction Between Rape and Consensual Relationship – Court reiterated law that consensual sex on account of love/passion differs from sex induced by false promise of marriage – Only if mala fide intent at inception is proved can it amount to rape – Reliance placed on Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana, 2013 Cri LJ 2990 – In present case, allegations not credible, no evidence of initial mala fide intent [Paras 18–19].

Frivolous Complaints – Court’s Duty – Courts must closely scrutinize complaints that appear vexatious or filed with ulterior motives – Reference made to Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 951, and Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) Cr.A. 174 – Courts should assess overall circumstances, not merely complaint averments, to prevent harassment of accused [Paras 17, 20].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court order set aside – Criminal Case No.655/2014 pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad quashed – Pending applications disposed [Paras 22–24].

Bail Cancellation – Distinction Between Witness Protection and Judicial Power – High Court Order Set Aside – The appellant, original complainant, sought cancellation of bail granted to the accused on grounds of threats to witnesses – The High Court dismissed the application, directing the complainant to instead pursue remedy under the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 – The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in treating the Scheme as a substitute for judicial remedy under Section 439(2) CrPC – Emphasizing that courts cannot abdicate their jurisdiction to cancel bail in case of its violation, the Supreme Court set aside the order and directed reconsideration on merits – Appeal allowed – Matter remanded for fresh adjudication within four weeks [Paras 1-3, 16-18, 53, 62-67].

Bail Conditions – Violation of Terms – Liberty Not Absolute – Held: Bail is conditional liberty, and its breach, particularly when involving threats to witnesses, justifies cancellation – Courts must exercise their supervisory jurisdiction where conditions are violated – Reliance on administrative remedies like the Witness Protection Scheme cannot replace judicial oversight – Such abdication leads to miscarriage of justice [Paras 40-44, 56-59].

Witness Protection Scheme – Nature and Function – Complementary, Not Alternative – Held: The Scheme is designed to protect witnesses from intimidation but does not replace the court’s power to cancel bail – It functions as a curative measure addressing post-threat protection, not preventive judicial remedies under CrPC – Courts cannot relegate complainants to the Scheme when conditions of bail are violated [Paras 31-38, 45-48, 50-52].

Judicial Responsibility – Criticism of High Court Practice – Cyclostyled Orders Deprecated – Supreme Court observed a systemic error in Allahabad High Court where over 40 orders in bail cancellation cases simply diverted complainants to the Witness Protection Scheme without deciding on merits – Such mechanical disposal without applying legal principles was deprecated – Registry directed to circulate this order to all High Courts for corrective guidance [Paras 60-61, 67].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – Matter Remanded – Supreme Court set aside the impugned High Court order and directed it to rehear the bail cancellation application on merits – High Court to seek report from Investigating Officer, give opportunity to all parties, and pass a reasoned order within four weeks – No opinion expressed on merits by Supreme Court [Paras 62-67].