Arbitration – Enforcement of Domestic Award in International Commercial Arbitration – Jurisdiction – Special Appeal challenging Single Judge’s order rejecting objection to maintainability of execution application before High Court – Held: Award in question is domestic though arising from international commercial arbitration with seat in India – As per Section 2(1)(e)(ii) of the Arbitration Act, in absence of original civil jurisdiction, High Court having appellate jurisdiction over subordinate courts is competent to execute such award – District Commercial Court lacks jurisdiction in such cases [Paras 6–8, 22–28, 33–34, 44]

Arbitration – Definition of “Court” under Arbitration Act – Applicability of Section 2(1)(e) – High Court clarified that Section 2(1)(e)(ii) governs jurisdiction in international commercial arbitrations seated in India – Even if High Court lacks original civil jurisdiction, it qualifies as "Court" if it hears appeals from subordinate courts – Commercial Division of such High Court is appropriate forum for enforcement under Section 36 [Paras 24–26, 31–32]

Commercial Courts Act – Section 10 – Applicability – Section 10(1) provides that all applications arising from international commercial arbitration are to be heard by the Commercial Division of the High Court – Sections 10(2) and 10(3) relate only to domestic arbitration – No distinction based on whether arbitration is party-centric or place-centric – Statutory scheme supports exclusive jurisdiction of High Court for enforcement of such awards [Paras 13, 41–43]

Interpretation – No Overlap Between Parts I and II of Arbitration Act – Court rejects appellant’s contention that amendment in Section 47 (Part II) implying High Court jurisdiction for foreign awards would conversely imply District Court jurisdiction for domestic awards in international commercial arbitration – Part I (which includes Section 36) and Part II operate independently – High Court jurisdiction flows from Section 2(1)(e)(ii), not by exclusion from Section 47 [Paras 34–39]

Appeal – Maintainability of Special Appeal – Not barred under Chapter VIII Rule 5 as impugned order was passed in original jurisdiction under the Commercial Courts Act and Arbitration Act – Special Appeal held to be maintainable – However, dismissed on merits [Paras 3–6, 46]

Decision: Special Appeal dismissed – High Court (Commercial Division) held to be the proper forum for enforcement of a domestic arbitral award arising from international commercial arbitration – Objections to maintainability rightly rejected by Single Judge

Service Law – Assistant Teacher Recruitment – Termination – Inflated Marks – Petitioners appointed pursuant to ATRE 2019 later terminated on ground of having entered higher marks in their application forms – Respondents contended such entries were deliberate and altered merit position – Held: Candidates who gained undue advantage by inflating marks were rightly terminated as their appointments were void ab initio – No estoppel against the State in cases of misrepresentation [Paras 31-37].

Service Law – Human Error vs. Misrepresentation – Petitioners contended errors were inadvertent or rectified later through affidavits – Court held that procedural opportunity for rectification does not cure falsification of merit-related data – Human error defence rejected for petitioners who gained advantage by incorrect entries – Held: Entry of inflated marks is a material misrepresentation, not a trivial lapse [Paras 33-36].

Principles of Equity – Estoppel – Delay in Termination – Petitioners argued that length of service (5 years) precludes termination and triggers estoppel – Court held that fraud vitiates all solemn acts – Appointment secured by deceit cannot be regularised, and no estoppel or delay can validate an illegal appointment [Paras 32, 34, 35].

Relief – Differentiation between Advantageous and Disadvantageous Errors – Petitioners Preeti, Manish Kumar Mahaur, Rinku Singh, and Sweety Shokeen were found to have either disclosed marks as per outdated mark-sheets or disclosed marks that placed them at a disadvantage – Their appointments upheld as no undue advantage was gained – Termination orders against them quashed [Paras 24, 38, 40-41].

Recruitment Process – Judicial Scrutiny – Court reiterated settled legal position that public employment obtained by misrepresentation warrants cancellation regardless of delay or prior appointment – Reiterated principles laid down in Jyoti Yadav, Rahul Kumar and other precedents [Paras 25-30, 36].

Decision: Writ petitions partly allowed – Termination orders quashed only for Preeti, Manish Kumar Mahaur, Rinku Singh and Sweety Shokeen – Writ petitions dismissed as to remaining petitioners – No order as to costs.

Succession Law – Conflicting Wills – Probate – Registered Will vs. Unregistered Will – Two first appeals arising from a common judgment rejecting probate of unregistered Will dated 25.5.2002 and granting probate for registered Will dated 20.9.1996 – Trial Court held registered Will valid and subsequent Will fabricated – Held: Second Will surrounded by suspicious circumstances, not proved in accordance with law, and judicial conscience not satisfied – Appeals dismissed [Paras 20, 56–72].

Will – Suspicious Circumstances – Burden of Proof – Later unregistered Will alleged to revoke earlier registered Will – Propounder took active role in preparation – Contradictions regarding place of execution – Delay and non-disclosure in mutation proceedings – Held: Suspicion surrounding execution of later Will not dispelled – Principles in Venkatachala Iyengar, Shivakumar, and Shashi Kumar Banerjee followed – Will rejected [Paras 49–53, 56–72].

Proof of Will – Attesting Witness – Credibility – DW-2 attesting witness admitted affidavit was not prepared on his instructions and he did not know contents – Found to be a beneficiary’s associate – Held: Witness unreliable – No credible attestation of Will dated 25.5.2002 – Will not proved under Section 63(c) of Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of Evidence Act [Paras 66–68].

Mutation Proceedings – Non-disclosure of Will – Inference of Fabrication – Mutation application filed after death of testator based on inheritance, with no mention of alleged Will – Drafted by same advocate who allegedly prepared Will – Held: Conduct casts serious doubt on existence and genuineness of Will – Indicates Will was fabricated later to defeat probate of earlier Will [Paras 63–65].

Will – Revocation of Earlier Will – Reason Unconvincing – No Evidence of Fraud – Alleged revocation of earlier Will based on claim of fraud – No supporting evidence adduced – Testator was aged and bedridden, looked after by original beneficiaries – Held: Stated reason for revocation not credible – Revocation plea rejected [Paras 69–70].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Probate of unregistered Will dated 25.5.2002 rightly denied – Probate of registered Will dated 20.9.1996 upheld – Trial Court’s judgment affirmed [Paras 73–75].

Criminal Law – Negotiable Instruments – Dishonour of Cheques – Legally Enforceable Liability – Appellant convicted under Section 138 NI Act for dishonour of five cheques aggregating Rs.1,41,000/- issued towards commercial dues – Trial Court sentenced appellant to six months RI with fine – Appellant remained untraceable for over two decades – Counsel appointed through DHCLSC and Amicus Curiae for respondent due to non-appearance [Paras 1-4]

Cheque Dishonour – Presumption under Section 139 NI Act – Once cheque issuance and dishonour established, presumption of legal liability arises – Appellant’s defence that cheques were issued blank and no goods were supplied found unsubstantiated – Statement of account and bill proved by complainant – Evidence of bank officials confirmed dishonour due to insufficient funds and stop payment instructions – Appellant’s own Section 313 CrPC statement admitted stop payment and withdrawal of funds – Held: Defence failed to rebut statutory presumption under Section 139 [Paras 5-18]

Sentence – Mitigating Circumstances – Appellant aged over 83 years – Appeal pending for over 20 years – Already undergone 5 months in custody – Held: Conviction under Section 138 NI Act upheld – Sentence modified to period already undergone in light of mitigating factors and Section 138’s allowance of fine or sentence or both – Appeal partly allowed [Paras 20-22]

Decision: Conviction affirmed – Sentence reduced to period already undergone – Bail bonds and sureties discharged – Appeal disposed of [Paras 22-24]

Employees Provident Fund – Wage Splitting – Artificial Structuring to Evade PF Liability – 7A Determination Upheld – Respondent institutions restructured salary components to cap Basic plus D.A. at ₹6,500 while paying higher gross wages – Provident Fund Authority found deliberate design to avoid statutory contributions – Tribunal erroneously set aside the order on the sole ground that declared basic wages were within the ceiling – Held: Authority rightly applied substance over form test and found long-standing, uniform pattern of artificial wage structuring – Statutory contributions are payable on actual wages and not on labels assigned by employer [Paras 8–14].

Welfare Legislation – Purpose of PF Act – Interpretation in Favour of Beneficiaries – EPF Act is a social welfare legislation to ensure security of employees – Deferred wages cannot be denied through creative salary structuring – Regular allowances shown as exclusions cannot defeat statutory mandate – Employer’s conduct must be judged by effect, not form [Paras 9–11].

Section 7A Inquiry – Validity – Record-Based Assessment – Authority relied on statutory documents like Form 11, challans, Form 16, salary registers – Found consistent pattern of wage splitting across years and employees – Detailed, account-wise and employee-wise calculations revealed suppression of PF liability – Held: Tribunal failed to consider this material and adopted a narrow, ceiling-based approach without examining wage structuring [Paras 12–14].

Judicial Review – Writ Jurisdiction – Interference with Reasoned Administrative Orders – High Court held that the Tribunal failed to apply binding precedents including Regional PF Commissioner v. Vivekanand Vidyamandir – Found that employer’s conduct amounted to evasion of statutory obligation – Restored well-reasoned 7A order [Paras 5, 15–18].

Decision: Writ Petitions allowed – Order of PF Appellate Tribunal dated 19.10.2016 set aside – Original order under Section 7A dated 30.10.2014 restored – PF dues of ₹2,91,765 upheld against respondent [Paras 16–18].

Constitutional Law – Chief Minister – Simultaneous Membership – Validity – Appointment of Members of Parliament as Chief Minister and Deputy Chief Minister of U.P. challenged as violative of constitutional scheme – Held: No express or implied bar under Constitution to appoint a Member of Parliament as Minister in a State Government – Article 164(4) permits such appointment subject to six-month condition – Writ Petition devoid of merit [Paras 10–22].

Separation of Powers – Doctrine – Misapplication – Contention that legislators cannot simultaneously function in executive roles rejected – Held: Doctrine of separation of powers not violated where MP is appointed CM/Deputy CM under Article 164 – Constitution permits such arrangements explicitly – Argument constitutionally untenable [Paras 20–22].

Constitutional Office – Dual Office Holding – Nature of MP’s Role – Whether Member of Parliament holds an “office of profit” – Held: MP is not a government appointee nor holds a government office – MP’s role is sui generis, not an employment – Drawing salary from consolidated fund does not render MP a salaried government employee – No disqualification attracted [Paras 13–15].

Statutory Validity – Section 3(a), Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959 – Challenge on ground of protecting office of CM/Minister as office of profit – Rejected – Held: Constitution itself (via Explanation to Article 102(1)(a)) excludes Ministerial posts from office of profit disqualification – Section 3(a) enacted under legislative competence and consistent with constitutional mandate – No conflict with Article 102 – Challenge untenable [Paras 29–35].

Doctrine of Constitutional Morality – Application – Allegation of impropriety in Governor’s discretion under Article 164 – Held: Discretion exercised in conformity with constitutional provisions – No constitutional bar existed – No breach of constitutional morality or implied limitation demonstrated [Paras 6–9, 17, 19].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Reliefs (i) and (iv) declined – No constitutional violation found in appointment of respondents as Chief Minister and Deputy Chief Minister or in Section 3(a) of the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959 – No order as to costs.

Bail – Medical Grounds – UAPA Offences – Statutory Embargo under Section 43-D(5) – Appellant aged 77 sought bail citing multiple ailments including cardiac disease, pacemaker implantation, urological, ophthalmic and neurological conditions – Held: Bail on medical grounds can be granted only in exceptional cases where medical condition cannot be adequately treated in custody – Mere multiplicity of ailments or frequent hospital visits insufficient [Paras 17–22, 37].

Terrorism Offences – Murder of Advocate – Alleged Conspiracy with Terrorist Outfit – Influence of Accused – Investigation Transferred to SIA and Trial Shifted from Srinagar to Jammu due to threat perception – Held: Appellant’s influence and possibility of hampering free and fair trial weighs heavily against grant of bail [Paras 3–6, 23–24, 38].

Medical Treatment in Custody – Adequacy of Facilities – Pacemaker Implanted During Incarceration – Regular Follow-up with Multiple Specialties – Latest Medical Report Showing Stable Condition – Held: Record demonstrates that jail and State authorities have provided advanced and specialized medical care as and when required – No material to show inability of authorities to manage health condition [Paras 18–21, 33–35].

Palliative Care – Scope – Whether Independent Ground for Bail – Held: Palliative care is not an independent ground overriding medical grounds – Once bail on medical grounds is declined, plea for palliative care must also fail [Para 36].

Balancing Individual Liberty and Societal Interest – Article 21 – Right to Health vis-à-vis Right to Fair Trial – Held: In serious terrorism-related offences, Court must harmonize personal liberty with societal interest and right to free and fair trial – Enlargement on bail at this stage would prejudice prosecution and witnesses [Paras 24, 34, 38].

Precedents on Medical Bail – Distinguishable on Facts – Reliance on Manish Sisodia, Shoma Kanti Sen, Jalaluddin Khan, Varavara Rao and Others – Held: Judgments relied upon turned on distinct factual foundations including absence of prima facie case or lack of medical facilities – Not applicable where adequate treatment is being provided and prima facie case exists [Paras 25–32].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Order of trial court rejecting bail on medical grounds upheld – No illegality or perversity found – Bail declined [Para 39].

Criminal Law – Dowry Death – Section 304B IPC – Conviction of Husband Affirmed – Appellant Vikas Kumar’s wife committed suicide within seven years of marriage – Consistent evidence from parents and corroborative suicide note established that Vikas repeatedly made dowry demands for a Santro car and ₹3–4 lakhs, tying resumption of cohabitation to fulfilment of such demands – Suicide note and diary entries corroborated emotional abandonment and dowry-linked pressure – Held: Prosecution established cruelty “soon before her death” and foundational facts under Section 304B IPC – Presumption under Section 113B of Evidence Act attracted – Defence failed to rebut the presumption [Paras 16–49]

Criminal Law – Cruelty by Husband – Section 498A IPC – Mental and Physical Cruelty – Marriage described by deceased as “only a label” due to husband’s alleged extramarital affair – Combined with evidence of beatings and economic pressure regarding dowry demands – Held: Pattern of rejection, emotional neglect, and conditional abandonment over time constituted cruelty within meaning of Section 498A – Conviction sustained [Paras 50–53]

Criminal Law – Acquittal of In-Laws – Section 304B/498A IPC – No Specific Role or Evidence – Allegations against husband’s elder brother and sister-in-law were vague, general, and uncorroborated – Visit of 10th June 2005, the only proximate event alleged, found to be a later improvement not mentioned in earliest statements – Suicide note contained only omnibus references to “in-laws” without specific attribution – Held: Prosecution failed to prove foundational facts necessary to attract presumption under Section 113B of Evidence Act – Conviction of Yogesh Kumar and Swati @ Savita under Sections 304B/498A IPC set aside [Paras 54–64]

Criminal Procedure – Presumption under Section 113B Evidence Act – Application Only to Specific Accused – Court reiterated that presumption under Section 113B arises only when cruelty or harassment is proved “soon before death” – Cannot be extended to collateral relatives in absence of specific, proximate evidence – Over-implication of family members cautioned against – Presumption not attracted in case of Yogesh Kumar and Swati @ Savita [Paras 55–59]

Decision: Appeal of Yogesh Kumar and Swati @ Savita allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 304B/498A/34 IPC set aside – Acquitted of all charges – Appeal of Vikas Kumar dismissed – Conviction under Sections 304B and 498A IPC affirmed – Directed to surrender forthwith [Paras 65–67]

Motor Accident Compensation – Maintainability of Appeal – Modified Award – Tribunal passed modified award deleting recovery rights of insurer against vehicle owner during pendency of appeal – Insurance company participated in modification proceedings and raised no objections – Held: Appeal maintainable – No bar against appeal on ground of subsequent modification – Tribunal rightly considered only recovery issue; no legal infirmity [Paras 5-10].

Motor Accident – Income Assessment – Claimant, a 36-year-old working abroad, failed to prove employment details or income – Tribunal fixed notional income at ₹4,000 – High Court, applying Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram, re-fixed monthly income at ₹5,500 considering accident year (2006) – Enhanced compensation granted accordingly [Paras 11-12].

Compensation – Enhancement – Permanent Disability – Tribunal assessed 16% disability due to lack of whole-body assessment in medical certificate – PW2 (doctor) admitted whole-body disability was not assessed – High Court held tribunal erred in underestimating – Functional disability re-fixed at 25% – Compensation recalculated as ₹2,47,500 – Additional ₹1,32,300 awarded [Paras 12].

Compensation – Other Heads – Enhanced amounts granted under:

Loss of Earnings (increased period from 5 to 6 months): Additional ₹13,000

Bystander Expenses: Additional ₹3,000

Extra Nourishment: ₹6,000 granted for first time

Pain and Suffering: Increased from ₹25,000 to ₹35,000 – Additional ₹10,000

Loss of Amenities: Increased from ₹15,000 to ₹30,000 – Additional ₹15,000

Held: Tribunal failed to grant or undervalued these heads despite clear injuries and treatment – Enhancements justified [Paras 11-13].

Motor Accident Claims – Interest – Appeal delayed by 105 days – High Court held enhanced compensation will not carry interest for delay period – Otherwise, interest @7% p.a. awarded from date of petition till realisation – Directions given for disbursal upon furnishing of claimants' documents [Para 14].

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – Compensation enhanced by ₹1,79,300 with interest @7% p.a. (excluding 105 days of delay) – Insurance company directed to deposit amount within two months – Legal heirs entitled to full disbursal in accordance with law.