Dowry Death – Section 304-B IPC – The deceased committed suicide by setting herself ablaze just after one year of her marriage, having been subjected to cruelty and harassment for dowry by the accused. The court emphasized that Section 304-B IPC, which defines 'dowry death', should be interpreted keeping in mind the legislative intent to curb the social evil of dowry demands and bride burning. The prosecution must establish a proximate and live link between the dowry death and the harassment for dowry. The presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act operates against the accused once the ingredients of Section 304-B IPC are satisfied [Paras 8-24].

Recording of Statements – Section 313 CrPC – The examination of an accused under Section 313 CrPC cannot be treated as a mere procedural formality; it is based on the fundamental principle of fairness. The Court must question the accused fairly, with care and caution, putting incriminating circumstances before them and seeking their response. This process incorporates the principle of natural justice "audi alteram partem" [Paras 20-21].

Interpretation of "Soon Before" – The phrase "soon before" in Section 304-B IPC does not mean 'immediately before'. Courts must use their discretion to determine if the period between cruelty or harassment and the death is proximate enough to invoke the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act [Paras 14-15].

Non-categorization of Deaths – Section 304-B IPC – Section 304-B IPC does not categorize death as homicidal, suicidal, or accidental because dowry deaths can be any of these. The provision addresses deaths occurring "otherwise than under normal circumstances" to cover all scenarios where dowry harassment leads to death [Para 23].

Decision – Appeal Allowed in Part – The High Court and Trial Court were correct in convicting the appellants under Section 304-B IPC, as the appellants failed to discharge the burden under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. However, the conviction under Section 306 IPC (abetment of suicide) was set aside due to insufficient evidence proving the factum of suicide beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals to the extent of setting aside the conviction under Section 306 IPC [Paras 37-38]. Appeal Allowed in Part.

Criminal Procedure Code – Anticipatory Bail – The High Court's rejection of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. does not preclude it from granting protection from arrest in exceptional circumstances. However, such protection must be narrowly tailored and justified with reasons, and for the shortest duration necessary. The High Court's grant of 90 days protection without sufficient reasoning or consideration of the investigating agency's concerns was deemed excessive [Paras 1-28].

Inherent Powers – High Court – Section 482 Cr.P.C. recognizes the inherent power of the High Court to pass orders to secure the ends of justice. This power can be exercised to provide protection in exceptional circumstances even after rejecting anticipatory bail, provided the Court balances the interests of the applicant with those of the investigating agency and society at large [Paras 23-25].

Constitutional Provisions – Article 21 – The grant or rejection of anticipatory bail impacts the fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C. must be interpreted liberally to favor the applicant while ensuring that restrictions are not imposed unless explicitly provided by the legislature [Paras 20-21].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court orders granting 90 days protection from arrest to the respondents-accused, citing lack of reasoning and excessive duration. The investigating agency is allowed to proceed in accordance with the law, and any subsequent bail applications or requests for police remand should be decided on their merits [Para 28]. Appeal Allowed.

Multiple Punishments – Concurrent or Consecutive Sentences – It is legally obligatory upon the Court of first instance to specify in clear terms whether the sentences would run concurrently or consecutively when awarding multiple punishments of imprisonment. Section 31(1) CrPC vests complete discretion with the Court to order the sentences for two or more offences at one trial to run concurrently, having regard to the nature of offences and surrounding factors. If the Court does not specify concurrent running of sentences, they are presumed to run consecutively. Additionally, if sentences are to run consecutively, the Court must state the order in which they are to be executed [Paras 10-12].

Judicial Discretion – Exercise of Discretion in Sentencing – The discretion to order concurrent or consecutive running of sentences must be judiciously exercised with reference to the nature of the offence/s committed and the facts and circumstances of the case. There is no straitjacket approach, but the decision must be based on judicial lines and not mechanically [Paras 10-11].

Principle of Single Transaction – The principle related to 'single transaction' cannot be imported to decide whether sentences should run concurrently or consecutively. This principle is primarily relevant for determining whether multiple offences can be tried in a single trial [Paras 14-14.1].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – In this case, the Supreme Court modified the punishment awarded to the appellants, providing that the maximum period of imprisonment to be served by them shall be 14 years and not beyond. This decision was based on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, including the period of imprisonment already served (over 13 years) and other relevant factors [Paras 16-19.1]. Appeal Partly Allowed.

Insolvency and Bankruptcy – Approval of Resolution Plan – Whether approval of a resolution plan for a corporate debtor under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) discharges personal guarantors of their liabilities – Supreme Court held that the approval of a resolution plan does not discharge personal guarantors of their liabilities under the contract of guarantee – Personal guarantors continue to be liable for the debts of the corporate debtor even after the resolution plan is approved [Paras 1-109].

Delegation of Legislative Power – Validity of Central Government Notification – Petitioners challenged the vires of the notification issued by the Central Government under Section 1(3) of the IBC, 2016, contending it amounted to excessive delegation – Supreme Court upheld the validity of the notification, stating the power conferred to the Central Government under Section 1(3) to enforce different provisions at different times does not amount to excessive delegation [Paras 2-48].

Personal Guarantors – Moratorium and Liability – Personal guarantors are subject to moratorium provisions under Section 101 of the IBC, which stay all pending proceedings against them upon initiation of the resolution process – This moratorium does not discharge their liability but provides temporary relief during the insolvency process [Paras 28-30, 44-45].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Approval of the resolution plan for the corporate debtor does not discharge personal guarantors – Petitioners continue to be liable as per the guarantees provided [Paras 110-112].

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code – Approval of Resolution Plan – The Supreme Court emphasized that Section 30(4) of the IBC amplifies the considerations for the Committee of Creditors (CoC) in exercising their commercial wisdom to approve a resolution plan. This includes the viability and feasibility of the plan and ensuring fairness in distribution among similarly situated creditors. Judicial review of the CoC's decision is limited and does not extend to re-evaluating the commercial decisions unless there is a clear denial of fair and equitable treatment to creditors within the same class [Paras 1-12].

Judicial Review – Scope and Limits – The Court reiterated that the commercial wisdom of the CoC is paramount, and judicial review is confined to ensuring compliance with the mandatory requirements of the IBC. The judiciary cannot interfere with the CoC's decision unless it is demonstrated that the plan contravenes provisions of the law, is not feasible, or is discriminatory towards creditors within the same class [Paras 6-10].

Fair and Equitable Treatment – The Court examined whether the dissenting financial creditor was treated fairly and equitably in the approved resolution plan. It held that the appellant was not denied fair treatment as the distribution to all secured financial creditors was equitable, and the appellant was offered a proportionate share [Paras 12.1-14].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the approval of the resolution plan by the NCLT and the NCLAT. The appellant's challenge on the grounds of undervaluation of its security interest and the manner of distribution was rejected, affirming that the commercial wisdom of the CoC is not subject to extensive judicial scrutiny [Paras 15-18]. Appeal Dismissed.

Levy and Assessment of Cess – The Supreme Court examined whether the UPPTCL could levy and collect labor cess under the Cess Act, 1996, without undertaking a proper assessment and issuing an order for such levy and assessment. The High Court found that in the absence of any order for levy and assessment under the Cess Act, the recovery could not be made pursuant to an audit objection by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG). The Supreme Court upheld this view, emphasizing the necessity of a lawful assessment before recovery [Paras 1-17].

Jurisdiction and Authority – UPPTCL lacked the power, authority, or jurisdiction to realize labor cess under the Cess Act concerning the first contract by withholding dues from other contracts or invoking a performance guarantee. The High Court's finding that UPPTCL acted in excess of its powers by demanding labor cess without proper assessment was affirmed [Paras 18-26].

High Court's Decision – The Supreme Court concurred with the High Court's decision to set aside the letters sent by UPPTCL to the respondent demanding outstanding labor cess amounting to Rs. 2,60,68,814/- computed at the rate of 1% of the contract value. The dismissal of the petition was based on the finding that UPPTCL had no authority to demand cess without a formal assessment under the Cess Act [Paras 27-34].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the High Court's order setting aside the demand letters issued by UPPTCL for labor cess in the absence of a lawful assessment. Petition Dismissed.

Murder – Conviction Justified – The Supreme Court upheld the conviction under Section 302 IPC, emphasizing that an axe blow on an old woman's vital body part would in all probability cause her death. This justified the conviction for murder. The Court stressed that it is not necessary for the prosecution to multiply witnesses on the same point; it is the quality of evidence that matters [Paras 12-22].

Prosecution Witnesses – Quality over Quantity – The Court reiterated that the prosecution does not need to examine every possible witness. Instead, the focus should be on the quality of evidence. The trial court's observation that it could not attribute any specific injury to any of the accused due to chaotic evidence was found to be an error, as consistent and credible evidence against the appellants was overlooked [Paras 25-33].

Delay in FIR – Not Fatal – The Court considered the delay in filing the FIR justified due to the unavailability of transportation and the distance to the police station. The High Court's consideration of these factors was upheld, and the delay was not found to be fatal to the prosecution's case [Paras 7-10].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision to set aside the acquittal of the appellants and convicting them under Sections 302 and 452 IPC for Budhi Singh, and Sections 452, 326, and 323 IPC for Achhar Singh. The appellants were directed to undergo the remainder of their sentences [Paras 37-39]. Appeal Dismissed.

Contractual Interpretation – Transfer of Business – The Supreme Court held that the agreement between the appellant and the respondent was intended to transfer the business rather than create a lease or license for the respondent to conduct business. The document's language was clear and unambiguous, and the intent was for the respondent to continue the existing business of the stationary shop "Karandikar Brothers," and not to lease the shop premises [Paras 9-11].

Exclusion of Oral Evidence – Section 92 of the Evidence Act – The Court emphasized that Section 92 of the Evidence Act prohibits the admission of any oral agreement or statement that contradicts, varies, adds to, or subtracts from the terms of a written contract, except in cases where the document leaves the question in doubt. The High Court's interpretation of the document violated the basic tenets of legal interpretation by incorrectly applying Section 95 of the Evidence Act to admit extrinsic evidence that contradicted the clear terms of the written contract [Paras 13-15].

Jurisdiction of Trial Court – Since the agreement was determined to be a license for continuing an existing business rather than a lease, the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act did not apply. Thus, the jurisdiction of the trial court was not ousted, and it had the authority to hear the case [Paras 16-18].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and restored the trial court's decree, holding that the respondent must hand over the suit property to the appellant. The appeal was allowed, with no order as to costs [Paras 19]. Appeal Allowed.

Criminal Procedure – Discharge Application – Orders framing charges or refusing discharge are neither interlocutory nor final in nature and thus not affected by the bar of Section 397(2) CrPC. The trial court must not act as a mere post office when considering a discharge application and should sift through the evidence to determine whether there are sufficient grounds to try the suspect. The High Court must exercise its revisional jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice, especially in exceptional cases where there is a likelihood of serious prejudice to the accused [Paras 12-16].

High Court's Jurisdiction – Revisional Powers – The High Court committed a jurisdictional error by not entertaining the revision petition on merits. It overlooked the importance of examining the fairness of the criminal investigation and other related aspects concerning the improvement of witness statements. The High Court must reconsider the entire matter and decide the revision petition afresh, taking into account the settled law on the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction [Paras 17-18].

Decision – Appeal Disposed of – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and remanded the case for reconsideration in accordance with the law. The appeal was disposed of, directing the High Court to address the merits of the case and the issues raised in the revision petition [Para 19]. Appeal Disposed of.