Companies Act, Scheme of Arrangement – Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services Limited challenged the scheme of arrangement proposed by B.P.L. Limited, claiming it was no longer a secured creditor due to a prior arbitration award that settled financial disputes between the parties. The court examined whether such an award affected the appellant's status as a secured creditor and its entitlements under the scheme of arrangement - The Supreme Court upheld the status of the appellant as a secured creditor, noting that the arbitration award did not extinguish its security interest as registered under the Companies Act [Paras 38-47].

Arbitration and Security Interest – The court observed that an arbitration award resolving financial liabilities did not inherently alter the nature of pre-existing security interests unless explicitly stated in the award. The security interest continued to exist independently of the personal debt obligations settled through arbitration [Paras 32-33].

Application of Company Law Principles – The judgment reaffirmed the principles governing schemes of arrangement under the Companies Act, highlighting the importance of proper creditor classification and the binding nature of court-sanctioned schemes on all creditors, including those dissenting or claiming a change in status post-arbitration [Paras 20-29].

Legal Interpretations on Pledges and Hypothecation – The court elaborated on the legal distinctions and implications of pledges and hypothecation under the Contract Act, affirming that rights in hypothecated goods remain unaffected by separate debt recovery actions unless explicitly relinquished or extinguished [Paras 42-43].

Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower court’s ruling that recognized the appellant as a secured creditor under the scheme of arrangement despite the previous arbitration settlement. No order as to costs.

Referred Cases:

Gulamhusain Lalji Sajan Vs. Clara D'Souza, , (1929) 31 BOMLR 988 : (1929) ILR (Bom) 819

Suryakant Natvarlal Surati and others Vs. Kamani Bros. P. Ltd. and others, , (1985) 58 CompCas 121

S. Nazeer Ahmed Vs. State Bank of Mysore and Others, , AIR 2007 SC 989 : (2007) 135 CompCas 664 : (2007) 2 JT 500 : (2007) 2 SCALE 349 : (2007) 1 SCR 843 : (2007) AIRSCW 766 : (2007) 2 Supreme 822

Miheer H. Mafatlal Vs. Mafatlal Industries Ltd., , (1996) 7 AD 260 : AIR 1997 SC 506 : (1996) 87 CompCas 792 : (1996) 8 JT 205 : (1996) 6 SCALE 595 : (1997) 1 SCC 579 : (1996) 6 SCR 1 Supp : (1996) AIRSCW 3897 : (1996) 8 Supreme 700

State of Maharashtra and another Vs. M/s. National Construction Company, Bombay and another, , (1996) 1 AD 458 : AIR 1996 SC 2367 : (1998) 92 CompCas 21 : (1996) 1 JT 156 : (1996) 1 SCALE 176 : (1996) 1 SCC 735 : (1996) 1 SCR 293

Jitendra Nath Singh Vs. The Official Liquidator and Others, , (2012) 111 CLA 358 : (2012) 175 CompCas 251 : (2013) 1 CompLJ 101 : (2012) 9 JT 221 : (2012) 9 SCALE 186 : (2013) 1 SCC 462 : (2012) 116 SCL 215 : (2012) AIRSCW 5391

Sidramappa Vs. Rajashetty and Others, , AIR 1970 SC 1059 : (1970) 1 SCC 186 : (1970) 3 SCR 319

Indian Bank Vs. The Official Liquidator, Chemmeens Exports (P) Ltd. and Others, , (1998) 5 AD 72 : AIR 1998 SC 2111 : (1998) 93 CompCas 76 : (1998) 2 CTC 632 : (1998) 79 FLR 761 : (1998) 4 JT 172 : (1998) 3 SCALE 531 : (1998) 5 SCC 401 : (1998) 3 SCR 255 : (1998) AIRSCW 1991 : (1998) 4 Supreme 599

Jagad Bandhu Chatterjee Vs. Smt. Nilima Rani and Others, , (1969) 3 SCC 445 : (1970) 2 SCR 925

K.V. George Vs. Secretary to Government, Water and Power Department, Trivandrum and Another, , AIR 1990 SC 53 : (1990) 1 ARBLR 55 : (1989) 4 JT 166 : (1989) 2 SCALE 822 : (1989) 4 SCC 595 : (1989) 1 SCR 398 Supp

The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others, , AIR 1977 SC 1466 : (1977) LabIC 697 : (1977) 2 LLJ 369 : (1977) 2 SCC 288 : (1977) 2 SCR 555 : (1977) 9 UJ 122

Lallan Prasad Vs. Rahmat Ali and Another, , AIR 1967 SC 1322 : (1967) 2 SCR 233

Harbans Singh and Others Vs. Sant Hari Singh and Others, , AIR 2009 SC 1819 : (2009) 2 JT 32 : (2009) 1 SCALE 729 : (2009) 2 SCC 526 : (2009) 1 SCR 250 : (2009) AIRSCW 1414 : (2009) 1 Supreme 677

Lonankutty Vs. Thomman and Another, , AIR 1976 SC 1645 : (1976) 3 SCC 528 : (1976) SCR 74 Supp : (1976) 8 UJ 550

Arjun Lal Gupta and Others Vs. Mriganka Mohan Sur and Others, , AIR 1975 SC 207 : AIR 1974 SC 207 : (1974) 2 SCC 586 : (1974) 6 UJ 546

Hindustan Lever Employees' Union Vs. Hindustan Lever Limited and others, , AIR 1995 SC 470 : (1995) 83 CompLJ 30 : (1994) 7 JT 215 : (1994) 4 SCALE 642 : (1995) 1 SCC 499 Supp : (1995) 1 SCC 499 : (1994) 4 SCR 723 Supp

Deva Ram and Another Vs. Ishwar Chand and Another, , AIR 1996 SC 378 : AIR 1995 SC 378 : (1995) 7 JT 641 : (1995) 6 SCALE 18 : (1995) 6 SCC 733 : (1995) 4 SCR 369 Supp

Waman Shriniwas Kini Vs. Ratilal Bhagwandas and Co., , AIR 1959 SC 689 : (1959) 2 SCR 217 Supp

Kewal Singh Vs. Smt. Lajwanti, , AIR 1980 SC 161 : (1980) 1 SCC 290 : (1980) 1 SCR 854

Ranganayakamma and Another Vs. K.S. Prakash (D) by L.Rs. and Others, , (2008) 8 JT 510 : (2008) 9 SCALE 144 : (2008) 15 SCC 673

Mahalinga Nadar Vs. Ganapati Subbien, , (1904) ILR (Mad) 528 : (1903) 13 MLJ 445

Employment Law - Regularization of Contractual Employment - Appellant, initially appointed as a Professor on a contractual basis at IITTM in 1997, later became Director in 2006 - Appeals against High Court's decision that denied regularization of his earlier professorial role upon completion of his directorship - Supreme Court holds that appellant was covered under the 2006 regularization of the post he held since 1997 as part of the 68 posts regularized following a Staff Inspection Unit assessment in 2002 - Asserts that moving to a higher post (Director) on a contractual basis does not negate his earlier regularization as Professor [Paras 9-13] -

Lien and Reversion Rights - Upon completion of the directorial tenure, appellant sought to revert to his regularized professorial post - High Court denied, finding that contractual appointment as Director ended any lien on the professorial post - Supreme Court disagrees, clarifying that lien remains on the regularized post despite subsequent contractual directorial appointment, mandating reevaluation of appellant's reversion rights by the department [Paras 14-20] -

Decision: High Court's order set aside - Case remanded to the competent authority to decide on the appellant's lien and reversion rights to the professorial post, considering his regularization from 27th January 1997, with directives to resolve within four weeks [Para 21] -

Referred Cases:

S. Narayana Vs. Md. Ahmedulla Khan and Others, AIR 2006 SC 2224

Ramlal Khurana (Dead) By Lrs. Vs. State of Punjab and Others, AIR 1989 SC 1985

Triveni Shankar Saxena Vs. State of U.P. and others, AIR 1992 SC 496

T.R. Sharma Vs. Prithvi Singh and Others, AIR 1976 SC 367

Parshotam Lal Dhingra Vs. Union of India (UOI), AIR 1958 SC 36

State of Rajasthan and Another Vs. S.N. Tiwari and Others, AIR 2009 SC 2104

Paresh Chandra Nandi Vs. Controller of Stores, N.F. Railway, Pandu and Others, AIR 1971 SC 359

S. Pratap Singh Vs. The State of Punjab, AIR 1964 SC 72

State of Madhya Pradesh and Others Vs. Ku. Sandhya Tomar and Another, (2013) 136 FLR 300

Arun Kumar Agrawal Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, (2014) 2 SCC 609

Dr. S.K. Kacker Vs. All India Institute of Medical Sciences and Others, (1996) 10 SCC 734

Background and Appeal Grounds: Appeals arise from Jodhpur Bench of Rajasthan High Court's judgment on 20.08.2007 in Criminal Appeal No. 704 of 2005, affirming life imprisonment for appellants Ahmed Shah and Gurmukh Singh under Section 302 IPC, and altering convictions for other co-accused - Complainant party's failed forcible possession attempt led to a violent altercation resulting in deaths and injuries, with the prosecution alleging unlawful assembly and fatal assault by the accused - Appellants contested the factual basis of possession and nature of altercation, arguing a case of sudden fight without premeditation under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC [Paras 2-11].

Court's Analysis and Findings: Examination of evidence suggests a sudden quarrel over land possession, with mutual provocations - Complainant party, armed and attempting forcible possession, clashed with accused, leading to the fight and resultant injuries and deaths - High Court's conviction of co-accused under various sections revised, recognizing the complexities of individual actions and contributions to the fight [Paras 12-23].

Judgment: Conviction of appellants under Section 302 IPC modified to Section 304 Part I IPC, acknowledging the sudden and provoked nature of the fight without undue advantage or cruelty - Appellants' sentences reduced to the period already served; appeals by the State regarding acquittals upheld, emphasizing insufficient evidence for a higher degree of culpability [Paras 24].

Referred Cases:

Sridhar Bhuyan Vs. State of Orissa, AIR 2004 SC 4100

Satish Narayan Sawant Vs. State of Goa, (2009) CriLJ 4655

Criminal Procedure - Appeal against High Court order which dismissed petitions seeking court-monitored investigation - Allegations of procedural irregularities under telecommunications license issuance leading to purported losses to the state - Investigation led by CBI post-Central Vigilance Commission and CAG reports suggesting serious discrepancies - Supreme Court set up special court for the trial ensuring no interference with the trial process; specific directives issued for CBI investigation and prosecution handling. [Paras 2-5]

Role of Corporate Executives - Court’s observation on whether top executives were "alter ego" of the corporations hence responsible for acts of corporations - Initially, Special Court implicated Mittal and others under the principle of "alter ego", which was contested and led to appeals - Supreme Court scrutinized the direct role and involvement of the executives in alleged criminal activities before deciding on their implication in the case. [Paras 4, 12-13]

Decision - Supreme Court clarified incorrect application of "alter ego" principle by lower court, not sufficient to hold executives criminally liable without specific evidence of individual involvement - Appeals allowed, summoning orders against Mittal and others set aside, although the door left open for further action if evidence surfaced during trial. [Paras 48-50]

Referred Cases:

Sharon Michael and Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Another, (2009)

R. Kalyani Vs. Janak C. Mehta and Others, (2009)

Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and Others, AIR 1998 SC 128

Iridium India Telecom Ltd. Vs. Motorola Incorporated and Others, AIR 2011 SC 20

Dharam Pal and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, AIR 2013 SC 3018

S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Neeta Bhalla and Another, AIR 2005 SC 3512

Kishun Singh and Others Vs. State of Bihar, (1993)

Hira Lal Hari Lal Bhagwati Vs. C.B.I., New Delhi, AIR 2003 SC 2545

Aneeta Hada Vs. Godfather Travels and Tours Pvt. Ltd., AIR 2012 SC 2795

Sham Sunder and Others Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1989 SC 1982

Union of India (UOI) Vs. Prakash P. Hinduja and Another, AIR 2003 SC 2612

GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust Vs. India Infoline Ltd., (2013)

Lee Kun Hee and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others, AIR 2012 SC 1007

Hareram Satpathy Vs. Tikaram Agarwala and Others, AIR 1978 SC 1568

Jethsur Surangbhai Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1984 SC 151

Centre for Public Interest Litigation and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, AIR 2013 SC 3725

M/s. SWIL Ltd. Vs. State of Delhi and Another, (2001)

Standard Chartered Bank and Others etc. Vs. Directorate of Enforcement and Others etc., AIR 2005 SC 2622

Keki Hormusji Gharda and Others Vs. Mehervan Rustom Irani and Another, AIR 2009 SC 2594

Keshub Mahindra Vs. State of M.P., (1996)

M.N. Ojha and Others Vs. Alok Kumar Srivastav and Another, AIR 2010 SC 201

M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, (2007)

S.K. Sinha, Chief Enforcement Officer Vs. Videocon International Ltd. and Others, AIR 2008 SC 1213

S.K. Alagh Vs. State of U.P. and Others, AIR 2008 SC 1731

Maksud Saiyed Vs. State of Gujarat and Others, (2008)

Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. and Another Vs. Datar Switchgear Ltd. and Others, (2011)

State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604

Sabitha Ramamurthy and Another Vs. R.B.S. Channabasavaradhya, AIR 2006 SC 3086

Contract Law - Forfeiture of Earnest Money - Challenge against High Court upholding DDA’s forfeiture of ₹78,00,000 earnest money deposited by appellant - Supreme Court finds DDA did not act in good faith by unilaterally extending deadlines without giving adequate notice of final terms or rescinding the auction conditions - Held that forfeiture was unwarranted and allowed appellant's appeal restoring Single Judge's order for refund with interest. [Paras 1-47]

Public Authority - Arbitrariness in Decision-Making - Under Article 14 of the Constitution, public authorities are required to act fairly and reasonably, not arbitrarily - Supreme Court found DDA's actions arbitrary as they profited from re-auctioning the property at a much higher price without suffering any loss from appellant's alleged breach - Earnest money must be refunded with 9% interest per annum. [Paras 28, 46]

Judicial Interpretation - Section 74, Contract Act - Court clarified application of Section 74, highlighting no damages means no compensation - Emphasized that earnest money cannot be forfeited without a breach causing loss, contradicting lower court's ruling - Reinforced that legal principle under contract law prevents windfall profits at the expense of the non-breaching party. [Paras 43-45]

Referred Cases:

K. Venkoji Rao v. M. Abdul Khuddur Kureshi, AIR 1991 Kar 119

Smt. Saraswathamma v. H. Sharad Shrikande and Others, AIR 2005 Kar 292

Pazhaniappa Chettiyar v. South Indian Planting and Industrial Co. Ltd., AIR 1952 Ker 161

Anandram Mangturam v. Bholaram Tanumal, AIR 1946 Bom 1

S. Brahmanand and Others v. K.R. Muthugopal (D) and Others, AIR 2006 SC 40

ABL International Ltd. and Another v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. and Others, (2004) 118 CompCas 213

Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. SAW Pipes Ltd., AIR 2003 SC 2629

T.P. Daver v. Lodge Victoria No. 363, S.C. Belgaum, AIR 1963 SC 1144

Maula Bux v. Union of India (UOI), AIR 1970 SC 1955

Shri Hanuman Cotton Mills and Others v. Tata Air Craft Limited, AIR 1970 SC 1986

Keshavlal Lallubhai Patel and Others v. Lalbhai Trikumlal Mills Ltd., AIR 1958 SC 512

VST Industries Ltd. v. VST Industries Workers' Union and Another, (2001) 88 FLR 548

Citi Bank N.A. v. Standard Chartered Bank and Others, AIR 2003 SC 4630

Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi and Others v. State of U.P. and Others, AIR 1991 SC 537

Roshan Lal v. The Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company Limited, 7 Ind. Cas. 794

Dowry Death & Cruelty - Appeal challenging conviction under Sections 304B and 498A IPC - Supreme Court examines statutory framework of dowry laws and dowry-related cruelty following wife's suicide - Analyzes legislative intent and judicial interpretations to ascertain the scope of 'cruelty' and 'dowry death' provisions - Contradictions in prosecution witnesses' testimonies noted; insufficiency of evidence regarding continuous dowry-related harassment or cruelty leading to wife's suicide highlighted - Conviction under the scrutinized sections requires proof of persistent dowry demands and resultant cruelty closely preceding the death - Court finds evidence inadequate to establish such connection - Appeal allowed, conviction overturned [Paras 1-24].

Referred Cases:

Narayanamurthy vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 2008 SC 2377

Bhagwan Das vs. Kartar Singh, AIR 2007 SC 2045

Subramaniam vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2009) 14 SCC 415

Pathan Hussain Basha vs. State of A.P., AIR 2012 SC 3205

Ashok Kumar vs. State of Haryana, AIR 2010 SC 2839

Durga Prasad vs. State of M.P., (2010) 9 SCC 73

Nallam Veera Stayanandam vs. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., AIR 2004 SC 1708

State of Tamil Nadu vs. M/s. Arooran Sugars Ltd., AIR 1997 SC 1815

Mithu vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1983 SC 473

State of Travancore-Cochin vs. Shanmugha Vilas Cashew Nut Factory, AIR 1953 SC 333

The State of Punjab vs. Iqbal Singh, AIR 1991 SC 1532

Jasvinder Saini vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), AIR 2014 SC 841

P.N. Krishna Lal vs. Govt. of Kerala, (1995) 2 SCC 187 Supp

Criminal Law - Circumstantial Evidence - Conviction based on circumstantial evidence including presence at crime scene and forensic results confirming the appellant's and victim's interaction - Apex Court affirmed lower courts' judgment on convicting the appellant for the offences under Sections 376 and 302 IPC [Para 1-10] - Medical reports and forensic evidence linked the appellant to the crime scene with injuries on the victim matching the assault described, and bloodstains on the appellant’s clothing matched the victim’s blood group [Paras 8, 10].

Juvenile Justice - Age Determination - Initial plea of juvenility at the Supreme Court based on medical age estimation - Medical examination suggested appellant was 17 years and 2 months old at the time of offence, qualifying him as a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 [Paras 12-16] - Supreme Court utilized medical opinion to ascertain juvenility, despite lack of educational or birth records, invoking Rule 12(3)(b) of Juvenile Justice Rules, and determined appellant was a juvenile at the time of the crime.

Decision - Conviction affirmed under IPC Sections 302 and 376; however, sentence set aside due to appellant’s status as a juvenile at the time of offence [Para 17] - Directed release unless needed in another case, highlighting the role of juvenility in modifying sentencing despite the severity of the crime.

Referred Cases:

None

Kidnapping and Ransom – Evidence and Identification – Accused identified as Vinod Kumar, previously working as domestic help; charged under Sections 363, 109, 364A IPC for kidnapping young child Anand for ransom; discrepancies in evidence regarding identification and recovery of child highlighted, but not deemed substantial enough to overturn conviction – High Court found trial court’s acquittal untenable due to reliable witness testimony and minor nature of discrepancies [Paras 1-26]

Letters as Evidence – Authenticated by accused Vinod during investigation; trial court’s dismissal of these letters as coerced by police rejected by High Court; no substantial cross-examination on police coercion or validity of letters; appellate court held letters legitimate and confirmed accused's demand for ransom [Paras 21-25]

Appellate Review – High Court exercised appellate jurisdiction to re-evaluate evidence where trial court’s acquittal was based on incorrect appreciation of minor discrepancies and misinterpretation of procedural requirements; upheld principles guiding appellate intervention in acquittal appeals [Paras 13-15, 26]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court’s judgment convicting the appellant upheld.

Referred Cases:

Girja Prasad (Dead) by LRs. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2007 SC 3106

Chandrappa and Others Vs. State of Karnataka, (2007) CriLJ 2136

Rammi @ Rameshwar etc. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1999 SC 3544

Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 2622

State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Nahar Singh (Dead) and Others, AIR 1998 SC 1328

Jadunath Singh and Others etc. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1972 SC 116

State of Karnataka Vs. K. Gopalakrishna, AIR 2005 SC 1014

Surajpal Singh and Others Vs. The State, AIR 1952 SC 52

Appabhai and Another Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1988 SC 696

S. Ganesan Vs. Rama Raghuraman and Others, (2011) 1 Crimes 165

Sanwat Singh and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1961 SC 715

Damodarprasad Chandrikaprasad and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1972 SC 622

State of U.P. Vs. M.K. Anthony, AIR 1985 SC 48

Anil Kumar Vs. State of U.P., (2004) 13 SCC 257

Retirement Benefits and Pay Revision - Employees of nationalized general insurance companies who retired under a special voluntary retirement scheme argued for the inclusion of a retrospective pay revision in their pension calculations - Supreme Court held that employees who voluntarily retired under the special scheme before the pay revision were not entitled to the benefits of the retrospective pay revision as they were considered a separate class of employees, distinguished from those who retired after or were still in service during the pay revision - Court concluded that the purpose of the retirement scheme was to reduce long-term expenditures and providing additional benefits to these retirees would defeat the scheme's financial objectives [Paras 33-42].

Decision: The Supreme Court set aside judgments that were in favor of revising the pension benefits of the employees who retired under the special scheme to include the retrospective pay rise - All related transferred cases were finally disposed of, and the Special Leave Petition was dismissed [Para 42].

Referred Cases:

National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another Vs. Kirpal Singh, AIR 2014 SC 1440: (2014) 5 SCC 189