Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code – Section 7 – Limitation Period – The Supreme Court held that an application under Section 7 of the IBC would not be barred by limitation if the Corporate Debtor acknowledged the debt before the expiration of the limitation period of three years, thereby extending the period by another three years. An acknowledgment of debt in financial statements or communications, even if made after the account has been declared NPA, can extend the limitation period.

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code – Fresh Cause of Action – The Court ruled that a judgment or decree in favor of the Financial Creditor, or the issuance of a Certificate of Recovery, provides a fresh cause of action for initiating proceedings under Section 7 of the IBC within three years from the date of such judgment, decree, or certificate.

Limitation Act – Section 18 – Acknowledgment of Debt – The judgment elaborates on the application of Section 18 of the Limitation Act to proceedings under the IBC, confirming that acknowledgment of a debt in the Corporate Debtor's financial statements or balance sheets extends the limitation period.

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Held – The appeal by Dena Bank was allowed. The Supreme Court set aside the order of the NCLAT and restored the order of the NCLT admitting the application under Section 7 of the IBC. The acknowledgment of debt by the Corporate Debtor extended the limitation period, making the application timely .

Insecticides Act – Misbranding – Quashing of Complaint – The appellants challenged the criminal complaint on the grounds that the complaint was barred by limitation, that there were procedural delays in sample testing, and that the Magistrate did not follow the prescribed procedure under Section 202 CrPC. The Supreme Court held that the complaint was indeed barred by limitation as the report from the Insecticide Testing Laboratory was received on 14.03.2011, but the complaint was filed on 25.03.2014, beyond the three-year limitation period [Paras 1-10].

Criminal Procedure – Section 202 – Inquiry and Investigation – The Supreme Court noted that the complainant was a public servant filing the complaint in discharge of official duty. Thus, the Magistrate need not record the statement of the public servant or conduct an inquiry before taking cognizance. Additionally, reports from government scientific experts are admissible in evidence without further examination [Paras 9-10].

Offences by Companies – Vicarious Liability – The Court held that vicarious liability cannot be imposed on company officials without clear and categorical averments regarding their role. In this case, the Managing Director was not liable as the company had designated a responsible officer for quality control, and the complaint did not justify prosecuting the Managing Director [Paras 6-9].

Decision – Appeals Partly Allowed – Held – The Supreme Court quashed the complaint against the Managing Director of the company but upheld the proceedings against the company. The complaint was quashed due to being time-barred, and the Managing Director was absolved of liability due to the designation of another responsible officer by the company [Paras 11-12].

Motor Vehicle Act – Compensation for Prosthetic Limb – Continuing Mandamus – The Supreme Court held that compensation for future medical expenses, such as the maintenance and replacement of a prosthetic limb, must be awarded as a lump sum rather than through continuing directions. The Court emphasized that compensation should be determined at one go, taking into account future eventualities [Paras 6-10].

Motor Vehicle Act – Compensation for Attendants – Lump Sum Award – The Court ruled that compensation for the assistance of attendants must also be provided as a lump sum. The Court referred to previous judgments that support awarding a lump sum amount to cover future medical and attendant expenses, using a multiplier method to ensure fair compensation [Paras 17-24].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Held – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's directions for a lifetime warranty and continuing maintenance of the prosthetic limb, as well as the provision for attendants. The Court directed that a lump sum amount be determined for these expenses. The case was remitted to the High Court for determination of the lump sum amount based on the principles laid down in the judgment [Paras 25-32].

Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules – Compassionate Appointment – The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to grant the respondent the benefit of compassionate appointment. The Court ruled that the father of the respondent, although termed a Part Time Tubewell Operator, was effectively treated as a regular employee due to continuous service, transfer between departments, and assignment of election duties under Section 159 of the Representation of the People Act 1950, typically reserved for regular government employees [Paras 1-10].

Employment Status – Continuous Service and Regular Vacancy – The Court determined that the deceased father's appointment was against a regular vacancy as evidenced by his continuous service of over 13 years, regular pay-scale, and duties akin to those of a full-time employee. The factual scenario demonstrated that the deceased was essentially a regular employee, qualifying his dependents for benefits under the compassionate appointment rules [Paras 2-10].

Equal Treatment – Comparable Cases – The Court noted that similar compassionate appointments had been granted to other individuals in comparable situations, highlighting potential discrimination against the respondent. The appellant's argument that the father's service did not equate to regular employment was rejected as it was inconsistent with the treatment given to others in analogous circumstances [Paras 12-13].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Held – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's order. The respondent was granted the compassionate appointment benefit, and the appellant was directed to issue the necessary orders within one month. Costs were imposed throughout the proceedings [Paras 13-15].

Wakf Act – Sections 6 and 7 – Jurisdiction of Wakf Tribunal – The Supreme Court held that the Wakf Tribunal has the jurisdiction to determine whether a property is a Wakf property when this is disputed in an eviction suit. The Tribunal can adjudicate on such matters, even if the tenant disputes the Wakf nature of the property [Paras 1-24].

Wakf Property – Eviction Suit – The Court ruled that in cases where the tenancy or encroachment is contested on the grounds of the property not being Wakf, the Tribunal must first establish the property's Wakf status before proceeding with eviction orders. This ensures that disputes over property status are resolved under the Wakf Act [Paras 20-23].

Civil Court Jurisdiction – The Supreme Court emphasized that issues falling within the provisions of the Wakf Act must be decided by the Wakf Tribunal, thus barring civil court jurisdiction in such matters. The Tribunal's decisions, when based on evidence and following due process, must be respected and upheld [Paras 16-23].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Held – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s decision and restored the Wakf Tribunal’s order, thereby confirming the eviction from the disputed properties. The respondent was granted three months to vacate the premises, provided all arrears and dues are cleared [Paras 25].

Penal Code – Section 193 – False Evidence – The Supreme Court held that prosecution for perjury cannot be ordered merely based on inconsistent statements. There must be a definite finding that the statements are irreconcilable and one is deliberately false. The Court must also consider whether initiating an inquiry is expedient in the interest of justice, taking into account the overall factual matrix and probable consequences of such prosecution [Paras 1-17].

Representation of the People Act – Section 100(1)(c) – Improper Rejection of Nomination Papers – The Court noted that the election of the appellant from the 151 K.R. Pura Legislative Assembly constituency was held void due to improper rejection of nomination papers. However, this became infructuous as the appellant completed the term of the Assembly [Paras 3-6].

Criminal Procedure Code – Section 340 – Opportunity to Respond – The Court emphasized that before directing prosecution for perjury, the person accused must be given an opportunity to respond to the allegations. In this case, no such opportunity was provided, and the appellant was examined as a witness by the election petitioner [Paras 10-14].

Decision – Appeals Disposed Of – Held – Civil Appeal No. 4821 of 2012 is disposed of as infructuous. Civil Appeal No. 6171 of 2012 is allowed, setting aside the direction to register a complaint against the appellant for prosecution under Section 193 IPC. The appellant's statements did not constitute deliberate falsehood justifying prosecution. The Registrar General of the High Court is directed not to register a complaint against the appellant [Paras 16-19].

Criminal Procedure Code – Section 433-A – Power of Remission – The Supreme Court held that the power of remission is to be exercised by the State Government if the prisoner has undergone 14 years of actual imprisonment in cases falling within the scope of Section 433-A of the CrPC. For imprisonment less than 14 years, the power of premature release can be exercised by the Governor on the aid and advice of the State Government [Paras 1-4].

Constitution of India – Article 161 – Exercise of Power – The Court emphasized that the power under Article 161 of the Constitution can be exercised by the State Governments, not by the Governor on his own. The advice of the appropriate Government binds the Head of the State. Policies of the State Government encompass both situations under Article 161 and Sections 432, 433, and 433-A of the CrPC [Paras 11-12].

Remission Policies – Statutory and Constitutional Powers – The Court clarified that policies of remission framed by the State Government are composite policies that apply both under Article 161 of the Constitution and the relevant sections of the CrPC. The power of the Governor to commute sentences under Article 161 is independent of the restrictions under Section 433-A of the CrPC [Paras 5-10].

Decision – Appeals Disposed Of – Held – The Supreme Court set aside the directions issued by the High Court, stating that policies must be read considering the period of imprisonment undergone by a prisoner. The power of remission by the State Government applies if the prisoner has completed 14 years of actual imprisonment. For periods less than 14 years, premature release can be considered under Article 161. The State Government is directed to consider the respondent's case for premature release under the applicable policy [Paras 21-24].

Judicial Restraint – Expunction of Remarks – Appeal by a practicing lawyer seeking expunction of adverse remarks made by a High Court Judge – Supreme Court emphasizes judicial restraint and the necessity of comments for adjudication – Offending remarks found to be unnecessary and prejudicial – Remarks ordered to be expunged to prevent future harm to the appellant's professional reputation [Paras 1-18].

Opportunity to Defend – Principles of Natural Justice – Adverse remarks recorded without providing the appellant an opportunity to explain or defend himself – Violation of the principles of audi alteram partem – Remarks deemed inappropriate for not meeting required judicial standards of restraint and sobriety [Paras 16-18].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Offending remarks expunged – Court underscores the importance of restraint and necessity in judicial commentary to protect professional reputations [Paras 17-18].

Income Tax Act – Section 12AA – Registration of Trust – The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) were correct in canceling the registration of the Trust under Section 12AA on the grounds of receiving bogus donations. The Trust misused the benefits conferred by the registration, warranting cancellation [Paras 1-13].

Bogus Donations – Misuse of Trust Status – The Court found that donations received by the Trust were bogus as they were returned to the donors in cash. Such activities clearly indicated misuse of the status granted under Sections 12AA and 80G of the Act. The Trust was not entitled to retain its registration due to these fraudulent activities [Paras 11-13].

High Court's Error – The Supreme Court observed that the High Court erred in entertaining the appeal under Section 260A of the Act without adequately addressing the answers provided by the Managing Trustee. The High Court failed to evaluate whether the conclusions drawn by the CIT and the Tribunal were incorrect or invalid [Paras 12-13].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Held – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and restored the order passed by the CIT and the Tribunal. The Trust's registration under Sections 12AA and 80G was rightfully canceled due to the misuse of its status and involvement in bogus donations. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs [Paras 13].