In Part 3 of Volume 3, read the Supreme Court decision in Jaypee Kensington Boulevard Apartments Welfare Association v. NBCC (India) Ltd.,(2022) 1 SCC 401, wherein the Court while the Adjudicating authority has the authority to disapprove the resolution plan approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC), it cannot modify the same.
Short Notes: 17
Armed Forces — Seniority — Determination of: While adjudging seniority of candidates selected in one and same selection, placement in order of merit can be adopted for determination of seniority but where selections are held separately by different recruitment authorities, principle of initial date of appointment/continuous officiation may be adopted while adjudging inter se seniority in absence of any rule or guidelines in determining seniority to contrary. [Sudhir Kumar Atrey v. Union of India, (2022) 1 SCC 352]
Constitution of India — Art. 226: Scope of interference with quantum of punishment imposed by disciplinary authority is limited. [Union of India v. Ram Karan, (2022) 1 SCC 373]
Human and Civil Rights — Humanitarian and Natural Disasters, Epidemics and Pandemics — Epidemics and Pandemics — COVID-19 Pandemic: Validity of cancellation of CBSE and ICSE Class XII Board Examination for academic year 2020-2021 in public interest and interest of students, and declaration of results on the basis of internal assessment marks as propounded by respective Boards in their Schemes, upheld. [Mamta Sharma v. CBSE, (2022) 1 SCC 368]
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Ss. 30(2), 31 and 61 — Decision of Committee of Creditors (CoC) on resolution plan — Bindingness of — Role and view of CoC — Primacy of: In corporate insolvency resolution process, the role of CoC is akin to that of a protagonist, giving finality to the process (subject, of course, to approval by the adjudicating authority), who takes the key decisions in its commercial wisdom and also takes the consequences. Further, the decision as to whether the corporate debtor be resurrected or not, by acceptance of a particular resolution plan, is essentially a business decision and hence, is left to the committee consisting of the financial creditors, that is, CoC but, with the requirement that the resolution plan, for its approval, ought to muster not less than 66% votes of the voting share of the financial creditors. [Jaypee Kensington Boulevard Apartments Welfare Assn. v. NBCC (India) Ltd., (2022) 1 SCC 401]
Penal Code, 1860 — S. 304-B — Dowry death: In this case, victim died within 2 yrs of marriage due to consumption of insecticide/poison in her matrimonial home. Conviction of husband of deceased, was confirmed. Conviction of mother-in-law of the deceased, held, not justified in this case as there was no specific evidence regarding any of the ingredients of dowry death being established against her. Sweeping statements that husband and in-laws of deceased had inflicted cruelty, or, that husband and his mother had done so, without specifying their roles, held, not sufficient to convict appellant mother-in-law, though sufficient to ground conviction of appellant husband. [Kuljit Singh v. State of Punjab, (2022) 1 SCC 385]
Penal Code, 1860 — Ss. 141, 142 and 149 and Ss. 302/149 — Unlawful assembly: Mere fact that appellant was not brave enough to conceal where victim was hiding did not make him a part of the unlawful assembly that had the common object to murder the victim. Hence, conviction of appellant-accused under Ss. 302/201/147/148/149, set aside. [Taijuddin v. State of Assam, (2022) 1 SCC 395]
Penal Code, 1860 — Ss. 302/149 or Ss. 326/149 and Ss. 325/149, 324/149, 323/149 and 147: In this case of altercation leading to assault by 21 accused (including appellants herein) using deadly weapons resulting in death of one and injuries to others, fatal injury on deceased were caused by hard and blunt weapon on left parietal bone but, held, there was no injury corresponding to weapons used by four accused. As found by courts below, there was contradiction between oral testimony of witnesses and medical evidence in this regard. Therefore, conviction of appellants under Ss. 302/149 was not justified. However, there was abundant evidence on record to show that appellants attacked deceased and injured witnesses with deadly weapons. Therefore, appellants were held liable to be convicted under Ss. 326/149 instead of Ss. 302/149. Moreover, conviction of appellants under Ss. 325/149, 324/149 and 323/149 was confirmed. [Viram v. State of M.P., (2022) 1 SCC 341]
Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 — Rr. 161, 132, 148 and 153 — Recording of reasons for dispensing with enquiry — Necessity: Dispensation with enquiry under R. 161 on ground that it was not reasonably practical to hold enquiry, without indicating any reasons, is not permissible. [Union of India v. Ram Bahadur Yadav, (2022) 1 SCC 389]
Service Law — Pension — Qualifying period/service — Break in service: Condonation of interregnum of non pensionable service rendered between Central Government and State Government service, for purpose of computing qualifying pensionable service, when permissible, explained. [Valsan P. v. State of Kerala, (2022) 1 SCC 362]
Service Law — Police — Recruitment Process — Recruitment to posts of Police Constables in Provisional Armed Constabulary (Male) — Notice to appear for physical fitness test and verification of documents — Intimation: Intimation in terms of the 2008 Rules required to be provided by postal communication or any other mode. Hence intimation through SMS, particularly when large number of candidates had to appear for physical test and document verification, held, justified and majority of candidates had appeared pursuant to intimation by SMS. When requirement is stated in application to provide mobile number, it is for purpose of communication and appellants had sent SMS to the very number furnished by candidates. Further, contention that it is possible that person may not retain same number for long time, rejected in absence of any material brought on record to support such contention. Besides, such argument may hold good for postal communication also, and in such circumstances it is for candidate to intimate such change to authorities which is in their knowledge. [State of U.P. v. Pankaj Kumar, (2022) 1 SCC 335]
Service Law — Promotion — Criteria/Eligibility — Length of service/qualifying service — Promotion to post of Chief Engineer (Civil) Level II: Grant of relaxation in minimum length of service which was at discretion of competent authority under the applicable Rules can only be granted by such competent authority by exercising its discretion in this regard in accordance with law. Grant of relaxation, thus held, is at discretion of competent authority and cannot be claimed as matter of right. Mandamus therefore, held, cannot be issued by Court directing competent authority to grant relaxation in qualifying service. [State of U.P. v. Vikash Kumar Singh, (2022) 1 SCC 347]
Service Law — Promotion — Incentive Scheme/Financial Upgradation — Promotion and Financial Upgradation — Difference between and determination of: Ordinarily upgradation of post involves transfer of post from lower to higher grade and placement of incumbent of that post in higher grade which does not require any selection process to be followed but merely confers financial benefit by raising scale of pay of that post. In promotion, on other hand, there is advancement to higher position or rank along with advancement to higher grade. “Promotion” means advancement or preferment in honour, dignity, rank and grade. [Punjab State Power Corpn. Ltd. v. Bal Krishan Sharma, (2022) 1 SCC 322]