Arbitration - Objections to Award - Limitation Period - Section 34(3) - No Condonation Beyond Specified Period– Appeal against dismissal of objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as time-barred – Held: Section 34(3) prescribes a limitation period of three months from the receipt of the arbitral award, extendable by a further 30 days if sufficient cause is shown. There is no provision for condoning delays beyond this period. [Paras 2, 5, 6]

Awareness of Arbitral Award - Presence of Counsel – Analysis – Held: The appellants' claim of unawareness of the award was refuted by the Additional District Judge, noting the award was announced in the presence of the appellants' counsel and a certified copy was provided on 24.09.2015. The objections filed on 04.04.2016 exceeded the permissible period. [Para 4]

Condonation of Delay - Legal Precedents – Consideration – Held: The settled legal position, as reinforced by the Supreme Court judgments in Union of India v. Popular Construction Co. and Consolidated Engineering Enterprises v. Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department, is that Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be invoked to condone delays under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. [Para 5]

Decision: The appeal is dismissed. The objections to the arbitral award were filed beyond the permissible period and cannot be entertained. The impugned order stands upheld. [Paras 7, 8]

Administrative Law - Arms Licence Cancellation - Writ Petition Seeking Certiorari - Petition challenging orders cancelling arms licence retrospectively and dismissing appeal - Petitioner held arms licence since 2001 and was later convicted and released on probation - Licence cancelled due to conviction - Held, Licensing Authority must provide written reasons for suspension or revocation of licence and furnish them to the licence holder unless public interest dictates otherwise - No valid reasons provided in this case - Impugned orders set aside - Matter remanded for fresh decision with an opportunity for the petitioner to be heard - Writ Petition Allowed [Paras 3, 5, 8].

Licensing Authority's Obligation - Analysis - Held, No specific findings recorded to indicate which clause of Section 17(3) was applicable - Authority failed to justify cancellation under Section 17(5) - Orders were non-speaking and did not comply with statutory requirements [Para 6].

Decision - Remand for Fresh Consideration - Court quashes the cancellation and appeal dismissal orders, directing the Licensing Authority to reconsider the matter in accordance with the law, ensuring the petitioner is heard [Para 8].

Maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Interpretation of the term "wife" - Expansive interpretation given to the term "wife" in Chanmuniya v. Virender Kumar Singh Kushwaha, (2011) 1 SCC 141 - Broad interpretation includes cases where a man and woman have been living together as husband and wife for a considerable period of time - Strict proof of marriage not a precondition for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. - Principles of social justice and upholding the dignity of the individual.

Applicability of broad interpretation to the instant case - Parties already married to other individuals - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Marriage with living spouse invalidates the claim of a valid marriage for maintenance - Relying on Chanmuniya case not tenable - Second marriage void on account of survival of the first marriage - Second wife not a legally wedded wife - Not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

Concerns regarding exploitation and legal loopholes - Section 125 fails to arrest exploitation it seeks to curb - Sympathy for the respondent but constrained by the law - Liberty for the respondent to avail other remedies suited to the circumstances, such as seeking compensation under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Impugned order set aside - Petition disposed of accordingly.

Senior Citizens Act, 2007 - Section 23(1) - Constitutional validity - Challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 - Section restricts the applicability of the provision only to gifts of property made by a senior citizen after the commencement of the Act - Petitioner seeks removal or striking down of the words "after the commencement of the Act" from Section 23(1) - Contention that the provision should have retrospective effect - Petitioner argues that the Act should permit senior citizens to revoke gifts made prior to the Act's commencement - Court examines the legislative intent and purpose of the Act. [Para 1]

Interpretation of statutes - Literal rule of interpretation - Courts must give effect to the plain and clear language of a statute - Departure from literal rule only when language is contradictory, ambiguous, or leads to absurd results - Presumption that every word used by the legislature is intentional - Each word in a statute must be given effect - Court cannot rewrite or amend legislation - Need for caution in interpreting statutes to avoid crossing the line between adjudication and legislation. [Para 11]

Retrospective operation of statutes - Unless expressly provided or required, statutes should not be given retrospective operation - Existing rights should not be taken away or impaired, nor new obligations or liabilities created, unless clearly required - Courts should avoid retrospective operation that affects past transactions - Retrospective operation should be avoided unless the language of the statute necessitates it. [Para 7, 8]

Section 23(1) of the Senior Citizens Act - Prospective operation - Section 23(1) intended to protect existing rights of donees - Rider of "after the commencement of the Act" to avoid disturbing family arrangements and vested rights - Legislature conscious of not giving retrospective operation to vested rights despite the welfare objective of the Act - No case of casus omissus - Court cannot make provision what the legislature did not intend it to be. [Para 6, 12]

Judgment - Dismissal of petition - Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution - Court declines to exercise jurisdiction - Competent authority directed to adjudicate the petitioner's case under the Senior Citizens Act in accordance with the law. [Para 14, 15]

Criminal Law - Bail - POCSO Act - Sexual harassment of minor girls - Petitioner, an assistant teacher, alleged to have sexually harassed girl students - Bail application rejected by FTSC-I, Tumkur - Petitioner files a criminal petition seeking bail before the High Court - Whether petitioner entitled to bail - Held, no - Offences alleged are heinous in nature, committed against minor girls studying in the same school - Petitioner accused of removing his clothes, touching the private parts of the victims, and forcing them to touch his private parts - Statements of victims recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. - Alleged threat by petitioner to deter victims from filing complaints - Previous absence of complaints against petitioner does not imply false implication - Sexual harassment affects reputation of the school, career of victims, and violates the trust placed in teachers - Bail application rightly rejected by FTSC-I, Tumkur - High Court concurs with decision - Bail application of petitioner rejected.

Criminal Law - Bail - POCSO Act - Sexual harassment of minor girls - Petitioner, an assistant teacher, alleged to have sexually harassed girl students - Bail application rejected by FTSC-I, Tumkur - Petitioner files a criminal petition seeking bail before the High Court - Whether petitioner entitled to bail - Held, no - Offences alleged are heinous in nature, committed against minor girls studying in the same school - Petitioner accused of removing his clothes, touching the private parts of the victims, and forcing them to touch his private parts - Statements of victims recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. - Alleged threat by petitioner to deter victims from filing complaints - Previous absence of complaints against petitioner does not imply false implication - Sexual harassment affects reputation of the school, career of victims, and violates the trust placed in teachers - Bail application rightly rejected by FTSC-I, Tumkur - High Court concurs with decision - Bail application of petitioner rejected.

Criminal Law - Bail - POCSO Act - Sexual harassment of minor girls - Petitioner, an assistant teacher, alleged to have sexually harassed girl students - Bail application rejected by FTSC-I, Tumkur - Petitioner files a criminal petition seeking bail before the High Court - Whether petitioner entitled to bail - Held, no - Offences alleged are heinous in nature, committed against minor girls studying in the same school - Petitioner accused of removing his clothes, touching the private parts of the victims, and forcing them to touch his private parts - Statements of victims recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. - Alleged threat by petitioner to deter victims from filing complaints - Previous absence of complaints against petitioner does not imply false implication - Sexual harassment affects reputation of the school, career of victims, and violates the trust placed in teachers - Bail application rightly rejected by FTSC-I, Tumkur - High Court concurs with decision - Bail application of petitioner rejected.

Criminal Law - Bail - POCSO Act - Sexual harassment of minor girls - Petitioner, an assistant teacher, alleged to have sexually harassed girl students - Bail application rejected by FTSC-I, Tumkur - Petitioner files a criminal petition seeking bail before the High Court - Whether petitioner entitled to bail - Held, no - Offences alleged are heinous in nature, committed against minor girls studying in the same school - Petitioner accused of removing his clothes, touching the private parts of the victims, and forcing them to touch his private parts - Statements of victims recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. - Alleged threat by petitioner to deter victims from filing complaints - Previous absence of complaints against petitioner does not imply false implication - Sexual harassment affects reputation of the school, career of victims, and violates the trust placed in teachers - Bail application rightly rejected by FTSC-I, Tumkur - High Court concurs with decision - Bail application of petitioner rejected.

Criminal Law - Bail - POCSO Act - Sexual harassment of minor girls - Petitioner, an assistant teacher, alleged to have sexually harassed girl students - Bail application rejected by FTSC-I, Tumkur - Petitioner files a criminal petition seeking bail before the High Court - Whether petitioner entitled to bail - Held, no - Offences alleged are heinous in nature, committed against minor girls studying in the same school - Petitioner accused of removing his clothes, touching the private parts of the victims, and forcing them to touch his private parts - Statements of victims recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. - Alleged threat by petitioner to deter victims from filing complaints - Previous absence of complaints against petitioner does not imply false implication - Sexual harassment affects reputation of the school, career of victims, and violates the trust placed in teachers - Bail application rightly rejected by FTSC-I, Tumkur - High Court concurs with decision - Bail application of petitioner rejected.

Criminal Law - Bail - POCSO Act - Sexual harassment of minor girls - Petitioner, an assistant teacher, alleged to have sexually harassed girl students - Bail application rejected by FTSC-I, Tumkur - Petitioner files a criminal petition seeking bail before the High Court - Whether petitioner entitled to bail - Held, no - Offences alleged are heinous in nature, committed against minor girls studying in the same school - Petitioner accused of removing his clothes, touching the private parts of the victims, and forcing them to touch his private parts - Statements of victims recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. - Alleged threat by petitioner to deter victims from filing complaints - Previous absence of complaints against petitioner does not imply false implication - Sexual harassment affects reputation of the school, career of victims, and violates the trust placed in teachers - Bail application rightly rejected by FTSC-I, Tumkur - High Court concurs with decision - Bail application of petitioner rejected.

Criminal Procedure - Recall of Witness - Change of Counsel - Additional Evidence - Delay in Proceedings- Change of Counsel – Petition under Section 482 CrPC challenging the dismissal of applications under Section 311 CrPC – Held: The alleged lack of competence of the previous counsel cannot justify reopening the examination of the complainant. Allowing such applications routinely based on change of counsel would be unreasonable and delay the trial. [Paras 8, 11]

Additional Evidence - Disguise for Retrial – Analysis – Held: Additional evidence must not be used as a disguise for retrial or to change the nature of the case. Applications for additional evidence should be allowed only if it is essential for the just decision of the case and not to fill lacunae. [Para 11]

Prejudice and Delay in Proceedings – Consideration – Held: Summoning witnesses at a belated stage is likely to cause prejudice and should not be allowed if the reasons for recalling the witness are not satisfactory. The trial court rightly dismissed the applications to prevent delay and abuse of the process. [Para 12]

Decision: The petition is dismissed. The trial court's orders dated 04.07.2016 and 20.07.2016, rejecting the applications under Section 311 CrPC, are upheld. The applications were found to be filed at an advanced stage of the case with no cogent reason and appeared to be an attempt to delay the proceedings. [Para 13]

Criminal Procedure - Anticipatory Bail - Second Application - Change in Circumstance - Bail Jurisprudence- No Change in Circumstance – Petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail – Held: A second anticipatory bail application on the same cause of action is not maintainable without a change in circumstance, fact situation, or law. The petitioner did not approach the trial court as directed in the prior order. [Paras 13-15]

Individual Right vs. Investigational Right - Abuse of Process – Analysis – Held: The court must balance the individual’s right to personal freedom with the investigational rights of the police. Provisions of anticipatory bail cannot be abused. A second application is only permissible if new circumstances arise or the earlier findings are obsolete. [Paras 13-14]

Decision: The petition is dismissed. The second anticipatory bail application is not maintainable in the absence of new circumstances or adherence to legal remedies provided in the prior order. The petitioner’s failure to approach the trial court and attempt to evade the process of law shows highhandedness and lack of respect for judicial directions. [Paras 16-17]

Maintenance Allowance – Non-payment – Breach of Protection Order – Interpretation and application of Section 31 of the Domestic Violence Act – Whether non-payment of maintenance allowance amounts to economic abuse and breach of a protection order under the DV Act – Principles of purposive interpretation and mischief rule applied – Objective of the DV Act to provide immediate relief, prevent destitution, and protect the rights of women – Section 31 can be invoked for every breach of order as a continuing offence – Dissenting from a previous Kerala High Court judgment and concurring with the interpretation made by the Madhya Pradesh High Court – Importance of conducting proper inquiries when the petitioner has regularly paid the maintenance. (Para 1-23)

Purposive Interpretation – Societal transformation – Legislative intent – Role of the court in understanding the purpose of the law and helping it achieve its objective – Principles laid down in Heydon’s case and other relevant precedents – Interpretation should suppress mischief, advance the remedy, and align with the changing needs of society – Purpose of the DV Act to provide social justice, equality, and dignity to women – Maintenance allowance as a moral claim transformed into a legal obligation – Importance of interpreting the law to enable the achievement of the Act’s objectives. (Para 11.2, 11.4, 12.1, 14, 20.1)

Mischief Rule – Historical background – Identifying the mischief that existed before the statute – Eliminating the mischief through interpretation – Applying the principle of suppressing the mischief to achieve the object of the legislation – Rejecting constructions that reduce the legislation to futility or put roadblocks in its way – Giving effect to interpretations that contribute to the smooth working of the system for which the statute was enacted – Importance of considering the historical context and societal realities in interpreting the law. (Para 11.2, 11.4, 11.5)

Continuing Offence – Non-payment of maintenance allowance as a continuing offence – Each breach of the protection order amounts to a separate offence – Jurisdiction of the law enforcement authority to register a criminal case under Section 31 of the DV Act for non-payment of maintenance allowance – No legal bar to registering the case – Non-payment of maintenance allowance deemed to be a breach of the protection order – Purpose of the provision to prevent destitution and vagrancy – Penalty for breach of protection order provided under Section 31 of the DV Act – Importance of distinguishing between non-payment of maintenance and instances where the maintenance has been regularly paid. (Para 16, 20.1)

Inquiry into Payment of Maintenance – Importance of conducting proper inquiries when the petitioner has regularly paid the maintenance – Need for a fair assessment of the facts and evidence before registering a case under Section 31 – Preventing unnecessary harassment of the respondent – Duty of the court and law enforcement authorities to ensure justice is served and the rights of both parties are protected – Quashing of proceedings when the petitioner has produced relevant documents proving regular payment of maintenance. (Para 23)

Conclusion: Section 31 of the DV Act is a key provision and the heartbeat of the Act to regulate the violator of protection orders. Non-payment of maintenance allowance amounts to economic abuse and breach of a protection order, and each breach constitutes a continuing offence. The law enforcement authority has jurisdiction to register a criminal case under Section 31 for every breach of the order. Proper inquiries should be conducted to ascertain the facts before registering a case, especially when the petitioner has regularly paid the maintenance.

Constitutional Law - Writ Petition - Regularization of Services - Mandamus - Petitioner engaged on daily wages as Pump Attendant sought regularization from 01.02.1996 instead of 01.10.2003, despite claiming fulfillment of eligibility criteria as per the instructions and circulars of 1996. The petitioner's claim was challenged by the State citing previous litigations and misrepresentation. Held, the petitioner approached the Court with unclean hands by concealing material facts and previous writ petitions, resulting in the discretionary relief under writ jurisdiction not being exercised. Petition dismissed. [Paras 1-10]

Concealment of Facts - Impact on Judicial Relief - Analysis - Held - the petitioner’s failure to disclose prior litigations and complete history of her employment and claims resulted in the dismissal of the petition. The Court emphasized the duty of litigants to present all material facts and circumstances to enable fair adjudication. Concealment and suppression of facts warranted dismissal of the petition with potential costs. [Para 9]

Decision - Dismissal of Writ Petition - The Court dismissed the writ petition, refusing to exercise discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution due to the petitioner’s attempt to mislead the Court by concealing previous litigation and material facts. [Para 10]