Insolvency Law – Limitation – The Supreme Court held that for the purpose of limitation, the relevant date is the date on which the right to sue accrues, which is the date when a default occurs. The Court emphasized that the condition precedent for condonation of delay in filing an application or appeal is the existence of sufficient cause. The existence of sufficient cause for delay would depend on the facts of each case, and there cannot be any straitjacket formula for accepting or rejecting the explanation furnished by the appellant for the delay [Paras 11-17].

Limitation Act – Exclusion of Time – The Court explained that the date of enforcement of the IBC and/or the date on which an application could have first been filed under the IBC are not relevant in the computation of limitation. It is the date on which the right to sue accrues that matters. The fact that an application for initiation of CIRP was filed within three years from the date of enforcement of the relevant provisions of the IBC is inconsequential if the right to sue had accrued much earlier [Paras 18-19, 28].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order of the NCLAT, which had incorrectly interpreted the limitation period for filing applications under the IBC. The Court held that the initiation of winding-up proceedings in the Madras High Court would not save limitation for initiation of proceedings for CIRP under the IBC in the NCLT. The judgment, however, does not prevent the respondent from pursuing any other remedy in accordance with law [Paras 29-31].

Arbitration Law – Stay of Arbitral Award – The Supreme Court held that once an application under Section 36(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is filed for stay of the operation of the arbitral award, the court is empowered to impose conditions as it deems fit. This may include furnishing security covering the entire amount of the award, including interest. The court is required to record reasons in writing while granting such a stay [Paras 2-3, 28-30].

Interim Relief – Section 9 vs. Section 36 – The court discussed the interplay between interim measures under Section 9 and applications for stay of awards under Section 36(2). It was clarified that there is no hard and fast rule that an application made earlier in point of time must be heard before a later application, particularly when both relate to the same arbitral award. The court emphasized the wide jurisdiction under Section 9 to grant interim measures, including securing the amount in dispute [Paras 21-24, 33-34].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – The court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court’s order directing the appellant to deposit the awarded amount as a condition for stay. The court requested the High Court to expedite the disposal of the pending application under Section 34 for setting aside the award, preferably within three months [Para 37].

Tax Law – Transfer to Defraud Revenue – Section 34 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act applies only if the transfer of immovable property occurs during the pendency of proceedings under the Act with the intent to defraud tax dues – The transfer in this case was made before the reassessment proceedings began – Consequently, Section 34 does not apply, and the transfer is valid – Tribunal and High Court orders setting aside the recovery certificate against the purchaser upheld [Paras 1-7].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Judgments of the High Court and Trade Tax Tribunal quashing the recovery certificate against the respondent affirmed – No costs [Para 7].

Motor Vehicles – Compensation – Enhancement – The claimant, who worked in the Merchant Navy, suffered an amputation of his right arm below the elbow, resulting in 70% disability – The High Court enhanced the Tribunal's compensation award to ₹1,482,000 but considered the claimant's income at ₹18,000 per month, assuming he worked only six months a year – This observation was without basis – The correct income should be at least ₹30,000 per month considering future income rise – Total compensation recalculated to ₹6,235,000 – Pain and suffering compensation increased from ₹25,000 to ₹400,000 due to multiple operations and prolonged hospitalization [Paras 1-7].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Total compensation set at ₹6,235,000 with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till realization – Enhanced amount to be deposited within eight weeks and paid to the claimant by account payee cheque – No costs [Paras 6-7].

Negotiable Instruments – Vicarious Liability – Section 141 of the NI Act – The High Court should not quash proceedings under Section 482 CrPC unless there is unimpeachable and incontrovertible evidence that a director/partner was not involved with the issuance of the cheque – The complainant must make specific averments regarding the role of the accused partner – Absence of specific averments in the complaint does not automatically warrant quashing the proceedings – The onus is on the accused to provide incontrovertible material to support their defense [Paras 1-48].

Decision – Appeal allowed – The High Court order quashing the proceedings against the respondent set aside – The complaint to proceed against the respondent [Paras 49-50].

Stamp Duty – Agreement to Sell – Possession – The agreements in question did not convey possession of the immovable property, as the plaintiff was already in possession prior to execution – Entry No. 5 (cc) of Schedule 1-A applicable under Punjab Stamp Act requires stamp duty on agreements evidencing delivery of possession – The trial court and High Court's orders demanding deficient stamp duty and penalty were based on incorrect application of the law – Orders set aside [Paras 1-5].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court and Trial Court orders directing appellant to pay deficient stamp duty with penalty quashed – No costs [Para 5].

Excise Duty – Modvat Credit – The appellant claimed Modvat credit on 'Guide Cars' under Rule 57Q, asserting they were 'components' of Coke Oven Battery – The classification of 'Guide Car' by the supplier under Chapter sub-heading 8603.00 was upheld – 'Guide Car' found not to be an integral part of Coke Oven Battery but distinct equipment used for transporting hot coke – Appellant not entitled to Modvat credit on 'Guide Car' – Penalty imposed by Tribunal quashed due to the bonafide belief of the appellant [Paras 1-12].

Decision – Appeal dismissed regarding the denial of Modvat credit on 'Guide Car' – The demand of ₹4,586,664 as Modvat credit availed on 'Guide Car' upheld – Penalty of ₹100,000 imposed by the Tribunal quashed – No order as to costs [Para 12].

Employees' Compensation – Permanent Disability – Compensation – The appellant, who suffered a 60% permanent disability due to a fall while working, was initially awarded compensation by the Commissioner based on a medical certificate – The High Court set aside this award based on a subsequent medical examination conducted after nine years, which found no permanent disability – The employer did not request a timely medical examination by a Medical Board – The appellant is entitled to compensation, and the amount already withdrawn by the appellant is considered as full and final settlement [Paras 1-5].

Decision – Appeal partially allowed – The appellant is entitled to a total sum of ₹376,236 towards compensation with interest for the disability suffered, which has already been withdrawn – The balance amount in deposit with the High Court/Commissioner may be withdrawn by the respondent/employer if not withdrawn so far [Para 5].

Criminal Law – Bail – Serious Offences – The accused, named in the FIR, were involved in a land dispute with the informant – They attacked the informant's family, resulting in the death of the informant's brother and serious injuries to others – The High Court granted bail without considering the seriousness and gravity of the offences and without providing cogent reasons – The bail order is quashed and set aside [Paras 1-5].

Cancellation of Bail – High Court's Failure – The High Court failed to consider the nature of the allegations and the seriousness of the offences – The informant's statement consistently named the accused – The High Court's observation that the accused could not be identified due to the dark night is without basis and is a matter for trial – The High Court's order granting bail is unsustainable [Paras 4-5].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's order releasing the accused on bail quashed – Accused to surrender before the concerned Jail Authority forthwith [Para 5].