Negotiable Instruments – Dishonor of Cheque – A complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by a Managing Director on behalf of a company is not liable to be dismissed merely because the Managing Director's name appears first followed by the company's name. The essential requirement is that the complaint indicates it is filed on behalf of the company, supported by a Board Resolution authorizing the filing of the complaint. The format of the complaint, though not perfect, is not fundamentally defective if the intention to file on behalf of the company is clear [Paras 1-28]​​.

Presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of NI Act – The presumption in favor of the holder of the cheque under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act stands unless rebutted by the drawer. The absence of any alternative explanation by the respondent strengthens the case of the complainant [Paras 17-27]​​.

Authorization – A complaint made on behalf of a company must be supported by proper authorization. The Managing Director, being in charge of day-to-day affairs, can file a complaint, and this can be supported by a Board Resolution. A true copy of the resolution suffices, even if unsigned by the directors [Paras 24-26]​​.

Decision- Appeal allowed. The impugned orders of the trial court and the High Court are set aside. The complaint was properly instituted by the Managing Director on behalf of the company. The respondent is sentenced to imprisonment for one year and a fine twice the amount of the cheque, with the sentence suspended if the respondent pays a further sum of Rs.160,000/- within two months [Paras 28-30]​​.

Arbitration – Setting Aside of Arbitral Award – Appellant challenged the decision to set aside an arbitral award – The dispute arose from the sale of shares and a subsequent deed of settlement – High Court set aside the award on grounds that the arbitrator's conclusions were not in accordance with the fundamental policy of Indian law – Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s decision, holding that the 2015 amendment to Section 34 applies only to applications made after 23.10.2015 – Section 34 proceedings commenced before the amendment are subject to the pre-2015 legal position – Clause 9 of the Deed of Settlement cannot be construed to change the applicable law for Section 34 proceedings [Paras 1-39].

Arbitration Clause – Interpretation – The phrase "any amendment thereto" in the arbitration clause does not mean that amendments to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, would apply retrospectively to proceedings that commenced before the amendment – The court emphasized the importance of the legislative intent behind Section 26 of the 2015 Amendment Act, which is to apply the amendments prospectively unless agreed otherwise by the parties [Paras 25-31].

Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act – Applicability – 2015 amendment restricts grounds for setting aside arbitral awards – However, proceedings commenced before 23.10.2015 are governed by pre-amendment standards – Courts must ensure that amendments do not disrupt settled expectations unless explicitly stated [Paras 19-24].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – High Court’s judgment to set aside the arbitral award upheld – Arbitrator's conclusions not in accordance with fundamental policy of Indian law as per pre-2015 interpretation of Section 34 – No costs awarded [Paras 32-39].

Land Acquisition – Interpretation of Limitation Period – Whether the two-year period under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 applies post-repeal, or the twelve-month period under Section 25 of the 2013 Act applies – Court held that Section 25 of the 2013 Act governs awards made under Section 24(1)(a) – Limitation period for making awards commences from 1st January 2014 – Excludes periods during which court orders inhibited action [Paras 1-21, 40].

Savings Clause – Application of Section 6 of General Clauses Act – Section 114 of the 2013 Act repeals the 1894 Act but saves proceedings initiated under it – Savings subject to provisions of the 2013 Act – Ensures continuity while applying new compensation rules [Paras 7-10].

Award Validity – Effect of Court Orders – Stay orders and their effect on limitation periods – Periods of stay are to be excluded when computing limitation periods – Ensures fair administration and compliance with legal mandates [Paras 22-30].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court’s judgment set aside – Acquisition proceedings held not lapsed – Awards declared valid – Inquiry into alleged manipulation and backdating of awards suggested for remedial action [Paras 31-41].

Criminal Law – Conviction based on Disclosure Statement – Appellant convicted based on disclosure statement and recovery of inculpatory material – Court held that while an accused can be convicted on the basis of a disclosure statement, the recovery must be unimpeachable and not doubtful – Factors such as the interval between the offense and disclosure, the commonality and transferability of the recovered object, and the credibility of witnesses must be considered – Prosecution failed to inspire confidence in the recovery process – Appellant acquitted as guilt not proved beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 1-21].

Benefit of Doubt – Doctrine – Court emphasized the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that it is better for ten guilty persons to escape than for one innocent person to suffer – Prosecution's failure to prove guilt beyond doubt warrants acquittal [Paras 17-18].

Evidentiary Standards – Independent Witnesses – Court noted the importance of credible independent witnesses – Testimonies of key prosecution witnesses were inconsistent and unreliable – Recovery of common objects like money and cloth with no unique identifiers insufficient to sustain conviction [Paras 14-19].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Convictions by Trial Court and High Court set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges – Bail bond discharged [Paras 22].

Criminal Law – Rape and Murder – Conviction – Appellant convicted of rape and murder of a minor girl based on disclosure statement leading to recovery of the dead body – Court affirmed the conviction noting the strong chain of circumstances and corroborative evidence – Testimonies of witnesses established the appellant's involvement in the crime – Conviction upheld [Paras 1-21].

Sentencing – Death Penalty – Commutation – Death sentence commuted to life imprisonment with a stipulation of a minimum of 30 years without remission – Mitigating factors considered include the young age of the appellant, absence of criminal antecedents, and possibility of reformation – The option of life imprisonment is not foreclosed, and hope for rehabilitation exists – Sentence modification aligns with principles of rarest of the rare cases [Paras 22-30].

Evidentiary Standards – Disclosure Statement – Recovery of dead body based on the appellant's disclosure statement deemed strong evidence – Incriminating circumstances supported by medical evidence confirming rape and asphyxia by strangulation – Post mortem findings corroborated the timeline of events as per prosecution's case [Paras 16-20].

Decision – Appeals partly allowed – Death sentence commuted to life imprisonment with a condition of no premature release before serving 30 years – Sentences for other offences to run concurrently – Conviction for offences under Sections 302, 376, 364, 366A, and 201 IPC upheld [Paras 30].

Consumer Law – Deficiency in Service – Losing the case on merits after the advocate argued the matter cannot be said to be deficiency in service on the part of the advocate – Court held that in every litigation, one party is bound to lose, and such loss does not constitute a deficiency in service by the advocate – Complaints against advocates for losing cases on merits dismissed by District Forum, State Commission, and National Commission affirmed [Paras 1-6].

Delay in Filing – Special Leave Petition – Petition dismissed due to a delay of 593 days in filing – Even on merits, no case of deficiency in service established – Courts below rightly dismissed the complaint against the advocates [Paras 2.1, 4, 6].

Decision – Special leave petitions dismissed – No deficiency in service by advocates found – No exemplary costs imposed considering the nature of proceedings [Paras 5-6].

Arbitration – Setting Aside of Arbitral Award – Plea of waiver taken against appellant-State on the ground of not raising objection in Section 34 petition dismissed – Court held Section 34(2A) empowers setting aside of an award if vitiated by patent illegality – Such grounds can be invoked by the Court in an appeal under Section 37 – High Court should have considered 'supervision charges' as per agreement and Circular – Failure to consider amounts to patent illegality [Paras 23-25].

Arbitral Tribunal – Terms of Contract – Tribunal failed to decide in accordance with the terms of the contract regarding 'supervision charges' – Agreement and Circular by Government mandated such charges – Ignoring these amounted to patent illegality [Paras 22, 25].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Award quashed to the extent it permitted deduction of 'supervision charges' – Judgment modified to uphold imposition of 'supervision charges' as per agreement and Circular – Costs borne by respective parties [Paras 25-26].

Insurance Policy – Interpretation and Revival – Appellant challenges NCDRC's decision allowing the respondent's claim for accident benefit – Supreme Court holds that the terms of the insurance policy must be strictly construed and the policy had lapsed before the accident occurred – Revival of the policy after the accident without disclosing the accident was considered suppression of material facts, leading to the rejection of the accident benefit claim [Paras 1-11].

Good Faith – Suppression of Material Fact – Court emphasizes the requirement of good faith (Uberrima fides) in insurance contracts – Non-disclosure of the accident at the time of policy revival indicates mala fide intent and lack of bona fides – Cites precedents highlighting that terms of the insurance policy cannot be rewritten or liberally construed beyond the agreed terms [Paras 8-9].

Accident Benefit – Policy Lapse and Revival – Condition No. 11 of the policy specifies that accident benefit is payable only if the policy is in force on the date of the accident – Policy had lapsed on 14.10.2011, and the accident occurred on 06.03.2012, with the policy being revived on 09.03.2012 – As the policy was not in force on the accident date, the accident benefit claim is not payable [Paras 7-9].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of the NCDRC is set aside – Accident benefit claim of the respondent is rejected – Pending applications, if any, are disposed of [Para 11].

Investigation and Authorisation – Validity of Delegation – Appellant challenges the quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court – Supreme Court upholds the validity of the authorisation given to an inspector under the second proviso to Section 3 of the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006 – Distinguishes the case from Bhajan Lal, clarifying that the second proviso does not require detailed reasons for authorisation – Observes that the authorisation was not mechanical and showed application of mind [Paras 8-8.6].

Prior Sanction for Non-Cognizable Offences – Not Required When Coupled with Cognizable Offences – High Court’s decision quashed – Supreme Court cites Pravin Chandra Mody, holding that prior sanction of a magistrate under Section 155 of J&K CrPC is not necessary when investigating a cognizable offence along with a non-cognizable one – Emphasizes that requiring prior sanction would lead to delays and hamper the investigation [Paras 9-10].

Preliminary Enquiry – Validity of Rule 3.16 – Court overturns the High Court’s declaration of Rule 3.16 as ultra vires – Holds that the preliminary enquiry under Rule 3.16 is in line with the law laid down in Lalita Kumari – States that detailed enquiries during preliminary verification are permissible to establish a prima facie case before registering an FIR [Paras 11-13].

Vicarious Liability – Misinterpretation by High Court – Supreme Court corrects the High Court’s view on vicarious liability – Holds that the respondent’s individual actions were in question, and he was not being held vicariously liable for actions of a company – Reiterates that criminal proceedings can proceed against the respondent in his individual capacity [Para 14].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment quashing the criminal proceedings and declaring Rule 3.16 as ultra vires is set aside – Criminal proceedings against the respondent to proceed as per law [Paras 15-16].