Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34 – Challenge to Arbitral Award – Petitioner challenges the arbitral award under Section 34 of the A&C Act – Objection to the award delivered by the Arbitral Tribunal concerning a Services and Alliance Agreement. [Para 1]

Arbitral Proceedings and Award – Disputes arising from the Services and Alliance Agreement and subsequent amendments – Award of Rs.2 crore with interest by Arbitral Tribunal to the respondent for breach of Agreement by the petitioner – Rejection of claims related to damages for losses and goodwill. [Para 2-3]

Novation and Amendment of Agreement – Contention that the initial Agreement was novated by a subsequent agreement without an arbitration clause – Court finds subsequent agreement only amended certain clauses, not novating the original agreement. [Para 4, 6]

Validity of Arbitral Proceedings – Petitioner’s argument on the invalidity of arbitral proceedings due to alleged novation – Court upholds the validity of proceedings, finding no novation of the original agreement. [Para 4, 6-8]

Issuance of Post-dated Cheque and Settlement – Argument that issuance of post-dated cheque resolved disputes and arbitral tribunal was not a competent forum – Court rejects the contention, finding no conclusive settlement agreement. [Para 4, 8]

Public Policy – Claim that the award is against the Public Policy of India – Court rejects the contention as baseless and without explanation. [Para 9]

Decision – High Court dismisses the petition, upholding the arbitral award – Finds no merit in objections under Section 34 of the A&C Act. [Para 10]

Income Tax Assessment and Judicial Review – Petition against order and notice under Income Tax Act for alleged tax evasion. The case revolves around the question of whether the Revenue should continue proceedings given the small amount involved. [Para 1]

Petitioner’s Prayers for Relief – Seeking quashing of the order dated 29.07.2022 and notice dated 30.07.2022. Requests include writs of Mandamus/Certiorari or similar orders to set aside the actions taken by the Revenue. [Para 2]

Contest over Amount of Income Escapement – Counsel for petitioner asserts that the income escaping assessment is not more than Rs. 12,800. The respondent’s counsel, representing the Revenue, concedes to the meager amount after internal deliberations. [Paras 3, 5]

Revenue’s Decision and Court’s Disposition – Based on Revenue’s decision to not pursue the case due to the negligible amount, the court disposes of the petition. The broader legal questions are left open for determination in appropriate future cases. [Paras 6-7]

Enforcement of Foreign Award – Jurisdiction of Delhi High Court in Enforcement Proceedings – Award debtor’s contention of lack of jurisdiction due to non-residency and absence of assets in Delhi – Counter-argument of assets owed to award debtor by a company in Delhi – Court’s determination of jurisdiction based on existence of debtor’s assets within its domain. [Para 1-6]

Jurisdictional Analysis – Debt Classification and Financial Health – Court’s analysis on whether amount owed constitutes an asset of the debtor – Consideration of financial statements and classification of debt as “doubtful” or “written off” – Supreme Court’s precedent on interpretation of written off debts and their recoverability – Court’s conclusion that existence of debtor’s asset within its jurisdiction confers enforcement authority. [Para 7-10]

Policy Against Forum Shopping – Applicability in Enforcement Proceedings – Supreme Court’s guidelines on enforcement proceedings location – Relevance of the award debtor’s assets location for jurisdiction purposes – Dismissal of concerns regarding forum shopping in enforcement context. [Para 13-14]

Decision – Rejection of Preliminary Objection – Delhi High Court’s jurisdiction upheld for enforcement proceedings against the award debtor – Dismissal of applications challenging jurisdiction – Setting date for further proceedings. [Para 15-17]

Criminal Appeal – Cheque Dishonour Case – Appeal against acquittal in a Section 138 NI Act case – Appellant challenges trial court's acquittal of the respondent for dishonour of a cheque worth Rs. 7 Lacs – Appeal based on the contention that the trial court erred in not considering the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. [Para 1-7]

Presumption under Section 139 NI Act – Examination of the presumption in favour of the holder of the cheque – Appellant contends that the respondent failed to rebut the presumption of a legally enforceable debt – Trial court's analysis of presumption and burden of proof discussed. [Para 8, 10, 14]

Evidence and Cross-Examination – Analysis of the evidence and cross-examination of witnesses – Trial court's findings on the credibility of witnesses and the improbability of the appellant's claim – Discussion on the absence of a written agreement or receipt of payment, and discrepancies in the appellant's statements. [Para 10-12, 14]

Defence of the Respondent – Respondent's defence involving circumstances of obtaining the cheque and lack of a legally enforceable debt – Consideration of evidence from bank officials and police investigation supporting the respondent's defence. [Para 13-14]

Judicial Analysis and Application of Law – Trial court's application of legal principles to the facts of the case – Consideration of the principles of presumptions, burden of proof, and the standard of proof required for the rebuttal of presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act. [Para 9, 15-16]

Decision – High Court upholds trial court's acquittal of the respondent – High Court agrees with the trial court's findings and analysis, confirming the absence of a legally enforceable debt and the improbability of the appellant's claim – Appeal dismissed, and trial court's judgment confirmed. [Para 17-18]

Criminal Appeal – Regular Bail Application Dismissal 

Gursewak Singh appealed against the dismissal of his regular bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. by the Special Judge, Amritsar. [Para 1, 4]

Prosecution Sanction Under UAP Act 

Concerns were raised about the prosecution under the UAP Act due to the absence of pre-requisite sanction from the competent authority at the time of the presentation of the challan. [Para 8]

Specific Role Attribution and Evidence 

The prosecution failed to attribute a specific role to the appellant in the commission of offences under the UAP Act and other IPC sections, lacking material evidence against him. [Para 9, 10]

4. Bail Grant Considerations 

The appeal was allowed considering the appellant's lengthy custody and the slow pace of the trial, with directions for bail upon furnishing a bond and regular reporting to the local police station. [Para 11]

5. Decision Without Prejudice to Trial Merits 

The High Court set aside the Special Court's order, granting regular bail to the appellant, clarifying that the observations made were solely for bail purposes. [Para 12, 13]

Writ Petition – Selection of Melsanthi (Head Priest) – Challenge to the selection of the 5th respondent as Melsanthi of Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple for the year 1199 ME (2023-24) – Allegation of improper conduct in the draw of lots – Petitioner seeking a re-conduct of the selection process. [Paras 1, 7, 8]

CCTV Footage and News Item Review – Court’s observation of video evidence – Examination of the alleged irregularities in the selection process based on CCTV footage and a news item from 'Asianet News' – No specific allegations against the 5th respondent found. [Paras 2, 4, 5, 13, 15, 16]

Selection Process – Draw of Lots – Procedure of draw of lots for Melsanthi – Allegations of partial unfolding and improper rolling of lots – Court finds no substantial evidence to invalidate the selection process. [Paras 7, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15]

Decision – No Interference in Selection – Finding no reason to interfere with the selection of the 5th respondent as Melsanthi based on the evidence and arguments – Writ petition challenging the selection process dismissed. [Paras 16, 17]

Regulatory Directions – Restriction on Entry to ‘Sopanam Enclosure’ – Specific direction regarding the entry of persons to the Sopanam enclosure during the draw of lots – Aimed to regulate and streamline the selection process. [Para 18]

Arbitration – Challenge to Arbitral Awards – Petitions filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against arbitral awards in favor of respondents concerning wage arrears claims – Presidential Directives and Settlement Memoranda considered – Tribunal's mandate to adjudicate the quantum of arrears payable from 01.01.1997 to 31.12.2007 upheld – Petitioner’s objections regarding scope of the Tribunal’s mandate and the legality of the Presidential Directive rejected – Tribunal's findings on admission of dues by Petitioner and direction for payment of arrears including interest upheld – Petitions dismissed. [Paras 2-60]

Presidential Directive – Binding Nature and Tribunal Jurisdiction – Presidential Directives issued under Section 9 of the Air Corporations (Transfer of Undertakings and Repeal) Act, 1994 are binding on the enterprise but are administrative in nature – Tribunal has jurisdiction to assess legality and validity of directives when referred to arbitration by the Supreme Court – Tribunal’s decision to override Presidential Directive for payment of wage arrears based on DPE Guidelines and factual circumstances upheld. [Paras 38-44, 50]

Interest on Arbitral Awards – Post-award interest on entire adjudged amount – Tribunal empowered to award interest on sum inclusive of the adjudged amount and interest – Decision in Vedanta Ltd. distinguished – Tribunal’s direction for payment of compound interest upheld. [Paras 57-59]

Arbitral Awards – Minimal Judicial Interference – Courts to exercise restraint in reviewing arbitral awards under Section 34 of the Act – Judicial review limited to grounds of patent illegality or perversity going to the root of the matter – Tribunal’s findings based on careful consideration of submissions and materials, interference by court not warranted. [Paras 55-56]

Labor Disputes – Entitlement to Wage Arrears – Employees' entitlement to wage arrears from 01.01.1997 as per DPE Guidelines despite Presidential Directive stipulating notional fixation – Arbitral Tribunal’s finding in favor of employees based on evidence and recommendations by the petitioner to the Union of India – Petitioner's recommendations deemed as admission of liability to pay arrears – Tribunal’s decision to award arrears upheld. [Paras 45-47, 53-54]

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) - Irregularities in the functioning of Special Olympics Bharat (SOB) - Alleged favoritism and irregularities in the selection of sportspersons for Special Olympics World Games and in the appointment of office-bearers of SOB - Violation of guidelines and regulations - SOB recognized as a National Sports Federation with specific conditions - Continuation of office-bearers beyond the prescribed tenure - Appointment of National Coach without following selection guidelines - Allegations against SOB.

Compliance with National Sports Development Code (NSDC) - SOB submits amendments to trust deed in compliance with NSDC, limiting the tenure of office-bearers - Positive developments during the proceedings, including the appointment of new office-bearers and selection of coaches in accordance with NSDC guidelines.

Resolution of the issues raised by the Petitioner - Appreciation for the accomplishments of athletes with intellectual disabilities and SOB's efforts - Emphasis on SOB's continued compliance with NSDC for future elections and selections.

Decision of the PIL - PIL allowed and disposed of with gratitude for the assistance of the Learned Amicus. [Para 1-16]

Land Demarcation and Ownership Dispute – Challenge to the demolition process of encroachments by DDA in Mehrauli Archaeological Park – Petitioners assert ownership over properties within khasra No. 1151/3 of Village Mehrauli, disputing DDA's claim of government land – Demolition notice dated 12th December, 2022, based on demarcation report dated 21st December, 2021, contested for not following due process – Demarcation accuracy and property location in question – Writ court's jurisdiction limited, not extending to intricate factual determinations of land demarcation – Petitioners' rights to be determined by competent authority or civil courts – Demolition notice quashed for non-compliance with procedural fairness under Section 30 of the DDA Act – Direction for DDA to reissue notice, allowing petitioners a fair hearing. [Paras 1, 3, 4, 6-7, 10-11, 13-14, 16-17, 18-21]

Conservation Efforts and Judicial Supervision – DDA's responsibility to maintain Mehrauli Heritage Zone as per court directives – High Court's involvement in overseeing conservation does not absolve DDA from following legal procedures – Importance of procedural fairness and compliance with statutory procedures highlighted. [Paras 5, 16-17]

Procedural Fairness in Administrative Actions – DDA's demolition action without show-cause notice contravenes principles of natural justice and statutory requirements – Affected persons entitled to a hearing before property deprivation – Court upholds petitioners' objection on procedural grounds, mandates corrective action by DDA. [Paras 16-17, 19]

Writ Court's Jurisdiction – High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 limited in matters requiring specialized knowledge and technical expertise in land demarcation – Emphasis on statutory authorities' role in resolving complex land disputes – High Court refrains from adjudicating on demarcation report, allows petitioners recourse to appropriate forums. [Paras 7-8, 12-13, 18]