Extension of limitation - Application to all proceedings under general and special laws - Limitation extended irrespective of condonability - Exercise of constitutional powers under Article 142 read with Article 141 - Suo motu cognizance - Binding effect on Courts, Tribunals and authoritiesExtension of limitation - Application to all proceedings under general and special laws - Limitation extended irrespective of condonability - Exercise of constitutional powers under Article 142 read with Article 141 - Binding effect on Courts, Tribunals and authorities - Period of limitation for filing all petitions, applications, suits, appeals and other proceedings is extended w.e.f. 15th March 2020 until further orders and the extension is binding on all Courts, Tribunals and authorities. - HELD THAT: - The Court, taking suo motu cognizance of the difficulties arising from the COVID-19 pandemic, directed that the period of limitation in all proceedings - whether governed by the general law of limitation or by any Special Law, and whether the limitation is condonable or not - stands extended with effect from 15th March 2020 until further orders. The order is issued under the Court's constitutional power under Article 142 read with Article 141 and is declared to be binding on all Courts, Tribunals and authorities. The measure is directed to obviate practical difficulties faced by litigants and to avoid requiring physical presence for filing across jurisdictions; High Courts are to communicate the order to subordinate courts and registrars general have been issued notice for return.Period of limitation extended from 15th March 2020 until further order; extension applies to all proceedings under general and special laws irrespective of condonability and is binding on all Courts, Tribunals and authorities under Article 142 read with Article 141.Final Conclusion: Suo motu order extending limitation from 15th March 2020 until further orders; binding on all courts, tribunals and authorities, issued under Article 142 read with Article 141; High Courts to communicate to subordinate fora and Registrars General served with notice.

Right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 - prison decongestion and release on parole/interim bail - video conferencing for judicial proceedings involving undertrials - restriction on intra-prison transfers except for decongestion and medical necessity - prison readiness and response plans for infectious disease outbreaks - medical evacuation to Nodal Medical Institution - state-level monitoring and compliance mechanism - constitution and remit of High Powered Committee for release of prisoners - operation of Undertrial Review Committee in prison managementVideo conferencing for judicial proceedings involving undertrials - right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 - Physical presence of undertrial prisoners before courts must be stopped and video conferencing used for all purposes to prevent transmission of COVID-19. - HELD THAT: - Having regard to the risk of contagion within prisons and the imperative of protecting life under Article 21, the Court directed that the physical production of undertrial prisoners before courts shall cease forthwith and recourse shall be had to video conferencing for all purposes. The direction is based on the need to ensure maximum possible distancing among prisoners and to reduce outside transmission risks attendant on courtroom production.Physical presence of undertrial prisoners in courts discontinued; video conferencing to be used for all purposes.Restriction on intra-prison transfers except for decongestion and medical necessity - prison decongestion and release on parole/interim bail - Transfers of prisoners between prisons for routine reasons are prohibited, except transfers for decongestion or to provide medical assistance to an ill prisoner. - HELD THAT: - To minimise movement that could spread infection, the Court ordered that routine transfers shall not be resorted to. Transfers are permissible where necessary to decongest facilities to ensure social distancing or to secure medical treatment for an ill prisoner. The direction balances the need to prevent transmission with the operational requirement to manage overcrowding and provide medical care.Routine inter-prison transfers prohibited; transfers allowed only for decongestion or medical necessity.Medical evacuation to Nodal Medical Institution - prison readiness and response plans for infectious disease outbreaks - state-level monitoring and compliance mechanism - Sick prisoners suspected of infection must be shifted without delay to a Nodal Medical Institution; prison-specific readiness and response plans must be developed and a state monitoring team constituted. - HELD THAT: - Given the potential for rapid spread and severe consequences, the Court directed prompt transfer of any prisoner showing possible infection to designated medical institutions. Prison authorities are required to develop prison-specific readiness and response plans in consultation with medical experts, and States/UTs must set up monitoring teams to ensure scrupulous compliance with directives concerning prisons and remand homes. The Court also recommended consideration of specified international guidance for outbreak response in camp-like settings.Immediate shifting of potentially infected prisoners to Nodal Medical Institutions; development of readiness plans and constitution of state monitoring teams.Prison decongestion and release on parole/interim bail - constitution and remit of High Powered Committee for release of prisoners - Each State/Union Territory must constitute a High Powered Committee (composition specified) to determine categories of prisoners to be released on parole or interim bail to mitigate overcrowding during the pandemic. - HELD THAT: - Responding to the serious concern of overcrowding, the Court mandated formation of a committee comprising the Chairman of the State Legal Services Committee, the Principal Secretary (Home/Prison) and the Director General of Prisons to decide which classes of prisoners may be released on parole or interim bail for an appropriate period. The Court left the precise categories to the Committee's discretion, suggesting that prisoners convicted or undertrial for offences punishable with imprisonment up to seven years could be considered, while permitting the Committee to account for nature and severity of offences and other relevant factors. The Committee is to act within constitutional safeguards and relevant judicial directions cited by the Court.Mandate to constitute High Powered Committee with specified members to decide on parole/interim bail for decongestion, with discretion to determine categories.Operation of Undertrial Review Committee in prison management - prison decongestion and release on parole/interim bail - The Undertrial Review Committee shall meet weekly and take decisions in consultation with concerned authorities as contemplated in this Court's earlier judgment. - HELD THAT: - Reiterating and operationalising the prior framework for review of undertrial detenues, the Court directed the Undertrial Review Committee (as envisaged in the Court's earlier decision) to convene weekly and make appropriate decisions in coordination with the relevant authorities. This is intended to provide an ongoing mechanism to assess and effect releases or other measures needed to address overcrowding and health risks.Undertrial Review Committee to meet weekly and act in consultation with authorities as previously directed.State-level monitoring and compliance mechanism - States/Union Territories that have not filed responses must file them within three weeks; certain writ petitions are dismissed as withdrawn and treated as representations to the Union Ministries. - HELD THAT: - The Court directed States and UTs who had not filed responses to do so within three weeks to enable monitoring of compliance. Separately, learned counsel for certain petitioners was permitted to withdraw their writ petitions with liberty to approach concerned Ministries; those petitions are to be treated as representations and the Ministries are to dispose of them according to law, with liberty to hear petitioners if deemed appropriate.Non-respondent States/UTs to file responses within three weeks; specified writ petitions dismissed as withdrawn and treated as representations for the Union Ministries to consider.Final Conclusion: The Supreme Court issued directions to prevent COVID-19 transmission in prisons and remand homes: discontinuation of physical court production of undertrials in favour of video conferencing; prohibition of routine transfers except for decongestion or medical need; immediate medical evacuation where infection is suspected; development of prison-specific readiness plans and state monitoring; constitution of High Powered Committees to consider parole/interim bail for decongestion; weekly operation of Undertrial Review Committees; and a procedural direction for certain States/UTs to file responses and for specified petitions to be treated as representations to the Union Ministries.

Summary order. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed and pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Summary order. Special Leave Petition dismissed as withdrawn; interim order dated 07.09.2018 vacated; direction to the Court of the Magistrate, First Class, Pen, District Raigad to conclude the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (S.C.C.No.589/2010) within three months.

Anticipatory bail - condition of prior permission to travel abroad - modification of bail conditions - balance between personal liberty to travel and restrictions under anticipatory bail - limitations on travel under Section 438(2) of CrPC - expeditious disposal of applications for prior permission to travelAnticipatory bail - condition of prior permission to travel abroad - modification of bail conditions - limitations on travel under Section 438(2) of CrPC - Whether the High Court correctly modified the anticipatory bail condition dispensing with prior permission to travel abroad - HELD THAT: - The Court held that the High Court's modification could not be sustained because the charge-sheet had been filed and no material change in circumstances was shown that would justify deletion of the pre-condition of prior permission to travel abroad which had been engrafted as a condition of anticipatory bail. The right to travel abroad is a valuable facet of personal liberty but, in this case, mere inconvenience to the respondent in seeking permission did not warrant dilution of the earlier consistent orders imposing the requirement of prior permission. At best, the condition could have been regulated but not deleted altogether. On that basis the impugned order was set aside and the original condition restored. [Paras 9, 10]Impugned modification set aside and the original bail condition requiring prior permission before travelling abroad restored.Expeditious disposal of applications for prior permission to travel - balance between personal liberty to travel and restrictions under anticipatory bail - Directions to the trial court on disposal of future applications for permission to travel abroad made by the respondent - HELD THAT: - The Court directed that the trial court shall deal with any application seeking prior permission to travel expeditiously and ensure that orders are made within one week of filing such application. Such orders must consider the views of the investigating agency and relevant factors, while also allowing a reasonable period prior to the proposed travel. This procedural direction was imposed to balance the investigatory interest and the respondent's right to travel, ensuring that the restored condition does not become unduly burdensome by delay. [Paras 10]Trial court directed to decide applications for prior permission within one week, after considering the CBI's view and relevant factors, while allowing reasonable time for travel.Final Conclusion: The special leave petition is allowed: the High Court's order deleting the requirement of prior permission to travel abroad is set aside and the original condition restored; the trial court is directed to decide any application for prior permission within one week after considering the investigating agency's views and relevant factors.

Application of Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to payments due to an employee - power of the National Company Law Tribunal to rehear a Section 9 application afresh - permissibility of raising defences based on issues pending in this CourtPower of the National Company Law Tribunal to rehear a Section 9 application afresh - remand for fresh consideration - The NCLT order was set aside and the Section 9 application filed by the petitioner was remanded for fresh consideration. - HELD THAT: - The Supreme Court set aside the impugned NCLT order and directed that the NCLT shall go into the petitioner's Section 9 application afresh. The Tribunal is to reconsider the application after giving an opportunity to the respondent to raise objections and to have those objections considered. The Court's direction operates as a remand for rehearing rather than as a final adjudication on the merits of the Section 9 claim.NCLT order set aside; Section 9 application remanded for fresh hearing and consideration of objections.Application of Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to payments due to an employee - permissibility of raising defences based on issues pending in this Court - Respondent may raise issues relatable to Section 9A as a defence before the NCLT in the remanded proceedings. - HELD THAT: - The Court noted that matters relatable to Section 9A, which bear upon payments ultimately payable to the petitioner as a pilot, are pending before this Court and observed that Air India may take those matters up as a defence in the application before the NCLT. The effect is that the Tribunal must consider any such defence when rehearing the Section 9 application, but the Supreme Court did not resolve those Section 9A issues on the merits.Air India permitted to raise and have considered issues relatable to Section 9A as defence in the remanded NCLT proceedings.Final Conclusion: Delay in filing the special leave petition was condoned; the special leave petition is disposed of by setting aside the NCLT order, remanding the petitioner's Section 9 application to the NCLT for fresh consideration with liberty to the respondent to raise objections and defences (including issues relatable to Section 9A) which the NCLT must consider.

Summary order. Stay of operation and implementation of the impugned judgment granted; delay condoned and notice issued.

Condonation of delay - substitution of deceased appellant - setting aside abatement - dismissal of Special Leave Petition for inordinate delay - dismissal on meritsCondonation of delay - Application for condonation of delay in filing the application for substitution - HELD THAT: - The Court considered the plea for condoning delay in filing the application for substitution of the deceased appellant and exercised its discretion to condone the delay. No reservation was recorded against the exercise of that discretion and the application for condonation was allowed.Delay in filing the Application for Substitution is condoned.Substitution of deceased appellant - Application for substitution of the deceased Appellant No. 1 - HELD THAT: - Having condoned the delay in filing the substitution application, the Court allowed the application for substituting the deceased appellant, thereby permitting the continuance of proceedings in place of the deceased party.The Application for substitution of deceased Appellant No. 1 is allowed.Setting aside abatement - Application for setting aside abatement - HELD THAT: - The Court addressed the application seeking to set aside the abatement and granted the relief, permitting the matter to proceed notwithstanding the earlier abatement.The Application for setting aside abatement is allowed.Dismissal of Special Leave Petition for inordinate delay - dismissal on merits - Special Leave Petition dismissed on grounds of inordinate delay and on merits - HELD THAT: - The Court found an inordinate delay of 1083 days in filing the Special Leave Petition and a further delay of 185 days in re-filing, which was not satisfactorily explained. Independently considering the merits, the Court stated it was not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. In view of both the unexplained delay and the merits, the petition was dismissed.The Special Leave Petition is dismissed both on the grounds of delay as well as on merits.Final Conclusion: The Court allowed condonation of delay for the substitution application, permitted substitution and setting aside of abatement, but dismissed the Special Leave Petition on account of inordinate unexplained delay and on merits.

Summary order. Petitioner directed to take fresh steps along with fresh particulars to effect service on the sole respondent within two weeks; matter listed on 26.11.2019.

Dishonor of Cheque due to insufficiency of funds - Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - The High Court set aside the revisional court's order and allowed the trial to proceed with the second respondent included as an accused - HELD THAT:- The reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High Court does not call for any interference. The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed.

Summary order. Special Leave Petition dismissed; pending applications disposed of.

Summary order. Special Leave Petition dismissed; delay condoned; pending applications, if any, disposed of.

Condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act - delay of 207 days in filing the revision petition before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act - HELD THAT: - The Court examined the averments in the application for condonation of delay and found them sufficient to constitute "sufficient cause" under Section 5. The Court noted that the Commission erred in refusing condonation by relying on Ramlal [1961 (5) TMI 54 - SUPREME COURT] and failing to apply the later decision in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji [1987 (2) TMI 61 - SUPREME COURT] which directs a liberal approach to condonation. For these reasons the Court concluded that the Commission should have condoned the delay and remitted the matter for adjudication on merits after issuing notice to the respondents. [Paras 7, 8, 9, 10, 11] Final Conclusion: The appeal is allowed: the Supreme Court condoned the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, set aside the Commission's order dismissing the revision as barred by limitation, and directed the Commission to hear the revision on merits after notice to the respondents.

Doctrine of merger - Withdrawal of the Sugar Industry Promotion Policy, 2004 by the State Government of Uttar Pradesh and the subsequent denial of benefits to the petitioners who had acted upon the policy - breach of principle of Promissory Estoppel, Natural Justice and Legitimate Expectation - it was held by High Court that 'The petitioners are entitled for consideration of all the benefits in the form of exemptions/ remission/reimbursements as per the Sugar Industry Promotion Policy-2004 and various Notifications issued thereunder from time to time for the entire period of the validity of the Policy.' HELD THAT:- Issue notice. List the matters on 29th July, 2019.

Condonation of delay - dismissal of petition for delay - inordinate delay by State authorities - governmental lethargy not a ground for extension of limitation - costs recoverable from officers responsible for delay - administrative oversight and better management of legal casesCondonation of delay - inordinate delay by State authorities - governmental lethargy not a ground for extension of limitation - Whether the extraordinary delay in filing the special leave petition by the State of Bihar can be condoned. - HELD THAT: - The Court found that the special leave petition was filed after an unexplained delay of 728 days following the Division Bench's dismissal of condonation for a prior 367 days' delay. The explanation that sanctions, affidavits and vakalatnama took time was held insufficient. The Court emphasised that persistent or gross inaction by Government officers does not confer a right to seek condonation as of right and that the law of limitation cannot be treated as inapplicable to the State. Reliance was placed on the principle articulated in The Chief Post Master General vs. Living Media India Ltd. that governmental lethargy is not an admissible ground for condoning delay. Applying these principles to the facts, the petition was dismissed on the ground of inordinate and unexplained delay.Special leave petition dismissed on ground of inordinate and unexplained delay; condonation refused.Costs recoverable from officers responsible for delay - administrative oversight and better management of legal cases - Whether costs should be imposed and administrative directions given in consequence of the delay by State officers. - HELD THAT: - The Court deplored the casual approach of the State in prosecuting its rights and held that such misuse of judicial time warrants imposition of costs. It ordered costs to be recovered from the officers responsible for the delay and deposited with the Supreme Court Mediation Centre, with recovery to be certified to the Court. Further, the Court directed the Chief Secretary of the State to examine the matter to ensure improved management of the State's legal cases. A listing was ordered for verification of the certificate of recovery on reopening.Costs of Rs. 20,000 imposed to be recovered from responsible officers and deposited with the Supreme Court Mediation Centre; Chief Secretary directed to ensure better legal case management; verification of recovery to be placed before the Court.Final Conclusion: The special leave petition was dismissed for inordinate and unexplained delay; costs were imposed to be recovered from the officers responsible and the State's Chief Secretary directed to ensure improved management of legal cases, with verification of recovery to be filed.

Wilful defaulter - representation to the Review Committee - Review Committee under the Master Circular dated 01.07.2015 - reasoned decision in accordance with this Court's judgment in Civil Appeal No. 4776 of 2019Wilful defaulter - representation to the Review Committee - reasoned decision - Master Circular dated 01.07.2015 - Petitioners permitted to make representation to the Review Committee of Axis Bank and the Review Committee to decide afresh and give reasons in accordance with this Court's judgment delivered on 08.05.2019 in Civil Appeal No. 4776 of 2019. - HELD THAT: - The petitioners have represented that the company's assets have been sold in liquidation of the company's debts and seek reconsideration of their classification as wilful defaulter. The Court directed that the petitioners may make a representation to the Review Committee under the Master Circular dated 01.07.2015 within two weeks. The Review Committee is required to consider the representation and decide the matter afresh, giving a reasoned decision consistent with the principles and directions laid down by this Court in the judgment delivered on 08.05.2019 in Civil Appeal No. 4776 of 2019. No other relief was granted and the Court did not adjudicate the merits of the wilful defaulter classification itself.Representation to be filed within two weeks; Review Committee to decide and record reasons in accordance with this Court's judgment; special leave petition disposed of.Final Conclusion: The special leave petition is disposed of with directions permitting the petitioners to make a representation within two weeks and directing the Review Committee (under the Master Circular dated 01.07.2015) to decide the representation and furnish reasons in conformity with this Court's judgment in Civil Appeal No. 4776 of 2019.

Issue of notice - interim stay - stay of further proceedingsIssue of notice - Notice issued and listed to be returnable within four weeks - HELD THAT: - The Court directed that notice be issued in the petition and fixed the matter for return within a period of four weeks. This direction constitutes an interlocutory procedural order to secure the respondents' appearance and to enable adjudication on the merits at a subsequently listed hearing.Notice issued and returnable within four weeks.Interim stay - stay of further proceedings - Stay of further proceedings pursuant to the High Court's order granted - HELD THAT: - The Court granted an interim stay of any further proceedings that would follow from the impugned High Court order. The stay is operative as an interim protective measure pending the return of notice and further orders of the Court.Further proceedings pursuant to the High Court's order are stayed until further orders.Final Conclusion: Notice issued returnable in four weeks and an interim stay was granted restraining further proceedings pursuant to the High Court's order pending further orders.

Summary order. Special Leave Petition dismissed; delay condoned; pending applications, if any, disposed of.

Summary order. Permission to file the special leave petition granted; the special leave petition is dismissed both on the ground of delay and on merits; pending interlocutory applications, if any, are disposed of.

Dismissal of interim application - Direction to NCLT to decide pending set-off claim - Remand for disposal within fixed time-frameDismissal of interim application - I.A. No. 13908 of 2019 dismissed. - HELD THAT: - The Supreme Court recorded its order dismissing I.A. No. 13908 of 2019. The order is a short dispositional direction without recorded reasons in the judgment text provided.I.A. No. 13908 of 2019 is dismissed.Direction to NCLT to decide pending set-off claim - Remand for disposal within fixed time-frame - The matter relating to set off of Rs.112 crores pending before the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, is directed to be decided by the NCLT within three weeks from the date of the order. - HELD THAT: - The Supreme Court noted that the question of set off of the stated amount is pending adjudication before the NCLT, Mumbai, and therefore directed that the NCLT decide that matter within a specified period of three weeks. The Court did not decide the merits of the set-off claim itself but remanded the matter for determination by the NCLT within the time-frame prescribed.NCLT, Mumbai to decide the pending set-off matter within three weeks from the date of the order.Final Conclusion: I.A. No. 13908 of 2019 dismissed; the pending set-off claim for Rs.112 crores before the NCLT, Mumbai is remanded for decision and the NCLT is directed to decide it within three weeks.