Transfer of Matrimonial Case – Convenience of Wife – Appellant sought transfer of the matrimonial case filed by her husband from Etah to Mathura citing her inability to travel, financial dependence, and allegations of threats – Supreme Court reiterated that in matrimonial matters, the convenience of the wife is of paramount importance – Appeal allowed, case transferred [Paras 1-7].

Matrimonial Matters – Consideration for Transfer – Emphasis on the wife's convenience due to socio-economic factors – Court referred to principles laid down in N.C.V. Aishwarya vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, emphasizing the need to consider economic soundness, social strata, and the protective umbrella under which the wife is seeking sustenance [Para 4].

Decision – Appeal allowed – The case was transferred from the Principal Judge Family Court Etah, Uttar Pradesh, to the Principal Judge Family Court Mathura, Uttar Pradesh – High Court's order set aside – Directions issued for prompt transfer of case records [Paras 5-6].

Criminal Law – Initiation of Criminal Action – The Supreme Court emphasized the need for circumspection in initiating criminal proceedings in commercial transactions, highlighting the potential adverse economic consequences of frivolous actions against large corporations – The Court noted the importance of regulators acting as gatekeepers to prevent unwarranted prosecutions [Paras 1-30].

Disclosure of Documents – Right to Fair Trial – The Court underscored the principles of natural justice, requiring SEBI to disclose all relevant documents to the appellant – The duty of transparency and fairness by regulatory bodies was emphasized, rejecting SEBI's claims of litigation privilege over certain documents – The Court directed SEBI to furnish opinions and reports obtained during their investigation [Paras 31-59].

Adjudication of Delay – Section 473 CrPC – The Court held that the High Court must consider the facts surrounding the initiation of criminal complaints and the conduct of the investigating authority before adjudicating the issue of condonation of delay – Emphasized the need for a principled exercise of discretion by the courts [Paras 27-28].

Decision – Appeal allowed – The Supreme Court directed SEBI to provide the appellant with specific documents and opinions withheld during the investigation – The Court also remanded the matter to the High Court for consideration of the condonation of delay in light of the disclosed documents [Paras 56-59].

Insolvency Law – Admission of Application – Section 7 IBC – Appeal against NCLAT’s order allowing Corporate Debtor’s appeal and setting aside NCLT’s order admitting Section 7 application – Financial Creditor’s claim rejected without notifying proposal for closure – Supreme Court finds non-compliance with Section 7(5)(b) which mandates notice to Financial Creditor before rejection – Opportunity to rectify defects in application crucial – CIRP proceedings not barred by limitation as per Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act for acknowledgment of debt – Case remanded to NCLT for fresh adjudication [Paras 1-71].

Limitation Act – Acknowledgment of Debt – Section 25(3) of Indian Contract Act – Debt acknowledgment within limitation period necessary for CIRP proceedings – Supreme Court highlights continuous cause of action from Corporate Debtor’s settlement offers – Detailed scrutiny of debt acknowledgment essential for fair resolution [Paras 27-30, 64-66].

Judicial Review – Procedural Fairness – Section 7(5)(b) IBC – Mandate for notifying Financial Creditor before rejection – Supreme Court stresses importance of procedural fairness and opportunity to address application defects – Appeal allowed, NCLAT order set aside, NCLT to reassess CIRP application [Paras 70-71].

Decision: Appeal allowed – NCLAT order set aside – Case remanded to NCLT for fresh consideration of CIRP application in light of observations – Opportunity to file additional affidavits granted to both parties [Para 71].

Limitation Act – Effect of Acknowledgment in Writing – The Supreme Court held that Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, stipulates that if an acknowledgment of liability in writing is made before the expiration of the prescribed period, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time the acknowledgment was signed – The Court emphasized that an acknowledgment must be within the period of limitation to be valid for extending the limitation period [Paras 17-18].

Execution of Decree – Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 – The Court observed that the provisions of the Limitation Act do not apply to the execution of decrees under the Special Court Act, 1992, based on the decision in L.S. Synthetics Ltd v. Fairgrowth Financial Services Ltd – Held that the execution application by the Custodian was not barred by limitation, and the acknowledgment by the appellant on 22 February 2018 was valid [Paras 15-19].

Decision – Appeal disposed of – The Supreme Court upheld the directions for the disclosure of assets issued by the Special Court – Granted the appellant four weeks to file the disclosure of assets and directed the Special Court to dispose of the Execution Application within two months – Conditional stay on the application for arrest of the appellant until the Execution Application is decided [Paras 19-21].

Criminal Procedure – Revision Petition by Private Complainant – The Supreme Court held that a private complainant can file a revision petition under certain circumstances, including when the trial court wrongly excludes evidence that the prosecution wishes to produce – Emphasized the importance of revisional jurisdiction in ensuring justice and correcting manifest illegality or preventing gross miscarriage of justice [Paras 14-16].

Interlocutory Orders – Definition and Scope – The Court clarified that the term 'interlocutory order' under Section 397(2) CrPC should be interpreted narrowly, referring to orders of a purely interim or temporary nature – Orders affecting substantial rights or crucial aspects of the trial are not 'interlocutory' and can be challenged through revision petitions [Paras 12-13].

Decision – Appeal allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's decision dismissing the revision petition on the ground of maintainability – Directed the trial court to allow the prosecution to mark the statement of the appellant recorded on 26 December 2016 as an exhibit – Directed the trial court to conclude the trial by 31 March 2023 [Paras 16-17].

Criminal Law – Conviction for Attempt to Murder – The Supreme Court set aside the conviction under Section 307 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act due to the lack of independent evidence corroborating the complainant's statements and the failure of the prosecution to link the recovered items to the alleged incident – Emphasized the importance of proper examination under Section 313 CrPC to provide the accused an opportunity to explain adverse circumstances [Paras 1-32].

Section 313 CrPC – Examination of Accused – Purpose and Scope – The Court underscored that Section 313 CrPC ensures the accused can explain the adverse evidence against them – Highlighted the necessity for courts to question the accused fairly, ensuring all adverse evidence is presented for explanation, and stressed that this process is a vital aspect of a fair trial [Paras 20-29].

Assessment of Evidence – The Court found discrepancies in the testimonies of witnesses and noted that no independent witness corroborated the prosecution's case – Criticized the lower courts for not adequately considering the defence's alternative version and alibi, and for failing to apply judicial scrutiny to witness statements [Paras 9-31].

Decision – Appeal allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the conviction and sentence – The appellant was discharged from bail bonds [Paras 31-33].

Industrial Disputes – Recovery of Wages – The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in not discussing the merits of the Labour Court’s order dismissing the application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Emphasized the necessity for the High Court to provide specific findings on the Labour Court's order – The case was remitted back to the High Court for fresh consideration and decision within six months [Paras 4.2-5].

Procedural Requirement – Merits Discussion – The Court stressed the importance of detailed discussion and reasoning when overturning lower court orders, ensuring that justice is not only done but seen to be done – Highlighted procedural fairness and judicial thoroughness [Para 4.2].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – The Supreme Court quashed the High Court’s order allowing the workman’s writ petition and remitted the matter back to the High Court for fresh adjudication on merits – Directed the High Court to decide within six months – The appeals arising out of the writ petition filed by the management were dismissed [Para 5].

Compassionate Appointment – Eligibility Criteria – The Supreme Court held that compassionate appointment cannot be granted merely on the death or incapacitation of an employee – It must be in accordance with the scheme framed by the employer, which may include financial criteria to determine the indigence of the family – The Court emphasized that the aim of compassionate appointment is to tide over immediate financial crises, not to provide employment irrespective of financial condition [Paras 1-24].

Suppression of Material Facts – The Court noted that the respondent suppressed the fact that he was employed with ICICI Bank at the time of applying for compassionate appointment – Such suppression of material facts disqualifies the respondent from being considered for compassionate appointment – The High Court erred in ignoring this suppression and the financial criteria of the scheme [Paras 23-24].

Decision – Appeal allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court – Held that the respondent's application for compassionate appointment was liable to be rejected on the ground of suppression of material facts and the financial condition of the family not meeting the criteria under the scheme – No order as to costs [Para 25].

Civil Procedure – Abatement of Appeal – The Supreme Court held that the Second Appeal did not abate upon the death of one of the respondents, as the right to sue survived against the surviving respondents – Highlighted that abatement occurs only when the cause of action does not survive upon or against the surviving party – The High Court's dismissal of the appeal and the application to set aside abatement was found to be erroneous [Paras 5-10].

Order XXII Rule 2 CPC – Survival of Right to Sue – The Court noted that where there are multiple plaintiffs or defendants and one of them dies, the right to sue survives to the surviving plaintiffs or defendants – Applied to appeals by virtue of Order XXII Rule 11 CPC, ensuring the continuation of proceedings against surviving parties [Paras 7-9].

Decision – Appeals allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and decree dismissing the Second Appeal and the order dismissing the application to set aside abatement – Remanded the Second Appeal back to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits – Directed the High Court to expedite the hearing and decision within six months [Paras 11-12].