Arbitration – Appointment of Arbitrator – Employment Contracts – Petitions filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking the constitution of an Arbitral Tribunal to resolve disputes arising from the lock-in periods specified in the employment contracts – Court upheld the validity of lock-in periods, finding them not violative of fundamental rights or Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act – Disputes related to lock-in periods held to be arbitrable [Paras 59-79].

Restrictive Covenants – Validity During Employment – Court reiterated that negative covenants operative during the term of employment are valid and not considered in restraint of trade – Distinguished from covenants post-employment which are typically void [Paras 63-72].

Constitutional Rights – Fundamental Rights – Held that employment contract terms agreed upon voluntarily do not violate Articles 14, 19, or 21 of the Constitution – Court emphasized the importance of stability provided by lock-in periods in employment contracts [Paras 70-72].

Decision – Petitions Allowed – Held – Disputes regarding the lock-in periods in the employment agreements are arbitrable – Sole arbitrator appointed to adjudicate disputes under the employment contracts – Directions for the arbitration proceedings to be conducted under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) [Paras 83-88].

Administrative Law – Repatriation – Absorption – Petitioner, initially on deputation as Deputy Registrar, was absorbed by University’s Executive Council (EC) resolution – Later repatriated by Registrar’s order claiming she was still on deputation – Petitioner challenged repatriation – Court held petitioner was validly absorbed and became permanent employee – Registrar’s order set aside as it lacked jurisdiction and violated statutory provisions [Paras 7.1-7.4].

University Governance – Authority and Jurisdiction – Executive Council (EC) as Chief Executive Authority – Registrar and Vice-Chancellor overstepped jurisdiction in repatriating petitioner – Absence of quorum for EC meetings not justified – EC’s decisions binding until formally modified or recalled [Paras 7.3-7.4].

Costs – Litigation Costs – Petitioner awarded ₹1,00,000 as costs due to illegal actions by University officials – Costs to be borne by Registrar and Vice-Chancellor personally [Para 9].

Decision – Petition allowed – Impugned repatriation order dated 01.03.2024 set aside – Petitioner to be treated as Deputy Registrar with effect from 02.03.2021 – Respondent University directed to relieve petitioner from her current posting within three days to enable her to join the University [Para 8].

Tenancy and Possession – Recovery of Premises – Plaintiff company, lawful tenant of the suit premises, sought recovery of possession from defendants – Defendant No.1 initially permitted temporary occupation but failed to vacate as promised – Defendant No.1 inducted third parties into premises without authority – Court held that plaintiff entitled to recovery of possession and defendants to vacate [Paras 1-19].

Mesne Profits – Enquiry Ordered – Special Officer appointed to ascertain mesne profits due to unauthorized occupation – Court directed an enquiry to determine the amount payable to plaintiff – Remuneration for Special Officer to be initially borne by plaintiff but recoverable from defendants [Para 20].

Decision – Decree for recovery of possession granted – Defendants directed to hand over vacant possession – Enquiry into mesne profits ordered to be completed within four months – Case listed for further hearing post submission of enquiry report [Paras 21].

Education Law – Examination Results Cancellation – Violation of Principles of Natural Justice – Lucknow University’s negligent conduct in withholding a student’s B.Sc. results and subsequent failure to communicate the cancellation of exams – High Court quashes University’s actions as arbitrary and illegal – Petitioner awarded costs for damages to educational prospects due to the University's negligence – [Paras 1-24].

Administrative Law – Non-communication of orders – Order dated 21.05.2012 not communicated to the petitioner, rendering it non-est and non-existing – Subsequent orders based on the non-communicated order deemed illegal and arbitrary – University’s failure to conduct a proper inquiry and provide an opportunity to the petitioner criticized – [Paras 10-21].

Cost Imposition – High Court imposes compensatory costs of Rs. 2 lakhs on Lucknow University for negligent actions that caused delay and harm to the petitioner’s educational career – Purpose of costs to discourage mala fide actions and compensate for inconvenience and expenses caused to the petitioner – [Paras 22-24].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Held – The actions of Lucknow University, including the non-communication of essential orders and negligent conduct, were in gross violation of natural justice principles – The University is ordered to pay Rs. 2 lakhs as compensation to the petitioner within two months – [Para 24].

Withholding of DCRG – Rule 3A of Part III KSR – Legality of withholding DCRG pending judicial proceedings – Tribunal found withholding DCRG illegal when no judicial proceedings were instituted – Quashment of vigilance case – Original petition challenging Tribunal’s order granting interest on withheld DCRG dismissed [Paras 1-17].

Right to Interest on Delayed DCRG – Equitable Considerations – Despite absence of statutory provision, interest on delayed DCRG payment justified under Articles 14, 19, 21, and 300 of the Constitution – Precedents support payment of interest on delayed retirement benefits [Paras 11-15].

Vigilance Proceedings – Quashing of FIR – Respondent absolved of charges – No misconduct found – Government’s earlier admission of respondent’s innocence pivotal in deciding entitlement to interest [Paras 3, 9-10, 15].

Decision:Writ Petition Dismissed – Orders by Tribunal upheld – State directed to comply with Tribunal’s direction to pay interest within six weeks from the date of receipt of this judgment [Paras 16-17].

Family Law – Restoration of Petition – Appellant’s Conduct –

Petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act dismissed for default as appellant and his counsel failed to appear on the scheduled date – Appellant walked out during proceedings on the prior date and did not return – Filed for restoration under Order IX Rule 4 CPC after four months – Appellant blamed counsel for advising non-appearance – Family Court dismissed restoration application, citing lack of sufficient cause and appellant’s disrespect to the court [Paras 6-15, 23-27].

Presence of Parties in Family Court – Requirement and Consequences –

Under Section 13 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, personal presence of parties typically required – Appellant failed to justify absence and walking out of court proceedings – Supreme Court emphasized importance of parties’ presence and criticized appellant for not taking responsibility for his actions [Paras 17-24].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed –

Family Court’s decision upheld – Appellant’s petition for restoration dismissed due to failure to show sufficient cause – Court emphasized that appellant cannot benefit from his own wrong and must take responsibility for court proceedings [Paras 25-28].

Criminal Law – Evidence of Victim – Conviction based on sole testimony of victim of sexual assault without corroboration – Legal standards for reliability of victim’s testimony examined – Statements of prosecutrix must be appreciated on the principles of probabilities, broader probabilities to be examined, minor contradictions not fatal [Paras 13-17].

Chain of Custody – Forensic Evidence – Failure to connect forensic samples with commission of the offence – Discrepancies in the chain of custody – Possibility of tampering with evidence cannot be ruled out – SFSL reports unreliable due to procedural lapses [Paras 23-24].

Kidnapping – Enticement and Consent – Victim below 18 years, consent irrelevant – Accused convicted under Section 363 IPC for kidnapping from lawful guardianship – Prosecution failed to prove intent for illicit intercourse, acquittal under Sections 366, 366-A IPC [Paras 26-27].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Sections 366, 366-A, 376(3) IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act set aside – Conviction under Section 363 IPC upheld – Appellant directed to be released forthwith as sentence already undergone [Paras 27-29].

Insurance Liability – Contract of Insurance – Appeal against trial court’s decree holding insurance company liable for compensation and medical expenses paid by employer to its employees – Appellant contends no contract of insurance exists between insurer and employer, policy was an Act policy with limited liability – No contractual obligation to cover medical expenses incurred by employer [Paras 1-23].

Motor Accident – Recovery of Compensation – Employer’s claim for recovery of medical expenses and compensation from insurer – Employees injured during employment while traveling in hired jeep – Jeep insured under Act policy, not comprehensive policy – No claim filed with Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by injured employees – No contract of insurance between employer and insurer under Workmen Compensation Act [Paras 13-23].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Decree and judgment of trial court set aside – Insurance company not liable to indemnify employer in absence of contractual obligation – No costs awarded [Paras 24-25].

Family Pension – Entitlement of Disabled Dependent – Petitioner, suffering from 60% disability, claimed family pension following the death of his mother. His claim was rejected by the Senior Accounts Officer on grounds of his prior ability to run a public call office (PCO). The High Court found the rejection improper, noting the petitioner’s entitlement under the government order dated 20.05.1997. It held that the committee assessing the claim lacked the requisite medical expertise to override the Chief Medical Officer’s disability certificate and emphasized the validity of such certificates unless questioned by a medical board or higher medical authority [Paras 1-12].

Medical Evidence – Validity and Assessment – The committee’s decision, lacking medical expertise, was deemed unsustainable. The court underscored that disability assessments for pension purposes should be conducted by qualified medical professionals and not by administrative officers without medical training [Paras 6-10].

Decision: Writ Petition Allowed. The rejection order dated 12.11.2020 was set aside. The respondents were directed to grant family pension to the petitioner within one month of the presentation of a certified copy of this order [Paras 12-13].