Arbitration – Pre-deposit Requirement – Section 19 of MSMED Act: The court held that the pre-deposit of 75% of the awarded amount under Section 19 of the MSMED Act is a mandatory requirement when challenging an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The court overruled the High Court's decision that treated the pre-deposit requirement as directory [Paras 4-5].

Judicial Review – Hardship Consideration: While the requirement to deposit 75% of the awarded amount is mandatory, the court acknowledged that in cases of undue hardship, the appellate court may allow the pre-deposit to be made in instalments. This consideration ensures that the mandatory requirement does not cause undue burden on the appellant [Para 4].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The High Court's order permitting proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act without the pre-deposit of 75% of the awarded amount is quashed and set aside. The respondent is directed to deposit 75% of the awarded amount before its application under Section 34 is entertained and considered on merits. Until this deposit is made, the execution proceedings may continue [Paras 5-6].

Insolvency Resolution Process Costs – Priority of Payments – Workmen’s Dues: The Supreme Court held that wages/salaries of workmen/employees who actually worked during the CIRP period and while the Corporate Debtor was managed as a going concern should be included in the CIRP costs. These dues are to be paid in full with first priority under Section 53(1)(a) of the IBC, 2016. However, wages/salaries of workmen/employees who did not work during the CIRP period are not automatically included in the CIRP costs and are governed by Section 53(1)(b) and Section 53(1)(c)​​.

Verification of Claims – Liquidator’s Duty: The claims for wages/salaries during the CIRP must be verified by the Liquidator. The workmen/employees must establish that the Corporate Debtor was a going concern during the CIRP and that they actually worked during this period. The Liquidator is directed to adjudicate such claims and include verified claims in the CIRP costs​​.

Provident Fund, Gratuity, and Pension Fund – Exclusion from Liquidation Estate: Dues related to provident fund, gratuity, and pension fund are excluded from the liquidation estate as per Section 36(4) of the IBC, 2016. These amounts are not subject to the distribution priorities under Section 53(1) and must be paid directly to the entitled workmen/employees​​.

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – The case is remanded to the Liquidator for adjudication of claims. The Liquidator must verify whether the Corporate Debtor was a going concern during the CIRP and whether the claimants actually worked during this period. Verified claims are to be paid as CIRP costs. The Liquidator is to complete this verification within twelve weeks​​.

Arbitration – Interim Measures – Deposit of Rental Amounts: The Supreme Court held that the arbitral tribunal should not have directed the appellant to deposit 100% of the rental amount due for the period between March 2020 and December 2021 by way of interim measures when there was a serious dispute regarding the liability of rental payments during the Covid-19 pandemic under the force majeure clause of the lease agreement. The tribunal must first adjudicate this dispute​​.

Force Majeure – Application in Rental Disputes: The applicability of the force majeure clause during periods of complete closure due to lockdowns caused by the Covid-19 pandemic is yet to be adjudicated by the arbitral tribunal. Hence, it would be unjust to direct the appellant to deposit rental amounts for these periods without a final determination​​.

Partial Relief – Specific Periods of Complete Closure: The court partially allowed the appeal, directing the appellant to deposit the rental amounts for periods not affected by complete lockdowns, specifically excluding periods of complete closure due to government-mandated lockdowns from 22.03.2020 to 09.09.2020 and from 19.04.2021 to 28.06.2021. This deposit is subject to the final outcome of the arbitration proceedings​​.

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – The appellant is required to deposit the rental amounts for the periods not affected by complete lockdowns. The arbitral tribunal must adjudicate the applicability of the force majeure clause and the appellant's liability for the rental amounts during the complete closure periods. The tribunal is to conclude the arbitration proceedings within nine months​​.

Hindu Law – Joint Family Property – Alienation – A Hindu father or managing member of a HUF has the power to make a gift of ancestral property only for a 'pious purpose' – The gift deed executed ‘out of love and affection’ does not come within the scope of the term ‘pious purpose’ – The Karta/Manager may alienate joint family property only in three situations: (i) legal necessity, (ii) for the benefit of the estate, and (iii) with the consent of all the coparceners – Alienation without consent is voidable at the instance of the non-consenting coparceners [Paras 1-16].

Limitation Act – Article 109 – The period of limitation to challenge the alienation of ancestral property is twelve years from the date the alienee takes possession – The suit filed within the limitation period is valid [Paras 7-10].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – The judgment of the Appellate Court and the High Court declaring the gift deed as null and void is upheld [Para 17].

Labour Law – Territorial Jurisdiction – Preliminary Issue – The Labour Court decided that it lacked territorial jurisdiction since the appellant was employed, worked, and terminated at Ghaziabad – The Labour Court's decision, upheld by the High Court, was affirmed by the Supreme Court, which emphasized that the court at the location where the cause of action arose has the appropriate jurisdiction [Paras 1-7].

Preliminary Objections – Jurisdiction – The Court held that issues of territorial jurisdiction should be addressed as preliminary matters, emphasizing the necessity to resolve jurisdictional questions early to ensure proper forum handling of cases [Paras 6.5-7].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – The orders passed by the Labour Court and the High Court were upheld, confirming that the Labour Court at Ghaziabad had the territorial jurisdiction to hear the case [Para 7].

Constitutional Law – Writ Jurisdiction – Duty of High Court – The High Court must deal with all issues raised in a writ petition and provide a reasoned order – The High Court failed to address the merits of the order passed by the Tribunal, instead directing compliance without any substantive discussion – The High Court's failure to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226/227 properly necessitated remand for fresh consideration [Paras 1-5].

Administrative Law – Tribunal Orders – Judicial Review – When reviewing an order passed by a Tribunal, the High Court must independently consider the legality and validity of the order – The lack of reasoning in the High Court's order amounted to a failure to perform its duty [Paras 2-4].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The impugned order of the High Court is set aside – The matter is remanded to the High Court for fresh consideration and decision on merits in accordance with law [Para 5].

Service Law – Appointment Process – Statutory Interpretation – The Andhra Pradesh Direct Recruitment for the post of Teachers (Scheme of Selection) Rules, 2012, specifically Rule 16, does not mandate the preparation of a waiting list – In the absence of such a provision, the employer is not required to offer unfilled vacancies to candidates next in the merit list – The appellant, being next in the merit list, cannot claim the unfilled vacancy resulting from a selected candidate not joining [Paras 6-9].

Administrative Law – Judicial Review – Guidelines vs. Rules – When statutory rules explicitly prohibit a waiting list, any guideline suggesting otherwise cannot override the rule – Appointments must adhere strictly to the rules laid out in the statutory framework [Paras 7-8].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – The High Court's judgment quashing the order of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal and denying the appellant's claim for appointment was upheld [Para 9].

Criminal Law – Appeal Against Acquittal – Practice of Pronouncing Orders – The practice of pronouncing only the operative portion of the judgment without a reasoned judgment and issuing the reasoned judgment subsequently is discouraged – Such a practice deprives aggrieved parties of timely judicial redress and undermines judicial discipline – The High Court's judgment, pronounced without reasons and followed by a reasoned judgment after almost five months, is unsustainable and thus set aside [Paras 1-4].

Judicial Discipline – Promptness in Delivery of Judgments – Judicial discipline requires promptness in the delivery of reasoned judgments – The practice of issuing only operative orders without accompanying reasons must be stopped to ensure transparency and accountability in the judicial process [Para 4].

Decision: Appeals allowed – The High Court's impugned judgment and order set aside – The case is remanded to the High Court for fresh consideration and prompt judgment delivery [Para 4.4].

Insolvency and Bankruptcy – Limitation – Acknowledgment of Debt – The provisions of Section 18 of the Limitation Act are applicable to proceedings under the IBC – An acknowledgment in a balance sheet without qualification can extend the period of limitation, provided the acknowledgment is within three years from the original date of default [Paras 13-14].

Judicial Precedent – Overruled Decisions – The decision in V Padmakumar was overruled by the Supreme Court in Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited v Bishal Jaiswal – The NCLT and NCLAT decisions, which relied on V Padmakumar, are set aside and the matter is remanded for fresh adjudication in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in Asset Reconstruction Company and other relevant decisions [Paras 8-12].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The judgments of the NCLT and NCLAT are set aside – The matter is remanded to the NCLT for fresh adjudication with directions to dispose of the case expeditiously within three months [Para 16-17].