Facts:

On or about December 22, 2007, the Lender Banks sanctioned and extended various loans, advances, and facilities to the corporate debtor-respondent no.1. The respondent no.1 defaulted in payment, and its account was classified as a Non-Performing Asset on July 8, 2011. Recovery proceedings were initiated against the corporate debtor by the consortium of lenders before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993.

On or about March 21, 2018, the respondent no.2, as the financial creditor and assignee of the loans and advances disbursed to the corporate debtor, filed an application under Section 7 of the Code before the Adjudicating Authority seeking initiation of CIRP against respondent no.1. The Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) admitted the application and initiated CIRP under Section 7 of the Code. The appellant, the director of the respondent no.1 company, contended before the Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) that the claim was barred by time. However, the appeal was dismissed by the NCLAT.

Issues:

• Whether the application under Section 7 of the Code is barred by limitation?
• Whether Section 18 of the Limitation Act can be applied to the present case?

Held:

The period of limitation for an application seeking initiation of CIRP under Section 7 of the Code is governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act, which is three years from the date when the right to apply accrues. In this case, the application was filed in March 2018, much later than three years from the date of default (stated as July 8, 2011) in the application. Therefore, the application filed by the respondent no.2 is clearly barred by limitation. [Para 38]

The NCLT failed to examine the question of limitation, and the NCLAT decided the question of limitation on entirely irrelevant considerations. The NCLAT's assumption that the right to apply under Section 7 of the Code accrued on December 1, 2016 (when the Code came into force) and the application is within limitation, lacks any foundation or basis. There is nothing in the Code or the Limitation Act to support such an assumption. The reasoning of the NCLAT regarding the period of limitation for mortgaged property (12 years) is also erroneous and not in line with the Supreme Court's decision. [Para 36, 37]

In view of the above, this appeal is allowed to the extent indicated and with the observations foregoing.

Facts:

The judgment does not provide specific facts of the case. Instead, it discusses the interpretation and application of relevant sections and provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

Issues:

• Whether the amended provisions of Section 6(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, confer the status of a coparcener on daughters, born before or after the amendment, in the same manner as sons, with equal rights and liabilities.
• Whether the right of a daughter to claim coparcenary is retroactive or operates only from the date of the amendment.
• Whether a plea of oral partition can be accepted to claim rights under Section 6(5) of the Act.
• Whether the enlargement of a daughter's rights affects the rights of other relatives under Section 6(1) of the Act.
• Whether the provisions of Section 6(5) recognize partitions effected through a deed of partition duly registered under the Registration Act, 1908, or by a decree of a court.

Held:

The amended provisions of Section 6(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, confer the status of a coparcener on the daughter born before or after the amendment, in the same manner as a son, with equal rights and liabilities.

The right of a daughter to claim coparcenary is retroactive, and the provisions are deemed to have been in force from the date of the amendment, i.e., 09.09.2005. However, any disposition, alienation, or partition that took place before 20.12.2004 shall not be invalidated.

A plea of oral partition cannot be accepted as a statutory recognized mode of partition. It must be supported by public documents and partition must be conclusively evinced, similar to a decree of a court, to be accepted.

The amendments to Section 6(1) do not affect the rights of other relatives mentioned in the proviso to Section 6 as it stood before the amendment.

The provisions of Section 6(5) recognize partitions only if they are effected by a deed of partition duly registered under the Registration Act, 1908, or by a decree of a court. Other forms of partition, including oral partition, are not recognized under the Explanation to Section 6(5).

Facts:

The case involves employees working in various groups at the Department of Space (SDSC SHAR), including drivers, technical attendants, nursing attendants, technicians, office attendants, and more. The Department of Space has its own service rules that classify civil posts into four groups - 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D,' based on pay scale and job description.

Issues:

• Whether the 1993 Rules apply to the Government servants covered by the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, and whether the classification of posts based on job description is permissible for the purpose of forming service associations.

Held:

The Court held that the 1993 Rules are applicable to Government servants to whom the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 are applicable. The classification of posts in groups 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D' under the Department of Space's service rules is considered a 'distinct category.' Further sub-classification based on job description is not permissible under recruitment and conduct rules, as it would defeat the purpose of the 1993 Rules. Allowing distinct service associations for each job description would lead to groupism and disrupt the functioning of the Joint Consultative Machinery (JCM).

Decision: The Court allowed the appeal and upheld that the ISRO Drivers Association or any other group based on job description cannot claim recognition as a distinct category for forming a service association under the 1993 Rules.

Facts:

In 1959, 'DKR' and 'ID' were recorded as owners of Plot No.473 in revenue records. In 1970, the plot was divided, and Plot No.473-B1 was owned by 'KN', Plot No.473-B2 by 'PM', and Plot No.473-B3 by 'DKR' and 'ID'. Plot No.473-B4 was a vacant plot of land shown as an internal private road in possession of 'DKR', 'ID', 'KN', and 'PM'. In 1979, a Town Planning Scheme was sanctioned, and the final plot (No.473) was divided into five parts, with the road measuring 444.14 sq. mtr. shown to be owned by PMC. 'ID' executed a registered trust deed transferring Plot No.473-B3 and the internal road to the appellant trust. The appellant requested the State Govt. to correct the wrong entry in PMC's name, but it was rejected. The appellant filed a writ petition, which was dismissed by the High Court.

Issues:

• Whether the High Court erred in its interpretation of Section 88 of the Regional and Town Planning Act?
• Whether the respondents had a public duty under Section 91 to modify the scheme and show the private road as property of its legitimate owners?
• Whether the modification proposed involved a substantial alteration, as held by the High Court?

Held:

The High Court failed to consider the relevant provisions of the Regional and Town Planning Act, and it did not address the question of how PMC was shown as the owner of the internal road without any basis in the records. The High Court erred in dismissing the writ petition without applying its mind to the relevant facts and documents.

The private road in question was never acquired by PMC or the State Government, and it did not belong to PMC at any point. The respondents had a public duty under Section 91 to modify the scheme and show the private road as property of its legitimate owners, based on the property records and the Arbitrator's Award.

The deletion of PMC's name as the owner of the private road is not a substantial alteration but a correction of an erroneous recording. Section 88 cannot be read in isolation, and it must be read in conjunction with Sections 125 to 129 relating to compulsory acquisition, as well as Sections 59, 69, and 65.

Decision: The judgment and order of the High Court are set aside, and the appeal is allowed in favor of the appellant trust. The respondents are directed to modify the scheme to show the private road as the property of its legitimate owners based on the property records and the Arbitrator's Award.

Facts:

The appellants filed an appeal against an order of the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal. However, there was a delay of 45 days in filing the appeal. The High Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay and the appeal.

Issues:

• whether the delay of 45 days in filing the appeal can be condoned under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Held:

The Court held that Chapter XII of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is a beneficial legislation intended to protect the rights of victims affected in road accidents. The Act provides procedures for filing claims, passing awards, and preferring appeals, including limitation periods for filing appeals. The delay of 45 days was properly explained by the appellants, and the strict approach taken by the High Court was deemed hyper-technical and not sustainable.

Decision: The Court allowed the appeal, condoned the delay, and remanded the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits.

Facts:

The parties entered into an agreement with a clause (Clause 16B) conferring exclusive jurisdiction to the Court at Delhi for any dispute related to the franchise agreement.

The plaintiff presented the suit at Gurgaon, which was not a court having jurisdiction according to the exclusive jurisdiction clause.

The defendant raised the objection regarding territorial jurisdiction based on the exclusionary clause in the agreement but was rejected initially.

Issues:

• Whether the suit should proceed de novo or continue from the stage where it was pending at the time of the return of the plaint.
• Whether the objection regarding exclusionary jurisdiction should be upheld.

Held:

The parties, by agreement, can confer exclusive jurisdiction on one court among multiple courts having jurisdiction over a dispute. Clause 16B of the agreement clearly indicates exclusive jurisdiction for disputes concerning the franchise agreement lies with the court at Delhi.

The High Court, in its revision order, intended the return of the plaint under Order VII Rules 10 and 10A CPC, and not continuation of the suit at Gurgaon. The suit should proceed de novo.

The law laid down in the *Modern Construction case, which allows de novo trial, is not in contradiction with **Joginder Tuli case.

Order VII Rule 10-A was introduced to avoid serving summonses on defendants when the plaint is returned after the defendant's appearance in the suit. The proceeding commences de novo under Order VII Rule 10 and Rule 10-A.

In the peculiar circumstances of the case, the appellant's failure to raise the objection initially and the completion of pleadings and evidence, led the Court to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 and Article 142 of the Constitution and not set aside the impugned order.

Decision: The Court held that the suit shall proceed de novo due to the existence of an exclusionary jurisdiction clause in the agreement between the parties. The objection raised by the defendant is upheld, and the impugned order of the High Court is not set aside to ensure substantial justice between the parties. The appeal stands disposed of.

FACTS:

The appellant, Gangadhar alias Gangaram, was convicted under the NDPS Act for the recovery of 48 Kgs 200 gms of cannabis (ganja) and sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment.

The lower courts held the appellant to be the owner of the house from where the contraband was recovered, rejecting his defense that he had sold the house to a co-accused.

The appellant produced a sale agreement (Exhibit P.28) for the property in question promptly after the recovery of the contraband.

The police investigation was flawed, defective, and incomplete, leading to confusion regarding ownership and possession of the house.

ISSUES:

• Whether the appellant's claim of selling the house to the co-accused was genuine and whether the prosecution had proven his conscious possession of the house where the contraband was recovered.

HELD:

The police investigation was flawed, and the appellant's defense seemed plausible. It was questionable why the appellant, residing in his new house for 15 years, would identify his own erstwhile house as belonging to the accused and implicate himself.

The appellant promptly produced a sale agreement (Exhibit P.28) for the property, but the police failed to investigate its genuineness or verify the panchayat records, which could have established ownership and possession of the house accurately.

The appellant's conviction was based on his name being recorded as the owner of the house in the voters' list of 2008, ignoring the subsequent sale agreement (Exhibit P.28) executed on 12.06.2009. The prosecution did not prove that the sale agreement was a fabricated document.

The nature of the evidence did not establish the appellant's conscious possession of the house as required by the NDPS Act to attribute presumption against him regarding the recovery of the contraband. The appeal is allowed.

Facts:

The case pertains to Writ Petition (Civil) No. 55 of 2019 filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The petition challenges the Constitutional (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019, which introduced Clause (6) in Articles 15 and 16, enabling reservation for economically weaker sections. The petitioners contend that this amendment violates the basic structure of the Constitution and is contrary to the principles laid down in the Indra Sawhney case.

Issues:

• whether the amendment to Articles 15 and 16 is ultra vires the Constitution and whether it affects the basic structure of the Constitution.

Held:

The Court observed that the questions raised in this case involve substantial questions of law concerning the interpretation of the Constitution. Therefore, in accordance with Article 145(3) of the Constitution and Order XXXVIII of Supreme Court Rules, the matter is to be heard by a Constitution Bench comprising five judges.

Decision: The Court referred the matter to a Constitution Bench of five judges to determine the constitutionality of the amendment to Articles 15 and 16 and its impact on the basic structure of the Constitution.

Facts:

The court had previously issued directions in SLP(Crl) no. 2302 of 2017, instructing the Administrators of the Union Territory, State Governments, and other Central Agencies to effectively implement the use of photography and videography at crime scenes. Compliance Affidavits and Action Taken Reports were filed by 14 States, but they failed to provide precise information about the position of CCTV cameras at each Police Station, lacking relevant details.

Issues:

• Implementation of photography and videography at crime scenes.
• Lack of disclosure of CCTV camera position in Police Stations.
• Constitution of Oversight Committees at State and District Levels.
• Allocation of funds for Oversight Committees.
• Installation of CCTV cameras in all Police Stations.
• Specification of CCTV systems.
• Establishment of Human Rights Courts in each District for redressal of complaints related to police actions.
• Updates on the constitution and workings of the Central Oversight body.
• Installation of CCTV cameras in the offices of investigative/enforcement agencies.

Held:

The court directed the concerned authorities to submit Compliance Affidavits and Action Taken Reports within six weeks, specifying details regarding the position of CCTV cameras in each Police Station as mentioned in paragraph 8 of the order. Oversight Committees were to be constituted at both State and District Levels, with the respective State/Union Territories Finance Departments allocating funds for this purpose at the earliest. The duty and responsibility for the working, maintenance, and recording of CCTVs in Police Stations were assigned to the SHO of the concerned station. All State and Union Territories were ordered to ensure the installation of CCTV cameras in every Police Station within their jurisdiction.

Additionally, the court directed the establishment of Human Rights Courts in each District to address complaints of excessive force used at Police Stations resulting in serious injury and/or custodial deaths. The Union of India was instructed to provide an affidavit with updates on the constitution and workings of the Central Oversight body. Furthermore, the Union of India was directed to install CCTV cameras and recording equipment in the offices of investigative/enforcement agencies. The court emphasized the need for the prompt and complete implementation of the order.

Decision: The court passed the above directions and mandates, urging the Executive/Administrative/Police Authorities to implement the order in both letter and spirit as soon as possible.