Facts:

Respondent No. 1 filed a partition suit claiming one-fourth entitlement to the estate/shares of his father. The High Court ordered status quo in the partition suit. Subsequently, Respondent No. 1 filed a company petition alleging oppression and mismanagement in a company (Respondent No. 2), claiming eligibility based on his shareholding and legitimate expectation.

Issues:

Whether Respondent No. 1's inheritance claim for one-fourth shareholding can be decided in proceedings under Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013?

Whether Respondent No. 1 can maintain the petition for oppression and mismanagement given his shareholding and lack of representation of the necessary body of shareholders?

Held:

Respondent No. 1's shareholding is not eligible for the 10% threshold required under Section 244 of the Companies Act, 2013, for maintaining an application under Sections 241 and 242. His claim is based on a 0.03% holding and disputed 9.97% shareholding. He also claims one-fourth share from the deceased's 11.11% holding in another company, which is being pursued in a civil suit. The right of Respondent No. 1 must be finally determined in the civil suit, including the effect of nomination under Section 71 of the Companies Act, 2013.

Respondent No. 1 was not involved in the company's affairs and had shifted to Australia for independent business since 2001.

The basis of the petition is Respondent No. 1's inheritance claim, constituting 10% shareholding, which cannot be determined under Sections 241 and 242. Respondent No. 1 must establish his inheritance right in a civil court, considering the nomination under Section 71.

Respondent No. 1, as per his own admission, was not engaged in the company's affairs and is not a registered owner. His rights are safeguarded in the civil suit. He does not represent the requisite body of shareholders for maintaining such a petition.

Given the circumstances, it's inappropriate for Respondent No. 1 to continue the proceedings for mismanagement without having 10% shareholding and without firmly establishing his rights in civil proceedings.

Facts:

The petitioner, an advocate practicing in the Supreme Court of India, filed a writ petition (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 541 of 2020) against various officers of the Supreme Court Registry and the Union of India. The petitioner alleged that the Registry showed preferential treatment to influential lawyers and law firms, leading to delayed listing of cases filed by ordinary lawyers. The petitioner sought equal treatment for all cases and pointed out specific instances to support their claims.

Issues:

Whether there was discrimination in the listing of cases by the Supreme Court Registry, as alleged by the petitioner.

Whether the petitioner's allegations were justified and whether they reflected a disregard for the dignity of the legal profession and the responsibilities of lawyers.

Whether the petitioner's writ petition was maintainable and warranted any relief.

Held:

The Court examined the instances cited by the petitioner regarding delayed listing of cases and evaluated the alleged discrimination. It acknowledged that mistakes or defects in case filings can occur and that expecting perfection from the Registry or its staff, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, is unreasonable (Para 9). The Court emphasized that the Registry is an integral part of the judicial system and noted that similar baseless allegations against the Registry are being made in various High Courts (Para 18).

The Court stressed that lawyers, being officers of the Court, should respect themselves and maintain the dignity of the noble legal profession. It underlined that lawyers have a responsibility to uphold justice and fairness (Para 18). The Court criticized the petitioner's conduct in filing the petition and noted that such petitions should not be preferred hastily, especially when allegations against the Registry lack merit (Para 21).

The Court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition and imposed a token cost of Rs.100 on the petitioner to remind them of their responsibility towards the legal profession (Para 21).

Facts:

The case pertains to a motor vehicle accident resulting in the death of an individual visiting India from Qatar. The deceased was riding a scooter with his wife as a pillion rider when a Maruti car collided with them.

Issues:

The computation of compensation for the dependents of the deceased, considering factors such as income, future prospects, loss of dependency, conventional heads of compensation, and contributory negligence.

Held:

The income of the deceased was calculated based on his Employment Contract Form from 1984, certified by the Indian Embassy at Doha. The notional income was computed by taking the base salary and increment of 10% per annum (para 9.1).

Future prospects were awarded at 30% as per the Constitution Bench's judgment in Pranay Sethi (para 9.2).

The multiplier method was used to calculate the loss of dependency, applying a multiplier of 15 based on the deceased's age at the time of death (para 9.3).

Compensation was awarded under conventional heads, including loss of estate, consortium, and funeral expenses (para 9.6).

The deduction of 50% for contributory negligence by the MACT and the High Court was affirmed (para 9.8).

Decision: The court awarded a total compensation of Rs. 19,82,563 to the claimants, with interest, considering the duration of the legal proceedings. The widow of the deceased, who suffered a permanent disability, was granted 50% of the total compensation, while the remaining 50% was to be equally divided among the three minor children. The Civil Appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (para 10,13).

Facts:

The appellant, engaged in the business of manufacturing Beer and IMFL, purchased empty bottles from unregistered dealers. The High Court held that the purchase tax is applicable under s.7-A of the 1959 Act, but the appellant is entitled to benefit from certain clarifications issued by the revenue.

Issues:

Whether the purchase of empty bottles falls under the purview of s.7-A of the Act and whether the appellant is entitled to the benefit of certain clarifications issued by the revenue.

Held:

The Court applies the principles laid down in Nandanam Construction Co. and holds that the expression "or otherwise" in clause (a) of sub-s. (1) of s.7-A covers four eventualities related to the treatment of goods: consumption in manufacture, consumption otherwise, use in manufacture, and use otherwise.( Para 34)

The empty bottles, even after being filled with liquor, retain their original identity and are not "consumed" in manufacture. Therefore, elements (i) and (iii) do not apply.( Para 44)

The bottles have not been "used" in manufacture, as bottling is a separate process undertaken after brewing/distillation. However, they have been "used otherwise" as an unalienable part of the complete chain of processes for manufacturing and selling liquor.( Para 49)

The activity of bottling using the bottles falls within the "used otherwise" element of clause (a) of sub-s. (1) of s.7-A, making it exigible to purchase tax.( Para 50)

The Court holds that while Clarifications/Circulars issued by the revenue are binding on authorities, they cannot contradict the declaration of law by the Courts as per Ratan Melting & Wire Industries.( Para 54)

The High Court cannot grant benefit based on Clarifications/Circulars that do not conform to statutory provisions and court interpretations.( Para 62)

Facts:

The appellant, Mohd. Inam, challenged an order declaring the premises vacant under Section 16(1)(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings Act. An inspection report indicated that the tenant was residing with his family members, challenging the subletting claim. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer declared the premises vacant. The High Court granted the tenant liberty to challenge the vacancy order along with the final order under Section 16.

Issues:

Whether the tenant could challenge the vacancy order along with the final order.

Whether the Rent Control and Eviction Officer's exercise of jurisdiction was lawful.

Whether the High Court's exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 was justified.

Held:

The High Court erred in not allowing the challenge to the vacancy order along with the final order, contrary to established judicial propriety and a binding precedent (Para 16).

The tenant had the right to challenge the vacancy order along with the final order, as granted by the High Court (Para 11, 13, 14, 33).

The Rent Control and Eviction Officer's finding of subletting under Section 12(1)(b) was contrary to law, as family members were residing with the tenant (Para 28, 29).

District Judge was justified in reversing the Rent Control and Eviction Officer's order due to incorrect interpretation of the law (Para 25, 26).

High Courts should exercise jurisdiction under Article 227 sparingly and not convert into courts of appeal. In the result, the appeal is allowed. (Para 32, 33).

The appeal has been granted, leading to the overturning of the High Court's order dated 26.10.2017. No costs shall be imposed in this matter. (Para 34)

Facts:

The case involves an appeal by the Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation (the appellant) against an interim order passed by the High Court of Rajasthan. The appellant had issued a tender for warehouses under a PPP model, and certain queries were raised by the respondents regarding a specific clause (clause 5(5)(i)) in the bid notice. After dismissal of writ petitions challenging tender conditions, successful bidders were identified and issued a letter of intent. The High Court passed an interim order of status quo, allowing other formalities but restraining contract signing without Court permission.

Issues:

Whether the interim order passed by the High Court was valid, given the completion of the bidding process.

Whether the conditions for eligibility set by the appellant in the bidding process were justified.

Held:

The Supreme Court, after considering the arguments, set aside the interim orders passed by the High Court. The Court emphasized that the grant of an interim order restraining successful bidders from executing the contract was not in the public interest. It noted that such an order was passed without recording reasons, impacting state revenue. The Court referred to previous judgments and principles on interim orders in contractual matters, highlighting the need to balance conflicting public interests. The Court clarified that the grant of the contract would be subject to any orders passed by the High Court in pending intra-court appeals.

Facts:

The Gujarat Maritime Board filed a complaint alleging various financial irregularities against Aatash Norcontrol Limited (ANL), including inflation of costs, non-execution of works, creation of shell companies, siphoning of funds, etc.

Disputes arose between the parties regarding capital costs incurred by ANL, leading to an expert committee's assessment and subsequent arbitration proceedings.

Meanwhile, the Gujarat Maritime Board lodged a complaint against ANL, accusing it of criminal breach of trust and financial misconduct.

Issues:

Whether the criminal charges against the appellant were of a purely civil nature.

Whether the potential threat to national security was a valid ground for denial of bail.

The impact of ongoing arbitration proceedings on the case.

Held:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and directed the release of the appellant on bail. The Court observed that:

The alleged offences, despite their gravity, appeared to stem from financial matters and did not inherently pose a threat to national security.

The ongoing arbitration proceedings, including interim measures, indicated that the state's economic interests were being safeguarded. Therefore, the national security argument did not hold ground.

The Court considered the age and health conditions of the appellant, along with the fact that the trial had not commenced despite the passage of time.

Facts:

The appellant-accused was arrested under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Subsequently, the accused remained in judicial custody for over 73 days without the filing of a charge sheet by the police. The appellant invoked Section 167(2) of the CrPC and applied for default bail before the High Court. The High Court, relying on a Supreme Court order dated 23.03.2020 issued in Suo Moto W.P.(C) No. 3 of 2020, extended the period for filing a charge sheet prescribed under Section 167(2) of the CrPC, due to the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Issues:

Whether the Supreme Court's order dated 23.03.2020 extended the period for filing a charge sheet by the police under Section 167(2) of the CrPC.

Whether the lockdown imposed during the pandemic is akin to a proclamation of Emergency, affecting an accused's right to default bail.

Held:

The Supreme Court clarified that its order dated 23.03.2020 was intended to protect litigants and lawyers unable to file proceedings due to the pandemic, but it did not intend to extend the period for filing a charge sheet by the police under Section 167(2) of the CrPC. The investigating officer could have submitted the charge sheet before the Magistrate even during the lockdown.( Para 17)

The Court emphasized that the right of prosecution to file a charge sheet after the stipulated period is not barred. However, the prosecution cannot detain an accused beyond the prescribed period if a charge sheet is not filed, and the accused seeks default bail. The right of prosecution to submit a charge sheet is distinct from an accused's right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution and Section 167 of the CrPC.( Para 18)

The Court rejected the notion that the lockdown is equivalent to a proclamation of Emergency. The Single Judge's view that lockdown restrictions curtail an accused's right to default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC was erroneous and not in accordance with law.( Para 25)

The Court concluded that its order dated 23.03.2020 did not eclipse the time prescribed under Section 167(2) of the CrPC. The lockdown restrictions did not restrict an accused's right to default bail under Section 167(2).( Para 26)

Facts:

The Court issued a notice on 12.06.2020 in a Suo Motu writ petition to address deficiencies in patient care for COVID-19 in hospitals across Delhi and other states.

Union of India, Delhi Government, and other states filed affidavits in response to the notice.

Various applications for intervention were submitted highlighting different aspects of the issue.

Remedial steps were taken by Union of India as mentioned in its affidavit, including a high-level meeting held on 14.06.2020.

Certain decisions were taken in the meeting, including the constitution of expert teams of doctors to inspect hospitals, increase testing, and regulate rates of COVID-related facilities/tests.

Affidavits from Union of India and Delhi Government outlined guidelines for COVID patient treatment and handling of dead bodies.

Affidavit from LNJP hospital, Delhi, mentioned the installation of CCTV cameras in wards.

The need for proper supervision and monitoring of hospitals' functioning was emphasized.

Issues:

Deficiencies and lapses in patient care for COVID-19 in hospitals.

Ensuring proper supervision, monitoring, and adherence to guidelines for COVID patient care.

Held:

The Court directed the Union of India to constitute Expert Committees consisting of doctors from various hospitals to inspect and supervise COVID facilities.

These committees were mandated to visit hospitals weekly, conduct surprise visits, and issue instructions for improvements.

All states were instructed to form similar expert teams for supervision and guidance of COVID facilities, reporting to the government.

Hospitals were required to install CCTV cameras, and footage should be available for inspection.

COVID-dedicated hospitals were mandated to permit one attendant per patient and establish helpdesks for patient inquiries.

States and Union Territories were directed to uniformly follow the revised discharge policy for COVID-19 patients.

Guidelines for reasonable rates of COVID-related facilities/tests were to be issued, ensuring uniform implementation across states.