Arbitration Law – Scope of Judicial Review – Section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act – Limited Interference – Court reiterated that scope under Section 34 is narrow – Award can only be set aside on grounds specified such as conflict with fundamental policy of Indian law or violation of most basic notions of justice – Court does not sit in appeal or re-appreciate evidence if Arbitrator has taken a plausible view [Paras 25-28].

Counter-Claim – Requirement of Pleadings – Section 23(2A), Arbitration Act – Arbitrator Erred – Petitioner had specifically pleaded counter-claim of Rs. 11.88 crores in reply with basis of calculation – Respondent in rejoinder categorically denied same – Held: Existence of averments and denial created a dispute requiring framing of an issue – Arbitrator’s refusal to frame issue only because counter-claim was not in prayer clause was erroneous – Pleadings to be read as whole, not in bits – Failure to frame issue violated principles of adjudication [Paras 29-32, 41-42].

Counter-Claim – Opportunity to Cure Defect – Arbitrator’s Duty – Even if defect of absence of prayer was present, Arbitrator ought to have directed petitioner to rectify pleading rather than reject counter-claim outright – Reliance placed on Union of India v. Tata Teleservices (Maharashtra) Ltd., (2007) 7 SCC 517 – Held: Denial without affording opportunity shocks conscience of Court [Paras 15-16, 45-46].

Evidence – Non-Framing of Issue – Effect – Once counter-claim was not made an issue, petitioner had no opportunity to lead evidence – Arbitrator’s later observation that petitioner failed to prove loss untenable – Evidence can only be led on framed issues – Finding against petitioner unsustainable [Paras 47-48].

Public Policy – Fundamental Policy and Notions of Justice – Award set aside – Failure to frame issue on counter-claim despite specific pleadings and rejoinder denial constitutes violation of fundamental policy of Indian law and most basic notions of justice – Award held unsustainable [Paras 50].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Arbitral Award dated 18.06.2010 set aside for being contrary to fundamental policy of Indian law and violative of principles of justice – Petition disposed of [Para 50-51].

Theft Case – Conviction under Section 379 IPC – Sole Reliance on Recovery Evidence – Not Sustainable – Petitioner convicted for snatching ornaments from complainant’s wife – Neither complainant nor witness identified accused – No test identification conducted – Conviction rested entirely on recovery of ornaments under Section 27 Evidence Act – Court held recovery is not substantive evidence and cannot by itself establish guilt – Conviction and sentence set aside [Paras 6-9, 11].

Recovery under Section 27 – Corroboration Required – Supreme Court Precedent – Court relied on Manoj Kumar Soni v. State of M.P., AIR 2023 SC 3857, holding that disclosure statements and recovery under Section 27, though relevant, cannot be the sole basis for conviction unless corroborated by independent evidence – Here, absence of corroboration rendered conviction unsustainable [Paras 9, 11].

Presumption under Section 114(a) Evidence Act – Cannot Be Drawn in Isolation – Prosecution urged conviction at least under Section 411 IPC for possession of stolen property – Court held presumption under Section 114(a) must be based on corroborative material – Sole reliance on disclosure/recovery insufficient – Conviction under Section 411 also impermissible [Paras 10-11].

Appellate and Trial Courts – Error in Law – Correction by High Court – Both trial and appellate courts erred in sustaining conviction on recovery evidence alone – High Court intervened in revision, holding absence of substantive evidence linking accused to theft warranted acquittal [Paras 7, 11].

Final Decision – Conviction and Sentence Set Aside – Accused Acquitted – High Court allowed revision petition – Petitioner acquitted of all charges under Sections 379/34 IPC – Held recovery evidence alone insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Para 11].

Service Law – Equal Pay for Equal Work – Part-Time Lecturers – Relief Granted – Petitioner, appointed as a part-time lecturer in a grant-in-aid college, demanded parity in salary on a pro rata basis in line with UGC norms and Sixth Pay Commission – Court held that qualifications, duties, and mode of selection being identical to full-time lecturers, the denial of proportionate pay amounts to discrimination – Directed State to consider parity in pay structure in accordance with UGC norms [Paras 3, 5, 37-52].

UGC Recommendations – Implementation by State – Discriminatory Denial Unjustified – Although UGC pay scales are not binding unless adopted, once adopted for full-time teachers, denial of the same to similarly placed part-time teachers is arbitrary and violates constitutional protections under Article 14 – Court rejected partial implementation of beneficial schemes as discriminatory [Paras 35, 39-42, 50].

Constitutional Protection – Articles 14 and 23 – Discrimination and Forced Labour – The practice of paying significantly less to part-time lecturers for the same work was held violative of Articles 14 (equality) and 23 (prohibition of forced labour) – Court emphasized that such treatment is not only discriminatory but exploitative – Held: State cannot avoid responsibility to ensure equitable treatment [Paras 42-48].

Educational Standards – Role of UGC – Regulatory and Advisory Authority – UGC regulations ensure quality in higher education and set minimum standards – Where State has accepted UGC’s recommendations in part, its selective denial to part-time faculty without justification is contrary to the regulatory purpose and violates equality principles [Paras 36-38, 50].

Final Decision – Petition Allowed – Writ of Mandamus Issued – State directed to consider and implement pay parity for the petitioner and similarly placed part-time lecturers on a pro rata basis from the appropriate date – Respondents instructed to act in line with constitutional and UGC norms [Final Para].

Judicial Service Law  – Appointment from Waitlist – Rule 18 of DJS Rules – Petition Dismissed - The petitioner, waitlisted at Rank 5 under unreserved category in Delhi Judicial Services Exam 2022, sought appointment upon resignation of a selected candidate who had already joined – Held: Rule 18(vi) permits appointment from waitlist only in case of non-joining, not post-joining resignation – Petitioner not entitled to claim appointment based on resignation of a joined candidate [Paras 1-6, 14-16, 22-23].

Validity of Select List – Rule 18(vii) vs 18(vi) – Dichotomy in Rules – No Right Accrued - Though the Select List remains valid till publication of a new list (Rule 18(vii)), its use for appointment is confined to vacancies from non-joining (Rule 18(vi)) – Court observed an internal inconsistency but declined to extend interpretation in favour of petitioner – Appropriate remedy lies in rule amendment, not judicial interpretation [Paras 15, 25].

Resignation after Joining – Not a Vacancy to be Filled via Waitlist – Judicial Precedents Applied - Referring to Sudesh Kumar Goyal v. State of Haryana, (2023) 10 SCC 54 and Rakhi Ray v. High Court of Delhi, (2010) 2 SCC 637, Court reiterated that vacancies arising post-joining (due to resignation, etc.) are to be treated as fresh vacancies and cannot be filled from the existing waitlist without fresh recruitment [Paras 16, 19].

DoPT OM Dated 13.06.2000 – Inapplicable to Judicial Services – Separation of Judicial Administration - Court rejected analogy with Central Government recruitment governed by DoPT rules – Held: Delhi Judicial Services governed by separate state-specific rules – DoPT OMs and UPSC-based interpretations not binding on judicial recruitment [Paras 17-18].

Allegation of Misconduct in Joining – Not Justiciable in Present Petition – Issue Left Open - The Court declined to enter into the question of whether the resigned candidate (Ms. Riya Goyal) concealed facts relating to appointment in Punjab Judicial Service – Held: Not relevant for deciding entitlement of petitioner to appointment from waitlist [Para 24].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – No Right to Appointment - Petition seeking appointment against vacancy arising due to resignation after joining held not maintainable – Court recommended placing judgment before the Rules Committee for consideration of amending DJS Rules to resolve existing ambiguity [Paras 23, 25].

Civil Law - Partition Suit – Claim by Heirs of Deceased Brother – Relinquishment of Share – Appeal Dismissed – Appellants (legal heirs of Narsing Gawli) filed partition suit claiming share in ancestral property – Trial Court and First Appellate Court held that Narsing had relinquished his share and led separate life – High Court held no substantial question of law arose – Held: Concurrent findings on fact of relinquishment and separate residence unassailable – Appeal dismissed [Paras 7–11].

Substantial Question of Law – No Evidence to Rebut Concurrent Findings – Second Appeal Not Maintainable – The Court reiterated that second appeal lies only when a substantial question of law arises – Here, the plea that Narsing did not relinquish his share was disproved by admissions and evidence – Held: No perversity or legal error in concurrent findings – No interference warranted [Paras 9–10].

Family Settlement – Oral Relinquishment Valid in Facts – Evidence Supported Separate Possession – The Courts below relied on consistent evidence showing Narsing was allotted only a room and shop for maintenance, without further claim – Court upheld such oral family settlement, especially when supported by long-standing conduct – Held: Oral relinquishment in family arrangement is legally acceptable [Paras 7–9].

Final Decision – Second Appeal Dismissed – No Substantial Question of Law – Appellants’ claim for partition rejected [Paras 10–11].

Judicial Infrastructure – Interim Directions – Coordination between Judiciary and Executive – Positive Steps Ensured - The Court noted constructive efforts by the Bar Association and U.T. Administration under the chairmanship of the Additional Solicitor General to develop a holistic plan for infrastructural augmentation of the High Court – Various stages of compliance were noted and directives issued regarding kutcha parking, fire safety certification, and possible re-allocation of vacated Secretariat space to ease congestion in Sector-1 – The Court emphasized the necessity for judiciary to operate at full strength and urged cooperative federalism from U.T. Administration in realising infrastructural needs [Paras 3-8.3].

Judicial Infrastructure – Kutcha Parking – Green Pavers Directed - Bar Association approved the Building Committee’s plan – Court directed U.T. Administration to complete the green pavers work in kutcha parking area within 60 days [Paras 4-4.1].

Administrative Space – Allotment of Building in Sector-17 – Fire Safety Certificate Pending – Though possession of four floors was handed over to the High Court, absence of fire safety certificate from Municipal Corporation stalled effective use – Court directed issuance within one week failing which the Municipal Corporation may be impleaded and action initiated [Paras 5-5.2].

Alternative Site – Holistic Plan Under Discussion – No Directions Issued - Court refrained from passing directions regarding allotment of alternate site for new building until next meeting scheduled for 20.08.2025 – Proceedings of both meetings to be brought on record [Paras 3, 6].

Vacated Secretariat Building – Re-allocation for Court Use – Positive Suggestion - U.T. Chandigarh Administration was directed to explore allocation of two floors of partially vacated Secretariat building for High Court branches – Court reiterated the symbiotic relationship of the three democratic pillars and urged facilitative stance from Administration [Paras 8-8.3].

Decision – Interim Order – Monitoring Continued – Court Preserves Matter for Further Hearing - Directions issued in respect of kutcha parking, fire safety certification, and exploration of alternate space in Secretariat building – Court deferred decision on new building site until next meeting – Matter listed for further hearing on 22.08.2025 to monitor compliance and receive updated records of joint meetings [Para 9].

Family Law - Section 14 and 23 of the Hindu Succession Act – Right of Residence – Married/Destitute Daughters – Decree for Eviction Set Aside – The plaintiffs sought possession from female heirs (daughters of Rama) alleging they were gratuitous licensees – Defendants claimed possession since before 1956 on property allotted by their father Rama for maintenance – High Court held that even prior to Hindu Succession Act, 1956, there was a moral obligation on the father to maintain his daughters – Held: Under Section 14 of the Act, such rights mature into absolute ownership – Section 23 (pre-2005) affirmed their right of residence – Plaintiff’s suit for possession unsustainable [Paras 5-21].

Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act – Scope and Applicability – Property possessed by a Hindu female – Absolute Ownership – It was held that Section 14(1) has wide scope and converts limited rights (even arising from moral obligations) into absolute ownership – No restrictive covenant under Section 14(2) shown in this case – Hence, defendants' right to residence matured into ownership [Paras 13-15, 17].

Moral Obligation to Maintain – Converts to Legal Obligation – Where a father allows destitute or widowed daughters to reside on property, such a moral obligation matures into a legal right when acknowledged – This principle extends to heirs inheriting the property – The court reaffirmed that legal obligations flowing from moral duties remain valid under Hindu law [Paras 14-17].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Decrees of Trial Court and First Appellate Court Set Aside – Defendants’ right to reside upheld – Plaintiff’s claim for eviction rejected as unsustainable under law [Paras 21-22].

Bail Appeal – Section 14-A(2) SC/ST Act – Appeal Allowed – The appellant challenged rejection of his bail applications in offences under IPC including Section 376, 376D and SC/ST Act – Victim’s statement under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS contained contradictions; no supporting medical evidence; trial yet to commence – Court found that essential ingredients of SC/ST Act not prima facie established – Held: Appellant made out a case for bail; rejection orders set aside; bail granted with conditions [Paras 1, 3-7].

Sexual Offence Allegations – Evidentiary Contradictions – Victim’s Testimony – The Court noted that the prosecutrix aged 29 years had inconsistencies in her statements and absence of medical corroboration weakened the prosecution’s version at the bail stage – Bail cannot be denied solely on allegations when evidence is doubtful and trial delayed [Paras 3-4, 7].

Grant of Bail – Conditions Imposed – The appellant directed to be released on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions: (i) not to tamper with evidence; (ii) not to intimidate witnesses; (iii) to appear before trial court unless exempted; (iv) not to commit similar offences; (v) not to induce/threaten persons acquainted with facts – Prosecution given liberty to seek cancellation of bail in case of breach [Paras 8-10].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Impugned bail rejection orders dated 13.01.2025 and 05.02.2025 set aside – Bail granted to appellant Abdul Raseed [Paras 8-10].

Company Law  – SFIO probe – Whistleblower sought copies of complaint & annexures – Special Court directed “Issue CC on usual terms” without reasons – High Court quashed – Held: Stranger not entitled to complaint/annexures; only investigation report permissible under Section 212(13) Companies Act – Orders unsustainable – Applications remitted [Paras 8–12, 18–20].

Third-party right to copies – Criminal Rules of Practice (Kerala) – Rule 226 allows strangers to apply but no entitlement as of right – Court must assess bona fides, purpose and privacy concerns – Orders must show reasons – Here, Special Court’s cryptic orders unsustainable – Ismail P.M. v. Muhammad Ameer-ul-Islam, 2022 (2) KHC 660 (Ker HC DB) and Karthik Dasari v. State, 2022 SCC OnLine Mad 1412 applied [Paras 8–10, 16–17].

Companies Act – Section 212(13) – Scope – “Any person concerned” may obtain copy of SFIO’s investigation report – Petitioner already supplied report (Annexure A10) – No right to complaint or annexures under Companies Act – Generalia specialibus non derogant argument rejected for non-report documents [Paras 11–12, 18–19].

Privacy & misuse – Concern that petitioner intended to use documents for political mileage despite civil court injunction (OS No.104/2025, Sub Judge Ernakulam) – Court emphasized privacy of accused/respondents – Referred Saurav Das v. Union of India, (2023) 11 SCC 154 holding charge sheet/documents not “public documents” under Evidence Act [Paras 6, 12, 20].

Judicial duty – Courts must give reasoned orders when granting copies – Mere “Issue CC” not sufficient – Application must be verified and purpose scrutinized – Orders here quashed for non-application of mind [Paras 8–9, 17].

Rules Committee – Court requested amendment of Rule 226 to require notice to affected parties before granting third-party copies, in light of privacy implications [Para 20].

Disposition – Crl.M.C. Nos. 6537 & 6409/2025 (by CMRL) allowed; orders directing copies quashed – Crl.M.C. No. 5765/2025 (by Shone George) dismissed – Special Court to reconsider applications afresh with reasons and safeguards [Paras 18–20].