Criminal Law – Recall of Witnesses – Section 311 CrPC- Section 311 CrPC provides the court with wide discretionary power to summon or recall witnesses if their evidence appears essential to the just decision of the case. The Supreme Court emphasized that the true test is whether the evidence of such person is crucial for resolving the issues in the trial, irrespective of the case's age or duration [Paras 13-15].

Application of Section 311 CrPC – Judicial Discretion- The Supreme Court held that the applications under Section 311 CrPC should be allowed if the evidence sought to be introduced is essential for a just decision. The trial court's and High Court's rejection of the applications for recalling witnesses to mark the Board's approval document was not justified [Paras 14-16].

Decision - Appeals allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and directed the recall of PWs 1 and 11 for marking the relevant document. The respondent was given the liberty to cross-examine the recalled witnesses. The trial was ordered to be completed by 31 July 2021 [Paras 16-17].

Abuse of Process – Inherent Powers under Section 482 CrPC – Quashing of FIR- The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution can be invoked to quash criminal proceedings if it is found that the proceedings amount to an abuse of process of law or are intended to harass the accused. The Supreme Court highlighted that criminal proceedings should not be allowed to degenerate into a weapon of harassment [Paras 6-7].

Civil Dispute vs. Criminal Prosecution – Distinction and Jurisdiction- The Court observed that the FIR was lodged to pressure the appellants and convert a civil dispute into a criminal case. The Supreme Court found that the FIR, filed with similar allegations as in the application under Section 156(3) CrPC, was an abuse of process, particularly given the pending complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR [Paras 3-4, 7-8].

Decision- Appeal allowed – The Supreme Court quashed the FIR registered as Case Crime No. 790 of 2017 under Sections 420/406 IPC, finding it to be an abuse of process of law. The Court directed that the pending application under Section 156(3) CrPC should proceed on its merits [Paras 9-10].

Tax Exemption – Religious, Charitable, and Educational Purposes – Section 3(1)(b) Kerala Building Tax Act- Buildings used principally for religious, charitable, or educational purposes are exempt from building tax under Section 3(1)(b) of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975. The Supreme Court held that residential accommodations for nuns and hostels for students attached to educational institutions qualify for exemption as they are integrally connected to the core religious or educational activity [Paras 1-26].

Interpretation of Exemption Provisions – Beneficial Construction - Exemption provisions in fiscal statutes should be construed strictly, but beneficial exemptions, such as those promoting religious, charitable, and educational purposes, should be interpreted liberally to advance the intended legislative purpose. The Court emphasized that the object of the exemption is to support activities that are not commercial in nature and directly related to religious, charitable, or educational purposes [Paras 14-20].

Deference to High Court Interpretations of Local Statutes- The Supreme Court noted that High Court judgments interpreting local statutes, especially tax statutes, should be given deference, particularly when they have stood the test of time and people have arranged their affairs based on the existing legal position [Paras 25-26].

Decision- Appeals by the State of Kerala dismissed – The Supreme Court upheld the judgments of the Division Bench and Full Bench of the Kerala High Court, which granted exemptions under Section 3(1)(b) of the Kerala Building Tax Act for buildings used for residential accommodations for nuns and hostels for students. The appeal in Civil Appeal No. 204 of 2012 was allowed, and the Division Bench judgment was set aside [Paras 24-26].

Insolvency Law – Compliance with Resolution Plan – IBC- The appellant failed to deposit Rs. 50 crores as required by the Resolution Plan approved by the NCLT and upheld by the NCLAT. Despite multiple extensions, the appellant could not fulfill its obligations under the plan. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of adhering to timelines under the IBC to prevent indefinite delays and ensure the statute's objectives are met. The appellant's inability to comply resulted in the forfeiture of the deposited amount and the reversion of management to the liquidator [Paras 1-12].

Time is of the Essence – Resolution Process – IBC- The Supreme Court highlighted that timely compliance is crucial under the IBC. Delays defeat the purpose of the statute, which aims to resolve corporate insolvencies efficiently. The appellant's repeated failures to deposit the required amount within the extended deadlines demonstrated a lack of good faith, justifying the forfeiture of the deposit and continuation of liquidation proceedings [Paras 10-12].

Decision- Appeal dismissed – The Supreme Court upheld the orders of the NCLT and NCLAT, directing the forfeiture of Rs. 20 crores deposited by the appellant due to non-compliance with the Resolution Plan. The management of the Corporate Debtor reverted to the liquidator to proceed with liquidation as per law [Paras 11-12].

Land Acquisition – Compulsory Release and Urgency Provisions – Sections 4 and 5A of the Land Acquisition Act- The State failed to act within the 25-year period prescribed by Section 10B of the West Bengal Requisition Act to release or acquire the requisitioned property. The Supreme Court emphasized that invoking the urgency provisions under Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act post the requisition period was unjustified. The State should have initiated acquisition proceedings well within the stipulated period, preserving the owner's right to object under Section 5A [Paras 1-27].

Delay and Lethargy in Acquisition Proceedings – Judicial Review- The Court criticized the State's lethargy in initiating timely acquisition proceedings, which led to an unjust invocation of urgency provisions. The Division Bench's decision to strike down the notification under Section 4 read with Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act was upheld. The State's appeals were dismissed, and directions were given for the vacating of the premises and compensation assessment [Paras 11-20].

Decision- Appeals by the State dismissed – The Supreme Court upheld the Division Bench's judgment, directing the State to vacate the requisitioned premises and hand over possession to the appellant within three months. The appeals filed by the appellant were allowed to the extent of assessing compensation by an appointed arbitrator [Paras 24-27].

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].