Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Section 7 - Admission of application - Default by Corporate Debtor - Once National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) is satisfied that default has occurred, there is no discretion left with NCLT to refuse admission of the application under Section 7 - Non-payment of a part of debt when it becomes due and payable amounts to default - NCLT may reject the application if the debt has not become due and payable - NCLT cannot reject the application on any other ground once default is established.

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Section 3(12) - Default - Non-payment of debt - Even non-payment of a part or instalment of the debt when it becomes due and payable will amount to default on the part of the Corporate Debtor.

Discretionary power of NCLT - Section 7(5)(a) of IBC confers discretionary power on NCLT - The discretionary power cannot be exercised arbitrarily or capriciously - NCLT must consider the grounds made by the Corporate Debtor against admission on their own merits - NCLT may exercise discretion to keep admission of the application in abeyance if there are good reasons, such as the existence of an award or decree in favor of the Corporate Debtor that exceeds the debt amount - Example given is illustrative.

Demand notice and acknowledgments - Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Non-honoring of demand notice by the Corporate Debtor - Original application for recovery filed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal - Corporate Debtor acknowledged the debt - Liability of the Corporate Debtor reflected in its Balance Sheet.

Interim order of Telangana High Court - Restrains coercive action against Corporate Debtor - Does not relate to all Bank Guarantees - No finding recorded that Corporate Debtor is not liable to pay the dues - Only prevents coercive action.

           Appeal dismissed - No merit in the appeal - No order as to costs.

Constitutional interpretation - National Capital Territory of Delhi (NCTD) - Interpretation of constitutional provisions governing NCTD's powers and functions - Analysis of Article 239AA and relevant constitutional principles - Determination of NCTD's legislative and executive powers over "services" - Examination of the relationship between Union and NCTD - Clarification of NCTD's status as a distinct entity with unique governance structures.

Relationship between legislative and executive powers - National Capital Territory of Delhi (NCTD) - Understanding the interplay between NCTD's legislative and executive powers - Examination of the scope and extent of NCTD's authority in relation to various subjects - Analysis of constitutional provisions and principles guiding the exercise of legislative and executive functions.

Exclusion of subjects - National Capital Territory of Delhi (NCTD) - Identification and interpretation of subjects excluded from NCTD's legislative and executive powers - Examination of the exclusion of "public order," "police," and "land" from NCTD's authority - Understanding the limitations placed on NCTD's governance in relation to these specific subjects.

Role of Lieutenant Governor - National Capital Territory of Delhi (NCTD) - Determination of the powers and functions of the Lieutenant Governor - Analysis of the Lieutenant Governor's role in relation to the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers - Interpretation of constitutional provisions governing the Lieutenant Governor's authority in NCTD's governance.

Applicability of Part XIV to Union territories - National Capital Territory of Delhi (NCTD) - Examination of the applicability of Part XIV of the Constitution to Union territories - Interpretation of Article 309 and its proviso in relation to the recruitment and conditions of service of persons serving the Union or a State - Understanding the transitional nature of the rule-making power under Article 309.

Legislative power over "services" - National Capital Territory of Delhi (NCTD) - Determination of NCTD's legislative power over "services" under Entry 41 of List II of the Seventh Schedule - Analysis of relevant statutes enacted by the Legislative Assembly of NCTD - Interpretation of constitutional provisions and principles governing the exercise of legislative authority over "services" by NCTD.

Distinction between NCTD and other Union Territories - National Capital Territory of Delhi (NCTD) - Recognition of NCTD's unique status among Union Territories - Differentiation between NCTD and other Union Territories in terms of governance structures and constitutional provisions - Understanding the "sui generis" nature of NCTD.

Scope of legislative and executive powers - National Capital Territory of Delhi (NCTD) - Clarification of the scope and extent of NCTD's legislative and executive powers - Analysis of constitutional provisions and principles guiding the exercise of legislative and executive functions by NCTD - Determination of the limitations on NCTD's authority.

Interpretation of Article 239AA(3)(a) - National Capital Territory of Delhi (NCTD) - Interpretation of the phrase "insofar as any such matter is applicable to Union Territories" in Article 239AA(3)(a) - Understanding the scope of NCTD's legislative power over entries in the State List or Concurrent List - Examination of the broader principles and provisions of the Constitution guiding NCTD's legislative power.

Legislative and executive power over "Services" - National Capital Territory of Delhi (NCTD) - Confirmation of NCTD's legislative and executive power over "Services" under Entry 41 of List II of the Seventh Schedule - Analysis of relevant provisions and rules governing the recruitment, conditions of service, and control of personnel in the public services of NCTD - Recognition of NCTD's authority in enacting laws and making rules related to "Services."

Role of Lieutenant Governor in relation to services - National Capital Territory of Delhi (NCTD) - Affirmation of the Lieutenant Governor's binding obligation to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers of NCTD in matters within the legislative scope of NCTD - Recognition of the Lieutenant Governor's duty to adhere to decisions made by the Government of NCTD on services - Clarification of the Lieutenant Governor's role in NCTD's governance.

Decision:

National Capital Territory of Delhi (NCTD) has a unique status among Union Territories, and its governance structure distinguishes it from other Union Territories. NCTD has legislative and executive powers over matters within its legislative competence, including the authority to enact laws and make rules related to "Services" under Entry 41 of List II of the Seventh Schedule. The Lieutenant Governor of NCTD is bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers of NCTD in matters within the legislative scope of NCTD, particularly in relation to services. The Court clarified that the phrase "insofar as any such matter is applicable to Union Territories" in Article 239AA(3)(a) does not further exclude NCTD's legislative power over entries in the State List or Concurrent List. The division of administrative powers between the Union and NCTD must be respected, and the executive power of NCTD with respect to entries in List II and List III is subject to the executive power conferred upon the Union by the Constitution or by law enacted by Parliament.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 313 – Examination of accused – Principles governing examination of accused under Section 313 of CrPC discussed – It is the duty of the Trial Court to put each material circumstance appearing in the evidence against the accused specifically, distinctively and separately – Failure to do so amounts to a serious irregularity vitiating the trial if it is shown to have prejudiced the accused – Court must ordinarily eschew material circumstances not put to the accused from consideration – If the irregularity does not result in failure of justice, it becomes a curable defect – Court empowered to take the help of the prosecutor and the defence counsel in preparing relevant questions – Lawyers must act as officers of the Court and not as mouthpieces of their respective clients – National and State Judicial Academies directed to take note of defaults in adherence to Section 313 of CrPC – Conviction vitiated due to non-compliance with principles of examination of accused – Remanding the case after passage of significant time would be unjust – Conviction and sentence set aside. [Para 18, Para 20]

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 21 – Right to fair trial – Examination of accused under Section 313 of CrPC – Failure to put each material circumstance to the accused amounts to violation of right to fair trial – Serious irregularity vitiating the trial if it is shown to have prejudiced the accused – Court must ensure that accused is given a fair chance to defend himself – Importance of adherence to principles of examination of accused discussed – Failure to comply with principles may render the trial invalid. [Para 18]

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 342 – Scope and importance of Section 342 of CrPC – Accused to be properly examined and given an opportunity to explain circumstances appearing in evidence against him – Neglecting or slurring over examination under Section 342 is not acceptable – Judicial officers advised to give due importance to Section 342 and comply with its provisions – Material circumstances against accused must be put to him specifically, distinctly and separately. [Para 12]

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 537 – Curable irregularity – Failure to comply with requirements of Section 313 of CrPC considered as curable irregularity if it does not result in failure of justice – Prejudice caused to accused must be established – Delay in raising objection to irregularity is one of the factors considered – Court may remit case to Trial Court for recording supplementary statement of accused under Section 313, but must consider passage of time and prejudice caused to accused. [Para 21-22]

Sentence – Conviction set aside – Unjust to remand case after significant passage of time – Appellant already undergone substantial incarceration – Option of remand not considered appropriate – Appellant directed to be set at liberty unless required to be detained in connection with any other case. [Para 23]

Criminal Appeal jurisdiction of High Court - Powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution - Extent of jurisdiction - Whether High Court can go beyond considering the specific issue of granting or rejecting bail in a bail application - Court held that while the proper course of action for the High Court is to confine itself to the bail application, it can exercise its wide repertoire of powers under Articles 226 and 227 to prevent miscarriage of justice and safeguard the interest of justice. (Para 10)

Investigation - Importance of conducting a thorough and fair investigation - Lapses in investigation can lead to miscarriage of justice - Duty of investigative agencies and officers to bring on record all relevant materials in support of the truth - Failure to do so may result in undue benefit to the accused. (Para 22)

Observations in judgment - Effect on departmental proceedings - Observations made by the High Court in a judgment shall not prejudice the appellant in the departmental proceedings - Appellant entitled to raise all grounds and contentions in the departmental proceedings. (Para 27)

Acquittals - Failure of the justice delivery system - State's obligation to examine orders of acquittal and record reasons for failures in prosecution cases - Need for a procedural mechanism to ensure justice is served and the interest of the innocent is safeguarded. (Para 23)

Limitations on reading judgments - Judgments are not to be read as Euclid's theorems or construed as statutes - Specific cases are authorities only for what they actually decide - Each case to be decided on its own merits and factual matrix. (Para 19)

Direction for departmental proceedings - Observance of principles in previous judgments - Distinguishing the present case from previous judgments - Court held that the present case involves different factual positions and the directions for departmental proceedings were warranted in light of the lapses in the investigation and the decision of the Superintendent of Police to initiate proceedings against the appellant. (Para 21)

Dismissal of appeal - Upholding of Impugned Judgment - Court held that, considering the overall circumstances, the appeal was dismissed and the Impugned Judgment was upheld, with the caveat that the observations made against the appellant in the High Court's judgment shall not prejudice him in the departmental proceedings. (Para 25)

Statutory Provisions - Validity - Challenge not raised in writ petition - High Court's examination of validity unwarranted - Presumption of constitutionality in favor of statutory instrument - Lack of specific challenge in writ petition precludes consideration of repugnancy or legislative competence - Writ Court should refrain from issuing directions to ignore statutory provisions without striking them down.

Pleadings - Absence of specific challenge - Writ Court should not delve into issues of repugnancy or legislative competence without specific pleadings - Lack of notice to Advocate General of the State further impedes consideration of such issues.

Repugnancy - Need for specific challenge - Pleadings should demonstrate repugnancy between relevant statutory provisions and constitutional provision - Writ Court's observation on discrepancy and suggestion for dialogue between law departments unwarranted.

Writ Petition - Scope enlargement after 15 years - Writ petition filed to address imminent elections - Petitioners cannot expand scope of petition at this stage - Inappropriateness of writ Court's factual examination without supportive pleadings.

Disposition - Appeals allowed - Impugned judgment and order set aside - Writ petition dismissed - No costs awarded.

Constitution of India, 1950 – Schedule V, Para 5(1) – Power of Governor to direct application of Acts to Scheduled Areas – Governor not authorized to enact new Act, but only to direct that a particular Act shall not apply to a Scheduled Area or shall apply with exceptions and modifications specified in the notification – Governor’s power limited to applicability, modification, or creating exceptions concerning the Act of Parliament or the State – Notification ultra vires Para 5(1) of Schedule V if it creates a new law.

Constitution of India, 1950 – Schedule V, Para 5(2) – Power of Governor to make Regulations for peace and good governance of Scheduled Areas – Governor has plenary power of framing regulations for peace and good governance of Scheduled Area – Power of independent legislation.

Constitution of India, 1950 – Schedule V, Para 5(3) – Power of Governor to repeal or amend any Act of Parliament or State Legislature – Governor can repeal or amend any Act of Parliament or State Legislature in exercise of making regulations under Para 5(2) – Governor must follow prescribed procedure.

Constitution of India, 1950 – Schedule V, Para 5(1) – Governor’s power restricted to directing that a particular law will not apply to Scheduled Area or will apply with such modifications as specified in notification issued under sub-clause (1) or while making Regulations under sub-clause (2) – Governor’s power does not supersede Fundamental Rights under Part III of the Constitution – Fundamental Rights under Article 19(1)(e) can be exercised in relation to Scheduled Area.

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 19(1)(e) – Every citizen has right to reside and settle in any part of territory of India – Reasonable restrictions can be put on said Fundamental Right by law under Article 19(5) – Non-Tribals have right to settle down in a Scheduled Area.

Constitution of India, 1950 – Part III – Fundamental Rights – Governor’s power under Schedule V does not prevail over Fundamental Rights under Part III – Powers are not in derogation but in furtherance of constitutional aims and objectives.

Constitution of India, 1950 – Representation of the People Act, 1950 – Applicable to Scheduled Areas – Eligible voters ordinarily residing in Scheduled Area have right to vote, even if non-Tribal.

Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 330 and 332 – Reservation for Scheduled Tribes – Articles do not provide that all constituencies in Scheduled Areas shall be reserved for Scheduled Tribes – Reservation required to be made in accordance with provisions of Constitution – Writ of mandamus for reservation for Scheduled Tribes not maintainable.

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Applicable to Scheduled Areas in absence of exercise of power by Governor under Schedule V – No merit in appeal filed by appellant – High Court’s dismissal of writ petition upheld. Appeal Dismissed

Section 482 - FIR under SC/ST Act - Quashing of - Test to determine – Held - while exercising its power to quash an FIR under Section 482, the High Court must determine whether the allegations made in the complaint, prima facie, constitute an offence, and whether the allegations are so improbable that a prudent man would not conclude that there is sufficient ground to proceed with the complaint - Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. State of Maharashtra and Mahendra K C v. State of Karnataka referred.

Special Statutes - SC/ST Act - Quashing of FIR - Test to determine - Held, the mere fact that an offence is covered under the SC/ST Act would not inhibit the exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution or Section 482 of the Code, and the Court may exercise its powers to quash the proceedings if the offence in question is primarily civil or private, or where the continuation of the legal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law - Ramawatar v. State of Madhya Pradesh referred.

Power of High Court to prevent abuse of process of law or secure ends of justice - Held, the recognition of the power of the High Court to prevent the abuse of process or secure the ends of justice is a valuable safeguard for protecting liberty - Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. State of Maharashtra referred.

Delay in filing of FIR and resorting to criminal proceedings – Held - the Court has been consistent in interfering in cases where purely civil disputes are given the colour of criminality, only for the purposes of exerting extra-judicial pressure on the party concerned, which is nothing but abuse of the process of the court - In the present case, there is a huge, and quite frankly, unexplained delay of over 60 years in initiating dispute with regard to the ownership of the land in question, and the criminal case has been lodged only after failure to obtain relief in the civil suits, coupled with denial of relief in the interim therein to the respondent no.2/her family members - It is evident that resort was now being had to criminal proceedings which, in the considered opinion of this Court, is with ulterior motives, for oblique reasons and is a clear case of vengeance - The complaint and FIR are frivolous, vexatious and oppressive - Paras 36 and 37.

Duty of police officers to be vigilant before invoking provisions of a stringent statute – Held - the officers who institute an FIR based on any complaint are dutybound to be vigilant before invoking any provision of a very stringent statute like the SC/ST Act, which imposes serious penal consequences on the accused - The officer has to be satisfied that the provisions he seeks to invoke prima facie apply to the case at hand - Paras 38.

Decision: The High Court fell in error in not invoking its wholesome power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the FIR - Accordingly, the impugned judgment, being untenable in law, is set aside - The FIR, as also any proceedings emanating therefrom, insofar as they relate to the appellant, are quashed and set aside - Appeal allowed.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 34 - Setting aside of arbitral award - Patent illegality - Appeal against judgment and order passed by High Court setting aside arbitral award - Whether interference by High Court in findings and conclusions of arbitral award sustainable - Held, no - Mere errors on merits of the case do not amount to patent illegality - Narrow scope of patent illegality cannot be breached by mere use of different expressions referring only to error and not patent illegality - Court cannot reassess factual aspects and interfere with arbitral award - Principles laid down by Supreme Court in earlier judgments to be applied by Courts while dealing with arbitral award - Judgment of High Court setting aside arbitral award is not sustainable and is required to be set aside.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 31 - Interest on arbitral award - Reduction of interest rate - Justification for reducing rate of interest - Expression "current rate of interest" under Section 31(7)(b) explained in Explanation to have same meaning as assigned under Section 2(b) of Interest Act, 1978 - High Court may reduce interest awarded by arbitrator only when interest awarded does not reflect prevailing economic condition, is unreasonable or promotes interest of justice - In present case, High Court has not considered relevant factual aspects - Prevailing interest rate at time of award being prime lending rate of State Bank of India in range of 13% to 14% per annum, arbitral tribunal's award of interest at 15% p.a. was justified - High Court had no justification to reduce rate of interest to 10% p.a. - Award of interest at rate of 15% p.a. restored.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 34 - Interference by Courts in award of arbitrator - Restraint to be shown by Courts while examining validity of arbitral award - Otherwise, interference with arbitral award after reassessing factual aspects would be defeating object of Act - Arbitral awards not to be set aside by categorizing them as perverse or patently illegal without appreciating contours of these expressions - Principles expounded by Supreme Court in earlier judgments to be applied while dealing with matter.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 34 - Setting aside of arbitral award - Patent illegality - Appeal against judgment and order passed by High Court setting aside arbitral award - Whether interference by High Court in findings and conclusions of arbitral award sustainable - Held, no - Mere errors on merits of the case do not amount to patent illegality - Narrow scope of patent illegality cannot be breached by mere use of different expressions referring only to error and not patent illegality - Court cannot reassess factual aspects and interfere with arbitral award - Principles laid down by Supreme Court in earlier judgments to be applied by Courts while dealing with arbitral award - Judgment of High Court setting aside arbitral award is not sustainable and is required to be set aside.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 31 - Interest on arbitral award - Reduction of interest rate - Justification for reducing rate of interest - Expression "current rate of interest" under Section 31(7)(b) explained in Explanation to have same meaning as assigned under Section 2(b) of Interest Act, 1978 - High Court may reduce interest awarded by arbitrator only when interest awarded does not reflect prevailing economic condition, is unreasonable or promotes interest of justice - In present case, High Court has not considered relevant factual aspects - Prevailing interest rate at time of award being prime lending rate of State Bank of India in range of 13% to 14% per annum, arbitral tribunal's award of interest at 15% p.a. was justified - High Court had no justification to reduce rate of interest to 10% p.a. - Award of interest at rate of 15% p.a. restored.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 34 - Interference by Courts in award of arbitrator - Restraint to be shown by Courts while examining validity of arbitral award - Otherwise, interference with arbitral award after reassessing factual aspects would be defeating object of Act - Arbitral awards not to be set aside by categorizing them as perverse or patently illegal without appreciating contours of these expressions.

Decision: The Supreme Court reiterated the narrow scope of interference with an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and held that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction in the present case. The Court also held that the Commercial Court's order suffered from no infirmity and the High Court's comment on it was unjustified. The Court restored the arbitral award in its entirety and allowed the appeal filed by the appellant.