Insolvency and Bankruptcy – Approval of Resolution Plan – Whether approval of a resolution plan for a corporate debtor under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) discharges personal guarantors of their liabilities – Supreme Court held that the approval of a resolution plan does not discharge personal guarantors of their liabilities under the contract of guarantee – Personal guarantors continue to be liable for the debts of the corporate debtor even after the resolution plan is approved [Paras 1-109].

Delegation of Legislative Power – Validity of Central Government Notification – Petitioners challenged the vires of the notification issued by the Central Government under Section 1(3) of the IBC, 2016, contending it amounted to excessive delegation – Supreme Court upheld the validity of the notification, stating the power conferred to the Central Government under Section 1(3) to enforce different provisions at different times does not amount to excessive delegation [Paras 2-48].

Personal Guarantors – Moratorium and Liability – Personal guarantors are subject to moratorium provisions under Section 101 of the IBC, which stay all pending proceedings against them upon initiation of the resolution process – This moratorium does not discharge their liability but provides temporary relief during the insolvency process [Paras 28-30, 44-45].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Approval of the resolution plan for the corporate debtor does not discharge personal guarantors – Petitioners continue to be liable as per the guarantees provided [Paras 110-112].

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code – Approval of Resolution Plan – The Supreme Court emphasized that Section 30(4) of the IBC amplifies the considerations for the Committee of Creditors (CoC) in exercising their commercial wisdom to approve a resolution plan. This includes the viability and feasibility of the plan and ensuring fairness in distribution among similarly situated creditors. Judicial review of the CoC's decision is limited and does not extend to re-evaluating the commercial decisions unless there is a clear denial of fair and equitable treatment to creditors within the same class [Paras 1-12].

Judicial Review – Scope and Limits – The Court reiterated that the commercial wisdom of the CoC is paramount, and judicial review is confined to ensuring compliance with the mandatory requirements of the IBC. The judiciary cannot interfere with the CoC's decision unless it is demonstrated that the plan contravenes provisions of the law, is not feasible, or is discriminatory towards creditors within the same class [Paras 6-10].

Fair and Equitable Treatment – The Court examined whether the dissenting financial creditor was treated fairly and equitably in the approved resolution plan. It held that the appellant was not denied fair treatment as the distribution to all secured financial creditors was equitable, and the appellant was offered a proportionate share [Paras 12.1-14].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the approval of the resolution plan by the NCLT and the NCLAT. The appellant's challenge on the grounds of undervaluation of its security interest and the manner of distribution was rejected, affirming that the commercial wisdom of the CoC is not subject to extensive judicial scrutiny [Paras 15-18]. Appeal Dismissed.

Levy and Assessment of Cess – The Supreme Court examined whether the UPPTCL could levy and collect labor cess under the Cess Act, 1996, without undertaking a proper assessment and issuing an order for such levy and assessment. The High Court found that in the absence of any order for levy and assessment under the Cess Act, the recovery could not be made pursuant to an audit objection by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG). The Supreme Court upheld this view, emphasizing the necessity of a lawful assessment before recovery [Paras 1-17].

Jurisdiction and Authority – UPPTCL lacked the power, authority, or jurisdiction to realize labor cess under the Cess Act concerning the first contract by withholding dues from other contracts or invoking a performance guarantee. The High Court's finding that UPPTCL acted in excess of its powers by demanding labor cess without proper assessment was affirmed [Paras 18-26].

High Court's Decision – The Supreme Court concurred with the High Court's decision to set aside the letters sent by UPPTCL to the respondent demanding outstanding labor cess amounting to Rs. 2,60,68,814/- computed at the rate of 1% of the contract value. The dismissal of the petition was based on the finding that UPPTCL had no authority to demand cess without a formal assessment under the Cess Act [Paras 27-34].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the High Court's order setting aside the demand letters issued by UPPTCL for labor cess in the absence of a lawful assessment. Petition Dismissed.

Murder – Conviction Justified – The Supreme Court upheld the conviction under Section 302 IPC, emphasizing that an axe blow on an old woman's vital body part would in all probability cause her death. This justified the conviction for murder. The Court stressed that it is not necessary for the prosecution to multiply witnesses on the same point; it is the quality of evidence that matters [Paras 12-22].

Prosecution Witnesses – Quality over Quantity – The Court reiterated that the prosecution does not need to examine every possible witness. Instead, the focus should be on the quality of evidence. The trial court's observation that it could not attribute any specific injury to any of the accused due to chaotic evidence was found to be an error, as consistent and credible evidence against the appellants was overlooked [Paras 25-33].

Delay in FIR – Not Fatal – The Court considered the delay in filing the FIR justified due to the unavailability of transportation and the distance to the police station. The High Court's consideration of these factors was upheld, and the delay was not found to be fatal to the prosecution's case [Paras 7-10].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision to set aside the acquittal of the appellants and convicting them under Sections 302 and 452 IPC for Budhi Singh, and Sections 452, 326, and 323 IPC for Achhar Singh. The appellants were directed to undergo the remainder of their sentences [Paras 37-39]. Appeal Dismissed.

Contractual Interpretation – Transfer of Business – The Supreme Court held that the agreement between the appellant and the respondent was intended to transfer the business rather than create a lease or license for the respondent to conduct business. The document's language was clear and unambiguous, and the intent was for the respondent to continue the existing business of the stationary shop "Karandikar Brothers," and not to lease the shop premises [Paras 9-11].

Exclusion of Oral Evidence – Section 92 of the Evidence Act – The Court emphasized that Section 92 of the Evidence Act prohibits the admission of any oral agreement or statement that contradicts, varies, adds to, or subtracts from the terms of a written contract, except in cases where the document leaves the question in doubt. The High Court's interpretation of the document violated the basic tenets of legal interpretation by incorrectly applying Section 95 of the Evidence Act to admit extrinsic evidence that contradicted the clear terms of the written contract [Paras 13-15].

Jurisdiction of Trial Court – Since the agreement was determined to be a license for continuing an existing business rather than a lease, the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act did not apply. Thus, the jurisdiction of the trial court was not ousted, and it had the authority to hear the case [Paras 16-18].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and restored the trial court's decree, holding that the respondent must hand over the suit property to the appellant. The appeal was allowed, with no order as to costs [Paras 19]. Appeal Allowed.

Criminal Procedure – Discharge Application – Orders framing charges or refusing discharge are neither interlocutory nor final in nature and thus not affected by the bar of Section 397(2) CrPC. The trial court must not act as a mere post office when considering a discharge application and should sift through the evidence to determine whether there are sufficient grounds to try the suspect. The High Court must exercise its revisional jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice, especially in exceptional cases where there is a likelihood of serious prejudice to the accused [Paras 12-16].

High Court's Jurisdiction – Revisional Powers – The High Court committed a jurisdictional error by not entertaining the revision petition on merits. It overlooked the importance of examining the fairness of the criminal investigation and other related aspects concerning the improvement of witness statements. The High Court must reconsider the entire matter and decide the revision petition afresh, taking into account the settled law on the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction [Paras 17-18].

Decision – Appeal Disposed of – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and remanded the case for reconsideration in accordance with the law. The appeal was disposed of, directing the High Court to address the merits of the case and the issues raised in the revision petition [Para 19]. Appeal Disposed of.

Murder – Dying Declaration – The Supreme Court emphasized that a dying declaration can form the sole basis for conviction if it is found to be genuine and voluntary. However, the Court must ensure the declaration is free from tutoring, prompting, or imagination. In this case, the victim, who had 80% burn injuries, was found to be in no position to talk or give a statement. The son's testimony that his mother committed suicide and the lack of corroborative evidence from other prosecution witnesses weakened the prosecution's case [Paras 1-28].

Witness Credibility – Hostile Witnesses – Several key prosecution witnesses, including the victim's son and daughter-in-law, turned hostile and contradicted the prosecution's version of events. Their testimonies did not support the claim that the victim made a dying declaration implicating the appellants. This inconsistency further cast doubt on the reliability of the dying declaration [Paras 9-20].

Judicial Scrutiny – High Court's Duty – The Court reiterated that while reversing an acquittal, the High Court must thoroughly scrutinize the evidence on record and provide cogent reasons for overturning the trial court's findings. The High Court failed to do so in this case, leading to an erroneous conviction [Paras 23-24].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order convicting the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The appellants were acquitted, and their bail bonds were discharged. The lack of credible evidence and the unreliable dying declaration could not justify the conviction [Paras 27-28]. Appeal Allowed.

Murder – Acquittal Justified – The Supreme Court emphasized that the evidence of the appellant running away from the scene of the crime was too thin to justify a conviction under Section 302 IPC. The principle of res gestae could not be applied to convict based on such insubstantial evidence. The Court upheld the acquittal by the trial court, stating that the witness statements and evidence were contradictory and did not inspire confidence [Paras 9-13].

Witness Credibility – Contradictions – The Court found significant contradictions in the testimonies of key witnesses (PW-3, PW-5, and PW-6). The inconsistencies regarding the exact location and actions of the accused weakened the prosecution's case. The evidence of PW-5, in particular, was found to be unreliable due to her contradictory statements about witnessing the assault and the presence of the accused [Paras 9-11].

Evidence of Assault – Lack of Corroboration – The prosecution's attempt to establish the weapon of assault (a club) as linked to the accused failed due to insufficient corroboration. The club seized from the accused's house was not proven to match the one used in the crime. The autopsy surgeon was not shown the club, and there was no conclusive evidence to connect the seized club to the injury sustained by the deceased [Paras 12-13].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka that had convicted the appellant. The trial court's acquittal was restored, and the appellant was directed to be discharged from his bail bonds. Appeal Allowed.

Murder – Eyewitness Testimony – The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to reverse the acquittal based on the reliability and trustworthiness of eyewitnesses. The absence of motive was deemed insignificant when direct evidence from reliable eyewitnesses is available. The non-examination of independent witnesses was not considered fatal to the prosecution's case [Paras 1-22].

Reversal of Acquittal – Judicial Standards – The High Court was justified in reappreciating the entire evidence independently and coming to its own conclusion. The rule that the High Court should ordinarily give due importance to the opinion of the Sessions Judge does not apply when the Sessions Judge makes erroneous assumptions about crucial evidence. The appellate court has full power to review and reconsider evidence upon which the order of acquittal is based [Paras 7-20].

Injured Eyewitnesses – Reliable evidence from injured eyewitnesses cannot be discarded merely because no independent witness was examined. The presence of trustworthy and consistent testimonies from eyewitnesses, even if they are related or interested parties, holds substantial weight in the judicial process [Paras 10-11].

Place of Incident – Proven by Prosecution – The prosecution successfully established the place of the incident through credible evidence, including the recovery of the dead body and blood-stained items from the scene. The High Court found no error in the prosecution's presentation of the place of the incident as stated in the FIR [Paras 13-14].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's order convicting the appellant. The conviction was based on reliable eyewitness testimony and proper reappreciation of evidence. The appellant was directed to surrender and serve the sentence [Paras 18-19]. Appeal Dismissed.