Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Resolution Plan – Concurrent Findings – Appeals under Section 62 lie only on a question of law – NCLT and NCLAT concurrently upheld JSW’s plan with minor modification regarding EBITDA – Held: Appeals not maintainable in absence of statutory grounds under Section 61 – Concurrent findings not to be disturbed unless perverse, arbitrary or contrary to statute [Paras 87-96].

IBC – Clause Permitting CoC to Extend Implementation Period – Validity – Clause authorising CoC to extend effective date of implementation by 66% majority not open-ended – No renegotiation or withdrawal of plan involved – Distinguished from Ebix Singapore and Amtek Auto – Held: Such discretion to CoC permissible to address exigencies – Delay not attributable to JSW or CoC but due to litigation, ED attachments and interim orders – Plan validly implemented on 26.03.2021 [Paras 97-128].

IBC – Compliance with IBBI (CIRP) Regulations – Priority of OCs – Resolution Plan submitted when Regulation 38 mandated only liquidation value to OCs – Subsequent amendment (05.10.2018) providing priority complied with via addendum – Ex gratia payment of Rs. 350 crores to OCs beyond entitlement – Later amendment (27.11.2019) inapplicable as prospective – No contravention of law – Promoters cannot raise issue not agitated by OCs [Paras 130-143].

IBC – Upfront Infusion of Funds – CCDs as Equity – JSW infused Rs. 8,450 crore by compulsorily convertible debentures – CCDs mandatorily convertible into equity treated as equity instruments in law (Narendra Kumar Maheshwari, IFCI Ltd.) – Upfront commitment fulfilled – Commercial wisdom of CoC paramount and non-justiciable [Paras 144-152].

IBC – Distribution of EBITDA – NCLT directed distribution based on NCLAT Essar – NCLAT relying on SC Essar held EBITDA not distributable absent provision in RfRP – CoC initially opposed distribution, later took contrary stand in affidavit post-review – Held: RfRP silent, no such claim permissible after plan approval – EBITDA to remain with corporate debtor – Finality of resolution plan cannot be unsettled [Paras 153-171, 185-190].

IBC – Classification of Contingent Creditors – Jaldhi – Claim based on foreign arbitral awards – Withdrawn execution petitions before Calcutta High Court – Awards not deemed decrees under Section 49 of Arbitration Act – Stand of creditor inconsistent – CoC’s commercial wisdom in classifying as contingent creditor upheld – Non-justiciable [Paras 172-180].

IBC – Pre-CIRP Dues – Medi & Darcl – Payments made during CIRP adjusted against services rendered – No CoC approval for pre-CIRP dues – Must be treated only under resolution plan – Appeals dismissed [Paras 181-184].

IBC – Section 32A Immunity – Corporate debtor’s liability for pre-CIRP offences ceases after plan approval – ED attachments and prosecutions could not continue once management changed – Delay due to pendency of such proceedings not attributable to JSW – Implementation valid [Paras 105-123, 116-118].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – NCLAT order dated 17.02.2020 upholding resolution plan of JSW Steel Limited affirmed – Implementation of plan on 26.03.2021 valid – Contingent claims, EBITDA demands, and objections of ex-promoters rejected – Section 32A immunity reiterated – Resolution Plan attained finality [Paras 185-192].

Competition Law – Anti-Competitive Agreement – Section 3(3)(b) – Federation boycott – Kerala Film Exhibitors Federation (KFEF) found to have engaged in anti-competitive conduct by threatening distributors and boycotting Crown Theatre for dealing independently – CCI held KFEF and its office bearers guilty – Appeal against COMPAT’s order that set aside penalties on two office-bearers on natural justice grounds – Held: CCI’s notice dated 10.06.2015 satisfied legal requirements, and principles of natural justice were complied with – Penalties restored [Paras 1-3, 37-43, 68].

Due Process – Show-Cause Notice – Section 27 and Regulation 48 – Whether second show-cause notice is mandatory before imposition of penalty – Held: No requirement for separate penalty notice under the Act or Regulations – Furnishing of DG Report and oral hearing suffice – Appellate Tribunal erred in reading additional procedural safeguards into the statute [Paras 15, 35, 52-57].

Section 48 – Liability of Office Bearers – Federation deemed a company under Section 48 – President and General Secretary (Respondent Nos. 2 and 3) held liable for KFEF’s anti-competitive conduct – They failed to prove lack of knowledge or due diligence – Monetary penalties and behavioural remedies imposed – Directions disassociating them from KFEF restored [Paras 41-43, 64-66].

Proportionality – Doctrine of Proportionality – Penalties of 10% of average income not disproportionate – Behavioural remedy barring participation in KFEF’s governance for 2 years justified in light of repeat offences and prior penalty in Case No. 45/2012 – Held: Penalty not shocking or excessive – Consistent with legislative intent to make CCI an effective regulator unlike defunct MRTP Commission [Paras 47-51, 64-66].

Natural Justice – No Violation – DG Report named Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as key decision-makers – Respondents were issued notice, given opportunity to reply, submit income documents, and were heard – COMPAT’s finding of procedural violation was incorrect – Violation of natural justice not established [Paras 39-41, 66-67].

Freedom of Association – Article 19(1)(c) – Challenge to personal liability of office-bearers under Article 19(1)(c) rejected – Reasonable restrictions under Article 19(4) justified to curb unethical and anti-competitive practices – CCI’s powers under Section 27 not unconstitutional [Para 67].

Decision: Appeal allowed – COMPAT’s order set aside insofar as it interfered with penalty and behavioural remedies – CCI’s full order dated 08.09.2015 restored – Disassociation of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 from KFEF to take effect from 01.12.2025 for 2 years – Compliance to be reported within 3 months [Para 68].

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34 & 37 – Scope of interference – International Commercial Arbitration – EPC contractor SEPCO obtained arbitral award of ~₹995 crores against GMRKE Ltd. – Single Judge dismissed GKEL’s Section 34 challenge – Division Bench allowed appeal under Section 37, set aside award and Single Judge’s order, holding Tribunal rewrote contract, ignored “No Waiver” and “No Oral Modification” clauses, recorded mistaken facts, applied common law termination contrary to contract, and treated Performance Guarantee Test as completed despite failure of Unit Characteristics Test – Also found Tribunal discriminatory in accepting SEPCO’s claims without notices but rejecting GKEL’s counterclaims for lack of notices – Supreme Court upheld Division Bench – Held: Scope of interference under Sections 34/37 is narrow, but award violative of Sections 18 and 28(3), contrary to fundamental policy of Indian law and shocking to conscience, can be set aside – Appeal dismissed [Paras 59–63, 83–124].

Arbitration – Setting Aside of Arbitral Award – Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Arbitral Tribunal passed an award in favour of SEPCO awarding approximately INR 995 Crores – High Court Single Judge rejected challenge under Section 34 – Division Bench allowed appeal under Section 37 and set aside both the award and Section 34 Judgment – Supreme Court upheld the decision – Held: Arbitral Tribunal committed jurisdictional errors, modified contract terms, violated natural justice, and acted contrary to fundamental policy of Indian law – Justifies setting aside of entire award [Paras 1, 3, 14, 41, 116, 123–125]

Contract Interpretation – EPC Contract – Tribunal interpreted emails and Jinan Agreement as waiver of contractual notice clauses despite express “No Oral Modification” and “No Waiver” provisions – Tribunal relied on equitable estoppel based on informal communication – Held: Tribunal acted without jurisdiction by overriding explicit contractual terms – Such reasoning not supported by evidence – Discriminatory and contrary to Section 28(3) of the 1996 Act [Paras 10, 17–18, 25, 84–86, 90–95, 99, 103, 121]

Natural Justice – Discriminatory Treatment by Arbitral Tribunal – SEPCO awarded claims despite failure to give contractual notice – GMRKE’s counterclaims rejected for same reason – Tribunal relied on unpleaded estoppel to favour SEPCO – No opportunity given to GMRKE to respond – Held: Tribunal violated Section 18 and Section 34(2)(a)(iii) – Discrimination shocked the conscience of the Court – Arbitral Award rightly set aside [Paras 20–21, 104–107, 114, 116–121]

Estoppel and Waiver – Unpleaded Grounds – Tribunal held waiver of notice arose from March 2012 communications – SEPCO never pleaded waiver or estoppel for that period – Tribunal created its own theory without giving GMRKE chance to present evidence – Held: Violated audi alteram partem – Application of estoppel failed to meet test under Rock Advertising and Indian Evidence Act – Invalid under law [Paras 10, 20–21, 86–87, 99–100, 105]

Performance Guarantee Test – Milestone Conditions Ignored – Tribunal awarded INR 255 Crores to SEPCO for successful completion of Performance Guarantee Test – However, Unit Characteristic Test (precondition) for Unit 1 had failed – Held: Tribunal rewrote milestone conditions – Awarded amounts contractually not due – Violation of contract and public policy under Section 34(2)(b)(ii) – Division Bench right in interfering [Paras 12, 37, 102–103, 120]

Notice Requirement – Contractual Condition Precedent – Amended CWEETC Agreement mandated written notices for claims – Tribunal excused SEPCO’s failure to serve notices while penalizing GMRKE for same – Held: Tribunal's selective waiver approach undermined equality and violated Section 18 – Tribunal cannot override express condition precedent without written modification per contract [Paras 10, 17, 87–88, 107, 121]

Judicial Review – Scope under Sections 34 and 37 – Limited but Not Toothless – Supreme Court reiterated that courts do not sit in appeal over awards – However, they must intervene when there is perversity, jurisdictional error, or violation of public policy – Division Bench rightly found that Single Judge failed to apply correct test – Tribunal's findings failed Wednesbury Reasonableness – Reappreciation was warranted [Paras 57–73, 114, 122–123]

Tribunal Exceeded Mandate – Modification of Contract – Tribunal held SEPCO had common law right of termination and awarded claims post demobilization – Agreement contained exclusive termination clauses excluding common law remedies – Held: Tribunal exceeded jurisdiction by resurrecting repudiatory breach rights excluded by contract – Violated Section 28(3) and fundamental policy of Indian law [Paras 12, 38, 121]

Bias – Single Judge Erred in Dismissing Challenge – GMRKE alleged bias and procedural irregularity by Tribunal – Single Judge dismissed without proper reasoning – Held: Single Judge's findings were perverse – GMRKE could not have anticipated tribunal’s discriminatory award – Division Bench rightly found procedural irregularity and natural justice violations [Paras 22, 40, 101, 117–118]

International Commercial Arbitration – Seat in India – Substantive Law of England – Tribunal and Indian Courts bound by 1996 Act – Held: Despite English law governing substance, award must comply with Indian public policy due to Indian seat – Tribunal’s errors reviewable under Indian law – SEPCO's reliance on Indian precedents confirms applicability [Paras 75–83]

Waiver Must be Unequivocal – Mere Emails Insufficient – Tribunal relied on 2012 emails as waiver of notice – Contract explicitly required written and signed modification – No unequivocal words or conduct proven – Held: Tribunal misapplied waiver and estoppel – Failed test of deliberate relinquishment – Contrary to ICA Sections 62 & 63 and settled law [Paras 29–34, 84–86, 99]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Arbitral Award and Section 34 Judgment rightly set aside by High Court Division Bench – Held: Tribunal violated express contractual terms, principles of equality, and natural justice – Discrimination in application of notice condition and rewriting of contract shocked conscience of Court – Entire Arbitral Award unsustainable – No severance possible – No costs [Paras 115–125]

Motor Accident Compensation – Quantum – Future Medical Expenses – Income Assessment – Pillion rider (aged 20) rendered paraplegic (C4–5 fracture) after being run over by car driven rashly – Liability not in dispute; appeal limited to (i) acceptance of medical bills and (ii) income for loss of earning capacity – Insurance company’s objection to bills from Goa rejected; Court accepts verification and directs ₹20 lakhs towards medical expenses beyond HC award; no interest if paid within 4 months – Monthly income reasonably fixed at ₹5,000 (2001) for a B.Com final-year student enrolled with ICAI; 40% future prospects and multiplier 18 applied as per Pranay Sethi – Loss of income computed at ₹15,12,000; total compensation recalculated at ₹40,34,356 with 9% interest from filing till realisation – Additional ₹20 lakhs for medical expenses payable within 4 months, failing which 9% interest from judgment date – Appeal allowed with modification [Paras 2–6].

Insurance Bills – Verification & Place of Treatment – Objection that bills were from Goa/Bengaluru and not Delhi rejected; insurer with nationwide presence cannot plead inability to verify – Justified relocation to Goa due to pneumonia and adverse climate in Delhi – Directed tabulated bills; ₹21 lakhs verified as genuine; net ₹20 lakhs ordered (after HC’s additional ₹1 lakh) towards medical expenses incurred over two decades of 100% disability [Paras 2–3].

Income Determination – Prospective Career – Minimum wages for a “skilled worker” in 2001 (₹3,352/₹3,339) not appropriate proxy for a graduate on track for CA – Court fixes ₹5,000 p.m. (2001) as reasonable; adds 40% future prospects; applies multiplier 18 per Pranay Sethi; computes loss of income at ₹15,12,000 [Para 4–5].

Recalculation of Award – High Court components retained (₹14 lakhs under conventional heads; medical expenses ₹11,22,356) – Total compensation fixed at ₹40,34,356 with 9% interest from petition till realisation – Direction to pay within four months [Para 5].

Additional Direction – ₹20 lakhs towards future medical expenses payable within 4 months; no interest if paid in time; otherwise 9% from judgment date [Para 6].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Award enhanced and directions issued regarding payment timelines and interest.

Criminal Law – Murder vs. Culpable Homicide – Accused (landowners) attacked complainant’s father and uncles during land measurement dispute using sticks, pike and spear – PW-1 (son/nephew of deceased) was sole eyewitness; PW-2 hostile – Medical evidence showed lacerated and contused wounds only; no incised injuries – Weapons used with blunt side – Just Knowledge – No Intention - Though Armed with Sharp Weapons, Only the Blunt Side Was Used - Court held deaths caused by accused established, but absence of intent to kill proved; only knowledge of likely death attributable – Conviction under Section 302 IPC not sustainable – Altered to Section 304 Part I IPC [Paras 7–15].

Eyewitness Testimony – Related Witness – Sole reliance on testimony of PW-1 (related witness) not unsafe where corroborated by medical evidence – PW-2 turned hostile, but prosecution case stood corroborated [Paras 7–10].

Medical Evidence – Nature of Injuries – Only blunt force injuries present; no use of sharp edge despite possession of sharp weapons – Consistent with PW-1’s deposition – Supports conclusion of culpable homicide not amounting to murder [Paras 8, 10–11].

Sentence – Appellants already undergone more than 12 years of imprisonment – Court held sentence already served sufficient to meet ends of justice – Ordered release forthwith if not required in any other case [Paras 15–16].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside – Conviction modified to Section 304 Part I IPC – Sentence confined to period already undergone – Appellants directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

Criminal Law – Murder – Conspiracy – Acquittal – Accused convicted by Trial Court for murder based on motive, last seen theory, and recovery of incriminating material – High Court reversed conviction citing lack of reliable evidence, failure to prove motive, and inadmissibility of call detail records – Supreme Court upheld acquittal – Held: No reliable, cogent or admissible evidence was led to prove conspiracy or direct involvement of accused in the murder of deceased – Acquittal justified [Paras 3, 32-34, 38-41].

Circumstantial Evidence – Last Seen Theory – Reliability – Witnesses claimed to have seen deceased parking scooter outside accused’s house but informed police after more than a month – Conduct found unnatural – High Court rightly discarded their testimony – Supreme Court agreed with finding that prosecution failed to prove “last seen” circumstance beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 23-25].

Evidence – Recovery under Section 27 Evidence Act – Validity – Recovery of blood-stained chunni from accused’s house held inconsequential – No blood grouping done – House remained accessible till police visit – Recovery found unreliable and ineffective in linking accused to crime [Paras 26-27, 32].

Evidence – Electronic Evidence – Admissibility – Call Detail Records – Not supported by certificate under Section 65-B of Evidence Act – Based on handwritten note; scribe not examined – Held: Call detail records inadmissible and cannot be relied upon to prove conspiracy or contact between accused – High Court’s conclusion upheld [Paras 30-31].

Criminal Law – Motive – Land Dispute – Contradictory and improved statements – Alleged motive based on land dispute and threats found to be exaggerated and uncorroborated – Witness contradicted herself on material points – Held: Theory of motive unproved and not supported by substantive evidence [Paras 18-22, 34-35].

Appellate Jurisdiction – Interference with Acquittal – Scope – Reiterated: Acquittal can be reversed only if findings suffer from patent perversity, are based on misreading of evidence, or no other view is possible – Held: High Court’s view was reasonable and supported by record – No grounds for interference by Supreme Court [Paras 39-41].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Acquittal confirmed – No infirmity found in High Court’s judgment warranting interference.

Motor Accident Compensation – Insurance Policy Validity – Fraud Allegation – Deceased, 21-year-old security guard earning ₹4,000/month, died in road accident on 21.06.2006 – Tribunal awarded ₹3,87,000 with 7% interest against insurer based on insurance policy produced by vehicle owner showing coverage from 17.06.2006 – Insurer later discovered policy validity was fraudulently altered, actual period being 28.06.2006–27.06.2007 – Review before Tribunal dismissed; order not challenged in appeal – High Court upheld Tribunal’s award – Supreme Court: Allegation of fraud not proved during main proceedings, insurer bound to satisfy award – However, in equity, insurer allowed to recover 50% of compensation from owner and driver [Paras 3–6].

Procedural Law – Review Petition – Tribunal rightly dismissed insurer’s review application for lack of review power under Motor Vehicles Act – Insurer’s failure to challenge review dismissal before High Court fatal to its contention [Paras 3.2, 5.2].

Equitable Relief – Recovery Rights – Although insurer liable to pay claimants, permitted to recover 50% of compensation from vehicle owner and driver to balance equities, given fraudulent alteration of policy dates by owner [Para 6].

Decision: Appeal dismissed with modification – Insurer directed to pay award, but entitled to recover 50% from vehicle owner and driver – Any unpaid compensation to be deposited within six weeks.

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR - Prevention of Corruption – Bribery Allegations – Complaint alleged offer of ₹2 crores and later ₹5 crores to MLA to abstain or vote in MLC elections – FIR registered belatedly on 31.05.2015 based on audio-video recordings of sting operation – Allegations against A4 vague and unconnected to subsequent alleged transaction – A4 not present at scene of occurrence – Court held complaint against A4 casual, improbable, and lacking nexus – High Court rightly quashed FIR against A4 – No interference warranted [Paras 5–8].

Quashing of FIR – Scope – State argued High Court conducted “mini-trial” while exercising quashing jurisdiction – Supreme Court held High Court’s detailed reasoning, though lengthy, did not amount to mini-trial – Brevity not essential if reasons are justified – Quashing valid where allegations fail to disclose cognizable offence [Paras 2–4].

Procedural Law – Delay in Registration of FIR – Complaint dated 28.05.2015 by MLA; FIR registered only on 31.05.2015 – Delay and lack of contemporaneous registration under Section 154 CrPC noted – Weakens prosecution case against A4 [Para 6].

Decision: Special Leave Petitions dismissed – High Court order quashing FIR against A4 upheld – No material linking A4 to bribery allegations.

Criminal Law – Clubbing of FIRs – Investor Fraud – Petitioners sought consolidation of FIRs registered across Telangana, Karnataka, Maharashtra, West Bengal, Delhi, Andhra Pradesh, and Rajasthan alleging identical modus operandi of duping investors – Court held prayer to club all FIRs from different States and even future FIRs “overambitious and illegal” – Only intra-State transfers allowed: FIR at Madhapur (Telangana) transferred to EOW Cyberabad; FIR at Thane (Maharashtra) transferred to Nagpur – Clubbing of FIRs in other States rejected – Court distinguished precedent in Amish Devgan (media statement cases) and Radhey Shyam (Article 142 with State consent) – Held: Practical difficulties in trial (witnesses from various States) prevent pan-India clubbing [Paras 2–9, 12].

Future FIRs – Preventive Prayer – Rejected outright as impermissible in law – Courts cannot prevent registration of FIRs that may arise in future [Para 5].

Application of Precedents – T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala (2001) 6 SCC 181 and Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash (2004) 13 SCC 292 considered – Rule against multiple FIRs confined to same incident; distinguishable where multiple victims across States duped in independent transactions – Section 242 BNSS (same kind offences in one year may be tried together up to 5 counts) noted but inapplicable to multi-State investor fraud [Paras 7–10].

Bail Relief – Some petitioners already in custody; directed to be released on bail with conditions to cooperate in investigation – Those with pending warrants given protection from arrest for six months to enable approaching jurisdictional courts for regular bail – Production warrants not to be executed for six months; failure to seek bail or cooperate allows cancellation [Paras 14–15].

Costs for Witnesses – Directed that when witnesses are required to travel from original FIR location to transferee jurisdiction, trial court shall award travel and residence costs payable by accused [Para 13].

Decision: Writ petitions disposed of – Limited transfer of FIRs allowed within States – Pan-India clubbing and prayer regarding future FIRs rejected – Bail protection granted for six months subject to conditions.