Companies Act – Award of Interest – Appeals against NCLAT's order reducing interest from 9% to 6% – CLB appointed valuer to determine fair share price – NCLT directed sale of shares at determined value with 9% interest from 01.04.2007 – NCLAT reduced interest to 6% without reasons – Supreme Court reinstated 9% interest, holding that the company utilized appellant’s funds for business – Shareholder’s argument of profit percentage dismissed – NCLAT's suo moto removal of the company from buy-back responsibility reversed – Appeals partly allowed [Paras 1-12].

Interest on Share Valuation – Equity and Fairness – Interest at 9% upheld due to prolonged utilization of funds by the company – NCLT's interest commencement date from filing of petition justified – Supreme Court rejected further reduction of interest or alternate profit-sharing approach [Paras 8-10].

NCLAT Suo Moto Decisions – Procedural Fairness – NCLAT erred in raising and deciding new points suo moto without hearing affected parties – Supreme Court restored initial NCLT order including company’s role in share buy-back [Paras 11-12].

Decision – Civil Appeals No. 5087, 8907, and 8912 of 2019 allowed to the extent indicated – Civil Appeal No. 9617 of 2019 dismissed – Respondents to pay appellants with 9% interest per annum from 01.04.2007 within four months [Paras 12-13].

Insolvency Law – Contempt Proceedings – Allegations against DVI for frustrating resolution process post-CoC approval – Legal rights exercise by DVI not constituting contempt – DVI's actions seen as lacking bona fides – Despite no wilful breach, DVI's conduct in setting up untenable pleas criticised – Supreme Court declined to invoke contempt jurisdiction but directed NCLAT to resolve the appeal expeditiously [Paras 31-38].

Rectification of Order – DVI's plea for rectification of Supreme Court's order dated 18 June 2020 – Court rejected claims of factual misconceptions – DVI's actions post-CoC approval indicated an attempt to resile from commitments – Application for rectification dismissed [Paras 24-29].

Legal Rights and Contempt – Exercise of appellate remedies under Section 61 IBC by DVI deemed not contemptuous – Plea of force majeure by DVI post-Supreme Court's order seen as obstructive but within legal bounds – Contempt jurisdiction to be exercised circumspectly, not warranted in this instance [Paras 33-35].

Decision – Rectification application dismissed – Contempt petition dismissed – DVI precluded from setting up plea of force majeure in pending NCLAT proceedings – NCLAT directed to dispose of appeal within one month [Para 39].

Criminal Procedure – Default Bail – Computation of Period – Appeals against Bombay High Court order granting default bail – Respondents arrested for offences under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Issue of whether the remand day should be included or excluded in the computation of the 60-day period for default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC – Conflicting judicial opinions noted – Some judgments exclude the remand day, while others include it [Paras 1-7].

Judicial Conundrum – Need for Authoritative Pronouncement – Conflicting views on the computation of remand period under Section 167(2) CrPC – References made to various cases – Importance of uniform application of law emphasized – Matter referred to a larger Bench for resolution [Paras 8-10].

Interim Relief – Stay of High Court’s Order – High Court's order stayed earlier on 03.09.2020 – Respondents seeking benefit of High Court’s bail order – Case to be placed before a three-judge bench for interim relief consideration [Para 11].

Decision – Appeals directed to be placed before a larger Bench – Interim relief to be considered by a three-judge bench [Para 10-11].

Service Law – Disciplinary Control – Manipulation in Weight Measurement – Respondent accused of manipulating weight measurement by creating a hidden chamber in milk tankers, causing financial loss – Inquiry Officer found charges partially proved – Punishment order of reversion to minimum pay scale passed after approval from Commissioner (Dairy Milk)/Registrar – Held, Chairman of the Administrative Committee is the Appointing and Disciplinary Authority under Rule 15 of the Dairy Service Rules – Approval from Commissioner (Dairy Milk)/Registrar, even if the same person as Chairman, does not vitiate proceedings [Paras 1-35].

Approval Requirement – Rule 15 vs. Regulation 87 – Dairy Service Rules framed under Section 122-A of the Act take precedence over general Service Regulations – Rule 15 does not require prior concurrence from any authority, hence Regulation 87 inapplicable – Resolution dated 20.09.1984 and Office Order dated 08.08.2016 cannot override statutory rules [Paras 18-30].

Natural Justice – Bias and Necessity – Administrative necessity allows for the same individual to hold dual roles of Registrar and Chairman without causing bias – Approval by Registrar (also Chairman) upheld as per statutory mandate [Paras 31-34].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court orders set aside – Punishment order by Administrative Committee upheld – Writ petition dismissed [Paras 35].

Freedom Fighter's Pension – Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme – Appeal against High Court's direction for grant of pension – Respondent's initial application in 1997 rejected – Second application in 2017 without fulfilling scheme requirements – High Court issued directions without notice to appellant – Supreme Court emphasized compliance with scheme criteria and procedural fairness [Paras 1-32].

Judicial Review – Procedural Fairness – High Court’s direction for grant of pension without notice and opportunity for appellant to respond – Rejection of initial application not disclosed in second application – High Court erred in issuing positive directions for pension without examining compliance with scheme conditions [Paras 16-28].

Eligibility Criteria – Scheme Compliance – Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme mandates specific documents and recommendations – Respondent failed to provide required proof – Competent authority to evaluate eligibility – High Court’s order set aside for not considering documentary evidence and procedural requirements [Paras 24-31].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court judgment set aside – Writ petition dismissed – Compliance with scheme criteria mandatory for pension eligibility [Para 32].

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Appointment of arbitrator – Contract Agreement executed for construction works on the Punatsangchhu-I Hydro-electric Project in Bhutan – High Court held that Clause 67(ii) of the Agreement did not imply cessation of the 1996 Act upon enactment of the Bhutan Act – The Bhutan Act 2013 does not make the 1996 Act inapplicable – Arbitration to be governed by the 1996 Act – Court exercised jurisdiction under Section 11 and appointed arbitrator due to Hydro-electric Authority's failure to do so – High Court Order modified with parties’ consensus to conduct arbitration under the Bhutan Act 2013 with the seat of arbitration at Thimphu [Paras 1-9].

Appointment of Arbitrator – Clause 67 of Contract – Arbitration under Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 maintained despite enactment of Bhutan Act 2013 – Section 11 application filed due to failure of appointing arbitrator – Delhi High Court directed appointment under 1996 Act – Supreme Court modifies order for arbitration under Bhutan Act 2013 by mutual agreement – Seat of arbitration agreed to be at Thimphu with tribunal liberty for venue adjustments [Paras 6-9].

Decision: Appeal disposed of with modification of High Court order – Arbitration to proceed under Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of Bhutan 2013 – Seat of arbitration at Thimphu – Tribunal may consult parties for convenient venues – No order as to costs.

Registration Act – Family Settlement – Non-registration of decree – Decree based on admission recognizing pre-existing rights under a family arrangement does not require registration under Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act – Family settlement exempted from registration if it pertains to the subject matter of the suit [Paras 1-20].

Family Settlement – Definition of Family – Settlement must involve parties related to one another with a possible claim to the property – Broader interpretation of "family" includes those related by love and affection or potential succession – Nephews of a widow not considered strangers for the purposes of family settlement [Paras 21-28].

Hindu Succession Act – Succession of Female Hindus – Section 15(1)(d) includes heirs of the father as successors – Heirs of the father are not strangers to the family – Widow's absolute ownership upheld under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act [Paras 26-28].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – High Court judgment upheld – Decree based on family settlement not requiring registration affirmed – Defendants-respondents recognized as legitimate beneficiaries under the family settlement [Para 29].

Arbitration Law – Appointment of Arbitrator – Dispute over Development Agreement for Wind Farm Project – Arbitration clause under the Agreement – Respondent's invocation of arbitration and nomination of arbitrator – Appellant's registration under MSMED Act and referral to Facilitation Council – High Court's observation on lack of provision for counter-claims under MSMED Act – Agreement to refer disputes to arbitration under 1996 Act – Appointment of Sole Arbitrator by Supreme Court [Paras 1-8].

MSMED Act – Counter-Claims – No provision under MSMED Act for counter-claims – Parties’ Development Agreement referred all disputes under 1996 Act – MSMED Act's overriding effect not applicable due to absence of provision for counter-claims – Facilitation Council proceedings closed [Paras 6-9].

Decision – Appeal disposed of – Justice K. Kannan appointed as Sole Arbitrator – Arbitral proceedings to be conducted under 1996 Act by Madras High Court Arbitration Centre – Facilitation Council proceedings closed [Para 10].

Pension Scheme – Cut-Off Date – Retired Employees – Appeal against High Court's decision quashing cut-off date for pension eligibility – Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) governed employees retired before 05.06.1995 – Pension Scheme introduced from 05.06.1995 – High Court held cut-off date arbitrary – Supreme Court upheld the validity of the cut-off date as approved by Cabinet – Pension Scheme not applicable to employees retired prior to 05.06.1995 [Paras 1-22].

Homogeneous Class – Classification Justification – Employees retired before and after cut-off date constitute different classes – CPF beneficiaries received benefits on retirement – Pensioners and CPF beneficiaries not a homogeneous class – Financial constraints and policy decisions justified fixing cut-off date [Paras 9-21].

Judicial Review – Cut-Off Date – Limited Interference – Financial considerations valid for policy decisions – Courts should not interfere unless classification is arbitrary or capricious – High Court's lack of independent assessment led to erroneous judgment [Paras 18-22].

Decision – Civil appeal allowed – High Court judgment set aside – Writ petition dismissed – Cut-off date of 05.06.1995 for Pension Scheme upheld [Paras 21-22].