Bail Application – Rejection by High Court Petitioner appeals against the High Court's decision, which had denied his bail in connection to a case registered under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. [Para 1]

Representation by Counsel Learned senior counsel for the petitioner argues that Rs. 30 lakhs in the petitioner's bank account cannot be considered as proceeds from the alleged crime; the Additional Solicitor General opposes the bail application. [Para 2-5]

Scope of Bail Application The Court notes that the bail application should focus on the basic facts of the case, avoiding detailed arguments that could affect the main trial. [Para 6]

Petitioner’s Explanation The petitioner provides an explanation for the Rs. 30 lakhs in his bank account, indicating that it was for a property transaction. This aspect is deemed by the Court as a subject for trial. [Para 7]

Comparative Proceedings The Court mentions that the main accused Pankaj Mishra has withdrawn his bail application; the petitioner has been incarcerated for over a year, and the trial has begun. [Para 8]

Decision The Supreme Court directs the petitioner's release on bail, subject to conditions to be imposed by the trial court. The petitioner is obligated to participate diligently in the ongoing trial. [Para 9]

Civil Contempt – Violation of Court Undertaking – Appellants sold plots in violation of a court undertaking not to sell until the main petition is heard and decided – Contempt proceedings initiated – Appellants argue they were not aware of the undertaking and tendered unconditional apology – High Court rejects apology and holds appellants guilty of contempt – Appellants appeal the High Court's decision. [Para 25-34]

Civil Contempt - Wilful disobedience of court orders - High Court declaring sale deeds executed by contemnors in favor of appellants as non est or void - Appellants argue that such transfers are not void, and they are bona fide purchasers for value without notice - Contempt court's jurisdiction and principles governing contempt discussed - Analysis of whether the High Court committed an error in its judgment - Key issues considered, including the wilfulness of disobedience and the power of the contempt court to declare transactions void. [Para 35-56]

Contempt of Court – Nature of Undertaking – Interpretation of the term "undertake" – Black's Law Dictionary defines "undertaking" as a promise, engagement, or stipulation given in legal proceedings, generally as a condition for obtaining a concession from the court or the opposite party – Judicial opinions regarding the technical meaning of "undertake" – Distinction between an undertaking to the court and an undertaking to the other party – Bombay High Court's view that the term "undertake" has a technical meaning as an undertaking to the court, supported by long-standing practice – Calcutta High Court's contrary view – Supreme Court's preference for the Bombay High Court's view in Rama Narang case – Interpretation of Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Distinction between wilful disobedience to a court process and wilful breach of an undertaking given to the court – Contempt proceedings and the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt – Importance of distinguishing between the standard of proof and the manner of proof in contempt proceedings.

Contempt Proceedings – Breach of Undertaking – Effect of wilful breach of an undertaking given to the court – Definition of civil contempt as per Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – The breach of an undertaking given to the court constitutes "civil contempt" – Delhi High Court's decision in Suman Chadha case emphasizing that in cases of reasonable doubt, contempt proceedings should not be initiated – The standard of proof in contempt proceedings as beyond all reasonable doubt – The distinction between standard of proof and manner of proof in contempt proceedings – Contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal and should follow a fair and just procedure.

Contemptuous Transactions – Voidness of Transactions – Power of the contempt court to declare contemptuous transactions void – Supreme Court's observation in the State Bank of India v. Dr. Vijay Mallya case – Contemptuous conduct may demand directions to nullify any advantage gained from it – The court may declare contemptuous transactions void or issue directions to prevent any unjust advantage – Clarification that the effect of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, is not to render transfers during the pendency of a suit void but to render them subservient to the court's final decision – Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction Co. case's view that the legal consequences of acts done in violation of court orders should be undone, and parties should be restored to their previous positions – Overcoming procedural or technical objections to ensure justice.

Interpretation of "undertake" in the context of contempt proceedings – Breach of an undertaking given to the court constitutes civil contempt – Distinction between wilful disobedience to court processes and breach of an undertaking – Power of the contempt court to declare contemptuous transactions void to nullify any unjust advantage gained from contumacious conduct. [Para 57-85]

Contempt of Court - Disobedience of Court Orders - Acceptance of Apology - Effect of Accepting Apology - Courts must exercise discretion judiciously in accepting apologies for contempt - Leniency should not embolden unscrupulous litigants to disobey court orders - Apology should be evidence of real contriteness and consciousness of wrongdoing - Delayed apologies may lack sincerity - Accepting an apology may allow contemnors to escape legal consequences and retain benefits obtained through contemptuous actions. [Para 98-106]

Contempt of Court – Breach of Counsel's Undertaking – Consequences of wilful breach or disobedience of an undertaking given by a counsel to the court – Such breach amounts to "civil contempt" as defined under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. [Para 116(i)]

Distinction – Undertakings given to parties vs. Undertakings given to the court – Distinction between an undertaking given to a party involved in the case and an undertaking given to the court – Breach of an undertaking given to the court attracts the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – In this case, the undertaking was given to the High Court, and its breach or disobedience falls under the Act. [Para 116(ii)]

Voidability of Transfers – Power of the court in contempt proceedings to declare transactions void – Court's authority to declare transactions void when examining them in contempt proceedings – Purpose of such declaration is to uphold the majesty of the law and nullify any advantages gained through contumacious conduct – May involve reversing transactions or issuing directions to prevent unjust enrichment. [Para 116(iii)]

Third-Party Involvement – Role of beneficiaries of contumacious transactions in contempt proceedings – Third parties claiming to be bona fide purchasers have no right or standing to be heard in contempt proceedings – Contempt is a matter between the court and the contemnor. [Para 116(iv)]

Acceptance of Apology – Discretion of the court in accepting apologies – Apology should not be accepted as a matter of course – Even if unconditional, unqualified, and bona fide, the court may reject it if the conduct causing damage to the court's dignity is serious – Courts should not show compassion when disobedience is deliberate and conscious. [Para 116(v)]

Decision – Emphasizes the importance of maintaining the majesty of the law in contempt proceedings and the consequences of wilful breach of undertakings – Appeals are dismissed, and appellants are given two weeks to surrender for serving the imposed sentence. [Para 117-119]

Facts - appellant won an auction for a property conducted by a Liquidator. However, the Liquidator later cancelled the highest bid, leading to legal proceedings. The Appellate Tribunal set aside the original Tribunal's order, prompting the appellant to appeal to the higher court.

Auction and Liquidation — Highest Bid — Rejection by Liquidator - held that the highest bid in an auction should ordinarily be accepted by the Liquidator unless marred by statutory infirmities, collusion, or fraud. Mere expectation of a higher price is not a valid ground for cancellation of a valid auction. The Liquidator had no objective materials to cancel the auction and opt for another round. [Para 35-42]

Administrative Law — Discretionary Powers — Liquidator's Discretion - Court clarified that the Liquidator does not possess absolute or unfettered discretion to cancel an auction. The Liquidator must act within an administrative framework governed by the rule of law. [Para 42]

 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Section 29A — Related Party — Eligibility to Participate in Auction - appellant was not disqualified as a 'related party' under Section 29A. The related party had ceased to be in control of the corporate debtor more than a decade ago. [Para 43-51]

Appellate Review — Appellate Tribunal — Decision Overturned - Court set aside the order of the Appellate Tribunal, restoring the original order of the Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal was not justified in setting aside the order of the Tribunal. [Para 51]

Decision: The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Appellate Tribunal's order and restoring the original Tribunal's order. No order as to costs was made.

Negotiable Instruments Act - Complaints under Section 138 - Legally recoverable debt - Cheque issued within the period of limitation - Complaints filed within time - No grounds for quashing the complaint - High Court erred in quashing the proceedings - Orders set aside. [Para 2-18]

Expeditious Trial of Cases under Section 138 of NI Act - Power of Magistrate under Section 322 of CrPC - Jurisdiction of Trial Court - Stay of proceedings when informed of lack of jurisdiction - Validity of the complaint - Examination of Section 25(3) of the Contract Act in the context of Explanation to Section 138 of NI Act - Presumption under Section 139 of NI Act - Question of whether debt or liability is legally enforceable to be determined based on facts and circumstances of each case. [Para 11-13]

Limitation Act - Article 34 - Period of limitation for promissory note payable at a fixed time - Commencement of limitation period - Complaint filed within the period of limitation - Complaints restored to the Trial Court for expeditious disposal. [Para 15-18]

Costs - Appeals allowed with no order as to costs. [Para 20]

Insurance Policy Assignment - Legality of levying service charge for recording assignment - Appellant-insurer imposed a registration charge for policy assignments - Constitutional challenge on grounds of contravention of the Insurance Act and Article 265 of the Constitution - High Court found the levy unconstitutional - Nature of the levy determined as service charge or fee - Appellant's contention that it's a legitimate part of a business transaction - Analysis of statutory provisions under Section 38 of the Insurance Act - Absence of statutory authorization for the levy - No contractual provision for such charge - Regulations governing the fee for acknowledgement of assignment notice explicitly prohibit additional fees for recording assignments - High Court's decision upheld, appeal dismissed. [Para 1-13]

Jurisdiction and Locus Standi - appellants, public sector organizations involved in hydro-power and irrigation projects, challenged the Act of 1955 and its Amendment and Validation Act of 1997. The Court clarified that the High Court had the jurisdiction to hear the matter under Article 226 of the Constitution. [Para 1-2]

Preliminary Objections and Maintainability - Respondents raised preliminary objections concerning the maintainability of the writ petition filed by the appellants. The Court overruled these objections, allowing the case to proceed for a substantive hearing on the merits. [Para 3-4]

Constitutional Validity of Act of 1955 - appellants argued that the Act of 1955 was ultra vires and infringed upon their fundamental rights. The Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Act, rejecting these arguments. [Para 5-6]

Amendment and Validation Act of 1997 – Rectification of Loopholes - Amendment and Validation Act of 1997 was enacted to rectify the loopholes identified in a High Court judgment dated 27 March 1997. The Court held that the Amendment validly removed the basis of the earlier judgment. [Para 7-8, 16.4]

Expanded Definition of 'Business' - Amendment expanded the definition of 'business' to include any trade, commerce, or manufacture, thereby plugging a loophole in the original Act of 1955. The Court noted that this effectively broadened the scope of taxable activities. [Para 15-18]

Legislative Competence – State Legislature's Authority - Court clarified that the tax imposed by the Act of 1955, as amended, falls within the legislative competence of the Himachal Pradesh State Legislature under Article 246, read with Entry 56 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. [Para 22, 23(i)]

 Summary of Conclusions – Comprehensive Amendments - Court summarized that the Amendment and Validation Act of 1997 effectively amended key definitions and inserted new provisions, thereby making it a valid piece of legislation. [Para 23(ii)]

Taxable Activity – Scope and Implications - appellants provided gratis transportation to their employees and their children. The Court held that this activity is taxable under Section 3(1-A) of the Amendment and Validation Act of 1997. [Para 23(iii)]

Liability to Pay Tax – Determination of Applicability Date - Considering that the appellants are public sector organizations providing transportation as a welfare measure, the Court determined that they would be liable to pay the tax from April 1, 2023, onwards. [Para 24-26]

Final Orders – Appeals Dismissed - Court dismissed the appeals and affirmed the orders of the Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, subject to the appellants being liable to pay the tax only from April 1, 2023, onwards. [Para 27]

Criminal Appeal – Reversal of Acquittal by High Court – Conviction under Section 302 IPC 

The appellant was convicted under Section 302 of IPC by the High Court of Karnataka, reversing the acquittal granted by the Trial Court. The appellant challenged the High Court’s judgment in the Supreme Court. [Para 2-6]

Last Seen Theory – Inconsistencies in Testimonies and Charges 

The Supreme Court noted major discrepancies between the charge framed and the testimonies of witnesses regarding who was last seen with the deceased. This raised doubts about the veracity of the statements and the application of the ‘last seen theory.’ [Para 13, 15-16]

Lack of Corroborative Evidence – Benefit of Doubt 

The Court observed that there was a significant time gap between the alleged last seen and the recovery of the body. In the absence of corroborative evidence, the Court found it unsafe to convict the appellant based on circumstantial evidence alone. [Para 17]

Presumption of Innocence – Double Presumption in Favor of Acquittal 

The Court emphasized that in cases of acquittal, there is a double presumption in favor of the accused. When two views are possible, the one favoring the accused should be preferred. [Para 18]

Decision – High Court’s Judgment Set Aside – Appellant Discharged 

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s judgment of conviction and sentence. The appellant was discharged from the liability of his bail bonds. [Para 19]

Appellants, comprising a group of small business owners, entered into a contractual agreement to purchase commercial property from Respondent, a real estate developer. The property was to be delivered within 24 months according to the agreement. The developer failed to deliver on time, prompting Appellants to approach the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The Commission rejected the Appellants' claim on the basis that the purchase was made for a 'commercial purpose'. [Para 1-2]

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Jurisdiction of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission 

The Court undertook a detailed scrutiny of the Commission's jurisdiction, specifically under Sections 21 and 22 of the Consumer Protection Act. It was clarified that the Commission could not adjudicate matters that were purely commercial in nature and fell outside the ambit of consumer disputes. [Para 3-5]

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Definition and Scope of 'Commercial Purpose' 

The Court observed that there are no fixed criteria to define what constitutes a 'commercial purpose'. The definition is flexible and must be ascertained on a case-by-case basis. Guidance from prior jurisprudence was cited. [Para 12]

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Identifying 'Consumer' Under the Act 

The Court laid down criteria for identifying a 'consumer' under the Act. It was specified that a purchaser buying for self-use, and not for commercial reselling or business, can be classified as a 'consumer'. Guidelines were established to assist in future identifications. [Para 12]

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Analysis of Factual Aspects 

The Appellants were found to have purchased the commercial property with the specific intention of using it for self-employment and livelihood, rather than for investment or resale. Extensive evidence was presented to substantiate this claim. [Para 13 (Part 3)]

Contract Law — Contractual Agreement and Payment 

The contractual agreement and schedule of payment between the parties were scrutinized. The Court found that the Respondent had received partial payment but failed to meet their end of the agreement. The Appellants' plea that the Respondent unilaterally changed the terms was dismissed after reviewing the contract clauses. [Para 14 (Part 3)]

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Failure to Deliver Possession 

The Respondent was found to have not only failed to meet the 24-month deadline for property delivery but also presented an unfinished commercial space that was not ready for occupation. This was deemed a violation of the contractual agreement. [Para 15]

Decision: Supreme Court directed the Respondent to refund the entire amount paid by the Appellants, with interest at 12% per annum from the date of each payment. An additional amount of Rs. one lakh was awarded to the Appellants towards litigation costs. The Court also ordered this decision to be executed within a 60-day period. [Para 16-17]

Family Law – Matrimonial Dispute – Long-Standing Separation 

Parties have been living separately for over 15 years, making the marriage emotionally dead and beyond salvage. Reference made to the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench in the case of Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, 2023 (6) SCALE 402, which were found applicable. [Para 17]

Legal Principles – Definition of Cruelty 

Cruelty contemplated under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act encompasses both mental and physical aspects. Detailed examination of case law including V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat [(1994) 1 SCC 337] elaborates the scope of what constitutes cruelty in matrimonial cases. [Para 18]

 Discretionary Power – Grant of Divorce 

Granting of divorce on grounds of irretrievable breakdown is not a matter of right but a discretionary power of the Court, to be exercised carefully. Importance given to factors such as the duration and quality of marital relationship, nature of allegations, attempts at reconciliation, and others. [Para 18]

Judicial Approach – Trial Court and High Court 

Both the Trial and High Courts adopted a hyper-technical and pedantic approach in refusing to grant a divorce, despite both parties having moved on in their respective lives. [Para 19]

Appellate Decision – Overruling Lower Courts 

Judgments of the Trial Court and High Court of Chhattisgarh in F.A. (M) No. 115 of 2011 are set aside. Appeal allowed, and a decree of divorce is granted in favor of the parties. [Para 20]