Arbitral Award – Patent Illegality – Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Award Partially Set Aside – The appellant challenged the award, claiming that the additional work billed by the respondent was neither ordered nor substantiated by evidence – The arbitrator awarded for extra work despite no joint measurement being available – Held: The award is not patently illegal or contrary to the fundamental policy of Indian law, but the quantum awarded for extra work, which constitutes 70% of the contract value, shocks the conscience of the court and is reduced by 50% – The interest rate in the award is also reduced to 6% – Appeal partially allowed [Paras 11, 34, 40, 48-50].

Public Policy – Excessive Award – Shocking the Conscience of the Court – An arbitral award that shocks the conscience of the court may be set aside for being against the basic notions of justice or morality – In this case, the award allowed the respondent's claim for extra work, which amounted to nearly 70% of the original contract value – Such an excessive award was held to be shocking, particularly when public money was involved – The court set aside 50% of the awarded amount for extra work and partially reduced the awarded interest rate [Paras 38, 42, 51].

Decision – The court held that the arbitral award, while not patently illegal or against the fundamental policy of Indian law, granted an excessive amount for alleged extra work, amounting to 70% of the contract value. This was deemed to shock the conscience of the court. Consequently, 50% of the award amount (Rs. 1,08,34,422/-) was set aside, and the interest rate reduced to 6% from the original 10%. The rest of the award was upheld, and the appeal was partially allowed [Paras 52-54].

Criminal Law – Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – The appellant was convicted for the murder of his neighbor following an altercation over a disputed will – The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence and a dying declaration made by the deceased – The trial court convicted the appellant, despite acquitting the co-accused on the same evidence – Held: The conviction was overturned on appeal due to contradictions in the testimonies of key witnesses, inconsistencies between the dying declaration and initial medical history provided by the deceased, and lack of independent corroboration – The court ruled that the dying declaration could not be relied upon exclusively to convict the appellant, especially in light of conflicting evidence [Paras 30-55].

Dying Declaration – Reliability and Contradictions – The deceased initially told doctors that his injuries were accidental, caused by a fall, but later implicated the appellant in a dying declaration – The court emphasized that a dying declaration, if contradictory or delayed, requires corroboration – Here, the medical evidence did not support the prosecution’s case, and the dying declaration was deemed unreliable [Paras 40-45].

Inconsistent Testimonies – Eyewitness Reliability – The prosecution’s key witnesses were family members of the deceased, and their accounts contained material contradictions, particularly concerning the sequence of events and the timing of the complaint – The court held that their testimony lacked credibility due to inconsistencies and their status as interested witnesses [Paras 50-60].

Decision: The appeal was allowed – The conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges – The court emphasized that when evidence is circumstantial and inconsistent, the benefit of the doubt must be given to the accused.

Provident Fund Damages – Section 14-B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act – Reduction of Damages – Order Quashed – The petitioner challenged the Appellate Tribunal’s order reducing damages from 100% to 17% under Section 14-B for delayed remittance of provident fund contributions – The Tribunal reduced the damages based on the respondent’s plea of prejudice due to delayed initiation of proceedings and unavailability of records – Held: The Tribunal's decision was perverse as the damages were calculated based on the respondent’s own statements of defaults and there was no evidence of prejudice – The Tribunal failed to apply the law correctly as delay alone does not justify reduction in damages, per the Supreme Court’s ruling in Hindustan Times Ltd. vs. Union of India – Order reducing damages set aside, original order of damages reinstated [Paras 22-23, 29-33].

Mens Rea and Actus Reus Not Required – Section 14-B – The imposition of damages under Section 14-B is a civil liability and does not require proof of mens rea or actus reus – The objective is to penalize the employer for delayed payments and compensate for losses suffered by the employees [Paras 26-27].

Delay in Initiation of Proceedings – No Prejudice – Section 14-B – Mere delay in initiating proceedings under Section 14-B does not amount to prejudice unless irretrievable prejudice is proven – In the present case, the respondent failed to prove any such prejudice, and the delay alone could not justify reduction in damages [Paras 29-30].

Decision: The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order of the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal reducing damages to 17% is quashed, and the original order of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner levying full damages is restored.

Tax Deduction at Source (TDS) – Section 201(1) and 195 of the Income-tax Act – Situs of Intellectual Property – Territoriality Principle – Petition Dismissed – The petitioner, Hindustan Unilever Ltd., challenged the Deputy Commissioner's order raising a demand for non-deduction of TDS under Section 195 in relation to the purchase of the "Horlicks" trademark from foreign entities. The petitioner contended that the intellectual property was not situated in India, relying on the Delhi High Court's decision in CUB Pty Ltd. vs. Union of India. The Deputy Commissioner rejected this, holding the trademark as a capital asset situated in India, thus attracting TDS obligations. Held: The issues of territoriality and the location of the intellectual property are mixed questions of fact and law. The Court found no jurisdictional error in the Deputy Commissioner's decision and dismissed the petition, directing the petitioner to avail appellate remedies under Section 253 – Petition dismissed, statutory remedy of appeal recommended [Paras 16-23].

Limitation for Action under Section 201 – No Specific Time Limit – Reasonable Time Required – The petitioner argued that the Deputy Commissioner's order was passed beyond the limitation period of one year. The Court held that Section 201 does not specify a time limit, and while action must be taken within a reasonable period, the Tribunal's imposition of a one-year limit is not binding. The Court held that the order was not barred by limitation – Petition dismissed [Paras 25-27].

Observations on Judicial Propriety – Unwarranted Comments on Delhi High Court Judgment – Expunged – The Court noted the improper comments made by the Deputy Commissioner regarding the Delhi High Court's decision in CUB Pty Ltd., labeling it per incuriam. The Court expressed serious concern over such remarks, directed the deletion of the remarks within two days, and urged disciplinary caution for future cases – Remarks expunged, officer warned [Paras 29-30].

Selection Process – Normalization of Marks – Interview Weightage – Petitioner challenges the selection process of ISRO for the post of Administrative Officer, alleging irregularities in the normalization of marks in the written test and interview – Court holds that the selection process followed laid down procedures, including normalization and interview weightage, which were clearly mentioned in the advertisement – No irregularity found in calling more than three candidates for interview or the allocation of 40% marks to the interview stage – Court concludes that the selection board exercised due discretion in evaluating candidates, and the petitioner’s failure in the interview cannot be grounds for challenging the process after participating in it without objection [Paras 26–30, 35–36].

Challenge to Selection Criteria – Participation in Process Without Objection – The petitioner participated in the selection process and only challenged the criteria after being unsuccessful – Court refers to settled law that candidates who participate in a selection process without raising objections cannot later challenge the procedure after finding themselves unsuccessful – Cites Ashok Kumar vs. State of Bihar, 2017 (4) SCC 357, to emphasize that candidates are estopped from challenging a process they participated in without protest [Paras 33–34].

Court’s Role in Evaluating Selection Decisions – The Court reiterates that it cannot step into the shoes of the appointing authority to reassess the marks assigned to candidates during interviews – The discretion to evaluate a candidate’s performance in interviews lies with the selection board, and courts should refrain from second-guessing such evaluations unless there is evidence of mala fide intent, which was not present in this case [Paras 35–36].

Decision: Petition dismissed – The Court upheld the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, finding no irregularities in the selection process – The petitioner’s challenge was deemed to lack merit, as he participated in the process without objection and failed to show any mala fide or procedural impropriety [Paras 37–38].

Anticipatory Bail – Section 482 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Scope Expanded – The applicants filed for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, in connection with accusations under Sections 451, 394/34 of IPC – Held: The scope of anticipatory bail has been expanded compared to the earlier provision under Section 438 of the CrPC, 1973, removing guiding factors like the gravity of accusations and criminal antecedents, thus widening judicial discretion – The Court found no intention to commit the alleged offenses based on the facts and granted anticipatory bail on conditions of cooperation with the investigation and ensuring no interference with evidence [Paras 4-7].

Bail Application – NDPS Act – Methamphetamine Seizure – Regular Bail Granted – The petitioner was arrested for possessing 13.87 grams of contraband initially identified as MDMA, but later confirmed as Methamphetamine – After failure by the Investigating Officer to submit the chemical analysis report on time, the petitioner was granted interim bail – Held: Given that the quantity of contraband is intermediate, the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, the investigation is nearly complete, and the interim bail has already been granted, the court makes the interim bail order absolute [Paras 5-6].

Chemical Analysis – Identification of Contraband – Methamphetamine, Not MDMA – The prosecution initially alleged the petitioner was in possession of MDMA, but the chemical analysis confirmed it was Methamphetamine – Held: Despite the change in the nature of the contraband, the quantity involved remains intermediate, which allowed the court to consider the application for regular bail favorably [Para 5].

Delay in Submission of Chemical Analysis Report – Impact on Bail – The Investigating Officer failed to submit the chemical analysis report as directed by the court, which led to the petitioner being granted interim bail – The report was later submitted confirming the intermediate quantity of Methamphetamine – Held: Given the completion of recovery and near completion of the investigation, the petitioner’s interim bail was confirmed as regular bail [Paras 4-6].

Criminal Antecedents – Clean Record – Favorable Consideration for Bail – The petitioner has no previous criminal record – Held: The absence of criminal antecedents favored the grant of regular bail under the circumstances of the case [Para 5].

Decision: Bail application allowed – Interim bail order dated 13/08/2024 made absolute – Petitioner to comply with the conditions laid out in the interim order [Para 6].

Full Tank Level Dispute – Extent of FTL – Petitioners' objections regarding Durgam Cheruvu tank’s FTL not considered – Directions for Reconsideration – The petitioners argued that the FTL determined by the respondents exceeded the original extent of Acs. 65.12 Guntas, encroaching on their private property – Held: The Lake Protection Committee was directed to hear the petitioners’ objections and decide the FTL of Durgam Cheruvu through a speaking order – No demolition of the petitioners’ constructions until the FTL determination is finalized [Paras 1-6].

Administrative Law – Right to Hearing – Principles of Natural Justice – Petitioners entitled to a personal hearing before Lake Protection Committee – Petitioners had submitted objections within the prescribed time limit but were not considered – Held: The Lake Protection Committee must provide the petitioners with a personal hearing and finalize the FTL notification after considering the objections [Paras 10-12].

Land Rights – Private Property – Article 300-A Constitution of India – Encroachment Allegations – Petitioners’ claim of interference with peaceful possession – Petitioners' properties were alleged to fall under the extended FTL area – Held: The respondents were directed not to interfere with the petitioners' possession until the FTL is determined [Paras 8-10].

Judicial Remedy – No Final Relief Granted – Pending Decision by Committee – The court did not express any opinion on the merits of the petitioners' claims as the matter was left to be adjudicated by the Lake Protection Committee – Writ petitions disposed of with directions to the Committee [Paras 13-14].

Decision:

Writ petitions were disposed of with directions to the Lake Protection Committee to hear the petitioners' objections and notify the FTL of Durgam Cheruvu within six weeks. No demolition of the petitioners' constructions will take place until the FTL is determined.

Substitution of Legal Representative – Legatee's Right to Continue Suit – Sections 211 and 213 of Indian Succession Act – Substitution Upheld – The petitioner challenged the substitution of the opposite party (daughter-in-law of the deceased plaintiff) under Order XXII, Rule 3 of the CPC on the grounds that the Will under which she claims had not been probated – Held: A legatee can act as a legal representative and pursue the suit even before the probate of the Will is granted – The vesting of property in the executor occurs upon the testator’s death, and the absence of probate does not bar the substitution – The suit can be pursued to its logical end, though the final decree will be subject to the probate of the Will [Paras 12-14].

Right to Sue by Executor – Probate Not Required to Initiate Suit – Section 211 of Indian Succession Act – Executor May Pursue Legal Proceedings Before Probate – It was contended that no legal right to sue flows from the Will without probate – The Court held that an executor derives authority from the Will itself and not from probate, thus can represent the estate of the deceased and proceed with the suit – Probate only serves to certify the executor's title but is not a precondition to initiating legal actions [Paras 12.1-12.3].

Legal Representative Under CPC – Definition Includes Executor or Legatee – Section 2(11) CPC – Substitution Valid – The opposite party qualifies as a "legal representative" under Section 2(11) of the CPC since she intermeddles with the estate of the deceased and has an interest in the suit property by virtue of the Will – Even though other legal heirs did not seek substitution, the legatee is entitled to protect her interest under the Will [Paras 5.1, 12.2-12.5].

Suit to Continue Subject to Probate – Judicial Precedents Applied – Decree Conditional on Probate – Referring to precedents, the Court reiterated that while a legatee may continue with the suit, any decree passed in favor of the legatee will remain contingent upon the grant of probate of the Will in her favor – This ensures that the substantive right to the property is adjudicated following the probate proceedings [Paras 15-16].

Decision – Substitution of Legal Representative Upheld – Continuation of Suit Allowed Subject to Probate – The Court dismissed the civil revision petition, upholding the trial court’s decision to allow the substitution of the opposite party as the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff – The opposite party, as the legatee under the Will, is permitted to continue the suit, but any decree passed in her favor will be subject to the probate of the Will – The petitioner’s objection that probate was a precondition for substitution was rejected – Held: The substitution is valid, and the right to sue survives in favor of the legatee [Paras 14-16].