Arbitration – Judicial Interference – Limited Scope under Section 37 – Appeal against judgment upholding arbitral award awarding contractor Rs.6.66 lakhs with interest – Held: Interference under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration Act is narrowly circumscribed – Court cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own view for that of the arbitrator – Award found to be reasoned and based on plausible interpretation – No patent illegality or perversity demonstrated – Appeal dismissed [Paras 10–13, 33–35]

Contract Law – Delay in Execution – Time as Essence – Though the contract originally required completion by 03.07.1992, time was extended until 31.05.1993 – Arbitral Tribunal found delays attributable to Railways’ conduct – Contract rescission held unjustified – Tribunal’s findings on delay and liability upheld as based on evidence and within arbitral jurisdiction [Paras 2(iii)–(v), 31]

Arbitration – Interpretation of Contract – Pricing and Claims – Claims 6 and 7 challenged as contrary to contractual pricing – Tribunal interpreted contract clauses and ISI specifications governing waterproofing and bitumen application – Held: Pricing interpretation was reasonable and within bounds of contract – No ground to interfere on reappraisal of evidence [Paras 32]

Public Policy and Patent Illegality – No Violation – No violation of public policy, fundamental policy of Indian law, or basic morality demonstrated – No fraud, corruption, or procedural impropriety found – Tribunal applied proper reasoning and considered all relevant material – Award immune from curial interference [Paras 13, 27–30, 33]

Arbitration – Interest on Award – Permissibility – Arbitrator awarded 12% interest p.a. on claims and cost of arbitration – Held: Grant of interest in consonance with Section 31(7) of the A&C Act – Contractual bar not absolute – No legal infirmity in award of interest [Para 7]

Judicial Precedents – Conformity with Supreme Court Guidance – High Court reiterates principles from MMTC v. Vedanta, PSA Sical Terminals, Associate Builders, DMRC, and Reliance Infrastructure – Emphasises minimal interference, deference to arbitrator’s findings, and narrow scope of review under Sections 34/37 [Paras 14–26]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No interference warranted with the arbitral award or the District Judge’s judgment upholding it – Award found legally sound, reasoned, and within jurisdiction – No costs imposed – Interim orders vacated [Paras 34–36]

Arbitration – Appointment of Arbitrator – Second Round – Section 11 – Applicant sought appointment of Arbitrator after Award dated 06/06/2022 was set aside in its entirety by Section 34 Court – Though Section 37 Appeals are pending, Court held that under limited scope of Section 11, existence of arbitration agreement alone is to be examined – Held: Prima facie arbitration clause exists – Arbitrator appointed – Objections including res judicata and limitation to be raised before the Tribunal [Paras 5–7, 9].

Arbitration – Scope of Section 11 – Pending Section 37 Appeal – Not a Bar – Respondent opposed maintainability citing pendency of appeal and risk of conflicting decisions – Court relied on SC decisions in Gayatri Balasamy, SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning, and Cox and Kings v. SAP India – Held: Section 11 court must only consider existence of arbitration agreement – All other issues left to Arbitral Tribunal [Paras 6–7].

Arbitration – Res Judicata and Limitation – Arbitrability – Tribunal to Decide – Arguments of limitation and finality of earlier award rejected at Section 11 stage – Court held that Tribunal is the proper forum to decide all objections including maintainability, res judicata and arbitrability – Appointment not precluded [Paras 6–7].

Arbitration – Costs and Fees – Financial burden raised by Respondent – Held: Tribunal empowered to make orders on costs and fees – Arbitrator’s fee governed by Fourth Schedule and Bombay High Court (Fee Payable to Arbitrators) Rules, 2018 [Para 8].

Decision: Section 11 application allowed – Disputes referred to arbitration – Mr. Anish S. Karande appointed as Sole Arbitrator – All rights and contentions of parties kept open – Arbitration to be conducted in Mumbai [Paras 9–9(F)].

Juvenile Justice – Preliminary Assessment – Trial as Adult – The Juvenile Justice Board and the Children’s Court found the revisionist (aged 17 years, 6 months) capable of understanding consequences of the offence under Section 302 IPC and directed trial as adult – Held: Preliminary assessment was not in conformity with Section 15(1) of JJ Act and Rules 10A & 11(2) of the JJ Model Rules – Mandatory requirement to seek assistance from trained psychologists and undertake proper cognitive and emotional intelligence evaluation was not fulfilled – The psychologist’s report was vague and failed to specify tests or findings on IQ or EQ – Assessment was perfunctory and failed to follow mandatory procedural safeguards [Paras 3, 4, 7-10, 28-30, 36].

Juvenile Justice – Guidelines – Need for Framework – Court finds absence of any statutory guidelines or framework defining the process or tools for psychological assessment under Section 15 of JJ Act – Refers to Supreme Court judgment in Barun Chandra Thakur v. Master Bholu, 2022 – Guidelines framed by NCPCR (2023) considered insufficient – Held: Until legislature frames appropriate norms, Court lays down detailed mandatory guidelines for Boards and Children’s Courts to conduct proper preliminary assessments of juveniles alleged to have committed heinous offences [Paras 20-25, 34-35].

Juvenile Justice – Role of Psychologist – Assessment Procedure – Psychologist’s report must include specific cognitive and emotional tests like Binet Kamat Test of Intelligence, VSMS, Bhatiya Battery Test etc. – Must state findings on child’s IQ, EQ, social and emotional maturity – Report should aid Board in evaluating physical and mental capacity to commit and understand consequences of the alleged offence – Mere recording of past criminal involvement is insufficient for trying child as adult [Paras 30, 34(i)-(ii)].

Juvenile Justice – Compliance with NCPCR Guidelines – The Court held that Boards and Courts must obtain Social Investigation Report (SIR), Social Background Report (SBR), Individual Care Plan (ICP), and witness statements per JJ Act and Rules – Found that most Boards do not comply with this mandatory documentation during assessment – Directed State Registrar (Compliance) to circulate order to all JJBs and Children’s Courts for strict adherence [Paras 25-27, 39].

Decision: Criminal revision allowed – Orders dated 04.12.2020 (JJB) and 30.11.2023 (Children’s Court) quashed – Matter remanded to Juvenile Justice Board for fresh preliminary assessment in accordance with detailed guidelines issued by this Court – Direction issued for circulation to all JJBs and Children’s Courts in the State [Paras 36-39].

Domestic Violence – Delay in Proceedings – Pendency of Case Since 2018 – Petitioner-wife filed complaint under Section 12 of the DV Act on 06.11.2018 – Despite service of notice on 28.05.2019, respondent failed to appear – Trial proceeded ex parte – Respondent appeared only in January 2021 – Interim maintenance of ₹15,000/month awarded but reduced to ₹10,000/month by revisional court – Maintenance never paid despite salary of ₹1.10 lakh/month – Total arrears of ₹4.55 lakh accrued – High Court observed inordinate delay and systemic apathy in enforcement of maintenance orders [Paras 2-6]

Non-Compliance with Judicial Directions – Supreme Court and High Court Precedents Ignored – Neither trial court nor revisional court directed respondent to file affidavit of assets and liabilities as mandated in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324 and Parul Tyagi v. Gaurav Tyagi, 2023 SCC OnLine All 2684 – Prior directive in Rajesh Babu Saxena v. State of U.P., 2024 SCC OnLine All 2260 for recovery from salary also disregarded – Court expressed concern over indifference by trial courts to binding precedents, warning of loss of public confidence [Paras 7-8]

Judicial Accountability – Explanations Called from Magistrate and Revisional Court – Magistrate directed to furnish explanation for failure to seek affidavit of assets/liabilities – Revisional Court to explain basis for reducing maintenance from ₹15,000 to ₹10,000/month – Failure to provide satisfactory reasons may invite administrative action – Registrar (Compliance) directed to communicate order – Registrar General to collect responses before next hearing [Paras 8-9]

Decision: Magistrate and Revisional Court directed to submit explanations through Registrar General – Next hearing fixed for 14.10.2025 – Warning issued that evasive replies may attract administrative action.

Property Law – Injunction – Auction Sale – Challenge to possession – Appellants (legal heirs of original plaintiff) sought permanent injunction against Town Municipal Council (TMC) from interfering with their possession over suit properties – Plaintiffs originally filed suit for declaration of title, injunction and mutation of names in revenue records, but later restricted relief to permanent injunction – Trial court dismissed suit, holding that plaintiffs failed to prove possession – First appellate court concurred – High Court held that findings of both courts below were not perverse and were based on material evidence – Held: Once plaintiffs abandoned plea for declaration and failed to establish possession, suit for bare injunction was rightly dismissed [Paras 13, 15, 52, 57, 68, 86].

Civil Procedure – Abandonment of Relief – Plaintiffs initially sought declaration of title and permanent injunction, but restricted claim to injunction during trial – Held: Abandonment of prayer for declaration estopped plaintiffs from questioning validity of auction sale or claiming title – Suit thereafter becomes one for bare injunction – Courts cannot test title or validity of auction proceedings in such suit unless appropriate pleadings and relief are sought – [Paras 45, 51, 52, 77, 80].

Title and Possession – Hypothecation and Auction – Suit properties mortgaged to Excise Department in 1958 – Upon default, auction held in 1960 and confirmed in 1961 in favour of TMC – Plaintiffs failed to challenge auction – Sale was confirmed twice by Deputy Commissioner and reflected in revenue records – Court held that plaintiffs, who admitted mortgage and auction, cannot seek injunction without establishing legal possession – Possession presumed to follow title, especially in case of vacant land – [Paras 48, 66, 68, 78, 85].

Documentary Evidence – Revenue Records – Plaintiffs relied on revenue entries (RoRs), tax receipts, mutation records and correspondence to prove possession – Courts held entries in plaintiffs’ name were made illegally and set aside in revision – Revenue records (Ex.P31, P32) from 1979-87 reflected TMC’s name in possession columns – Subsequent entries in plaintiffs’ name were obtained fraudulently and without notice to TMC – Order of Special Deputy Commissioner setting aside plaintiff’s mutation was upheld – [Paras 70–76].

Administrative Law – Validity of Auction – Plaintiffs contended that auction violated mandatory procedures under Mysore Land Revenue Code and Rules – Court held: Without seeking declaratory relief and challenging sale proceedings, such contentions cannot be entertained in suit for injunction – Moreover, procedural irregularities, if any, do not vitiate title of auction purchaser when sale is otherwise confirmed – [Paras 18–20, 48, 86].

Doctrine of Acquiescence – Plaintiffs, through plaintiff no.1, participated in multiple litigations and never challenged the auction or its confirmation – Plaintiffs aware of auction since 1960s but took no steps to set aside sale – Court held: Plaintiffs acquiesced to auction and lost right to challenge – [Paras 62, 79, 81, 82].

Concurrent Findings – High Court’s Interference under Section 100 CPC – Held: Interference in second appeal only justified when findings are perverse or based on no evidence – Both courts below assessed pleadings, depositions, documentary evidence and gave reasoned findings – No perversity or error of law found – [Paras 47, 59, 68, 76].

Substantial Question of Law – Answered in Affirmative – Whether courts were justified in denying injunction when auction was not followed by delivery of possession but revenue entries and evidence showed TMC’s title and possession – Held: Plaintiffs failed to prove possession; auction and mutation in TMC’s name valid – Substantial question answered in favour of TMC – [Paras 46, 86].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Findings of trial and appellate court upheld – Plaintiffs failed to establish possession or maintainability of suit for bare injunction – Request for stay of order rejected – [Final Order].

Family Law – Transfer of Matrimonial Proceedings – Section 21-A, Hindu Marriage Act – Both husband and wife filed divorce petitions in different courts within Maharashtra – Husband’s petition filed first before Family Court, Bandra; wife’s later petition before Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kalyan – Held: Section 21-A(2)(b) mandates that the later petition “shall” be transferred to the court where the earlier petition was presented – Statutory compulsion overrides discretionary transfer under Section 24 CPC – Wife’s convenience, though generally preferred, cannot prevail against specific legislative direction – Husband’s application allowed; wife’s dismissed [Paras 1–7, 9–10].

Interpretation – Special vs. General Law – Section 21-A of the Hindu Marriage Act (special provision) prevails over Section 24 of CPC (general procedural power) – Word “shall” in Section 21-A indicates mandatory transfer; word “may” in Section 24 CPC denotes discretion – Thus, proceedings governed by Section 21-A must follow statutory mandate [Para 6].

Case Law – Applicability – Supreme Court’s ruling in N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1199, and Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay, (2001) 10 SCC 41, distinguishable as they did not concern Section 21-A – Guda Vijayalakshmi v. Guda Ramchandra Sekhara Sastry, (1981) 2 SCC 646, reaffirmed that Section 21-A is not exhaustive and CPC transfer powers continue to apply, but in intra-state cases statutory mandate under Section 21-A governs [Paras 8–8.3].

Convenience of Wife – Distance of 50 km between Kalyan and Bandra not unreasonable – Wife permitted to appear via video conferencing or physically with travel expenses paid by husband (₹2,500 per hearing) – Monetary inconvenience mitigated [Para 9–10.5].

Decision: MCA No. 124 of 2024 (wife’s application) dismissed – MCA No. 415 of 2024 (husband’s application) allowed – Wife’s HMP No. 2159/2022 before Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kalyan to be transferred and tagged with Marriage Petition No. 3540/2022 pending before Family Court, Bandra – Both to be heard together – No continuation of interim relief granted [Paras 10–12].

Service Law – Transfer – Equivalency of Post – Appellant challenged transfer from Associate Professor to Professor post on ground that it was not an equivalent post – Held: Transfer was to a higher-grade post and not disadvantageous – No violation of service conditions or constitutional provisions – Transfer upheld [Paras 18–19, 23]

Administrative Law – Conditions of Service – Executive Authority – Terms of appointment expressly permitted transfer within university jurisdiction – University transfer guidelines mandated minimum five-year service outside Bangalore – Challenge to administrative discretion in issuing transfer found meritless – Tejshree Ghag case distinguished [Paras 20–22]

Constitutional Law – Articles 14 and 16 – Validity of Transfer – Transfer to higher-grade post with no reduction in pay, rank, or promotional avenues – No civil consequences shown – Transfer not arbitrary or discriminatory – No violation of Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India [Paras 18, 23–24]

Education Law – Definition of ‘Teacher’ – UAS Act – Appellant claimed exemption from transfer as he was not a ‘Teacher’ – Held: Appointed and promoted under teaching cadre – Claimed teaching credits in promotion application – Definition under Section 2(25) of UAS Act applicable – Contention rejected [Paras 25–28]

Service Law – Consent from Government – Validity of Transfer Without Consultation – MoU did not mandate prior consultation with Central Government – University had administrative control – Transfer valid without government approval – Appellant’s claim unsubstantiated [Paras 29–31]

Service Law – Transfer to Another University – Structural Reorganisation – Appellant objected to transfer to V.C. Farm as it later became part of a new university – Held: On the date of transfer, V.C. Farm was under respondent University – Status of absorption in new university not within scope of this appeal [Paras 32–33]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Transfer order upheld – Interim relief vacated – Appellant to be treated on par with other faculty posted at V.C. Farm, Mandya [Paras 35–36]

Railways Act – Compensation – Untoward Incident – Accidental Fall – Deceased was travelling by train with a valid ticket – Fell from an overcrowded compartment due to sudden jerk – Tribunal dismissed claim on grounds of suicide and absence of proof of bona fide passengership – Held: Once accidental fall is established, statutory liability of Railways is attracted – Finding of suicide is speculative and not based on credible evidence – Death falls within scope of “untoward incident” under Section 123(c)(2) – Compensation payable [Paras 2, 13, 14, 18, 21]

Strict Liability – Section 124A – Presumption of Causation – Section 124A enacts no-fault liability for deaths caused by untoward incidents – Railway Administration's defence based on conjecture and unsupported assumptions about suicidal intent not accepted – Contemporaneous police and medical records confirm fall from train – No exception under proviso to Section 124A applies – Railway liable irrespective of negligence [Paras 12, 14, 20, 21]

Bona Fide Passenger – Valid Ticket – Evidentiary Presumption – Journey ticket number VYA-51990424 issued from Berhampur found in possession of deceased – Not denied or disproved by Railways – Inquest and police report corroborate presence of ticket – Tribunal's finding that deceased was not a bona fide passenger found contrary to record and legally unsustainable [Paras 15, 17]

DRM Report – Evidentiary Value – Administrative Inquiry – Tribunal’s reliance on DRM report misplaced – Lacks probative value and not supported by primary or direct evidence – Contradicted by statutory documents like post-mortem, inquest and final police report – Cannot override contemporaneous official records [Para 3(iii), 17]

Judicial Precedent – Interpretation of Beneficial Legislation – Court follows ratio in Union of India v. Rina Devi and Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijay Kumar – Compensation provisions under Railways Act must be interpreted liberally to effectuate social welfare objective – Restrictive interpretation contrary to legislative intent [Paras 16, 19]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of Railway Claims Tribunal dated 10.01.2020 set aside – Deceased held to be a bona fide passenger – Incident held to be an untoward incident – Railways directed to pay compensation of ₹8,00,000 with 6% interest from date of application till payment – Amount to be deposited before Tribunal within three months for disbursal [Paras 23–25]

Mines and Minerals – Quarry Lease – Renewal – Delay – Interpretation of Expiry Date – Application for renewal of quarry lease rejected as being filed after expiry of lease term – Lease expired on 29.12.2013 (a Sunday) – Application filed on 30.12.2013 – Held: By operation of Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, where the last day falls on a holiday, act done on the next working day is valid – Application held to be within time – Rejection order unsustainable [Paras 10, 15–17]

Service of Orders – Communication Requirement – Limitation for Revision – Revision petition under Rule 53(1) of 1994 Rules rejected as delayed by more than six years – Petitioner claimed order of rejection dated 18.01.2014 was never communicated and came to know only in 2019 through RTI – Held: No material to show rejection order was ever communicated – Limitation would run from date of communication – Matter remanded for reconsideration [Paras 18–19]

Quarry Lease – Penalty for Delayed Renewal – Acceptance of Application with Fee – Application filed with two demand drafts for renewal fee and security deposit – Prima facie shows compliance with payment requirement – Issue of absence of arrears clearance certificate not sufficient ground for rejection in absence of notice or opportunity – Revisional authority to re-examine [Para 20]

General Clauses Act – Applicability to Lease Renewals – Provisions of Section 10 applicable to statutory time limits for filing applications under mining rules – Sunday falling on last day of lease term entitled petitioner to file application on next working day – Similar approach adopted by High Court in Robo Silicon Ltd. case affirmed [Paras 12–13, 16]

Decision: Impugned order set aside – Matter remanded to Revisional Authority for reconsideration – Petition disposed of with liberty to parties to raise all contentions afresh [Paras 21–22]