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].

Murder – Common Intention – Section 149 IPC – Conviction Upheld – The appellants were part of an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons—The deceased was attacked with swords, gandasis, and datars, sustaining fatal injuries—The High Court held that the attack was premeditated and all accused shared a common intention—Held: Conviction of Ajit Singh, Baljit Singh, Baldish Singh, and Balbir Singh under Section 302 IPC upheld [Paras 19-20, 29].

Acquittal of Co-Accused – Contradictory Evidence – Jagtar Singh Acquitted – Jagtar Singh was convicted for causing head injuries to Chain Singh, but medical records indicated only one injury instead of three attributed to different accused—Complainant and other witnesses gave inconsistent testimonies—Held: Benefit of doubt given—Conviction of Jagtar Singh set aside [Paras 25-26].

Eye-Witness Testimony – Medical Evidence Corroboration – Reliability of Prosecution Case – The complainant and another injured eye-witness consistently deposed against the accused—Their testimonies were corroborated by medical evidence, post-mortem reports, and forensic findings—Held: Prosecution version found credible—No infirmity in the trial court’s findings [Paras 20-22].

Self-Defence Plea – Rejected Due to Lack of Supporting Evidence – The accused claimed that the complainant’s party had initiated the attack and the injuries to the deceased were accidental—However, no substantial evidence was presented to support this claim—Held: Defence plea rejected—Conviction sustained [Para 28].

Recovery of Weapons – FSL Report Supporting Prosecution Case – The accused led to the recovery of blood-stained weapons—FSL reports confirmed the presence of human blood—Held: Recovery corroborated the prosecution’s version and lent further credibility to the case against the convicted appellants [Para 27].

Appeal Partly Allowed – Conviction of Four Accused Upheld – One Acquitted – The High Court dismissed the appeals of Ajit Singh, Baljit Singh, Baldish Singh, and Balbir Singh—Conviction and sentence upheld—Jagtar Singh acquitted due to inconsistencies in evidence—Criminal revision dismissed as findings on acquittal were not interfered with [Para 29].
 

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].
 

Dishonour of Cheque – Scope of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act – Conviction Upheld – Sentence Remanded – The petitioner issued a cheque for Rs. 19,00,000 in favour of the respondent, which was dishonoured with the remark "Account Closed" – Legal notice was served, but payment was not made – The Trial Court convicted the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced her to two years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000 – No compensation was awarded to the complainant – The appellate court upheld the conviction and sentence – High Court held that the object of Section 138 is both punitive and compensatory – It emphasized that while imposing a sentence, the court must ensure that the complainant is adequately compensated – Matter remanded to the Trial Court to reconsider the quantum of sentence in light of statutory provisions and judicial precedents [Paras 1-3, 12-18].

Compensatory Aspect – Fine Must Reflect Cheque Amount – Judicial Discretion – Sentence Should Balance Punishment and Compensation – High Court observed that Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act allows imposition of a fine up to twice the cheque amount – The primary purpose of the provision is to ensure that the complainant receives the amount due – Courts must adopt a uniform approach in awarding compensation – Trial Courts should impose fines equivalent to at least the cheque amount plus reasonable interest unless specific circumstances dictate otherwise – Remanded matter for fresh hearing on sentencing, directing courts to consider compensatory relief as a priority over punitive measures [Paras 14-17].

Release on Bail – Interim Relief Pending Sentencing – Judicial Directions – Since the petitioner was already in custody, the High Court directed that she be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court – Trial Court directed to pass an order on the quantum of sentence afresh – Further directed the Registrar General to circulate this judgment among all judicial officers under the court’s jurisdiction to ensure consistency in sentencing under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act [Paras 19-22].
 

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].
 

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 - Will – Proof Requirement – Attesting Witness Not Examined – Will Held Unproved – Both courts below accepted the Will based solely on scribe’s statement – Held: Under Section 68 of the Evidence Act read with Section 63 of the Succession Act, at least one attesting witness must be examined to prove execution – Mere testimony of scribe not sufficient where attesting witness was alive but not examined – Will dated 15.02.1980 discarded [Paras 10.3, 23–28, 31–39].

Secondary Evidence – Admissibility of Copy of Will – Valid Grant of Permission – Held: Sufficient proof was given that original Will was lost after being produced for mutation – Secondary evidence rightly permitted under Section 65(c) of Evidence Act – However, failure to prove Will through attesting witness rendered it inadmissible [Paras 13–19].

Date of Death – Conflict Between Official Record and Mutation – Decided on Preponderance – Plaintiff claimed death occurred on 01.04.1980 per death certificate; defendants relied on mutation record showing 19.03.1980 – Held: Mutation process initiated before 01.04.1980, supporting earlier death date – Entry in mutation held more credible in circumstances [Paras 20–22].

Concurrent Findings – When High Court May Interfere – Misapplication of Legal Principles – Held: Though concurrent findings generally not disturbed in second appeal, courts below misapplied law regarding attestation of Will – Interference justified under Section 100 CPC in light of perversity and material legal error [Paras 42–44].

Decision:  Appeal allowed – Judgments of Trial and First Appellate Court set aside – Will dated 15.02.1980 held not proved – Plaintiff declared entitled to 1/6th share in the suit property by natural succession – Decree for possession granted accordingly – No order as to costs [Para 45].

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].
 

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].