Search Judgments

(Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) and Abuse of Process)

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), Section 7 - Recovery of Debts Due to Banks & Financial Institutions Act, 1993 - This appeal challenged an NCLAT order that set aside NCLT's admission of an IBC Section 7 petition. The Bank (appellant) sanctioned a loan to the Corporate Debtor (CD) for property acquisition, disbursed directly to the Builder via a quadripartite agreement; the CD's account later became a Non-Performing Asset. Earlier, DRT proceedings had led to the Builder depositing security. Subsequently, a winding-up petition was treated as an IBC Section 7 application, which NCLT admitted.

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) – Section 2(f), 2(zd) and 13(4); Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Order 47 Rule 7(1) – This case involves an appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition and a subsequent review petition filed by the appellant, a borrower, against actions taken by the respondent-Federal Bank under the SARFAESI Act. The bank had initiated measures under Section 13(4) after the appellant defaulted on loan repayments, classifying the loan account as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA).

The appellant initially challenged the bank’s actions in the High Court, which directed him to pay a substantial amount in installments. Subsequently, he withdrew a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court without seeking liberty to file a fresh SLP.

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (DSPE Act) – Section 6 & Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 19 – The case involves writ petitions filed by a public sector bank regarding loan frauds amounting to ₹13.11 crores and ₹3.84 crores, reported in complaints dated 02.12.2022 and 14.07.2023 respectively. These frauds qualified for mandatory reporting to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) under RBI and Ministry of Finance guidelines. The CBI delayed registering FIRs, citing the lack of comprehensive consent from the State Government of Tamil Nadu under Section 6 of the DSPE Act, particularly regarding “unknown public servants and private individuals.”

The court addressed the issue of consent under Section 6 of the DSPE Act, clarifying that once the State grants consent for the CBI to investigate an offence, the CBI can proceed against anyone found involved in the same offence, even if they were not named in the initial consent. The court distinguished this from the sanction required under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which is a prosecutorial safeguard, not an investigative barrier.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 300 (Exceptions), 302, 304 Part I – Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder – Sudden Fight – Absence of Premeditation – Single Injury The Supreme Court re-examines a conviction under Section 302 IPC, considering the applicability of exceptions to Section 300 IPC. The Court holds that where an incident occurs on account of a quarrel on a trivial issue, without premeditation, in the heat of anger, and involves a single injury without cruel or undue advantage taken, the offense may fall under culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 Part I IPC) rather than murder.

Criminal Law – Appreciation of Evidence – Credibility of Interested Witnesses The Court affirms that the testimony of “interested witnesses” (relatives of the deceased) cannot be discarded solely on that ground, but requires scrutiny with greater caution and circumspection. If their evidence remains unshaken during cross-examination, it can be relied upon.

(Motor Accident Claim)

This appeal, filed by the Insurance Company, challenged an award of Rs. 21,40,200/- with 7.5% interest granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (VI Additional District Judge), Madurai. The original claim was filed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, following a fatal accident. A criminal case was registered against the respondent's driver under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code.

The accident occurred on September 27, 2020, when the deceased, Vinothkumar, riding his motorcycle, collided with a TATA Ace vehicle (insured by the appellant) that was stationed on the highway without any parking lamps or indications.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Enhancement of Compensation – This appeal concerns the enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in MCOP No. 999 of 2023. The appellant/claimant sought enhanced compensation for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident on December 20, 2022, involving a van insured by the 2nd respondent.

The Tribunal awarded Rs.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – This appeal was filed by the claimant seeking to increase the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No. 3649 of 2021. The claimant sustained grievous injuries in an accident involving a lorry due to the driver’s rash and negligent driving and filed a claim petition for Rs.3,53,512/-.

The Tribunal awarded Rs.3,53,512/-, which the appellant felt was inadequate.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 166 – This case involves two appeals stemming from a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. The first appeal (CMA.No.1295 of 2023) was filed by the Transport Corporation, challenging the award. The second appeal (CMA.No.1788 of 2023) was filed by the claimants, seeking an enhancement of the compensation awarded to them.

The claim arose from an accident where the deceased, a police constable, was killed when his two-wheeler was hit by a bus belonging to the Transport Corporation.

The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 Section 12-A; Section 12A & Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure – This civil revision petition challenged the order of the Principal District Judge at Krishnagiri, who dismissed I.A. No. 2 of 2023 in O.S. No.

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) – Sections 3(11), 3(12), 3(37), 5(7), 5(8), 7 – Companies Act, 2013 – Sections 2(84), 43, 55 – The appeal concerned whether Cumulative Redeemable Preference Shares (CRPS) constitute ‘financial debt’ under the IBC, allowing the appellant (shareholder) to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the respondent company. The appellant, EPCC Constructions India Limited, had converted outstanding receivables of INR 250 Crores into 8% CRPS of the respondent, M/s Matix Fertilizers and Chemicals Limited, to assist Matix in meeting its debt-equity ratio and securing further funding.

Upon maturity, Matix did not redeem the CRPS, citing a lack of profits and no fresh issue of shares for redemption, as required by Section 55 of the Companies Act, 2013. Both the NCLT and NCLAT dismissed the appellant’s Section 7 IBC application, holding that CRPS are an investment in share capital, not a debt, and thus the appellant was not a financial creditor.