Section 140(5) of the Companies Act, 2013 - Maintainability of proceedings under - Auditor's resignation - Whether proceedings under section 140(5) can be maintained after the resignation of auditors - Held, the intention of the legislature while enacting section 140(5) is clear and the Tribunal is vested with powers under this section to pass a final order against the auditor for acting in a fraudulent manner, irrespective of the resignation - Proceedings under section 140(5) can be maintained and continued even after the resignation of auditors - High Court erred in holding otherwise. (Para 10 and 11)

Section 140(5) of the Companies Act, 2013 - Constitutional validity - Challenge to - Held, section 140(5) is not arbitrary, excessive, or violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution - The provision confers quasi-judicial powers upon the Tribunal, and ample opportunity is provided to the auditors before passing any final order - Auditors play a crucial role in the affairs of the company and section 140(5) is not discriminatory against auditors. (Para 12 and 13)

Section 212(14) of the Companies Act, 2013 - Quashing of direction to prosecute - SFIO report - Whether the direction to prosecute under section 212(14) can be quashed on the ground of non-application of mind and incomplete investigation report - Held, issuance of the direction within a short period does not indicate non-application of mind - Detailed note prepared by the investigating officer was considered by the final authority - The report of about 750 pages and 32000 pages of annexures could have been considered in 30 hours - SFIO report was not incomplete; it was a record of the investigation into the specific company - High Court erred in setting aside the direction on these grounds. (Para 15.1, 15.2, and 15.3)

Section 212(14) of the Companies Act, 2013 - Quashing of prosecution - Held, the direction to prosecute was properly given based on the SFIO report - Accused will have ample opportunity to present their case during the trial - High Court erred in quashing the prosecution. (Para 17)

Criminal Complaint CC No. 20/2019 - Quashing of - Held, the quashing of the criminal complaint filed by SFIO is set aside - The concerned Trial Court should proceed with the criminal complaint in accordance with the law and on its own merits. (Para 18)

Appeals - Allowance and dismissal of appeals - Constitutional validity of section 140(5) upheld - High Court's decision on maintainability of proceedings under section 140(5) quashed - High Court's decision to quash the direction to prosecute and the prosecution itself set aside - Appeals filed by the Union of India allowed - Appeals filed by Deloitte and its partners dismissed.

Land Acquisition - Lapse of Acquisition - Compliance with Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Satisfaction of either of the conditions of taking possession or payment of compensation is sufficient to save the acquisition from lapsing. (Para 8)

Acquisition Proceedings - Payment of Compensation - Deposit with Reference Court - Compensation deposited with the Reference Court under Section 30/31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Valid deposit satisfying the requirement of payment under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. (Para 9)

Possession of Acquired Land - Vested with State - Possession of land acquired under the 1894 Act vests with the State Government, free from all encumbrances - Any person retaining possession thereafter is a trespasser. (Para 10)

Validity of Acquisition - Public Importance - Acquisition for the construction of a road project of great public importance - Project required completion before a specified date in light of national celebrations - Considerations of public interest weigh in favor of upholding the validity of the acquisition. (Para 12)

Writ Petition - Dismissal - High Court order allowing the writ petition and holding acquisition as lapsed set aside - Acquisition proceedings upheld - Writ petition dismissed. (Para 14)

SARFAESI Act, 2002 - Section 13(8) - Challenge to e-auction notice - Availability of alternative statutory remedy - Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Maintainability - Whether Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act shall be applicable in favour of an agreement to sale holder or only in case of the borrower who is ready and willing to pay the entire debt - Applicability of Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act - Benefit of void transaction - Transaction between agreement to sale holder and borrower illegal and behind the back of the Tribunal and Bank - High Court entertaining writ petition challenging e-auction notice issued by Bank under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act - Error committed by High Court - Impugned judgment and order quashed and set aside - Sale certificate issued in favour of the auction purchaser on full payment of auction sale consideration - Heirs of the original agreement to sale holder directed to vacate the flat in question and hand over peaceful and vacant possession of the same to the auction purchaser within three months. Appeal Allowed. (Para No.8)

Civil Appeal – Validity of caste certificate – Appellant challenges High Court judgment – First respondent obtained a job reserved for Scheduled Castes with a caste certificate – Caste certificate invalidated due to marriage – Appellant conducted disciplinary proceedings leading to dismissal – Single Judge directed reconsideration based on outdated precedents – Division Bench dismissed writ appeal – Leave granted to appeal.

Caste Certificate – Importance of caste certificate in reservation posts – First respondent claimed to belong to a Scheduled Caste based on certificate – Certificate invalidated due to high school records and marriage – Tehsildar observed marriage doesn’t grant Scheduled Caste status – Tehsildar’s decision supported by previous Supreme Court rulings – Relevance of acquisition of status by marriage discussed. [Para 15-16]

Disciplinary Proceedings – Disciplinary proceedings initiated against the first respondent – Enquiry conducted, and report submitted – Appellant proposed dismissal and recovery of salary – First respondent challenged dismissal under Article 226 of the Constitution – Single Judge upheld cancellation but directed reconsideration – Direction based on outdated precedents – Larger bench overruled those precedents. [Para 7, 9-10, 11, 17, 18]

Reconsideration of Claim – Single Judge directed reconsideration of first respondent’s claim – Based on decisions overruled by larger bench – Clear principle of law established in Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India v. Jagdish Balaram Bahira – Reconsideration not warranted. [Para 19-21]

Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment set aside – Caste certificate invalidation upheld – No recovery of salary for period worked – Single Judge’s direction for reconsideration dismissed. [Para 22-23]

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) – Conviction under Section 15 – Appellant's conviction for possession of 54 Kgs of poppy husk confirmed by the High Court, following the Trial Court’s judgment. Issues regarding possession and procedural compliance raised. [Para 2-3, 5-7]

Criminal Procedure – Representation and Conduct of Defence – Appellant's counsel proceeded with the case despite lack of instructions from the appellant, as mandated by the Vakalatnama filed. [Para 4]

Evidence – Role of Independent Witnesses in NDPS Cases – Court held that independent witnesses are not mandatory to prove charges under the NDPS Act. Procedural compliance with arrest, seizure, and recovery affirmed. [Para 7]

Procedural Compliance – Seizure and Recovery under NDPS Act – Non-filling of the CFCL form at the site of arrest and recovery, and delay in sending samples for FSL report, deemed non-fatal to the prosecution's case. [Para 7-8]

Appeal Dismissal – No merit found in the appeal. The conclusion of the High Court upheld. No costs imposed. All pending applications disposed of. [Para 9-11]

Counter-claim - Rejection of - Appellant filed counter-claim in response to plaintiff's suit for recovery of dues - Lower court rejected the counter-claim under Order VII Rule 11 CPC - High Court upheld the lower court's order - Appeal filed against rejection of counter-claim. [Para 3-4]

Notice requirement - Loss or damage to consignment - Carriers Act, 1865 - Carriage by Road Act, 2007 - Section 10 of Carriers Act, 1865 mandated notice before instituting suit for loss or injury to goods entrusted to common carrier - Section 16 of Carriage by Road Act, 2007 replaced Section 10 and required notice for loss or damage to consignment - Counter-claim did not pertain to loss or damage to consignment - Notice requirement not applicable. [Para 7-12]

Distinction between claims - Loss of business opportunity, reputation, and idling of men, machine, and overheads - Counter-claim for different losses not related to consignment - Notice under Section 16 of Carriage by Road Act, 2007 not necessary - Courts below erred in rejecting counter-claim. [Para 15-17]

Reversal of impugned orders - Directions to lower court - Set aside orders rejecting counter-claim - Proceed with suit and counter-claim in accordance with law. [Para 20]

Indefeasible right to claim default bail - Filing of chargesheet - Error in filing chargesheet in wrong court - Committal proceedings - Applicability - Whether error in filing chargesheet in the wrong court affects the right of the accused to seek statutory/default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC - Held, the error in filing the chargesheet in the wrong court does not affect the right of the accused to seek statutory/default bail - Committal proceedings are not warranted in prosecutions under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) as the Special Court acts as one of the original jurisdictions - Appellants failed to file an application for statutory/default bail on the 91st day when the chargesheet had not been filed - Failure to file such an application extinguishes the right to default bail - Sayed Mohd. Ahmad Kazmi v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and Others, (2012) 12 SCC 1, followed. [Para 72, 76, 77]

National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 - Section 16 - Cognizance of offences by Special Court - Filing of chargesheet in wrong court - Effect - Filing of chargesheet in the wrong court does not affect the right of the accused to seek statutory/default bail - Committal proceedings are not warranted in prosecutions under the UAPA by the NIA as the Special Court acts as one of the original jurisdictions. [Para 68, 72]

Filing of final report - Error in filing chargesheet in wrong court - Committal proceedings - Effect - Error in filing the chargesheet in the wrong court does not affect the right of the accused to seek statutory/default bail - Committal proceedings are not warranted in prosecutions under the UAPA by the NIA as the Special Court acts as one of the original jurisdictions. [Para 72, 73]

Indefeasible right to claim bail - Filing of chargesheet - Error in filing chargesheet in wrong court - Committal proceedings - Applicability - Error in filing the chargesheet in the wrong court does not grant the accused an indefeasible right to seek statutory/default bail - The right to default bail remains enforceable if the accused has applied for such bail before the filing of the chargesheet or a report seeking an extension of time by the prosecution - Failure to apply for default bail when the right accrues extinguishes the right to default bail. [Para 72, 77]

Appeal Dismissed.

Scope and ambit of power and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India - Court's power to depart from the procedure and substantive laws based on considerations of fundamental general and specific public policy - Exercise of discretion to do complete justice in a "cause or matter" - Court as a problem solver balancing equities between conflicting claims - Power to dissolve marriage by passing a decree of divorce by mutual consent and quashing other connected proceedings including criminal prosecutions - Care and caution to be exercised - Factors to be considered - Dissolution of marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown. Para 8-13

Divorce - Dissolution of marriage by mutual consent - Exercise of power under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India - Supreme Court's discretion to dissolve marriage by passing a decree of divorce by mutual consent without following the procedural requirements of Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act - Quashing and disposal of other connected proceedings - Care and caution to be exercised - Factors to be considered - Balancing equities between conflicting claims - Dissolution of marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown. Para 42(ii)

Divorce - Irretrievable breakdown of marriage - Supreme Court's power to grant divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown in spite of the other spouse opposing the prayer - Exercise of power under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India - Discretion to dissolve marriage when marriage has completely failed and there is no possibility of cohabitation - Balancing circumstances and background of the party opposing the dissolution - Doing complete justice to the parties. Para 42(iii)

Writ jurisdiction - Divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown - Filing a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage - Not permissible - Parties to approach superior tribunal/forum for redressal of grievances - Writ jurisdiction for enforcement of rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution of India - Judicial orders passed in proceedings pending before a court not amenable to correction under Article 32. Para 1-7, 14-23, 41

Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Reference to arbitration - Non-arbitrable dispute - Validity of arbitration agreement - Scope and interpretation - Whether parties required to be referred to arbitration - Examination of record and relevant law - Held, dispute cannot be bifurcated and referred to arbitration partially, as the entire subject matter of the suit should be subject to arbitration agreement - Reliefs claimed in the suit fall outside the scope of the arbitration clause - No ancillary relationship between main agreement and tripartite agreement lacking arbitration clause - Amendments to Section 8 of the Act do not benefit the appellant - Principles enunciated in Vidya Drolia case not applicable - Prayers for reference to arbitration under Section 8 cannot be granted - View taken by Commercial Court and High Court not suffering from any infirmity - Appeals dismissed - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 8 - Sukanya Holdings case discussed - Vidya Drolia case discussed - Intercontinental Hotels Group case discussed - Oil and Natural Gas Corporation case discussed - Memos filed by appellant and subsequent purchasers deemed ineffective. Appeal Dismissed.

                     [Para 10, 11, 13, 17, 17.1, 18, 18.1, 19, 19.1, 19.2, 20, 21]