NDPS Act – Charges and Sections Invoked – Appellant was charged under Sections 21, 21(c), 27A, 27(b), and 29 of the NDPS Act. The primary issue was the invocation of Section 37, which imposes stringent conditions for bail in certain offenses. However, the proper application of these sections was in question, with the appellant primarily accused of drug consumption [Paras 2, 7-8].

Consumption of Drugs – Bail Provisions – The maximum sentence for consumption under Section 27(a) is one year and under Section 27(b) is six months. Given the charges, Section 37 was wrongly invoked, as the offenses under Section 27 do not attract the stringent bail conditions of Section 37 [Paras 7-8].

Evidence and Arrest – Basis for Bail – No drugs were found in the appellant's premises, and the case relied primarily on statements and the case diary. The arrest included a tenuous conspiracy charge, which needs to be proven at trial. The court noted that no chargesheet had been filed yet [Paras 6-7].

Decision: Bail granted to Ragini Dwivedi – The High Court’s judgment set aside – Appellant enlarged on bail subject to conditions imposed by the trial court. Anticipatory bail granted to Shivaprakash under similar conditions. Observations made will not affect the ongoing investigation or trial [Paras 8-10].

IBC and Limitation – Right to Sue and NPA – Applications under Sections 7 and 9 of the IBC are governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act, and the right to sue accrues upon default. If the default occurred more than three years prior to filing the application, it is barred by limitation. Here, the account was declared NPA on April 1, 1993, making the application time-barred [Paras 18-19, 23].

Acknowledgment of Debt – Section 18 Limitation Act – An acknowledgment must be made before the expiration of the limitation period to renew the debt. The balance sheet dated August 16, 2017, and the letter dated April 23, 2019, do not constitute an acknowledgment of liability as required under Section 18 of the Limitation Act. The application remains barred by limitation [Paras 30-35].

Alternative Remedies – Recovery Forum – The IBC is not intended as a substitute for a debt recovery forum. Ongoing proceedings in the DRT provide an adequate remedy for the appellant, who has been substituted in place of the Assignor Bank in execution proceedings. Thus, the IBC proceedings were not appropriate for the recovery of dues [Paras 37-38].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – NCLAT’s judgment upheld – The application under Section 7 of the IBC was time-barred and not intended as a substitute for recovery proceedings [Paras 36-39].

PC&PNDT Act – Gravity of Offense and Prima Facie Case – The PC&PNDT Act prohibits the use of prenatal diagnostic techniques for sex determination. Violations under this act are serious, non-bailable, non-compoundable, and cognizable. The charge sheet presents a prima facie case against the petitioner, involving a sting operation and the seizure of unlicensed ultrasound equipment and materials used for illegal abortions [Paras 2-4].

Bail in Non-Bailable Cases – Considerations – In non-bailable cases, factors such as the nature and gravity of the offense, its societal impact, and the presence of a prima facie case against the accused must be considered. Given the strong prima facie case, no leniency should be granted to the petitioner to reinforce the seriousness of the offense and the need for strict enforcement of the PC&PNDT Act [Paras 2, 5].

Pari Materia – Co-Accused Bail Not Determinative – The co-accused’s bail does not warrant parity for the petitioner due to her more active role in the alleged illegal practices compared to the limited role of the co-accused [Para 6].

Expedited Trial – Direction to Lower Court – While denying bail, the petitioner may request the Trial Court to expedite the trial and decide it within one year, following the Supreme Court's mandate for speedy disposal of such cases [Para 7].

Decision: Special leave petition dismissed – High Court’s denial of bail upheld – Petitioner may seek expedited trial [Paras 7-8].

Casual Trader – Definition and Limitation – Under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, a "Casual Trader" is one who has occasional transactions of business involving buying and selling. The limitation period for assessing a casual trader is two years from the date of the transaction. The respondent, having made a single transaction, was rightly considered a casual trader, and the assessment was barred by limitation as it was passed beyond two years from the transaction date [Paras 9-15].

Statutory Interpretation – Singular and Plural – Statutory provisions must be interpreted reasonably and sensibly. Words in singular include plural and vice versa unless the context demands otherwise. The statutory context indicated that even a single transaction could bring a person within the definition of a casual trader [Paras 16-18].

Assessment Order – Limitation and Validity – The Rajasthan Tax Board and the High Court concurred that the assessment order was barred by limitation, being passed after the prescribed two-year period. The petitioner’s contention that a single transaction does not constitute a casual trader was rejected, affirming the limitation bar [Paras 9-15, 19-20].

Decision: Special Leave Petition dismissed – High Court’s judgment upheld – Assessment barred by limitation [Para 20].

Service Law – Termination and Abandonment of Service – The employer must justify termination before the tribunal by leading evidence if no disciplinary enquiry is conducted. The entire matter, including whether the dismissal or discharge was justified, would be open before the tribunal. A defective enquiry is treated similarly to no enquiry, necessitating the employer to prove the facts before the tribunal [Paras 14].

Proving Continuous Employment – Onus on Employee – The employee must prove continuous employment for 240 days in the year preceding termination. The respondent failed to provide evidence of her employment till March 8, 2006. The school's records showed her absence since July 1, 1997, after moving to another district post-marriage. The respondent did not call for the attendance register or accounts to prove her employment, nor provided salary slips after the school became a government-aided institution in 2005 [Paras 15-17].

Employer's Evidence – Justification of Termination – The school led sufficient evidence before the Labour Court proving the respondent's abandonment of service. The onus to prove her continuous employment was on the respondent, which she failed to discharge. The reliance on a letter dated June 20, 2013, from the Block Development Officer was not sufficient as it only mentioned her leave status and recommended compliance with a prior labour court order, later set aside by the High Court [Paras 15, 17-18].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment set aside – Labour Court’s award dated August 22, 2016, restored [Para 19].

Victim Rights and Anonymity – Media Disclosure – Disclosure of a rape victim’s identity by the media violates Section 228-A IPC. No person can publish the name or any matter revealing the identity of the victim. Ensuring anonymity is crucial to protect the victim from social ostracization and discrimination [Paras 21-23].

Rehabilitation and Compensation – State Responsibility – The State must ensure the victim's rehabilitation and compensation under Section 357A CrPC. The Deputy Commissioner of Ranchi is directed to provide free education to the victim’s minor children and consider housing under relevant schemes. The Senior Superintendent of Police must review and ensure adequate security for the petitioner [Paras 24-27].

Free Education and Housing – The Deputy Commissioner is directed to ensure free education for the petitioner’s minor children in government institutions till they attain the age of 14 years. Consideration should also be given to providing housing under the Prime Minister Awas Yojna or other state/central schemes [Paras 20, 27].

Security and Legal Services – Ensuring Safety – Regular review and adequate measures must be taken to ensure the petitioner’s safety. The District Legal Services Authority is to provide necessary legal aid to safeguard her interests [Paras 27].

Decision: Writ petition disposed of with directions to ensure education, housing, security, and legal assistance for the petitioner and her children [Para 27].

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) – Retrospective Amendment – Constitutionality of the retrospective application of Section 7 as amended by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Second Amendment) Act, 2019 – Petitioners challenged the requirement for minimum thresholds for initiating insolvency proceedings, arguing it impairs vested rights – Supreme Court upheld the amendments, finding them reasonable and necessary for public interest and the economic stability of the country.

Vested Rights – Financial Creditors – Court recognized the vested right of financial creditors who filed applications under the unamended Section 7 – However, it held that such rights can be modified by retrospective legislation provided it meets the test of fairness, non-arbitrariness, and public interest [Paras 310-345].

Article 14, 19, and 21 – Test of Manifest Arbitrariness – Court examined whether the retrospective application of the amendments was capricious, irrational, or excessive – Concluded that the amendments were justified by public interest, noting a ten-fold increase in applications and potential adverse impacts on the insolvency process [Paras 340-370].

Withdrawal of Pending Applications – Applications pending under the unamended Section 7, which did not meet the new threshold, were to be treated as withdrawn – Court clarified that this does not prevent filing fresh applications if compliant with the amended provisions – Allowed condonation of delay in filing new applications due to time spent in earlier proceedings [Paras 346-358].

Court Fees – Exemption from court fees granted to petitioners filing fresh applications within two months from the judgment, applicable to the same default and subject matter, to mitigate financial burden [Paras 371-373].

Decision: Writ petitions dismissed – Amendments upheld – Directions issued under Article 142 to allow fresh applications without court fees and to condone delays considering time spent in previous applications.

Contempt of Court – Family Dispute – Alleged Wilful Disobedience of Court Orders – Petitioner contended respondents wilfully disobeyed undertakings given to the court in company management issues – Court examined interim orders and actions taken by respondents, including appointment of Facilitator by CLB – Held, mere taking of legal recourse does not constitute contempt – No wilful or intentional disobedience proven [Paras 1-79].

Company Law – Oppression and Mismanagement – Maintainability of Petition – Petitioner's objections to maintainability under Sections 397/398 of the Companies Act addressed – CLB's interim measures for company management upheld – Court emphasized necessity for harmonious management per consent terms [Paras 68-71].

Jurisdiction – Interim Orders and Contempt – Objection to jurisdiction does not prevent court from issuing interim orders – Such orders are binding until jurisdiction is decided – No contempt found in pursuing legal remedies through CLB [Paras 77-79].

Decision-Contempt petition dismissed – Court found no wilful or deliberate breach of undertakings – Emphasized compliance with legal processes and interim orders as binding [Para 79].

Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings – Declaration of Title – Procedural Compliance – Preparation of the statement of land held in excess of ceiling limit under Section 11 of the Act based on information from the return filed under Section 9 or from an enquiry under Section 10 – Draft statement to be published and served on all interested parties – Mandate to notify parties involved in pending litigation to avoid violation of natural justice – Held, non-compliance with procedural requirements invalidates the acquisition of surplus land [Paras 1-31].

Property Rights – Article 300A – Constitutional Protection –

Right to property as a constitutional right under Article 300A – Deprivation of property must follow legal procedure – Statutory compliance with the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act essential to uphold property rights – Breach of statutory provisions constitutes a violation of constitutional rights [Paras 28-30].

Jurisdiction – Maintainability of Civil Suit –Bar of jurisdiction under Section 46 of the Act does not apply where the provisions of Section 11(4) and 11(5) are invoked – Civil suit maintainable within three months of the order under Section 11(4) – Non-compliance with the statutory provisions renders the competent authority's actions invalid – Suit filed within the statutory period held maintainable [Paras 25-27].

Decision- Appeal allowed – High Court's order set aside – Order of the first appellate court restored – Competent authority directed to comply with statutory provisions and await the decision in related pending suits before proceeding [Para 31].