Company Law – Winding Up – Non-Payment of Dues – Defence of Defective Material – Appellant claimed huge losses due to defective material supplied by respondent – No documentary evidence provided – Respondent acknowledged defects by granting credit – Company Judge and Division Bench found defence not bonafide – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-19].

Bona Fide Dispute – Requirements – If debt bona fide disputed and defence substantial, court will not wind up company – Defence must be in good faith, substantial, likely to succeed in law, and prima facie supported by facts – Concurrent findings against appellant's defence being bonafide and substantial [Paras 8-10, 20-28].

Interest on Delayed Payment – No agreement for interest – Division Bench declined to address interest, left open for further proceedings – Appellant's claim on interest not substantiated by law [Paras 5, 21-26].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Concurrent findings by Company Judge and Division Bench upheld – No costs [Para 29].

Arbitration – Appointment of Arbitrator – Novation of MoU by SHA – Whether the MoU has been superseded by the SHA requires detailed consideration – Section 11 court’s jurisdiction limited to prima facie review – Arbitration clause in MoU cannot be negated without thorough analysis – Appeal allowed, parties referred to arbitration [Paras 1-9].

Scope of Section 11 – Prima Facie Review – Limited Jurisdiction – Court cannot undertake detailed review at the referral stage – Validity and existence of arbitration agreement to be primarily decided by arbitral tribunal – Referral justified when contentions on non-arbitrability are arguable [Paras 6-8].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of the High Court set aside – Parties referred to arbitration by sole arbitrator, Justice Aftab Alam (Retired) – Observations made by Supreme Court only prima facie [Para 9].

Appeal against sentence higher than the minimum prescribed under the NDPS Act for possession of 1 kg heroin, addressing the adequacy o

NDPS Act – Sentence – Higher Than Minimum – Factors Considered – Accused found with 1 kg heroin, four times the commercial quantity – Minimum sentence 10 years RI – Special Court imposed 15 years RI considering the quantity involved – High Court confirmed – Supreme Court upheld, noting the discretion to consider relevant factors beyond Section 32B clauses (a) to (f) – Factors such as the accused being a carrier and first-time convict not mitigating enough to reduce sentence [Paras 1-6].

Factors for Higher Punishment – Discretion of Court – While imposing punishment higher than the minimum, courts can consider any relevant factor in addition to those listed in Section 32B – Quantity of substance significant – Public interest and societal impact crucial in NDPS cases – Societal harm from drug trafficking outweighs personal mitigating factors [Paras 6-7].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Sentence of 15 years RI and Rs. 2 lakhs fine upheld – Higher sentence justified given the substantial quantity of heroin and societal impact [Para 8].

f reasons for imposing such sentence.

Hindu Undivided Family – Presumption of Tenancy – Mere payment of rent by great grandfather or by the grandfather of the plaintiff raises no presumption that it was a joint Hindu family business. Challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by the High Court whereby a writ petition filed by plaintiff was allowed holding that the tenant in the premises in question was representing a joint Hindu family and that the Karta was not competent to surrender the tenancy rights in favour of the Wakf Board and consequently the induction of the appellant as a tenant by the Wakf Board was illegal. Mere payment of rent by great grandfather or by the grandfather of the plaintiff raises no presumption that it was a joint Hindu family business [Paras 29-35].

Validity of Surrender Document – The act of surrender of tenancy was for the benefit of the Joint Hindu family. The document was validly proved and accepted by the Wakf Board. Therefore, the act of surrender of tenancy was for the benefit of the Joint Hindu family. The Court rejected the High Court's assessment that the surrender letter was unreliable [Paras 36-37].

Jurisdiction of High Court – Petition styled as one under Article 226 would not bar the High Court to exercise jurisdiction under the Act and/or under Article 227 of the Constitution. Jurisdiction of the High Court to examine the correctness, legality, and propriety of determination by the Tribunal is reserved with the High Court [Paras 23-24].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order of the High Court set aside – Order of the Wakf Tribunal restored – No order as to costs [Para 38].

Dowry Death – Bail Rejection – Specific allegations in FIR regarding demand for dowry and proximity of death to the demand – High Court granted bail without adequate reasons – Medical evidence did not support the claim of mental illness – Serious allegations and presumption under Section 304-B IPC and Section 113-B Evidence Act – High Court not justified in granting bail [Paras 9-10].

Judicial Reasoning – Quality of Reasons – Necessity for reasoned orders in bail applications – High Court failed to provide adequate reasoning – Importance of demonstrating application of mind by the judge – Brief but quality reasons essential for credibility in judicial process [Paras 10-11].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s bail order set aside – Respondent to surrender forthwith – Observations limited to issue of bail and not to affect merits of the trial [Para 13].

Promotion Criteria – Rule 13.14(2) of Punjab Police Rules 1934 – Eligibility criteria for promotion to Inspector – Rule 13.14(2) prescribes eight years' approved service for promotion to selection grade of Sub-Inspector, with at least five years in the rank of Sub-Inspector – High Court upheld requirement as neither arbitrary nor discriminatory – Government order abolishing selection grade did not render Rule 13.14(2) redundant – Criteria for promotion to Inspector includes maintaining experience requirement for proper evaluation [Paras 1-21].

Statutory Interpretation – Conjoint Reading of Rules – Promotion from Sub-Inspector to Inspector governed by Rules 13.1, 13.14, and 13.15 – High Court and Supreme Court emphasized harmonious construction to preserve legislative intent – Promotion criteria maintained to ensure efficiency and competency in higher ranks [Paras 13-20].

Government Order – Impact on Promotion Rules – 1987 order discontinuing selection grades for Group B, C, and D employees did not nullify experience criteria in promotion rules – Experience requirements continued to be applicable for assessing eligibility for promotion to Inspector [Paras 16-19].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – High Court judgment upheld – Promotions of private respondents to Inspector validated based on compliance with Rule 13.14(2) [Para 21].

Insolvency Proceedings – Corporate Guarantor – Status of guarantor as corporate debtor – Action under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, can be initiated against a corporate person who is a guarantor for a loan taken by a principal borrower, even if the principal borrower is not a corporate person – Definition of "corporate guarantor" in Section 5(5A) clarified to include corporate persons liable for debts due to guarantees provided for loans of non-corporate borrowers [Paras 1-28].

Limitation and Acknowledgment of Debt – Fresh period of limitation – Application under Section 7 filed after three years from the date of default (NPA) is not barred by limitation if there is an acknowledgment of debt within the prescribed period – Section 18 of the Limitation Act applies to the proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, allowing fresh period of limitation from the date of acknowledgment of debt by the principal borrower or the guarantor [Paras 29-42].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Application under Section 7 of the Code against the corporate debtor is maintainable – Fresh period of limitation computed from the date of acknowledgment of debt – Application filed on 13.02.2019 is within limitation [Para 43].

Service Law – Ex-servicemen – Seniority – Rule 9(3) of Punjab Recruitment of Ex-servicemen Rules, 1982, does not grant benefit for military service towards seniority – Appellant not entitled to claim benefit under Rule 4 of 1972 Rules for determining seniority after the enforcement of 1982 Rules – Appeals dismissed [Paras 1-24].

Repeal and Savings – Application of Repealed Rules – 1982 Rules repealed 1972 Rules and did not continue the benefit of military service for seniority – Saving clause in Rule 9(3) does not extend benefit as no right had accrued before joining the service – Seniority to be governed by rules in force at the time of appointment [Paras 9-23].

Reservation of Vacancies – Reservation Quota – Previous judgment (Ishwar Singh vs. State of Punjab) held twenty percent reservation for vacancies prior to 1982 – Does not affect determination of seniority governed by 1982 Rules – Seniority determined based on entry into service [Paras 12-16].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – No benefit of military service for seniority under 1982 Rules – Seniority governed by rules applicable at time of appointment [Para 24].

Electoral Bonds – Transparency and Accountability – Scheme ensures transactions only through banking channels – Purchasers must comply with KYC norms – Scheme allows anonymity but ensures traceability through banking records – Companies' financial statements must reflect expenditures, ensuring public access through the Registrar of Companies – Interim arrangement requires political parties to submit detailed particulars of donors to the Election Commission in sealed covers – No justification for stay as the Scheme has been operational since 2018 with interim safeguards in place [Paras 1-28].

Non-Tradability and Eligibility – Bonds not tradable – Only Indian citizens or entities incorporated in India can purchase – Scheme prevents use of black money through stringent banking and KYC norms – Apprehensions about misuse by foreign entities and black money transactions are unfounded [Paras 26-27].

Decision – Applications for stay dismissed – No new interim reliefs granted – Scheme to continue with existing safeguards as per interim order dated 12.04.2019 [Para 28].