Facts:

The prosecution alleged that the victim-complainant was accosted by three boys armed with weapons, who extorted Rs. 30,000/- from him.

The police apprehended all three accused, and they confessed to committing the robbery.

The Trial Court found all three accused guilty of robbery with an attempt to cause grievous hurt and sentenced them accordingly.

The High Court dismissed the charge under Section 397 of IPC and instead convicted the appellant under Section 394 of IPC with a reduced sentence.

Issues:

• Whether the appellant's claim of being a juvenile at the time of the incident and undergoing treatment for a mental disorder is valid.
• Whether the testimonies of the witnesses and the evidence establish the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Held:

The testimonies of the witnesses are credible and consistent with each other, establishing the crime of robbery with hurt. The complainant had no motive to falsely implicate the appellant.

The appellant's refusal to participate in the Test Identification Parade (TIP) indicates his guilty conscience and should be given substantial weight.

Claims of unsoundness of mind or mitigating circumstances like juvenility of age should be raised during the trial, and the appellant's belated claims are not genuine.

The appellant failed to provide evidence to support his claim of being a juvenile at the time of the incident, and the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) indicates he was above 18 years of age.

The plea of mental disorder remains unsubstantiated, as no witness testified to it, and the appellant's conduct shows an elevated level of mental intellect.

The High Court's reasons for disbelieving the appellant's defences are well-reasoned and valid.

The appeal is dismissed, the appellant's bail bonds are cancelled, and the respondent-State is directed to take the appellant into custody to serve the remainder of his sentence.

Facts:

A Share Subscription Agreement (SSA) and Shareholders' Agreement (SHA) were entered into between the claimant and the appellants, both containing an identical arbitration clause. The appellants allegedly made false representations about a contract with the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) to induce the claimant to invest USD 60 million in their equity capital. The claimant later found that the BBC contract was non-existent, and the investment proceeds were siphoned off to companies in which the appellants had a stake. Disputes arose, and the claimant initiated arbitral proceedings. The Arbitral Tribunal awarded USD 60 million plus interest and costs in favor of the claimant.

Issues:

Whether the fraud alleged in the SSA would vitiate the arbitration clause?

Whether the issues raised and answered in the Foreign Final award are civil or criminal in nature?

Whether the claimant made a strong prima facie case in the section 9 proceedings?

Whether the division bench's reduction of USD 60 million to USD 30 million was justified?

Held:

The Court referred to the Foreign Final Award dated September 27, 2014, and found that the siphoning off of USD 60 million into companies controlled by the appellants was established. As a result, the claimant was entitled to damages in the total amount of USD 60 million plus interest and costs as awarded.

The Court held that the issues raised and answered in the Foreign Final Award were of a civil nature, and the fraud alleged in the SSA did not vitiate the arbitration clause, which was an independent clause.

The Court also found that the claimant made a strong prima facie case in the section 9 proceedings. The USD 60 million awarded to the claimant should be kept apart for enforcement purposes, as irreparable loss would be caused if the award was not enforced.

The Court dismissed Civil Appeal No. 5145 of 2016 and allowed Civil Appeal No. 5158 of 2016, Civil Appeal no. 9820 of 2016.

Facts:

Ghanshyam Upadhyay, the petitioner, relied on a newspaper report to make allegations against two members of the Commission of Inquiry constituted to investigate the 'Vikas Dubey' encounter case. He contended that the Chairman and a Member of the Commission had held high Constitutional positions and had relatives involved with the party in power and law enforcement agencies.

Issues:

Whether the allegations of 'conflict of interest' and 'bias' against the two members of the Commission, based solely on a newspaper report, are substantiated.

Whether the petitioner's apprehensions about the fairness of the inquiry process hold merit.

Held:

The Court noted that the entire basis for the petitioner's allegations was a newspaper article, which, without further proof, lacked evidentiary value. It emphasized that relying solely on newspaper reports was insufficient for making such serious allegations.( Para 6)

The Court further examined the petitioner's specific claims regarding the relatives of the Chairman and the Member of the Commission. It held that the mere fact that the Chairman's brother was a legislator supporting the party in power and the Member was related to a high-ranking police officer did not automatically lead to bias or conflict of interest. The Court found no evidence of any dominant influence by these relatives.( Para 8-9)

The Court clarified that the Commission of Inquiry constituted under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 was not meant for an inter se determination of legal issues but for a fact-finding exercise. The recommendations of such commissions were not enforceable proprio vigore, and the proceedings were conducted in the public domain.( Para 10)

The Court observed that the petitioner was a lawyer practicing in Mumbai and had no direct connection to the incident under inquiry in Uttar Pradesh. The allegations of bias made solely on the basis of newspaper reports and nothing more were rejected outright.( Para 14)

The Court concluded that the petitioner's repeated applications and unnecessary apprehensions were hampering the inquiry process. It emphasized that sufficient safeguards were in place for ensuring a fair inquiry, and the report of the inquiry would be filed before the Court in the relevant petitions. For all the aforestated reasons we are of the opinion that the instant petition/application is without any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. ( Para 15 ,16)

Facts:

The appellant and respondent no. 2 entered into an agreement to develop a portion of the appellant's land. Later, respondent no. 2 assigned the execution of the agreement to respondent no. 1, which contained an arbitration clause. Subsequently, a deed of confirmation was executed. The appellant filed a suit alleging fraud by respondent no. 3, representing himself as an authorized partner of respondent no. 1, seeking the cancellation of the agreements as null and void. Respondent no. 1 relied on the arbitration clause and filed an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking referral to arbitration.

Issues:

Whether the subject matter of the agreements is arbitrable, considering Section 17 of the Contract Act, 1872, and the fraud exception?

Whether Section 31(1) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, allows actions in rem or in personam?

Whether the judgment of the District Court and the High Court requires interference?

Held:

The court observed that if the subject matter of the agreement falls within Section 17 of the Contract Act, 1872, or involves fraud amounting to deceit in the performance of the contract, it would be arbitrable. The presence of criminal overtones does not make the matter non-arbitrable. In the present case, a valid arbitration agreement exists as the agreements sought to be cancelled were not stated to be non-existent. The suit being inter parties with no public overtones, the fraud exception does not apply. Post-amendment, Section 8 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, mandates referral to arbitration unless no valid arbitration agreement is prima facie found. The court found a valid arbitration agreement in this case. [Para 4, 6]

Section 26(1) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, allows rectification of a contract through fraud or mutual mistake, and such rectification can be the subject matter of a suit for specific performance, making it arbitrable. Section 27(1) allows a party interested in a contract to sue for its rescission, and the relief granted is in personam. Section 31(1) of the Act pertains to actions inter parties or by persons with derivative title from the parties, making it an in personam action. [Para 11-13]

Section 31(2) does not change the in personam nature of actions under Section 31(1). The reasoning in certain cases to the contrary is overruled. The judgments of the District Court and the High Court do not require interference. This appeal, therefore, stands dismissed. [Para 17-18, 20-22, 25-26]

Facts:

The prosecution alleged that the victim-complainant was accosted by three boys armed with weapons, who extorted Rs. 30,000/- from him.

The police apprehended all three accused, and they confessed to committing the robbery.

The Trial Court found all three accused guilty of robbery with an attempt to cause grievous hurt and sentenced them accordingly.

The High Court dismissed the charge under Section 397 of IPC and instead convicted the appellant under Section 394 of IPC with a reduced sentence.

Issues:

Whether the appellant's claim of being a juvenile at the time of the incident and undergoing treatment for a mental disorder is valid.

Whether the testimonies of the witnesses and the evidence establish the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Held:

The testimonies of the witnesses are credible and consistent with each other, establishing the crime of robbery with hurt. The complainant had no motive to falsely implicate the appellant.

The appellant's refusal to participate in the Test Identification Parade (TIP) indicates his guilty conscience and should be given substantial weight.

Claims of unsoundness of mind or mitigating circumstances like juvenility of age should be raised during the trial, and the appellant's belated claims are not genuine.

The appellant failed to provide evidence to support his claim of being a juvenile at the time of the incident, and the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) indicates he was above 18 years of age.

The plea of mental disorder remains unsubstantiated, as no witness testified to it, and the appellant's conduct shows an elevated level of mental intellect.

The High Court's reasons for disbelieving the appellant's defences are well-reasoned and valid.

The appeal is dismissed, the appellant's bail bonds are cancelled, and the respondent-State is directed to take the appellant into custody to serve the remainder of his sentence.

Facts:

The cases revolve around multiple assesses who allegedly undervalued the goods they manufactured and cleared, leading to evasion of excise duty. The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) upheld the finding of undervaluation and evasion of excise duty in all the cases but remanded the matters for re-quantification of duty.

Issues:

Adjudication was to determine the value of the goods removed by the assesses for sale to or through dealers. The cases involved two different methods of valuation, one before and one after the amendment to Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which took place on July 1, 2000.

Held:

The Court confirmed the finding of undervaluation and evasion of excise duty recorded by CESTAT in all the cases, as it had attained finality, and was not challenged by the assesses. The Court then explained the changes brought about by the amendment to Section 4. Before the amendment, the method of valuation focused on normal price for an ordinary sale in the course of wholesale trade. After the amendment, the emphasis shifted to "transaction value" for sales covered by Section 4(1)(a). For cases not covered by Section 4(1)(a), the Central Government issued the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000, in supersession of the 1975 Valuation Rules. The valuation as per the Rules is permissible only in cases covered by Section 4(1)(b) and not by Section 4(1)(a).

The Court disposed of the appeals and confirmed the impugned orders of CESTAT setting aside the Orders-in-Original passed by the Adjudicating Authorities and remanded the matters back for re-adjudication. However, the Court pointed out the failure of the Adjudicating Authorities and CESTAT to determine specific factors related to the method of valuation before and after the amendment. The Court provided principles for adjudicating authorities to keep in mind while re-adjudicating the matters, depending on whether the period of assessment was prior to or after July 1, 2000.

Facts:

The petitioners filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking directions to the Union of India to prepare, notify, and implement a separate National Disaster Management Plan specifically for the COVID-19 pandemic. They also sought guidelines for minimum standards of relief to be provided to persons affected by COVID-19, and questioned the utilization of the National Disaster Response Fund (NDRF) and the PM CARES Fund.

Issues:

• Whether a separate National Disaster Management Plan for COVID-19 was required despite the existence of the National Plan, 2019?
• Whether fresh guidelines for minimum standards of relief for COVID-19 were necessary in addition to the existing guidelines under Section 12 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005?
• Whether the NDRF could be used for providing assistance in the fight against COVID-19, and whether contributions should be credited to the NDRF or the PM CARES Fund?
• Whether all funds collected in the PM CARES Fund should be transferred to the NDRF?

Held:

The court examined whether a separate National Disaster Management Plan for COVID-19 was necessary. It held that the National Plan, 2019, which was framed and notified in November 2019, already covered Biological and Public Health Emergencies, including epidemics like COVID-19. The court observed that the Disaster Management Act, 2005, contained sufficient powers and measures to address such emergencies, and thus, there was no need for a separate plan for COVID-19. (Para 36, 38, 39, 42)

The court addressed the issue of guidelines for minimum standards of relief for COVID-19. It held that the guidelines issued under Section 12 of the Act, which were in place before the COVID-19 pandemic, already covered the minimum standards of relief for all disasters, including COVID-19. There was no requirement to issue fresh guidelines specifically for the pandemic. (Para 45, 46)

The court examined whether the NDRF could be utilized for providing assistance in the fight against COVID-19 and whether contributions should be credited to the NDRF or the PM CARES Fund. The court ruled that the NDRF could indeed be utilized for providing assistance for COVID-19. It clarified that any person or institution could still make contributions to the NDRF as per Section 46(1)(b) of the Act. The court also noted that the PM CARES Fund and the NDRF served different purposes, and contributions to the PM CARES Fund were voluntary. (Para 61, 64, 65)

The court addressed the issue of transferring funds collected in the PM CARES Fund to the NDRF. It held that the PM CARES Fund and the NDRF were separate funds with different objectives. The funds collected in the PM CARES Fund were meant for a public charitable trust and need not be transferred to the NDRF. (Para 72)

Facts:

The petitioners filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking directions to the Union of India to prepare, notify, and implement a separate National Disaster Management Plan specifically for the COVID-19 pandemic. They also sought guidelines for minimum standards of relief to be provided to persons affected by COVID-19, and questioned the utilization of the National Disaster Response Fund (NDRF) and the PM CARES Fund.

Issues:

Whether a separate National Disaster Management Plan for COVID-19 was required despite the existence of the National Plan, 2019?

Whether fresh guidelines for minimum standards of relief for COVID-19 were necessary in addition to the existing guidelines under Section 12 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005?

Whether the NDRF could be used for providing assistance in the fight against COVID-19, and whether contributions should be credited to the NDRF or the PM CARES Fund?

Whether all funds collected in the PM CARES Fund should be transferred to the NDRF?

Held:

The court examined whether a separate National Disaster Management Plan for COVID-19 was necessary. It held that the National Plan, 2019, which was framed and notified in November 2019, already covered Biological and Public Health Emergencies, including epidemics like COVID-19. The court observed that the Disaster Management Act, 2005, contained sufficient powers and measures to address such emergencies, and thus, there was no need for a separate plan for COVID-19. (Para 36, 38, 39, 42)

The court addressed the issue of guidelines for minimum standards of relief for COVID-19. It held that the guidelines issued under Section 12 of the Act, which were in place before the COVID-19 pandemic, already covered the minimum standards of relief for all disasters, including COVID-19. There was no requirement to issue fresh guidelines specifically for the pandemic. (Para 45, 46)

The court examined whether the NDRF could be utilized for providing assistance in the fight against COVID-19 and whether contributions should be credited to the NDRF or the PM CARES Fund. The court ruled that the NDRF could indeed be utilized for providing assistance for COVID-19. It clarified that any person or institution could still make contributions to the NDRF as per Section 46(1)(b) of the Act. The court also noted that the PM CARES Fund and the NDRF served different purposes, and contributions to the PM CARES Fund were voluntary. (Para 61, 64, 65)

The court addressed the issue of transferring funds collected in the PM CARES Fund to the NDRF. It held that the PM CARES Fund and the NDRF were separate funds with different objectives. The funds collected in the PM CARES Fund were meant for a public charitable trust and need not be transferred to the NDRF. (Para 72)

Facts:

On or about December 22, 2007, the Lender Banks sanctioned and extended various loans, advances, and facilities to the corporate debtor-respondent no.1. The respondent no.1 defaulted in payment, and its account was classified as a Non-Performing Asset on July 8, 2011. Recovery proceedings were initiated against the corporate debtor by the consortium of lenders before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993.

On or about March 21, 2018, the respondent no.2, as the financial creditor and assignee of the loans and advances disbursed to the corporate debtor, filed an application under Section 7 of the Code before the Adjudicating Authority seeking initiation of CIRP against respondent no.1. The Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) admitted the application and initiated CIRP under Section 7 of the Code. The appellant, the director of the respondent no.1 company, contended before the Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) that the claim was barred by time. However, the appeal was dismissed by the NCLAT.

Issues:

• Whether the application under Section 7 of the Code is barred by limitation?
• Whether Section 18 of the Limitation Act can be applied to the present case?

Held:

The period of limitation for an application seeking initiation of CIRP under Section 7 of the Code is governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act, which is three years from the date when the right to apply accrues. In this case, the application was filed in March 2018, much later than three years from the date of default (stated as July 8, 2011) in the application. Therefore, the application filed by the respondent no.2 is clearly barred by limitation. [Para 38]

The NCLT failed to examine the question of limitation, and the NCLAT decided the question of limitation on entirely irrelevant considerations. The NCLAT's assumption that the right to apply under Section 7 of the Code accrued on December 1, 2016 (when the Code came into force) and the application is within limitation, lacks any foundation or basis. There is nothing in the Code or the Limitation Act to support such an assumption. The reasoning of the NCLAT regarding the period of limitation for mortgaged property (12 years) is also erroneous and not in line with the Supreme Court's decision. [Para 36, 37]

In view of the above, this appeal is allowed to the extent indicated and with the observations foregoing.