Corporate Law – Winding Up vs. Insolvency Resolution – Secured Creditors' Rights-Winding up proceedings under the Companies Act do not impede a secured creditor from initiating independent insolvency proceedings under Section 7 or Section 9 of the IBC. The Supreme Court emphasized that the IBC's objective to revive distressed companies must be prioritized, except in cases where corporate death is inevitable [Paras 1-27].

IBC vs. Companies Act – Prevailing Statute in Case of Conflict- Where conflicts arise between the Companies Act and IBC, the latter prevails due to its non-obstante clause in Section 238. The Supreme Court highlighted that the IBC is a special statute aimed at reviving companies and must be given precedence over the winding-up provisions of the Companies Act [Paras 14-24].

Winding Up Proceedings – Secured Creditors' Rights- Secured creditors stand outside the winding up and can realize their security independent of winding-up proceedings. This principle allows secured creditors to enforce their rights without seeking leave from the winding-up court [Paras 25-27].

Decision- Appeal dismissed – The Supreme Court upheld the jurisdiction of the NCLT to entertain insolvency petitions under Section 7 of the IBC, notwithstanding ongoing winding-up proceedings under the Companies Act. The interim order was vacated, and liberty was granted for the resumption of proceedings in NCLT [Para 27].

Village Panchayats – No-Confidence Motion – Directly elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat faced a no-confidence motion – Resolution passed by requisite majority – Collector directed a Special Gram Sabha for ratification – High Court set aside Collector’s order and resolution – Supreme Court reinstated Collector’s order, directing the Special Gram Sabha to convene for ratification [Paras 1-10].

Section 35-1A – Mandatory Ratification Procedure – Court emphasized the statutory requirement of ratification of no-confidence motion by a Special Gram Sabha conducted with secret ballot and under an appointed officer – Absence of provision for lapsing of resolution if not placed within specified time – Administrative instructions cannot override statutory requirements [Paras 8-9].

Procedural Compliance – Ratification of Resolution – Special Gram Sabha to be convened expeditiously – Until ratification, post of Sarpanch to be held by Upasarpanch or as directed by the Collector [Paras 10-11].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court judgment set aside – Reinstated Collector’s order – Special Gram Sabha to ratify no-confidence motion as per statutory scheme – Interim arrangement for post of Sarpanch specified [Para 12-13].

Matrimonial Law – Dissolution of Marriage – Appellant (Husband) sought dissolution of marriage due to mental cruelty by the wife – Complaints made by wife to Army superiors and other authorities – Court of inquiry against husband and adverse consequences in career – High Court erred in dismissing husband's plea and allowing wife's plea for restitution of conjugal rights – Supreme Court restored Family Court’s order of dissolution of marriage, dismissing wife’s application for restitution of conjugal rights [Paras 1-16].

Mental Cruelty – Defamatory Complaints – Wife's multiple complaints led to professional and reputational damage to the husband – Supreme Court held that such conduct amounted to mental cruelty – The explanation that complaints were to protect matrimonial ties found unjustifiable – Court emphasized the burden on the affected spouse to not condone such conduct and to seek separation [Paras 11-15].

Degree of Tolerance – Varying from Couple to Couple – Court must consider background, education level, and status of parties – In this case, the wife’s persistent efforts to undermine husband’s dignity and reputation constituted sufficient grounds for dissolution of marriage [Paras 10-13].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court judgment set aside – Family Court’s order restored – Marriage dissolved – Wife’s application for restitution of conjugal rights dismissed [Para 15-16].

Foreign Exchange Regulation – Transfer of Property – Appeal addressing the validity of property transfer by a foreign national without prior permission from the RBI – Section 31 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, mandates obtaining previous general or special permission of the RBI for such transfers – Transfers without such permission are unenforceable in law [Paras 1-40].

Mandatory Nature of Section 31 – Requirement for Previous Permission – Court held that the stipulation in Section 31 for obtaining prior permission from the RBI is mandatory – Absence of such permission renders the transfer unenforceable – Court distinguished between void and voidable transactions and upheld that transactions in contravention of Section 31 are unenforceable until such permission is granted [Paras 25-38].

Conflicting High Court Decisions – Reversal of High Court Judgments – Various High Court decisions interpreted Section 31 differently – Supreme Court overruled these interpretations, establishing the mandatory nature of Section 31 and the unenforceability of non-compliant transfers – Previous High Court rulings not aligned with this interpretation are declared incorrect, but their effects are not to be disturbed retroactively [Paras 28-39].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Trial Court and High Court judgments set aside – Suit for declaration regarding the invalidity of the gift deed in favor of the respondent upheld – Appellant entitled to possession and mesne profits of the disputed property – Remand to Trial Court for inquiry under Order 20 Rule 12 of the CPC for determination of mesne profits [Para 40].

Murder – Conviction under Sections 302 and 34 IPC – Appeal against conviction – Incident involved fatal assault on Ganeshram by Devilal, Gokul, and Amrat Ram – Eyewitness accounts and recoveries of weapons (lathi, sword, axe) corroborated prosecution case – Conviction upheld [Paras 1-24].

Juvenility – Determination – Appellant Amrat Ram claimed juvenility – Inquiry confirmed age as 16 years 11 months at the time of the incident – Under Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, matter remanded to Juvenile Justice Board for appropriate order regarding fine [Paras 12-24].

Witness Testimony – Reliability – Quality over Quantity – Testimonies of PWs 1 and 2 consistent and reliable – Testimony of PW1 regarding tutoring not sufficient to disregard evidence – FIR treated as dying declaration [Paras 20-22].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Conviction and sentence of Devilal and Gokul affirmed – Appeal of Amrat Ram allowed to the extent of remanding matter to Juvenile Justice Board for determining fine – Devilal and Gokul directed to surrender [Para 25-26].

Murder – Conviction under Sections 302 and 34 IPC – Appeal against conviction – Postmortem report indicating injuries from both blunt and sharp objects – Appellant armed with lathi, co-accused with axe – Injuries consistent with weapons used – Conviction upheld [Paras 1-24].

Juvenility – Determination – Appellant claimed to be juvenile at the time of the incident – High Court ordered medical examination – Medical Board determined age as between 40-55 years – Appellant's own application for arms license stated age as 21 years at the time of the incident – Claim of juvenility rejected [Paras 2-16].

Examination of Witnesses – Quality vs. Quantity – Not necessary for prosecution to examine all potential witnesses – Quality of evidence prioritized – Testimony of some witnesses can be accepted even if disbelieved for others – Non-examination of witness not critical to the outcome [Paras 17-19].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence upheld – No merit found in the arguments of the appellant regarding both juvenility and the sufficiency of evidence [Paras 24].

Judicial Review – Policy Decisions – Limited Scope – Held, policy decisions are open for judicial review by the Court for a very limited purpose – Court can interfere if the policy is absolutely capricious, totally arbitrary, or not informed by reasons – Petitioners sought mandamus to direct respondents to provide an additional attempt for CSE 2020, which was denied [Paras 43-45].

Civil Services Examination – Additional Attempt – Policy Decision – Petitioners contended that COVID-19 pandemic impeded their preparation, seeking an extra attempt as a matter of right – Supreme Court held that such claims do not merit judicial intervention as policy decisions rest with the executive – Previous relaxations granted in different circumstances do not establish a precedent for the current situation [Paras 13-18, 41-45].

Discretion of Executive – Relaxation Not Permissible – Court acknowledged the unprecedented impact of the pandemic but reiterated that relaxation in attempts or age limits not provided under the scheme of rules is beyond judicial intervention – Executive discretion in policy matters must be exercised based on prevailing circumstances [Paras 32-37, 48].

Decision – Writ petition dismissed – Petitioners not entitled to additional attempt for CSE 2020 – Court refrained from exercising plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to grant relief not permissible under the scheme of rules [Paras 46-50].

Medical Education – Establishment of Medical College – Essentiality Certificate (EC) – State Government’s power to withdraw EC – Held, the State Government can withdraw the EC if obtained by fraud or if the foundational circumstances for its grant vanish or for similar reasons – Appellant failed to remove deficiencies since 2004 despite multiple opportunities – EC withdrawal justified [Paras 20-24].

Grant of Essentiality Certificate – Not a Ministerial Act – Issuance of EC involves assessment of feasibility and infrastructure by the State Government – Court held grant of EC and CoA is not merely a ministerial function but involves substantial scrutiny to ensure compliance with Medical Council of India norms – Appellant’s contention that EC grant is ministerial rejected [Paras 19-21].

Inspection and Deficiencies – Persistent Lack of Facilities – Multiple inspections revealed severe deficiencies in infrastructure, faculty, and clinical material – Findings of the inspection teams indicated the appellant’s hospital lacked the necessary facilities to run a medical college – Appellant’s compliance reports were insufficient to address the noted deficiencies [Paras 26-28].

Adherence to Time Schedule – Importance of Compliance – Court emphasized strict adherence to the time schedule prescribed for establishing new medical colleges – Appellant’s applications for the academic years 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 were time-barred – No relief could be granted for the lapsed academic sessions [Paras 30-32].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – High Court judgment upheld – Directions issued to the appellant to apply afresh for subsequent academic years after rectifying deficiencies – Authorities directed to consider fresh applications as per the prescribed procedures [Paras 33-34].

Municipal Law – Multi-Member Wards – Constitutionality – Challenge to provisions allowing multiple members to be elected from a single ward in Gujarat – Articles 243R and 243S of the Constitution do not limit to one member per ward – Provisions of Sections 5(3)(iii)(a), 29A of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, Rules 4 and 5 of 1994 Rules, and Rule 2(b) of 2007 Rules not ultra vires Articles 243R and 243S – Multi-member wards found to enhance representation and empowerment of women, Scheduled Castes, and Scheduled Tribes [Paras 22-70].

Representation – Empowerment of Weaker Sections – Multi-member wards ensure fair representation and empowerment of weaker sections – Reservation of seats for women, SC, ST in multi-member wards increases their participation and voice in municipal governance [Paras 65-70].

Administrative Procedure – Validity of Notification – Issuance of notification amending ward rules before the expiry of the objection period – Notification dated 04.12.2014 issued without waiting for 30 days from draft notification dated 27.11.2014 – Court held the issuance of notification within the stipulated period without considering objections as illegal [Paras 71-74].

Decision – Appeals and writ petition disposed of – Provisions for multi-member wards upheld as constitutional – Directions issued for proper procedure to be followed in issuing notifications for ward delimitation and reserved seat allocation [Para 74].