Negotiable Instruments – Dishonor of Cheque – Presumption under Sections 138, 139, and 118(a) N.I. Act – Once the issuance of the cheque is admitted or established, a presumption arises that the cheque was issued for a legally enforceable debt or liability – The burden is on the drawer to rebut this presumption – The Supreme Court found that the respondent failed to adequately rebut the presumption even after adducing additional evidence – Appellate Court’s reliance on discrepancies in interest rates to disbelieve the appellant’s claim was held erroneous [Paras 8-18].

Criminal Procedure – Section 391 Cr.P.C. – Additional Evidence – Appellate Court allowed the respondent to adduce additional evidence which purportedly showed partial repayment – However, the Supreme Court held that this evidence was insufficient to dislodge the presumption under the N.I. Act that the cheque was issued towards a legally enforceable debt [Paras 6-16].

Interest Rate – Tamil Nadu Act – The discrepancy in interest rates charged (1.8% vs. 3% per month) was found insufficient to negate the legal enforceability of the debt – The Supreme Court emphasized that such disputes over interest rates should not overshadow the primary issue of whether the cheque represented a legitimate debt or liability [Paras 16-17].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Orders of the Appellate Court and the High Court set aside – The order of the Trial Court convicting the respondent under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is restored with modifications – Respondent directed to pay Rs.28,50,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Eight Lakhs and Fifty Thousand) as a fine – Sentence of imprisonment waived subject to payment within eight months; failing which, the sentence of one-year simple imprisonment shall revive [Paras 18-19].

Criminal Law – Conviction under Section 353 IPC – Appeal against conviction – Acquittal - Appellant acquitted on charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act but convicted under Section 353 IPC for allegedly obstructing public servants during trap proceedings – Appellant argued the evidence was insufficient to prove assault or criminal force – Supreme Court found the evidence insufficient to establish the necessary ingredients of assault or criminal force under Section 353 IPC – Held, pushing and jostling during the appellant's arrest attempt did not amount to the intentional use of criminal force – Conviction set aside, appellant acquitted [Paras 19-32].

Interpretation of Statutes – Section 353 IPC vs. Section 186 IPC – Contrasting elements – Court emphasized the specific requirements for a conviction under Section 353 IPC, noting the absence of intent to assault or use criminal force – Reference made to Section 186 IPC, highlighting its relevance to cases involving obstruction of public servants in the discharge of public functions, though not applicable here due to procedural prerequisites [Paras 30-31].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 353 of the IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted.

Criminal Procedure – Misrepresentation and Forgery in Supreme Court Proceedings – Allegation of forged signatures on Vakalatnama and SLP documents submitted before the Supreme Court – Court ordered inquiry into the conduct of the involved advocates and Notary – Notice issued to petitioner’s daughter and son-in-law – Matter adjourned for further hearing. [Paras 1-9]

Professional Misconduct – Serious allegations against advocates for submitting forged documents in Supreme Court – Court directs personal presence of the Notary and involved parties – Advocates warned of strict consequences – Notices issued to all involved for the next hearing. [Paras 5-8]

Decision – Adjournment and Summons – Held – The matter is adjourned to 23.08.2024, with directions for personal presence of all concerned parties, including advocates and the Notary involved, due to the serious nature of the allegations of forgery and misrepresentation. [Para 9]

Criminal Law – Bail under PMLA and IPC – Appeal against denial of bail by High Court – Supreme Court considers prolonged pre-trial detention and delay in trial – Right to speedy trial recognized as fundamental – Bail granted with conditions despite opposition citing seriousness of charges and risk of tampering with evidence – Court emphasizes need for trial courts to balance rights of the accused with the seriousness of the offense [Paras 1-59].

Constitutional Law – Article 21 Right to Liberty and Speedy Trial – Supreme Court underscores that pre-trial detention should not become a form of punishment – Courts urged to exercise caution in denying bail and recognize that prolonged detention without trial violates constitutional rights – Supreme Court finds that lower courts erred by not sufficiently considering the right to a speedy trial in bail decisions [Paras 27-29, 49-51, 53-54].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Held – Supreme Court quashes High Court's denial of bail and grants bail with stringent conditions to prevent tampering with evidence and ensure the appellant's presence during trial – Recognizes the undue delay in trial commencement as a significant factor justifying bail [Paras 58-59].

Railway Accident Claim – Death in Untoward Incident – Section 124A of Railways Act, 1989 – Appellant claimed compensation for the death of her brother who allegedly fell from a moving train – Railway Claims Tribunal and Gauhati High Court rejected the claim on grounds that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and no ticket was found – Appellant argued that the absence of a ticket does not negate the claim as per Union of India v. Rina Devi – Tribunal and High Court failed to consider the report of the Investigating Officer and post-mortem findings indicating blunt force trauma consistent with a fall from a train – Supreme Court held that the burden of proof had shifted to the Railways once the appellant provided prima facie evidence through affidavits and investigation reports – Absence of a ticket does not rebut the presumption of being a bona fide passenger. [Paras 1-17]

Compensation and Interest – Quantum of Compensation – Entitlement under Amended Rules – Appellant entitled to compensation under the amended Railway Accidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 – The Supreme Court awarded compensation of ₹8,00,000, the current amount specified in the rules, with interest payable from the date of the Supreme Court's order if not paid by the stipulated deadline – Union of India v. Radha Yadav followed. [Paras 18-21]

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Compensation Awarded – Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the decisions of the Railway Claims Tribunal and Gauhati High Court, and directed the Union of India to pay ₹8,00,000 to the appellant by September 30, 2024 – Interest to accrue at 6% per annum if payment is delayed. [Paras 22-23]

Motor Accident Compensation – Assessment of Disability – The appellant, a pillion rider injured in a motor accident, was initially awarded compensation by the Tribunal, considering 25% disability. The High Court reduced this to 20% based on a re-assessment, leading to a reduction in the compensation amount. The Supreme Court reversed the High Court's reduction, reinstating the Tribunal's assessment of 25% disability, emphasizing that the High Court's re-evaluation lacked a basis in the evidence presented​.

Evidence – Disability Certificate – The Supreme Court highlighted the importance of medical evidence in determining compensation. The disability certificate, which assessed the appellant's disability at 50%, was key to the Tribunal's decision to fix the disability at 25%. The reduction by the High Court to 20% was found to be unjustified, leading to the restoration of the Tribunal's original assessment​.

Judgment – Appeal Allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, restoring the Tribunal's original award of compensation. The insurance company was directed to pay the compensation based on 25% disability within four weeks, with the appellant being permitted to withdraw the amount​.

Property Tax – Liability of Subsequent Owner – High Court directed Rajkot Municipal Corporation (Appellant) to refund a portion of property tax paid by Avenue Supermarts Limited (Respondent No. 2) related to arrears prior to the acquisition of ownership – Appellant's argument based on Sections 139 and 140 of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (GPMC Act) that the new owner should bear such liability – High Court upheld that Respondent No. 2 could not be held responsible for tax dues before 03.09.2015, the date of acquisition of ownership – Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the High Court's order to refund the excessive tax amount with interest was justified in light of statutory interpretation and the factual context​.

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Order directing refund affirmed – No interference with the High Court's judgment​.

Contract Law – Blacklisting – Proportionality – Blacklisting of a contractor by a government body is a serious and drastic measure that has severe consequences – The appellant was blacklisted by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation for non-payment of dues and alleged non-performance of contractual obligations – The High Court's Division Bench upheld the blacklisting, but the Supreme Court found that the penalty was disproportionate and not justified by the circumstances – The Court emphasized that blacklisting should be resorted to only in cases where there is harm or potential harm to public interest or where the conduct of the party is so egregious as to justify such a measure [Paras 22-30, 36-42].

Natural Justice – Hearing and Reasons – The Supreme Court reiterated the necessity for strict adherence to the principles of natural justice, especially when an order has serious civil consequences like blacklisting – The reasons for blacklisting must be cogent and must demonstrate how public interest is affected – The absence of such reasons renders the blacklisting order unsustainable [Paras 22-24, 36-37].

Arbitration – Pending Proceedings – The Court took into account the fact that there was a pending arbitration between the parties, where the issues related to the contract were being adjudicated – The existence of a bona fide dispute should have prevented the Corporation from taking the drastic step of blacklisting before the arbitration was resolved [Paras 31-34].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court is set aside – The blacklisting order dated 02.03.2016 is quashed – The judgment of the Single Judge of the High Court, which had set aside the blacklisting order, is restored.

Interest on Arbitration Award – Compound Interest – The Court held that unless explicitly provided under the statute, contract, or award, compound interest or interest on interest is not permissible – The decree of the lower court granting simple interest was upheld – The Court emphasized that awards and decrees should clearly specify the nature of interest awarded to avoid ambiguity [Paras 23-28].

Interpretation of Statutes – CPC Section 34 & Arbitration Act – Interest should only be awarded on the principal sum adjudged unless the statute or contract specifies otherwise – The Court relied on established precedents to conclude that compound interest cannot be awarded without explicit authorization [Paras 14-17].

Decision:

The Special Leave Petition was dismissed. The Court refused to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts, upholding the view that the petitioner was not entitled to compound interest on the awarded amount.