Cyber Law

The Supreme Court upheld the exclusion of ECL Finance, sole debenture holder and lender, and its debenture trustee from the Committee of Creditors of a guarantor company as related parties under Section 5(24)(m)(i) of the IBC. That clause needs only association through participation in policy making, not the proactive control required under Section 29A, and the Court found no question of law or perversity in the tribunals' findings (paras 17, 23-24, 27).

The Supreme Court allowed Lakshmi Sugar Mills' appeal and set aside a High Court judgment upholding the addition of Rs 69,91,983 of unpaid excise duty on closing stock for Assessment Year 2005-06 under Sections 43B and 145A of the Income Tax Act. The High Court assumed the goods had been removed, but the stock lay in a bonded warehouse, and the company never claimed the duty as an expense (paras 10, 14-16).

The Supreme Court held that the bail bar in Section 43D(7) of the UAP Act applies only when the prosecution prima facie shows that the accused is not an Indian citizen and entered India unauthorisedly or illegally. A visa overstay after a lawful entry does not qualify. Dismissing the Union's appeal, it upheld the Madras High Court's order restoring an alleged Sri Lankan national's default bail (paras 30-31, 47, 50).

The Supreme Court set aside directions of the Orissa High Court which, after refusing anticipatory bail to the accused in a 2010 murder FIR from Rayagada, told them to surrender and directed the trial court to release them on regular bail on fixed terms. Once anticipatory bail was refused, it was not for the High Court to direct how the future should unfold. The magistrate's bail order fell with those directions, and the accused must surrender within two weeks (paras 3-6).

A Rajasthan High Court Division Bench set aside the conviction of four men sentenced to life imprisonment for gang rape under the IPC and the POCSO Act, and acquitted them (paras 1, 57). It held the FIR hit by Section 162 CrPC because the complainant's first report at a police chowki was never produced, found her minority unproved, and rejected the DNA report because the chain of custody of the samples was not established (paras 19-20, 29, 44).

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed four appeals by ten accused in an NIA case over explosive material allegedly seized from a car at Nimbahera in 2022, upholding the order of 31 July 2024 framing charges (paras 2, 59-60). An accused's absence from the car or the lack of recovery from him does not answer an alleged prior conspiracy at the charge stage; the evidence is for trial. The dismissal is not a finding of guilt (para 60).