Constitution of India – Extension of Limitation – Article 142 – COVID-19 pandemic led to initial extension of limitation period by Supreme Court from 15.03.2020 – Significant improvement in pandemic situation and lifting of lockdown – Courts and Tribunals functioning normally – Extension of limitation ended [Paras 1-2].

Limitation Period – Computation – Directions issued – Period from 15.03.2020 to 14.03.2021 excluded from limitation computation – Balance period available from 15.03.2021 – Minimum of 90 days provided if limitation expired during excluded period – Special provisions for Arbitration Act, Commercial Courts Act, and Negotiable Instruments Act [Paras 2(1)-2(4)].

Decision – Suo Motu Writ Petition disposed – Limitation extension ended with effect from 15.03.2021 – New directions for computing limitation periods issued [Para 3].

nsolvency Law – Jurisdiction – Section 60(5)(c) IBC – NCLT/NCLAT has jurisdiction to stay the termination of PPA – The termination was solely due to the initiation of CIRP against the Corporate Debtor – NCLT/NCLAT's intervention necessary to preserve the value of the Corporate Debtor and ensure its status as a 'going concern' [Paras 1-48].

Residuary Jurisdiction – Scope – Section 60(5)(c) provides NCLT wide discretion to adjudicate questions of law or fact arising out of or in relation to insolvency resolution proceedings – The jurisdiction of NCLT is not confined to actions prohibited by Section 14 of IBC – Interpretation consistent with legislative intent to provide comprehensive jurisdiction to NCLT in matters related to insolvency resolution [Paras 49-60].

Termination of Contracts – IBC and Contract Law – The power of NCLT under IBC to stay termination of contracts to prevent corporate death – PPA is an essential contract for the Corporate Debtor – Termination of PPA would lead to liquidation, defeating the purpose of CIRP [Paras 61-78].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – NCLT/NCLAT orders upheld – The termination of PPA by the appellant stayed – NCLT/NCLAT has jurisdiction to intervene in such matters to facilitate the resolution process and maintain the Corporate Debtor as a going concern [Paras 79-85].

Penal Code – Murder – Section 302 read with 34 IPC – Accused tried to extinguish fire after setting victim ablaze – Defense of accidental fire disbelieved – No burn injuries on feet and no stove found at place of occurrence – High Court rightly convicted accused for murder – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-11].

Dying Declarations – Reliability – Multiple dying declarations – Each declaration to be evaluated on its own merit – Second dying declaration found credible and supported by medical evidence – First dying declaration disbelieved due to threats by accused – High Court justified in relying on second declaration [Paras 7-10].

Murder – Intention – Clause fourthly of Section 300 IPC – Act of pouring kerosene and setting ablaze imminently dangerous – Attempt to extinguish fire does not mitigate offense – High Court correctly applied clause fourthly of Section 300 IPC [Paras 9-11].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Conviction under Section 302 read with 34 IPC upheld [Para 11].

Consumer Protection – Delay in Possession – Compensation – The Supreme Court upheld the NCDRC's decision that the appellant was liable to pay compensation for the delayed handing over of possession of a residential unit. The Court noted that the delay was not justified under the force majeure clause, and the compensation rate stipulated in the contract was one-sided and constituted an unfair trade practice. The Court modified the NCDRC's order regarding the date from which interest would become payable and the rate of interest [Paras 1-13].

Force Majeure – Inapplicability – The Court rejected the appellant's defense that delays caused by contractor disputes and boundary wall issues constituted force majeure events. The appellant, being an experienced developer, could not claim routine business delays as force majeure. This defense was similarly rejected in DLF Home Developers Ltd v. Capital Greens Flat Buyers Association [Paras 11-12].

Unfair Trade Practice – One-Sided Clauses – The Court agreed with the NCDRC that the contract's clause stipulating compensation at Rs. 2 per sq. ft. per month for delay was unfair and constituted an unfair trade practice. This clause was significantly more favorable to the developer compared to the penalties imposed on the buyer for delayed payments [Para 8].

Decision: Appeal partially allowed – The Supreme Court modified the NCDRC's order as follows:

(i) The appellant shall pay simple interest at the rate of 7% per annum from January 1, 2016, until July 26, 2018, the date on which possession was handed over to the respondent.

(ii) The award of Rs. 200,000 towards loss of rent was set aside in light of the interest compensation.

(iii) The appellant was directed to complete all necessary formalities for documentation, including registration, within one month [Paras 13-15].

Arbitration – Appointment of Arbitrator – Prima Facie Test – The Supreme Court held that a deeper consideration of whether an arbitration agreement exists between the parties must be left to an arbitrator who is to examine the documentary evidence produced before him in detail after witnesses are cross-examined. The Court set aside the Delhi High Court's judgment insofar as it conclusively found that there is an arbitration agreement between the parties. However, the Court upheld the appointment of Justice G.S. Sistani, a retired Delhi High Court Judge, as the sole arbitrator to first determine as a preliminary issue whether an arbitration agreement exists between the parties [Paras 1-27].

Prima Facie Review – Existence of Arbitration Agreement – The Court noted that at the stage of reference to arbitration under Sections 8 and 11 of the Arbitration Act, the court should apply the prima facie test to determine the existence of an arbitration agreement. A more detailed examination should be left to the arbitrator, especially when the facts are contested or unclear [Paras 10-17].

Judicial Interpretation – Anomaly in Sections 11(7) and 37 – The judgment pointed out an anomaly where a refusal to refer parties to arbitration under Section 8 is appealable under Section 37(1)(a), but a similar refusal under Section 11(6) read with Sections 6(A) and 7 is not appealable. The Court suggested that Parliament may need to re-look at Sections 11(7) and 37 to align the appealability of orders made under Sections 8 and 11 [Paras 21-23].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the Delhi High Court's conclusive finding of an arbitration agreement but upheld the appointment of Justice G.S. Sistani as the sole arbitrator. The arbitrator will determine the existence of the arbitration agreement as a preliminary issue and proceed to the merits only if such an agreement is found to exist [Para 27].

Penal Code – Voluntarily Causing Hurt – Summoning Order – Quashing – The delay in filing the private complaint and material improvements from the earlier NCR No. 158/2012 noted – Trial courts have a duty to prevent frivolous litigation at the initial stage – Summoning order quashed [Paras 1-20].

Evidence Act – Judge's Power – Section 165 – Empowering judges to order production of material and put forth questions marks the influence of inquisitorial processes in Indian legal system – Important for uncovering truth and preventing misuse of judicial process [Paras 13-15].

Criminal Procedure – Summoning Order – Importance – Magistrate must exercise caution and judicial mind in issuing summoning orders – Orders should reflect thorough examination of allegations and evidence [Paras 12-14].

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of Proceedings – Inherent Powers – High Courts and Supreme Court have inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC and Article 142 of the Constitution to quash proceedings instituted with malafide intentions or after undue delay [Paras 22-23].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Summoning order dated 04.04.2019 and subsequent proceedings quashed – All criminal proceedings between parties related to the incident quashed to prevent further misuse of judicial process [Paras 24-28].

Central Excise – Classification – Electrical Relays – Chapter 85 vs. Chapter 86 – Relays manufactured by the appellant solely for railway signaling equipment – Approved classification list reclassified under Chapter 86 – Revenue's invocation of Note 2(f) of Section XVII unjustified – 'Sole or principal use' test under Note 3 overlooked – Appeal allowed [Paras 15-39].

Limitation – Section 11-A Central Excise Act – Show Cause Notices – Period of limitation – Notices issued after approved reclassification – No fraud, collusion, or willful misstatement – Invocation of Section 11-A time-barred – Appeal allowed [Paras 40-47].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Orders of the Original Authority, Appellate Authority, and CESTAT set aside – Show cause-cum-demand notices set aside [Para 47].

Employee State Insurance Act – Wages – Section 2(22) ESI Act – Travelling Allowance – Conveyance Allowance – Definition of wages excludes travelling allowance – Conveyance Allowance is akin to travelling allowance – High Court and ESI Court rightly excluded Conveyance Allowance from wages [Paras 11-30].

Service and Labour Laws – Definition of Wages – Conveyance Allowance – Travelling Allowance – ESI Act – Conveyance Allowance intended to cover costs incurred on travel from residence to workplace – Payment of Conveyance Allowance excluded from definition of wages [Paras 12-15].

Judicial Interpretation – ESI Act – Conveyance Allowance and Travelling Allowance – Interpretation in favour of employees – Inclusive interpretation of travelling allowance to cover conveyance allowance [Paras 26-28].

Decision – Special Leave Petition dismissed – High Court and ESI Court's concurrent findings upheld – Conveyance Allowance excluded from wages under Section 2(22) of ESI Act [Para 30].

Criminal Law – Bail – IPC Sections 302, 307 – Arms Act – High Court granted bail to accused on the basis of parity – Co-accused's bail subsequently canceled by Supreme Court – Orders granting bail to respondents set aside – Respondents to surrender and may apply for fresh bail [Paras 1-19].

Bail – Judicial Discretion – High Court granted bail without proper application of judicial mind – Seriousness of offense and nature of allegations not considered – Parity with co-accused not justified as co-accused's bail was canceled by Supreme Court [Paras 11-18].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court's orders granting bail to respondents canceled – Respondents to surrender within 24 hours – Liberty granted to apply afresh for bail [Paras 18-19].