Custody of Minor Child – Habeas Corpus – Foreign Court Orders – High Court directed mother to submit to U.S. court jurisdiction, facilitating child custody as per foreign court order – Supreme Court reviewed welfare of child, considering prolonged stay in India and best interests – Reinforced principles of comity of courts and modern conflict of laws, emphasizing jurisdiction with most intimate contact [Paras 1-10, 18-24].

Violation of Foreign Court Orders – Custodial Rights – Examination of mother’s defiance in removing child from U.S. despite court orders – Importance of enforcing foreign custody decisions to prevent jurisdictional manipulation and forum shopping – Supreme Court held such actions undermine legal processes [Paras 21, 27].

Child Welfare – Judicial Scrutiny – Comprehensive review of child’s welfare paramount – Summarily returning child to native jurisdiction for custody determination aligns with best interests and judicial propriety – Supreme Court supported High Court’s summary jurisdiction decision [Paras 25-30].

Decision:

Appeals dismissed – Directions by High Court upheld with modifications for ensuring compliance and child welfare – Order facilitated return of child to U.S. jurisdiction, balancing parental rights and child’s stability [Paras 31-33].

Banking Regulation – Compliance with RBI Act – Appellant challenged the rejection of its scheme of arrangement by the High Court – High Court held that the scheme did not comply with Section 45QA of the RBI Act – Appellant’s non-disclosure of RBI’s actions and violations deemed material – Appeals dismissed [Paras 1-59].

Scheme of Arrangement under Companies Act – Role of Company Court – Statutory obligation to ensure scheme is not a camouflage – Need for disclosure of material facts under Sections 391(1) and 393(1) of the Companies Act – High Court’s rejection of the scheme upheld [Paras 1-40].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Held – Scheme must comply with provisions of Chapter IIIB of the RBI Act – Non-disclosure of material facts undermines the scheme's bona fides – High Court’s conclusions do not require interference [Paras 41-59].

Industrial Law – Termination of Employment – Respondent's employment on a daily wage basis terminated after 54 days under fixed-term contracts – Industrial dispute raised and referred to Labour Court – Labour Court ordered reinstatement, citing violations of Sections 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act – High Court upheld Labour Court's decision – Supreme Court examined scope of Section 2(oo) and Section 2(bb) – Held that termination on expiry of the contract does not constitute retrenchment – Appeals allowed, Labour Court and High Court orders set aside [Paras 1-13].

Contractual Employment – Fixed-term Contracts – Applicability of Industrial Disputes Act – Supreme Court emphasized importance of contract terms – Determined that fixed-term nature of employment excluded application of Sections 25G and 25H [Paras 1-13].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Held – Termination on expiry of fixed-term contracts does not amount to retrenchment – Labour Court and High Court orders set aside – No order as to costs [Para 13].

Water Distribution Policy – Judicial Review – Appellants challenged the meager water allocation to the Kutch district from the Sardar Sarovar Project – High Court dismissed the plea, stating policy decisions on resource allocation lack judicially manageable standards – Supreme Court affirmed, emphasizing the expertise required for such policy decisions, and upheld the High Court's view that the allocation was a matter for the executive, not judicial intervention [Paras 1-16].

Constitutional Obligations – Directive Principles – Appellants argued that the State failed to distribute water equitably as mandated by Articles 38(2) and 39(b) – Court held that while these principles guide the State, the judicial review of such policies is limited to cases of clear arbitrariness or constitutional violations, which were not established in this case [Paras 1-16].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Held – Allocation of water is a complex policy decision involving various factors and expert considerations, and judicial intervention is unwarranted unless policies are clearly arbitrary or unconstitutional – No costs awarded [Paras 1-16].

Family Law – Domicile and Jurisdiction – Appellant-husband contested the jurisdiction of the Family Court in Mumbai to entertain a petition for judicial separation filed by the Respondent-wife, arguing that both parties had acquired Swedish citizenship and domicile – High Court held the petition maintainable, stating the husband failed to prove abandonment of Indian domicile and acquiring Australian domicile – Supreme Court upheld, emphasizing the requirement of domicile in India under Section 1(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-29].

Interpretation of Hindu Marriage Act – Extra-territorial Operation – Examination of Section 1(2) indicating that the Act applies to Hindus domiciled in India, even if residing outside India – Court clarified that the Act’s extra-territorial operation is justified when there is a nexus with India – Analysis of various High Court judgments, leading to the conclusion that the Act applies only to Hindus domiciled in India [Paras 12-20].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Held – Both parties domiciled in India, hence the Family Court in Mumbai has jurisdiction under the Hindu Marriage Act – Other contentions rendered academic due to this finding – No costs awarded [Paras 29-30].

Company Law – Transfer of Shares – Appellant sought to register the transfer of shares acquired through loan repayment – Respondent refused, citing non-compliance with Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act – Company Law Board and High Court upheld refusal – Supreme Court examined the applicability of Sections 13 and 16 of the Act to unlisted public company shares – Affirmed that the provisions of the Act apply to unlisted securities – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-35].

Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act – Marketable Securities – Interpretation – Defined 'securities' to include shares of a public limited company regardless of stock exchange listing – Rejected Appellant's argument that unlisted shares are not 'securities' under the Act – Emphasized the Act's intent to regulate transactions in securities, not limited to stock exchanges [Paras 10-30].

Spot Delivery Contract – Definition and Application – Evaluated whether the transaction qualified as a spot delivery contract – Determined it did not meet criteria due to deferred consideration – Upheld Company's refusal to register shares based on illegality of the contract [Paras 31-35].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Held – Transfer of shares invalid under Sections 13 and 16 of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act – High Court and Company Law Board decisions affirmed – No costs awarded [Para 35].

Property Law – Coparcenary Property – Appellant claimed that property acquired by his father on partition retained its coparcenary character after his birth – Trial court ruled in appellant’s favor, finding property became coparcenary property on his birth – Lower appellate court reversed, treating property as self-acquired – High Court affirmed lower appellate court’s view – Supreme Court examined coparcenary property principles under Hindu law and reversed the High Court decision, reinstating trial court’s decree [Paras 1-15].

Coparcenary Property – Birth of Coparcener – Legal implications – Court clarified that property inherited by a single coparcener on partition is separate property until a son is born, at which point it acquires coparcenary character – Court noted this principle is well-settled and supported by precedent, including M. Yogendra and Others vs. Leelamma N. and Others (2009) 15 SCC 184 [Paras 11-13].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Held – Property became coparcenary on the birth of the appellant – Sale deeds and release deed executed by appellant’s father without legal necessity were invalid – Lower appellate court and High Court judgments set aside, trial court decree restored [Paras 13-15].

Recruitment Process – Challenge to Selection Procedure – Petitioners challenged the selection process for the Madhya Pradesh Higher Judicial Service, alleging midway changes in the criteria and lack of transparency in normalization of marks – High Court was empowered under Rule 7 and Rule 9(iv) to formulate its own procedure – Selection procedure upheld by Supreme Court [Paras 5-24, 45-48].

Normalization of Marks – Legality and Justification – The normalization process for evaluating answer sheets adopted by the High Court was justified to ensure fair selection – Marks awarded by different evaluators were standardized – No violation of constitutional or statutory provisions found [Paras 43-47, 57-58].

Statutory Empowerment – Rule-Making Authority of High Court – High Court's authority to prescribe selection procedures upheld – Advertisement and subsequent selection process were in accordance with the prescribed rules and did not deviate from constitutional mandates [Paras 6, 24-25, 66-67].

Decision – Appeals and Writ Petitions Dismissed – Held – High Court’s selection process upheld as fair and in compliance with the established rules and guidelines – No relief granted to petitioners [Paras 4, 46, 66].

Foreign Exchange Regulation – Contravention of FERA Provisions – Appellant challenged the order of the High Court dismissing the appeal against the Tribunal's decision setting aside penalties and confiscation under FERA – High Court held no legal infirmity in the Tribunal's order – Supreme Court examined contraventions of Sections 19(1)(a) and (d), 29(1)(a) and (b), and procedural adherence under FERA – Appeals dismissed [Paras 1-60].

Establishment of Place of Business – Corporate Veil – Examination of whether the foreign entities established a place of business in India without RBI's permission – Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's finding that no contravention of Section 29(1)(a) occurred – Lifting the corporate veil deemed unnecessary as no fraudulent activity was established [Paras 40-45].

Foreign Investment Policy – Automatic Route – Court analyzed the compliance with the Foreign Exchange Management Act and relevant notifications – Emphasized strict adherence to statutory provisions and notifications for foreign investments – Concluded that the activities undertaken were within the legal framework [Paras 46-59].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Held – High Court and Tribunal's decisions upheld – No contravention of FERA found in the business activities of the respondents – No costs awarded [Paras 60].