Arbitration – Appointment of Arbitrator – Review Application – The Original Respondent filed a review application against the order passed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, appointing a sole arbitrator – The court had appointed the arbitrator based on the Original Respondent’s earlier stance, which agreed to a sole arbitrator either by mutual consent or court appointment – The Original Respondent initially refused to proceed with a three-member arbitration citing time and cost concerns but later argued for a three-member tribunal – The court dismissed the review application, upholding the appointment of the sole arbitrator, stating the Respondent’s inconsistent stance and failure to appoint an arbitrator led to a forfeiture of its rights in this regard [Paras 1-4, 9, 12, 19, 22, 26].

Party Autonomy vs. Forfeiture of Rights – The court emphasized that party autonomy is a cornerstone of arbitration, but a party forfeits the right to appoint an arbitrator if it fails to comply with the arbitration agreement – The Original Respondent initially agreed to a sole arbitrator appointed by the court but later challenged this decision – The court held that the Respondent's conduct demonstrated an attempt to frustrate the arbitration process and, therefore, upheld the appointment of the sole arbitrator, rejecting the review application [Paras 9-14, 16, 19, 22, 26].

Inequitable Conduct – The Original Respondent’s conduct was characterized as inequitable, attempting to delay and frustrate the arbitration process by changing stances – Initially opposed a three-member tribunal due to cost and time concerns, later argued in favor of it – The court noted this behavior as an attempt to prevent the commencement of arbitration, justifying the upholding of the sole arbitrator's appointment [Paras 10-12, 18-20].

Power to Review and Recall – The court acknowledged that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act does not confer the power to review Section 11 orders on the High Court – The court considered whether to recall the order on the basis of party autonomy but found no cause to do so, emphasizing the Respondent’s forfeited right to appoint an arbitrator due to its inequitable conduct and shifting positions [Paras 24-26].

Commercial Dispute and Costs – Recognizing the case as a commercial dispute, the court imposed costs on the Original Respondent, ordering it to pay ₹1,25,000/- to the Original Applicant – This decision was made in light of the Applicant’s incurred costs in initiating the arbitration process due to the Respondent’s delaying tactics [Para 27].

Decision – The review application was dismissed – The appointment of the sole arbitrator was upheld, and the Original Respondent was ordered to pay costs to the Original Applicant – The arbitral tribunal is to proceed with determining all issues within its jurisdiction without being influenced by the findings in this judgment [Para 27].

Eviction Suit – Service of Notice – Section 12 of the Bombay Rent Act – Eviction Upheld - The petitioners challenged the decree directing them to hand over possession of the suit premises and pay arrears of rent – The Appellate Court reversed the Trial Court's decision by holding that the demand notice was validly served despite being addressed to a different address where the tenant was believed to be residing – Held: The service of notice was valid, and the tenant was in default of rent payment, justifying the eviction order [Paras 2-4].

Validity of Demand Notice – Address of Service – The tenant was not residing in the suit premises, and the notice was dispatched to an alternate address – The court held that Section 12(2) does not mandate dispatch to the premises' address; it requires valid service – The Postman’s testimony confirmed the attempt to serve notice at the tenant’s believed address, which was refused, thereby proving service [Paras 5-8].

Rent Default – Applicability of Section 12(3)(a) vs. 12(3)(b) – Appellate Court applied Section 12(3)(a) due to the rent being payable monthly, with no dispute on standard rent and arrears exceeding six months – The court rejected the petitioners' contention that the presence of education cess made the rent non-monthly – The tenant admitted to the agreement of paying rent and cess on a monthly basis, fulfilling Section 12(3)(a) conditions [Paras 9-12].

Subletting Allegation – While the ground of unauthorized subletting was rejected by both the Trial and Appellate Courts, the eviction was decreed on the ground of rent default alone – The case was focused on proving the default in payment of rent under the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act [Para 13].

Final Decision – Writ Petition dismissed – Appellate Court's decree for eviction upheld – Petitioners granted three months to vacate the suit premises upon filing an undertaking within two weeks [Para 14].

Criminal Procedure – Acquittal – Victim's Right to Appeal – The petitioner, a de facto complainant, challenged the acquittal of the accused under various sections of the IPC, arguing that as a "victim" under Section 2(wa) of the CrPC, he had the right to appeal – The Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal on the ground that the petitioner could not be termed a 'victim' – Held: The High Court observed that under Section 372 of the CrPC, a victim has the right to appeal against an acquittal – The petitioner, having alleged loss, injury, and damage caused by the accused, falls within the definition of 'victim' and therefore had the right to appeal – [Paras 7, 10, 18, 22].

Criminal Law – Trial Procedure – Non-Examination under Section 313 CrPC – The petitioner contended that the trial court erred in not examining the accused under Section 313 of the CrPC – The trial court acquitted the accused without recording their statements – Held: The High Court found that the trial court did not err, as there was no incriminating evidence against the accused that necessitated examination under Section 313 – Since the primary witnesses (PW1 and PW2) did not provide any evidence against the accused, the trial court's decision was upheld – [Paras 15, 16, 17].

Contempt of Court – Allegations Against Magistrate – The petitioner accused the trial magistrate of obtaining signatures on blank papers and of improper conduct – Held: The High Court found the allegations baseless and without substance – It was determined that such allegations could amount to criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – The petitioner was directed to show cause why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him – [Paras 28, 29, 31].

Decision: Criminal Revision dismissed – The High Court found no error in the trial court’s procedure or the acquittal of the accused – The petitioner was directed to show cause for allegations against the magistrate amounting to criminal contempt – [Paras 35, 37].

Criminal Law – Murder – Conspiracy and Evidence Destruction – Section 120B and Section 302 IPC – The appellant, along with two co-accused, conspired to murder her 4-year-old daughter to eliminate her as an obstacle to her immoral lifestyle with her co-conspirators – The child's body was exhumed from a plot after the appellant misled the police with a missing complaint –  Circumstantial Evidence – Conviction based on circumstantial evidence was sustained by the court – Appellants A1, A2, and A3 charged with conspiring to kill a minor child (X) and conceal her body – Prosecution relied on the "last seen" theory, recovery of the body, and incriminating materials collected from the crime scene – Conviction under Section 302 IPC by the trial court was set aside, and the court held that the evidence established culpable homicide under Section 304 Part I IPC – Held: Prosecution established a complete chain of circumstances leading to the guilt of the accused – Conviction altered to Section 304 Part I IPC [Paras 10-63].

Witness Testimony – Credibility of Witnesses – Witnesses (PW1, PW3, PW5) corroborated the presence of the appellants at the crime scene on the day of the incident – PW3 and PW5 saw A1, A2, and A3 in the house where the crime occurred – The reliability of their testimony was not undermined despite discrepancies in call records – Held: Testimonies of witnesses, corroborated by forensic and mobile phone records, were credible and supported the prosecution case [Paras 36, 53].

Circumstantial Evidence – Last Seen Theory – The court examined the applicability of the last seen theory where A3 was last seen with X – Time gap between last sighting and the discovery of the body was significant – Held: Last seen theory, although weak, was supported by other evidence in this case – However, the time gap required cautious application of the theory, and other evidence was necessary for conviction [Paras 37].

Discovery of Body – Recovery of the body based on the disclosure statements of the appellants under Section 27 of the Evidence Act – The court examined the recovery process and compliance with legal requirements – Held: The discovery of the body and recovery of incriminating materials (MO1) corroborated the prosecution's case and was admissible under Section 27 [Paras 38, 53].

Murder or Culpable Homicide – Nature of injuries inflicted on the victim suggested culpable homicide – No conclusive evidence of intent to murder – PW19 (forensic expert) stated that injury No. 25 was fatal but did not conclusively establish intent to kill – Held: Prosecution failed to prove intent to kill under Section 300 IPC, but evidence pointed to culpable homicide under Section 304 Part I IPC [Paras 39-49].

Sexual Assault – Conviction under POCSO Act – The trial court convicted A1 under Section 10 of the POCSO Act based on presumptions under Sections 29 and 30 – Forensic expert (PW19) stated no evidence of penetrative sexual assault – Held: Presumption under Section 29 POCSO Act not applicable as prosecution failed to discharge its burden to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction and sentence under POCSO Act set aside [Paras 54-59].

Criminal Conspiracy – Conviction under Section 120B IPC – Call records and witness testimonies established a conspiracy between A1, A2, and A3 to kill X – Continuous calls between A1 and A2 before and after the incident, coupled with the discovery of the body, indicated a premeditated conspiracy – Held: Conviction for conspiracy under Section 120B IPC upheld [Paras 50-53].

Decision: Conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC set aside – Appellants found guilty under Section 304 Part I and sentenced to life imprisonment with fines – Conviction under POCSO Act and JJ Act for A2 also set aside – Criminal conspiracy charge under Section 120B IPC sustained [Paras 62-63].
 

Patent Law – Section 59(1) of the Patents Act – Amendments to Patent Claims – Scope of Original Claims – The Controller refused the appellant's patent application, holding that the proposed amendments went beyond the scope of the original claims in violation of Section 59(1) of the Patents Act – Held: The amended claims were within the scope of the original PCT claims and supported by the detailed description in the complete specification. The High Court found that the amendments related to the composition as a product were permissible and could be allowed. Consequently, the rejection by the Controller under Section 59(1) could not sustain and had to be reversed​.

Patent Law – Amendment of Claims – Principles Governing Amendments – The Court referenced a coordinate bench decision in The Regents of The University of California v Controller General of Patents Designs & Trademarks & Anr. (2024), which laid down that amendments can be made only by way of disclaimer, correction, or explanation. Further, any amendment should not introduce matter not originally disclosed and should fall within the scope of the original claims – Applying these parameters, the Court inferred that the appellant's amended claims were permissible under Section 59(1)​.

Decision:

Appeal allowed – The impugned order dated 27th April 2020 by the Controller rejecting Patent Application No. 2427/DELNP/2011 is set aside – The matter is remanded back to the Controller for de novo consideration, and the Patent Application is restored to its original number. The Controller is directed to issue a fresh hearing notice and decide the matter afresh within four months from the date of the hearing​.

Civil Procedure Code – Order 22 – Remand of Case – The proforma defendant No. 2, Janak Singh, died during the pendency of the suit, and the trial court passed a judgment without substituting his legal representatives – The lower appellate court remanded the case to the trial court to bring the legal representatives on record and decide the suit afresh – Held: The lower appellate court correctly remanded the case to the trial court for compliance with Order 22 CPC, as a decree passed against a deceased person is a nullity, and the substitution of legal representatives and consideration of abatement must be decided by the court where the suit was pending at the time of death – [Paras 20-24].

Judgment Against a Deceased Person – Nullity – A judgment passed against a deceased person without substituting their legal representatives is a nullity – The learned appellate court erred in making findings on the merits of the case while remanding it for compliance with Order 22 CPC, as it should have confined itself to the issue of the proper substitution of parties – Held: The findings on the merits given by the appellate court are set aside – [Paras 23-24].

Decision: Appeal disposed of – The remand order of the lower appellate court is upheld to the extent that the trial court must comply with the mandatory requirements of Order 22 CPC – The trial court is directed to decide the question of substitution of legal representatives of the deceased proforma defendant and abatement of the suit after hearing both parties – The parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 30.09.2024 – [Paras 25-27].

Accident Claim - Just Compensation – Determining Compensation for Minor Victims – Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Losses – The Court addressed the criteria for determining compensation for parents of minor victims, incorporating inflation-adjusted notional income with future prospects and applying multipliers to reflect financial dependency and emotional loss – The Court mandated that compensations include pecuniary loss calculations and significant non-pecuniary awards to acknowledge parental grief and future dependency [Paras 7, 10-11, 45-47].

Legal and Moral Dependency on Minors – Future Financial Dependency and Societal Norms – Recognizing the unique cultural and statutory expectations in India, the Court observed that parental dependency on children extends beyond immediate financial support, meriting compensation for future dependency as a moral and legal right of parents under relevant statutes, including the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 – Held: Parents are entitled to compensation reflecting cultural norms of lifelong dependency on children [Paras 22-27, 33-34].

Statutory and Judicial Remedies for Minors' Death Compensation – Uniformity and Practical Implementation – Adopting two methodologies for calculating compensation—the inflation-adjusted notional income and the lump-sum method for railway accident compensation—the Court established an averaging approach to ensure fairness and consistency in awards for minor deaths, with inflation adjustments annually [Paras 69-73, 99-102].

Medical and Financial Safeguards – Investment and Insurance Mandate for Parents of Deceased Minors – The Court mandated that awarded compensation be invested in a cumulative fixed deposit, accessible upon parents reaching 60 years, with provisions for early withdrawal under certain circumstances – Further directed insurers to issue a minimum health insurance policy of Rs. 10 lakhs for parents, effective from the age of 60, covering potential medical needs in recognition of the dependency on minor children for long-term care [Paras 115-120].

Decision: Appeals allowed in part; enhanced compensation awarded as per methodology outlined with directives for fixed deposit investments and health insurance for parents, reaffirming financial security and societal care standards.
 

Criminal Law – Conviction under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC – Appellants convicted for dowry death and cruelty towards the deceased (Paramjit Kaur) – Trial court sentenced them to 7 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 304-B IPC and 1 year under Section 498-A IPC – Appellants challenged the conviction, arguing that the dying declaration was unreliable and there was no evidence of cruelty or demand for dowry – Held: The prosecution proved that the deceased died due to poisoning within 7 years of marriage, and there was credible evidence of harassment and demand for dowry – Conviction upheld [Paras 1-32].

Dying Declaration – Reliability – The deceased, Paramjit Kaur, made a dying declaration implicating her husband (Mohinder Singh), father-in-law (Amrik Singh), and other relatives for harassment and dowry demands – The appellants argued that the dying declaration lacked a doctor’s fitness certificate – Held: The declaration, recorded by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, was found credible and supported by other evidence, including witness testimonies and medical reports – The absence of a doctor's certificate did not invalidate the declaration [Paras 8-10, 30].

Presumption under Section 113-B of Indian Evidence Act – Dowry Death – The deceased died within 7 years of marriage and was subjected to harassment related to dowry – The court applied the presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, shifting the burden of proof onto the accused – The appellants failed to rebut this presumption, and the prosecution’s evidence supported the conviction for dowry death under Section 304-B IPC [Paras 11-12, 26-31].

Medical Evidence – Cause of Death – The post-mortem and chemical analysis confirmed that the deceased died of poisoning by aluminium phosphide – The medical evidence corroborated the prosecution's case that the death was unnatural and related to dowry demands – No discrepancies in the medical testimony were found [Paras 19-21, 29].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC upheld – Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of [Paras 32-33].

Criminal Law – Pre-Arrest Bail – Dismissed - Exercise of Extraordinary Power – The petitioners sought pre-arrest bail in a case registered against them for offenses under Sections 498-A, 504, 506, and 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC – The deceased had given a statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. alleging harassment by the petitioners – The Court found that the petitioners were prima facie involved in the offenses and that custodial interrogation was necessary to uncover the circumstances leading to the deceased's suicide – Held: The power to grant pre-arrest bail is extraordinary and should be exercised sparingly, particularly in serious cases where custodial interrogation is required to ascertain the truth – Petitions dismissed [Paras 25, 67, 83].

Custodial Interrogation – Necessity in Investigation – The Court emphasized the importance of custodial interrogation in cases involving serious allegations like abetment to suicide – Held: Effective interrogation of a suspect is crucial and may be rendered ineffective if the suspect is granted pre-arrest bail – The need for custodial interrogation outweighs the liberty of the individual in this case [Paras 67, 83].

Consideration for Grant of Anticipatory Bail – The Court referred to the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which highlight the necessity to balance individual rights, public interest, and fair investigation while considering pre-arrest bail – The grant of pre-arrest bail is not a rule but an exception and should be granted only when the court is convinced of exceptional circumstances [Paras 21, 25].

Decision:

Petitions for pre-arrest bail dismissed – The nature of the offense and the necessity for custodial interrogation disentitled the petitioners from the concession of bail – Observations made are confined to the disposal of these petitions and shall not impact the merits of the case [Para 83].