Important Judgment

1. This is plaintiff’s appeal arising out of a suit for possession and confirmation of his possession over the suit land which was decreed in his favour by the court of first instance but the decree was set aside in First Appeal and was affirmed by the High Court.

2. The dispute in the suit is regarding 0.32 decimal of land of Signature Not Verified R.S.P. No.821 situate in village Kishanpur, district Sit- Digitally signed by VARSHA MENDIRATTA Date: 2024.05.01 amarhi, Bihar. This area of land was carved out from C.S.P. 15:49:00 IST Reason:

1. Leave granted only in SLP (C) No. 5817 of 2023.

2. One lapse on the part of the State is all it took to generate this Signature Not Verified litigation, impacting multitudes of job aspirants in the State of Madhya Digitally signed by Nisha Khulbey Date: 2024.05.01 17:28:16 IST Reason: Pradesh. The lapse was the amendment of an existing service rule on 1 17.02.2020 which was recalled thereafter on 20.12.2021, restoring the rule to its original position, but in the interregnum that amended rule was applied to an ongoing recruitment process. This prompted several challenges before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur resulting in a spate of orders and directions leading up to these cases before us.

Leave granted.

2. The complainant is before this Court challenging the order dated 25.04.20231 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior vide which the order dated 11.01.2021 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri2 quashing the summoning order Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Dr. Naveen Rawal Date: 2024.04.26 13:35:36 IST Reason: 1 Passed in Misc. Criminal Case No.11184 of 2021 2 In Criminal Revision No. 155 of 2019 Page 1 of 11 dated 12.03.20193 passed by the Trial Court was set aside as far as Section 420, IPC is concerned against the respondent no.1/Sharmila Das and Section 420 read with Section 120-B, IPC against the respondent no.2/Usharani Das and respondent no.3/Sangita.

Delay in refiling is condoned.

2. At the outset, we take on record that the counsel for the petitioners, in unison, have stated that the petitioners do not attribute any motive or malice to the Election Commission of India1, or for that matter contend that the Electronic Voting Machines2 have been tutored or configured to Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by babita pandey favour or disfavour a candidate or political party. However, due to Date: 2024.04.26 12:26:07 IST Reason:

For the convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided into the following parts: -

INDEX A. FACTUAL MATRIX ............................................................................................. 2 i. Case of the original plaintiff before the trial court ...................................... 4 ii. Case of the original defendants before the trial court .................................. 6 iii. Appeals before the High Court .................................................................... 9 B. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS/ORIGINAL DEFENDANTS .................................................................................................... 10 C. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT/ORIGINAL Signature Not Verified Sanjay Kumar PLAINTIFF .......................................................................................................... 15 Digitally signed by Date: 2024.04.29 13:45:20 IST Reason: D. ANALYSIS............................................................................................................ 19 Civil Appeal Nos. 5366-5367 of 2024 Page 1 of 91 i. Proceedings in respect of FCIL before the BIFR ....................................... 19 ii. Issues for Determination ............................................................................ 21 iii. Overview of Industrial Sickness and the Legislative Scheme of the 1985 Act. ............................................................................................................. 22 iv. ISSUE NO. 1: Whether the suspension of legal proceedings as envisaged under Section 22(1) of the 1985 Act would extend to a civil suit for recovery of money even if the debt sought to be proved in the plaint has not been admitted by the sick industrial company? If so, whether the decree in favour of the original plaintiff could be said to be coram non-judice? ................... 29 v. ISSUE NO. 2: Whether the High Court was correct in granting 24% Compound Interest on the Principal Decretal Amount in favour of the original Plaintiff? ....................................................................................... 68 a. Concept of Interest ........................................................................................ 68 E. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................... 90 A. FACTUAL MATRIX

Leave granted.

2. This appeal, by the State of Orissa, arises out of the impugned judgment dated 17.01.2018 passed by the High Court of Orissa, which quashed the order dated 26.09.2015 passed by the SDJM, Cuttack in G.R. Case No.1771 of 2005 for taking cognizance of offences under sections 420, 467, Signature Not Verified 468, 471, 477(A), 120(B) and 34 Indian Penal Digitally signed by Neetu Khajuria Date: 2024.04.26 17:38:02 IST Reason: SLP(Crl.) No. 5758 of 2018 Page 1 of 9 Code, 18601 and directing issuance of process against the Respondents.

1. In this case, orders were reserved on 18.01.2024, leaving it open for the parties to move an appropriate application within two weeks, in case any settlement is arrived at. More than three months have passed; however, no such application has been filed. We are thus proceeding to decide the matter on its merits.

2. The appellants are the owners of the property in question. Under the leave and licence agreement, the property in question was given to the respondent. However, the appellants are alleged to have illegally, Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Neetu Khajuria unauthorizedly and by use of force, evicted the Date: 2024.04.26 17:38:02 IST Reason:

1. Leave granted.

2. Acceptance of Change Reports in relation to the Vahiwatdar (Administrator) and Trustees of Shri Mallikarjun Devasthan, Shelgi, a Public Trust, is in issue. A learned Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay invalidated such acceptance and remanded the matters to the Deputy Charity Commissioner, Solapur Region, Solapur, for consideration afresh. Hence, these appeals.

3. Signature Not Verified Though, no interim orders were passed by this Court, we are Digitally signed by Nisha Khulbey Date: 2024.04.25 informed that the orders of remand have not been acted upon owing to the 15:16:55 IST Reason: pendency of these cases. Further, in terms of the High Court’s directions, 1 the Vahiwatdar and the Trustees, whose names were already entered in the records, are continuing to administer the Trust as on date.

1. These appeals take exception to the separate impugned judgments and orders dated 7th October 2021 and 29th October 2021 passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (for short, ‘the NCLAT’). In Civil Appeal no.1143 of 2022, the issue involved is whether the first respondent is a financial creditor within the meaning of sub-section (7) of Section 5 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for short, ‘the IBC’). The corporate debtor, in this case, is M/s. Mount Shivalik Industries Limited. The impugned judgment Signature Not Verified and order dated 7th October 2021 holds that the first Digitally signed by respondent is a financial creditor. As far as Civil Appeal ASHISH KONDLE Date: 2024.04.25 17:00:27 IST Reason:

1. Leave granted.

2. Being aggrieved by the order dated 18.07.2018 passed by the High Court, Madras whereunder the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter referred to as ‘CESTAT’) dated 05.05.2009 came to be set aside and remanded the matter back to the tribunal for disposal of the appeals came to be passed by directing the appeals be heard on merits Signature Not Verified these appeals have been filed.

Digitally signed by Dr.

Naveen Rawal Date: 2024.04.25 14:06:02 IST Reason:

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 09th October, 2013 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 233- DB of 2007 wherein the Division Bench dismissed the Criminal Appeal preferred by the Appellant Mohd. Ahsan and upheld the Signature Not Verified order of conviction and sentence dated 25th January, 2007 as Digitally signed by Narendra Prasad recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar Date: 2024.04.25 16:22:49 IST Reason:

1. Heard.

2. Leave granted.

3. The appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 02.05.2022 passed in Writ Petition No.1976 of 2019, whereby the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Dr. Naveen Rawal writ petition filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 challenging the Date: 2024.04.25 14:06:01 IST Reason:

Order dated 25.01.2019 passed by the Ld. School Tribunal 1 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’), Amravati whereunder termination of respondent No.1 (appellant herein) had been set aside and directed the reinstatement with 50% back wages and other consequential benefits came to be set aside has challenged the same. Parties are referred to as per their rank/status in writ court.

Leave granted.

2. In ordinary circumstances, a procedure concerning appendicitis is considered to be routine. It did not turn out to be so for Jyoti Devi 1. She was admitted to Suket Hospital, Sundernagar, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh on 28 th June 2005 and had her appendicitis removed by Dr. Anil Chauhan, Senior Surgeon, Suket Hospital. Post surgery, she was discharged on 30th June 2005. However, her ordeal did not end there. She suffered continuous pains near the surgical site, Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by as such she was admitted again on 26 th July 2005 but was discharged the next day Jayant Kumar Arora Date: 2024.04.23 18:10:55 IST Reason:

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 2nd January, 2023 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Crl.P.No.606/2022 titled Sri Jayaraj v. State of Karnataka, whereby under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 the High Court quashed the First Information Report1 bearing No.63 of 2021 dated 8.12.2021 for the offence under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, pending before the 23rd Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.

Signature Not Verified

1. What are the legal implications of a promotional trailer, popularly known as a ‘promo’, or a teaser that is circulated before the release of a movie? Does it create any contractual relationship or obligations akin to it? Is it an unfair trade practice if the contents of the promotional trailer are not shown in the movie? These questions have arisen in the context of a consumer dispute wherein the consumer courts have allowed the complaint alleging deficiency of service based on a ‘contractual obligation’ and ‘unfair trade practice’. For the reasons to follow, we have held that promotional trailers are unilateral and do not qualify as offers Signature Not Verified eliciting acceptance, and as such they do not transform into Digitally signed by satish kumar yadav Date: 2024.04.22 17:20:55 IST Reason: promises, much less agreements enforceable by law. We have also 1 held that the facts do not indicate adoption of an unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Before we delve into the analysis to draw our conclusions, the short facts necessary for the case are as follows.

1. This special leave petition filed on behalf of the accused petitioner is delayed by 2461 days.

2. It is specifically mentioned in the application seeking condonation of delay that the accused petitioner was prevented Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by from filing the special leave petition in time because he was not Narendra Prasad Date: 2024.04.24 18:13:54 IST Reason:

aware regarding the legal procedure and no guidance was 1 provided to him in jail. While being incarcerated in jail, the petitioner came to know about legal aid being provided by the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee and accordingly, a request was made on behalf of the petitioner to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee and consequently, a free legal aid counsel was appointed by the Committee to defend the petitioner and to file the special leave petition on his behalf.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal, by the Decree Holder, assails the correctness of the judgment and order dated 21.03.2014 passed by the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench at Jaipur in S.B. Civil Revision Petition Signature Not Verified No.95/2007, Smt. Akhtar Un Nisa vs. Rehan Ahmed, Digitally signed by Neetu Khajuria Date: 2024.04.22 18:33:25 IST Reason: whereby the revision filed under Section 115 of the SLP(CIVIL) NO. 18772 OF 2014 Page 1 of 22 Code of Civil Procedure, 19081 challenging the order of the Executing Court dated 03.05.2007 rejecting the objections under Section 47 CPC, has been allowed. The order impugned therein passed by the Executing Court was set aside and it was held that the decree dated 09.05.1979 passed by the Trial Court in Suit No.13/72 was inexecutable and a nullity and accordingly, the objections under Section 47 CPC, were allowed.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal assails the correctness of the judgement and order dated 06.03.2017 passed by the Rajasthan High Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. (Pet.) No. 3259 of 2015 dismissing the said petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 for quashing the FIR No. 156 of 2015, Women Police Station, Udaipur under Sections 498A, 406, 384, 420 and 120(B) of Indian Penal Code, 18602.

1. The appellants herein, namely, Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar(A-1), Alagond Sahebagouda Rudragoudar(A-2) and Mudakappa @ Gadegappa Rudragoudar(A-3) along with Sahebagouda Gadageppa Rudragoudar(A-4), Basappa Avvanna @ Huvanna Giradi @ Chigari (A-5) and Basappa Dundappa @ Dondiba Hanjagi (A-6) were subjected to trial in Sessions Case No. 28 of 2002 in the Court of the learned Fast Track Court I, Bijapur for charges pertaining to offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 506(2) and Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Signature Not Verified Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter being referred to as ‘IPC’). Digitally signed by Narendra Prasad Date: 2024.04.19 14:43:10 IST Reason: 1

2. These appeals arise from a Common Order passed by Allahabad High Court on 08.02.2023 while adjudicating three Criminal Appeals- Criminal Appeal No. 5033 of 2019 (Arvind Kumar vs State of U.P.), Criminal Appeal No. 5100 of 2019 (Chandra Kumar @ Chandu vs State of Signature Not Verified U.P.) and Criminal Appeal No. 5102 of 2019 Digitally signed by SONIA BHASIN Date: 2024.04.19 17:58:34 IST Reason: (Rishi Kumar vs State of U.P.). The Applicants SLP(CRL.) NOS.7961-7963 OF 2023 Page 1 of 12 had sought for suspension of sentence and grant of bail through these Appeals on the primary ground that they are in jail for more than ten years. Also, two co-accused Pramod Kashyap and Adesh Kumar had been granted bail by co- ordinate bench of same High Court. By the Impugned order, the three Applicants- Arvind Kumar, Chandra Kumar @ Chandu and Rishi Kumar were granted bail during the pendency of their Criminal appeals, with condition of furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each (Fifty Thousand) along with two sureties. Appellant is the Complainant and has challenged the order of granting bail through these appeals.