Criminal Procedure – Place of Inquiry and Trial – Section 117 CrPC – The Supreme Court considered the place of inquiry and trial under Section 117 of CrPC, which states that every offense shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. The cause of action as per the FIR arose in New Delhi where the matrimonial home of the petitioner is situated. Hence, the trial should ordinarily be held in New Delhi [Paras 14-15].

Transfer of Criminal Case – Convenience of Parties and Witnesses – Sections 117 and 406 CrPC – The petitioners sought the transfer of the case to Allahabad, arguing financial burden and inconvenience. However, the Court noted that most of the prosecution witnesses, including 12 official witnesses, are based in New Delhi. Transferring the case to Allahabad would cause significant inconvenience to these witnesses and hinder their official duties. The apprehension of the petitioners did not constitute exceptional circumstances for transferring the criminal case [Paras 16-17].

Judicial Precedents – Transfer of Criminal Cases – The Court referred to several precedents emphasizing that a criminal case should be inquired into and tried where the cause of action arose unless exceptional circumstances justify otherwise. Convenience for transfer means the convenience of the prosecution, other accused, the witnesses, and the larger interest of society [Para 17].

Decision: Transfer petition dismissed – The proceedings arising out of FIR No. 39 of 2016, which were transferred to the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate at Allahabad (Prayagraj), Uttar Pradesh, were directed to be transferred back to the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini Courts, New Delhi. The petitioners were given the liberty to seek interim relief from the appropriate court in New Delhi [Paras 18-20].

Customs Law – Recovery Proceedings – Proper Officer under Section 28(4) – The Supreme Court examined whether the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) had the authority to issue a show cause notice under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962, for recovery of duties not paid. The Court held that the power of recovery under Section 28(4) must be exercised by "the proper officer" who initially assessed and cleared the goods or his successor, not by any other officer. The Additional Director General of DRI was not "the proper officer" to exercise the power under Section 28(4) in the present case. The initiation of recovery proceedings by the DRI was thus without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside [Paras 1-23].

Statutory Interpretation – Use of Definite Article "The" – The Court emphasized that the definite article "the" before "proper officer" in Section 28(4) signifies a specific officer who initially assessed the goods. The term does not refer to any officer of the same rank but to the specific officer or his successor within the same office [Paras 10-13].

Entrustment of Functions – Validity of Notification – The Court noted that the notification conferring functions under Section 28 on officers of the DRI was invalid as it was issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, which had no such power under Section 2(34) of the Customs Act. The proper entrustment should have been done under Section 6 of the Customs Act by the Central Government [Paras 16-21].

Limitation for Recovery Proceedings – Extended Period – The Court also addressed the limitation for issuing a show cause notice under Section 28(4). It held that the extended period of five years for recovery due to suppression of facts was not applicable in this case, as the importer had disclosed all relevant information to the Customs officers at the time of assessment and clearance [Paras 24-29].

Decision: Appeals allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the common order dated 19.12.2017 passed by the CESTAT and the ensuing demands. The Additional Director General of DRI was not authorized to issue the show cause notices under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act [Paras 23, 31].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Dishonour of Cheque – Presumption under Section 139 – The appellant challenged the High Court's judgment convicting her under Section 138 of the Act. The Supreme Court emphasized that the appellant failed to rebut the presumption under Section 139 that the cheques were issued for consideration. The complainant provided sufficient evidence that the cheques were issued in discharge of a debt, which the appellant could not disprove [Paras 1-24].

Quasi-Criminal Nature of Proceedings – Burden of Proof – The Court reiterated that proceedings under Section 138 of the Act are quasi-criminal and the principles of preponderance of probabilities apply. The burden of proof shifts to the accused to rebut the presumption, which can be done by bringing forward compelling evidence or circumstances [Paras 13-17].

Issuance and Dishonour of Cheques – Legal Notice and Complaint – The complainant established that the appellant issued cheques which were dishonoured due to insufficient funds. Legal notices were sent to the appellant, who failed to respond or make payment. The trial court's acquittal was overturned by the High Court on reappraisal of evidence, leading to the appellant's conviction [Paras 18-22].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment convicting the appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The appellant's failure to rebut the presumption and the evidence provided by the complainant justified the conviction. The bail bonds were cancelled, and the appellant was directed to pay the fine or serve the sentence [Paras 24-26].

nsolvency Law – Jurisdiction – Section 60(5)(c) IBC – NCLT/NCLAT has jurisdiction to stay the termination of PPA – The termination was solely due to the initiation of CIRP against the Corporate Debtor – NCLT/NCLAT's intervention necessary to preserve the value of the Corporate Debtor and ensure its status as a 'going concern' [Paras 1-48].

Residuary Jurisdiction – Scope – Section 60(5)(c) provides NCLT wide discretion to adjudicate questions of law or fact arising out of or in relation to insolvency resolution proceedings – The jurisdiction of NCLT is not confined to actions prohibited by Section 14 of IBC – Interpretation consistent with legislative intent to provide comprehensive jurisdiction to NCLT in matters related to insolvency resolution [Paras 49-60].

Termination of Contracts – IBC and Contract Law – The power of NCLT under IBC to stay termination of contracts to prevent corporate death – PPA is an essential contract for the Corporate Debtor – Termination of PPA would lead to liquidation, defeating the purpose of CIRP [Paras 61-78].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – NCLT/NCLAT orders upheld – The termination of PPA by the appellant stayed – NCLT/NCLAT has jurisdiction to intervene in such matters to facilitate the resolution process and maintain the Corporate Debtor as a going concern [Paras 79-85].

Employee State Insurance Act – Wages – Section 2(22) ESI Act – Travelling Allowance – Conveyance Allowance – Definition of wages excludes travelling allowance – Conveyance Allowance is akin to travelling allowance – High Court and ESI Court rightly excluded Conveyance Allowance from wages [Paras 11-30].

Service and Labour Laws – Definition of Wages – Conveyance Allowance – Travelling Allowance – ESI Act – Conveyance Allowance intended to cover costs incurred on travel from residence to workplace – Payment of Conveyance Allowance excluded from definition of wages [Paras 12-15].

Judicial Interpretation – ESI Act – Conveyance Allowance and Travelling Allowance – Interpretation in favour of employees – Inclusive interpretation of travelling allowance to cover conveyance allowance [Paras 26-28].

Decision – Special Leave Petition dismissed – High Court and ESI Court's concurrent findings upheld – Conveyance Allowance excluded from wages under Section 2(22) of ESI Act [Para 30].

Criminal Law – Bail – IPC Sections 302, 307 – Arms Act – High Court granted bail to accused on the basis of parity – Co-accused's bail subsequently canceled by Supreme Court – Orders granting bail to respondents set aside – Respondents to surrender and may apply for fresh bail [Paras 1-19].

Bail – Judicial Discretion – High Court granted bail without proper application of judicial mind – Seriousness of offense and nature of allegations not considered – Parity with co-accused not justified as co-accused's bail was canceled by Supreme Court [Paras 11-18].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court's orders granting bail to respondents canceled – Respondents to surrender within 24 hours – Liberty granted to apply afresh for bail [Paras 18-19].

Central Excise – Classification – Electrical Relays – Chapter 85 vs. Chapter 86 – Relays manufactured by the appellant solely for railway signaling equipment – Approved classification list reclassified under Chapter 86 – Revenue's invocation of Note 2(f) of Section XVII unjustified – 'Sole or principal use' test under Note 3 overlooked – Appeal allowed [Paras 15-39].

Limitation – Section 11-A Central Excise Act – Show Cause Notices – Period of limitation – Notices issued after approved reclassification – No fraud, collusion, or willful misstatement – Invocation of Section 11-A time-barred – Appeal allowed [Paras 40-47].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Orders of the Original Authority, Appellate Authority, and CESTAT set aside – Show cause-cum-demand notices set aside [Para 47].

Penal Code – Voluntarily Causing Hurt – Summoning Order – Quashing – The delay in filing the private complaint and material improvements from the earlier NCR No. 158/2012 noted – Trial courts have a duty to prevent frivolous litigation at the initial stage – Summoning order quashed [Paras 1-20].

Evidence Act – Judge's Power – Section 165 – Empowering judges to order production of material and put forth questions marks the influence of inquisitorial processes in Indian legal system – Important for uncovering truth and preventing misuse of judicial process [Paras 13-15].

Criminal Procedure – Summoning Order – Importance – Magistrate must exercise caution and judicial mind in issuing summoning orders – Orders should reflect thorough examination of allegations and evidence [Paras 12-14].

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of Proceedings – Inherent Powers – High Courts and Supreme Court have inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC and Article 142 of the Constitution to quash proceedings instituted with malafide intentions or after undue delay [Paras 22-23].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Summoning order dated 04.04.2019 and subsequent proceedings quashed – All criminal proceedings between parties related to the incident quashed to prevent further misuse of judicial process [Paras 24-28].

Arbitration – Appointment of Arbitrator – Prima Facie Test – The Supreme Court held that a deeper consideration of whether an arbitration agreement exists between the parties must be left to an arbitrator who is to examine the documentary evidence produced before him in detail after witnesses are cross-examined. The Court set aside the Delhi High Court's judgment insofar as it conclusively found that there is an arbitration agreement between the parties. However, the Court upheld the appointment of Justice G.S. Sistani, a retired Delhi High Court Judge, as the sole arbitrator to first determine as a preliminary issue whether an arbitration agreement exists between the parties [Paras 1-27].

Prima Facie Review – Existence of Arbitration Agreement – The Court noted that at the stage of reference to arbitration under Sections 8 and 11 of the Arbitration Act, the court should apply the prima facie test to determine the existence of an arbitration agreement. A more detailed examination should be left to the arbitrator, especially when the facts are contested or unclear [Paras 10-17].

Judicial Interpretation – Anomaly in Sections 11(7) and 37 – The judgment pointed out an anomaly where a refusal to refer parties to arbitration under Section 8 is appealable under Section 37(1)(a), but a similar refusal under Section 11(6) read with Sections 6(A) and 7 is not appealable. The Court suggested that Parliament may need to re-look at Sections 11(7) and 37 to align the appealability of orders made under Sections 8 and 11 [Paras 21-23].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the Delhi High Court's conclusive finding of an arbitration agreement but upheld the appointment of Justice G.S. Sistani as the sole arbitrator. The arbitrator will determine the existence of the arbitration agreement as a preliminary issue and proceed to the merits only if such an agreement is found to exist [Para 27].