Arbitration and Conciliation – Maintainability of Arbitration Petition – Settlement Through Conciliation – The Petitioner sought appointment of an Arbitral Tribunal to adjudicate disputes arising from an EPC Agreement with the Respondent – Respondent contended that disputes had already been settled through conciliation meetings held under Clause 26.2 of the Agreement – Court held that once a settlement agreement is reached under conciliation, the disputes are deemed resolved and cannot be referred to arbitration unless the settlement is challenged separately – Held: The settlement reached between parties through conciliation meetings was binding and enforceable under Sections 73 & 74 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and could only be challenged under Section 34 of the Act [Paras 6-10].

Effect of Conciliation on Arbitration – Legal Consequences – The Court examined whether a dispute settled through conciliation could be reopened in arbitration – Held: A settlement agreement reached during conciliation proceedings has the same effect as an arbitral award on agreed terms and is enforceable as such – The Petitioner’s claims regarding financial duress could not be examined under Section 11 of the Act but had to be raised in separate proceedings challenging the settlement – Petition dismissed with liberty to the Petitioner to seek appropriate legal remedies [Paras 8-10].

Contract Interpretation – Conciliation and Arbitration Clauses – Clause 26.2 of the EPC Agreement provided for conciliation before arbitration – The Petitioner contended that conciliation was incomplete due to the absence of a formally appointed conciliator – Court held that Clause 26.2 allowed conciliation to be conducted by mutually agreed officials, and the settlement reached in conciliation meetings was valid – Held: A dispute can proceed to arbitration only if conciliation fails; since a settlement was reached, arbitration was not permissible under Clause 26.3 [Paras 5-7].

Judicial Review – Limited Scope Under Section 11 – The Petitioner alleged coercion and financial duress in reaching the settlement – Court held that allegations of duress require factual determination and cannot be examined in a petition under Section 11 – Such claims must be challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Relief denied [Paras 9-11].

Relief Denied – Petition dismissed as the dispute had already been resolved through a binding settlement agreement – The Petitioner was directed to seek recourse under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, if it wished to challenge the validity of the settlement [Paras 10-11].

Civil Writ - Education – Provisional Selection – Right to Admission – A student was provisionally selected for admission to Class VI but later denied admission due to an age eligibility issue, despite official notices not being specifically addressed to her guardian – Held: The selection process was flawed due to omissions by school authorities – Student should not suffer for administrative lapses – Extraordinary writ jurisdiction exercised to grant admission as a special case [Paras 5-6].

Administrative Lapses – Failure to Verify Eligibility – The school authorities failed to verify the student's date of birth before including her in the selection list – A general notice was issued for corrections, but no individual intimation was given to the guardian – Held: The failure to ensure due diligence cannot be used to deny admission after issuance of a selection notice – Admission directed [Paras 4-6].

Extraordinary Writ Jurisdiction – Judicial Intervention in Administrative Decisions – The court exercised its extraordinary writ jurisdiction to rectify an unfair situation where the student, based on school authorities’ assurances, had already obtained a Transfer Certificate (TC) from her previous school – Held: Courts can intervene in exceptional cases to prevent injustice, without setting a precedent affecting general admission policies [Paras 6-7].

Final Decision – Appeal dismissed – Admission granted to the student in Class VI for the next academic year to prevent further academic loss – No interference with general age eligibility policy, as this case is treated as an exception based on its peculiar facts [Paras 7-8].

Service Law – Judicial Officers – Discharge from Service – Challenge to Termination – Petitioners, who were appointed as Civil Judges (Junior Division) in 2013, were discharged from service under Rule 24(4) of the U.P. Judicial Service Rules, 2001 – The discharge order was based on a Full Court resolution after an inquiry into an altercation involving probationers during training – Petitioners contended that the order, though couched as simpliciter, was punitive in nature and violative of Article 311(2) of the Constitution – Held: The termination, though worded as simpliciter, was based solely on misconduct alleged in an inquiry report, making it punitive in nature – The order was quashed, and reinstatement with consequential benefits was directed [Paras 4, 10, 12, 14, 22, 43, 54].

Probationary Judicial Officers – Scope of Discharge – Lifting the Veil – Petitioners argued that their termination was not based on an overall assessment of suitability but only on a single incident of altercation during training – Inquiry report dated 12.09.2014, which formed the basis of termination, attributed misconduct to the petitioners without affording them an opportunity to be heard – Court applied the doctrine of "lifting the veil" to examine whether misconduct was the foundation of termination – Held: Termination based on misconduct required adherence to principles of natural justice, and mere labeling of an order as "simpliciter discharge" would not suffice where misconduct is the basis [Paras 38, 41, 43, 48, 51].

Natural Justice – Right to Hearing – Article 311(2) of the Constitution – Petitioners contended that they were denied an opportunity to defend themselves before being discharged – Inquiry report was relied upon without furnishing a copy to the petitioners or allowing them to rebut findings – Held: Discharge orders were punitive and violative of Article 311(2), as petitioners were removed on grounds of misconduct without inquiry – Order of discharge set aside, and reinstatement directed with full benefits [Paras 22, 42, 45, 49, 52].

Judicial Officers – Higher Standard of Conduct – Discretion of Full Court – Respondents argued that judicial officers are held to a higher standard of conduct, and even a single incident of misconduct during probation could justify discharge – Full Court has discretion to assess suitability for confirmation – Held: While high standards of conduct are expected, termination must still conform to legal principles, including natural justice – Full Court’s resolution failed to consider overall performance and was based solely on an isolated incident, rendering the termination unsustainable [Paras 29, 31, 32, 55, 56].

Decision – Discharge Orders Quashed – Reinstatement Ordered – Petition allowed – Discharge orders set aside – Petitioners reinstated with all consequential benefits – Held: Misconduct was the foundation of termination, requiring inquiry and due process, which was not followed [Paras 57, 59].

Family Law – Divorce Petition – Territorial Jurisdiction – Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act – The wife objected to the jurisdiction of the Family Court, Cuttack, stating that the couple last resided together in June 2017, whereas the husband filed for divorce in February 2019 when he was no longer residing in Cuttack – Held: The plea of lack of jurisdiction must be raised at the earliest opportunity – Since the wife raised the objection belatedly, after five years and after recording of evidence had commenced, the objection was deemed waived – Writ petition dismissed [Paras 5-8].

Civil Procedure – Objection to Jurisdiction – Waiver – Section 21 of CPC – The petitioner failed to object to jurisdiction at the initial stage and instead participated in proceedings for five years – Held: An objection to territorial jurisdiction can be waived, expressly or impliedly, by conduct – Raising it after substantial proceedings amounts to an implied waiver – Writ petition dismissed [Paras 7-8].

Judicial Precedents – Timing of Jurisdictional Challenge – The Court referred to Hawkins Cookers Ltd. v. Jagannath Traders, 2013 (Supp.-1) OLR 73, and G. Ayyappan Pillai v. State of Kerala, 2010 (28) VST 411 (Kerala), to affirm that objections to territorial jurisdiction should be raised at the earliest – Held: Raising such objections belatedly, after trial proceedings have commenced, is impermissible [Paras 6-7].

Final Decision – Writ petition dismissed – Objection to jurisdiction held inconsequential due to delay – Petitioner not precluded from filing a fresh petition in the appropriate forum if required [Paras 8-9].

Civil Law – Permanent Injunction - Licensee’s Rights – No Vested Interest in Property – The plaintiff was permitted to run a canteen in a government hospital on a license basis – License was revoked due to unhygienic conditions and non-compliance with terms – Held: A license is merely a permission to use property without creating any interest in it – Plaintiff’s claim for injunction is unsustainable after expiration of the license [Paras 13-16].

Non-Joinder of Necessary Parties – Effect on Suit – The First Appellate Court held that the suit was bad for non-joinder of the District Collector, who had authority over the hospital property – Held: In cases involving government property, the state must be a party to the suit – Suit dismissed for non-joinder of a necessary party [Paras 12, 14].

License vs. Lease – Mere Permission vs. Interest in Property – Distinction between a lease and a license is based on the intention of the parties – License grants only a right to use without ownership rights – Held: As per Associated Hotels India Ltd. v. R.N. Kapoor (1959 AIR 1262), a licensee cannot claim possessory rights or permanent injunction once the license is revoked [Paras 15-16].

Final Decision – Appeal dismissed – Plaintiff, being a mere licensee, cannot maintain the suit after license revocation – No right to claim permanent injunction against the hospital authorities [Paras 16-17].

Criminal Law - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Section 482 CrPC – Power of the Court – Petitioners sought quashing of the criminal case against them, arguing that the FIR was lodged with malicious intent due to a long-standing enmity – Supreme Court precedent holds that quashing under Section 482 CrPC is permissible only in cases of manifest abuse of process – Court ruled that since there were cross-FIRs from both parties regarding the same incident, the matter involves disputed facts that require trial – Petition dismissed [Paras 2-6].

SC/ST Act – Prima Facie Offense – Maintainability of Charge Sheet – The FIR alleged caste-based abuses and physical assault – Petitioners contended that no offense under the SC/ST Act was made out as there was no public humiliation or caste-based discrimination – Court held that allegations in the FIR prima facie satisfy the ingredients of Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act – Whether the offense is established is a matter of trial – Court refused to interfere [Paras 5-6].

Cross FIRs and Rival Claims – Impact on Quashing – The applicants pointed out that they had also lodged an FIR against the complainant’s faction for assault – Court noted that the existence of rival FIRs indicates that an incident did occur, making it inappropriate to quash proceedings at the pre-trial stage – Held: When two versions of the incident exist, the case must proceed to trial for proper adjudication [Para 5].

Decision – Application under Section 482 CrPC dismissed – Court held that petitioners could not prove that the proceedings were an abuse of process – However, granted liberty to petitioners to file a discharge application before the trial court – Directed the trial court to decide the discharge application expeditiously, strictly in accordance with law [Paras 6-8].
 

Labour Law - Compassionate Employment – Entitlement under NCWA – Respondent No. 5 (widow of the deceased employee) sought employment under Clause 9.3.2 of the NCWA-VI and VII, which provides for employment to a dependent of a worker who dies while in service – Employer contended that the employee was terminated after unauthorized absence before his death – Held: Since the employee passed away before termination, he was deemed to have died while in service – Widow entitled to employment as per NCWA provisions [Paras 12-14].
Industrial Dispute – Delay in Granting Relief – The widow sought employment within months of her husband’s death, yet the dispute continued for over 15 years before CGIT’s decision – CGIT found that the employer’s delay in providing employment was unjustified and directed both employment and monetary compensation – Held: The Tribunal's order was justified as the petitioner was entitled to employment and should not suffer due to administrative delay [Paras 17-19].
Simultaneous Grant of Employment and Monetary Compensation – Petitioner challenged the award on the ground that NCWA does not permit both employment and monetary compensation – Held: Tribunal correctly ordered monetary compensation from the date of death till employment is provided – This does not amount to granting both simultaneously but compensates for the delay in appointment [Paras 18-21].
Final Decision – Writ petition dismissed – CGIT’s award upheld – ECL directed to comply within 30 days, with monetary compensation paid along with statutory interest till employment is provided [Paras 20-22].
 

Civil Law - Specific Relief – Restoration of Possession – Possession Proven – Ownership Irrelevant – Trial Court rightly decreed suit under Section 6 where plaintiffs (widow and children of deceased son) proved possession and illegal dispossession – Held: Title is immaterial under Section 6 – Possession alone suffices, and oral family settlement defence lacked credibility [Paras 5–7, 24–27].

Dispossession – Family Property Dispute – Oral Settlement Not Accepted – Alleged voluntary handover of possession by plaintiff pursuant to oral settlement held improbable – Court observed that history of prolonged litigation between parties rendered such claim untenable – Oral version unsupported by written proof or actions (e.g. appeal withdrawal) [Paras 17–25].

Date of Dispossession – Precise Date Not Fatal – Suit Within Limitation – Plaintiff’s slight discrepancy in date (August vs. September 2021) immaterial as suit was filed within 6 months – Held: Substantial compliance with Section 6(2); technical objections rejected [Paras 15, 26].

Jurisdiction – Limited Interference in Revision – No Jurisdictional Error – Held: Trial Court applied correct legal principles, appreciated evidence properly – No perversity or jurisdictional infirmity found – Revision jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC not attracted [Paras 27–29].

Decision: Revision petition dismissed – Possession of plaintiffs restored – Trial Court’s decree upheld – No jurisdictional error or perversity found warranting interference under Section 115 CPC [Para 29].
 

Murder Trial – Circumstantial Evidence – Identity of Body Unproven – Acquittal Upheld – Trial Court acquitted respondents citing prosecution’s failure to establish identity of the deceased through DNA or credible testimony – Postmortem report relied solely on name mentioned in inquest – No direct evidence linking accused to crime – Acquittal not found perverse [Paras 3–4, 16–17].

Motive – Alleged Illicit Relationship – No Corroborative Proof – Mobile Call Detail Records Not Backed by 65B Certificate – Prosecution relied on CDRs to show frequent communication between accused and deceased’s wife – Court held that without proof of content or Section 65B compliance, motive remained speculative – Relationship as motive not proved beyond doubt [Paras 4, 16].

Appeal Against Acquittal – Presumption of Innocence Reinforced – High Threshold for Interference – Court cited binding precedents (Sharad Goswami, Shera Ram, Kali Ram) to reiterate limited scope in government appeals against acquittal – Interference only justified where trial court’s findings are perverse or wholly untenable – None found here [Paras 8–15].

Reasonable Doubt – Benefit to Accused – Standard Reaffirmed – Court emphasized that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof – When two views are possible, view favouring accused must prevail – Trial court's view deemed plausible on facts and evidence [Paras 14–15, 23].

Decision: Leave to appeal dismissed – Government appeal rejected – Trial court’s well-reasoned acquittal found sustainable – No perversity or legal error warranting interference [Paras 17–18].