Arbitration Law - Termination of mandate of arbitrator - Sections 11, 14, 32 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Arbitral proceedings get terminated by the making of the final arbitral award or by an order of the arbitral tribunal as per Section 32(2) - On termination of arbitral proceedings, the mandate of the arbitral tribunal also ends - Whether the mandate of the arbitrator was legally terminated can be examined by the Court under Section 14(2) - Held, the termination of proceedings by the arbitral tribunal on the grounds of impossibility under Section 32(2)(c) can be reviewed by the Court to determine the legality of the termination - Appeal dismissed, Appellants advised to approach the appropriate court for redressal. [Paras 1-18]

Arbitration Law - Jurisdiction of High Courts - Section 11 application maintainability - Distinction between remedies under Section 14 and writ jurisdiction under Articles 226, 227 of the Constitution - Supreme Court clarifies that grievances against orders of arbitral tribunals typically do not fall under writ jurisdiction unless explicitly provided by the Arbitration Act - High Court's opinion directing Appellant to seek remedy under writ jurisdiction disapproved. [Paras 8-9]

Decision - Maintainability of Section 11 application - Supreme Court dismisses the appeal, affirming that the application under Section 11 for appointing a new arbitrator post-termination of the original arbitral proceedings is not maintainable - Appellants are directed to seek determination of the arbitrator's mandate termination legality under Section 14(2) before the appropriate court. [Paras 17-18]

Criminal Law - Quashing of Prosecution – Criminal appeal against High Court’s refusal to quash prosecution under Section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act – Food Inspector found stored food items (Haldi and Rice) in District Jail for inmate consumption to be adulterated – Petitioner was the Superintendent of the Jail – Supreme Court examines whether 'storage' in Section 16 implies storage simpliciter or storage for sale – Held that 'storage' in the context of the Act implies storage for sale, not merely storage for consumption by inmates – Prosecution against the Appellant for storage of adulterated food items meant for jail inmates held to be an abuse of process of law – Prosecution quashed. [Paras 1-11]

Interpretation of Statute – Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 – Held – 'Storage' of adulterated food for purposes other than sale does not attract the penal provisions of the Act – Sections 7 and 16 are intended to prohibit and penalize the sale of adulterated food articles – Term 'store' interpreted in light of context and legislative intent to mean storage for sale – Prosecution for mere storage for consumption falls outside the scope of the Act. [Para 9-10]

Decision – Quashing of Prosecution – Appeals allowed – Impugned orders set aside – Prosecution of the Appellant quashed due to lack of evidence indicating storage for sale – Proceedings deemed to be an abuse of process of law. [Para 11]

Criminal Law – Alteration of Charges – Criminal Appeal against Designated Court's rejection of CBI’s application under Section 216 CrPC – Respondent involved in 1993 Mumbai bomb blasts, absconding for 15 years, later arrested and confessed to participation in conspiracy – Common charges against all accused initially framed in 1995, with supplementary charge-sheet against Respondent in 2008 – Designated Court failed to invoke all applicable sections against Respondent due to oversight – Supreme Court held that delay attributed to abscondence, not prosecution – Application under Section 216 CrPC for alteration/addition of charges allowed – Designated Court directed to proceed in accordance with law. [Paras 1-18]

Scope of Section 216 CrPC – Analysis – Held – Power to alter or add any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced – Examination of evidence and necessity of addition/alteration after commencement of trial – Consideration of accused’s awareness and opportunity to defend – Significant delay due to Respondent's abscondence – Sufficient material and interconnected elements of crime justify charge alteration. [Paras 9-16]

Decision – Allowance of CBI's Application – Appeal allowed – Designated Court's order set aside – Application for alteration of charges allowed – Court directed to proceed further in accordance with law. [Para 18-19]

Service Law - Retrospective Dismissal - Legality - The Bank's order of dismissal dated 22.11.2001 with retrospective effect from 23.04.1985 was held to be impermissible. It was ruled that a dismissal order cannot be made retrospective to affect past service. The dismissal order could only operate prospectively from the date it was passed, in this case, from 22.11.2001. [Paras 1-30]

Superannuation - Service Continuance - The officer, Ram Niwas Bansal, was found to have completed thirty years of service on 25.02.1992 as per the State Bank of Patiala (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979. Since no extension was granted, he was deemed to have superannuated on that date. The service regulations require a positive act for any extension of service, which was not present in this case. [Paras 31-39]

Back Wages - Entitlement - While Ram Niwas Bansal's dismissal order was invalidated, he was found to have continued in service until his retirement on 25.02.1992. The Court held that back wages should be paid for the period between 23.04.1985 and 25.02.1992. However, full back wages were not granted, taking into account various factors including the conduct of the employee and the period of non-working. An equitable solution was directed, with an additional sum to be paid by the Bank. [Paras 40-42]

Decision - The appeal and transfer case were disposed of with directions to modify the High Court's order. The Bank was instructed to deposit a further sum of INR 5 lakhs with the Registrar General of the High Court within two months, in addition to any previously deposited amount, for the benefit of the legal heirs of Ram Niwas Bansal. [Para 42]

Criminal Law - Reversal of Acquittal - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Criminal Appeal challenging the High Court's order reversing the acquittal of the appellant for charges under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act - The appellant allegedly demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs. 1,000 to alter a demarcation report. - The High Court reversed the acquittal, finding sufficient evidence to convict. - Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, citing lack of explanation from the appellant for incriminating circumstances and valid application of presumption under Section 20 of the Act - Appeal dismissed, acquittal reversed, and sentence of one year RI and fine imposed. [Paras 1-12]

Presumption of Guilt in Corruption Cases - Analysis - Held - Appellant failed to explain his presence in the complainant’s house, the recovery of marked currency notes, and the chemical reaction confirming handling of the bribe money - Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act justifiably applied - Absence of rebuttal evidence from the appellant supported adverse inference. [Para 6-10]

Scope of Appellate Review - Reversal of Acquittal - Principles - Held - Appellate court justified in reversing acquittal if the trial court's decision is perverse or contrary to evidence - Presumption of innocence and respect for trial court’s judgment must be balanced against compelling circumstances - Supreme Court found no perversity in High Court’s decision warranting interference. [Para 10-11]

Decision - Appeal Dismissed - Acquittal Reversed - The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the High Court's decision to convict the appellant under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The appellant is ordered to surrender to serve the remaining sentence. [Para 12]

Arbitration - Award of Interest - Applicability of Contractual Clauses - Civil Appeal against High Court's dismissal of appeals by Union of India challenging the award of interest by an arbitrator - Arbitration award included interest for the period prior to and post-deposit of the principal amount in court - Union of India argued prohibition of interest under contract clauses and sought quashing of interest awarded - Supreme Court examined contract provisions barring interest on amounts withheld under lien - Held that arbitrator erred in awarding interest for the period covered by contractual prohibition, and High Court also erred in upholding such award - Directed that no interest shall be payable from the date of recovery till award and until deposit in court - Appeals allowed, modifying the arbitral award accordingly. [Paras 14-22]

Arbitration Law - Prohibition on Interest - Interpretation of Contract Clauses - Held - Arbitrator failed to account for clauses 2401 and 2403 of the contract prohibiting interest on amounts withheld - High Court erred in not recognizing contractual stipulations against interest - Award of interest up to the deposit date in court unsustainable under contractual terms. [Para 18-20]

Decision - Modification of Arbitral Award - Supreme Court directs that no interest be payable from the date of recovery until the award and until the deposit in court - Arbitrator's award modified, and the appeals by Union of India allowed to that extent. [Para 22]

Service Law – Recruitment Process – Change of Selection Criteria – The Supreme Court examined the legality of applying the Uttaranchal Subordinate Service (Emergency Direct Recruitment (First Amendment)) Rules, 2003 to a selection process initiated under the Uttaranchal Subordinate Engineering Service (Emergency Direct Recruitment) Rules, 2001. The Court held that the 2003 Rules could not retroactively alter the selection criteria established by the 2001 Rules. Consequently, the 2003 Rules could not be applied to the selection process which was already in progress. [Paras 1-25]

Preference to Apprentices – Interpretation and Scope – The Court clarified that the provision for granting 10 bonus marks to apprentices, introduced by the 2003 Rules, could not be retrospectively applied to candidates who participated in the selection process under the 2001 Rules. The Court rejected the High Court's interpretation that the 2003 Rules could amend the 2001 Rules, which had already ceased to exist. [Paras 20-23]

Executive Orders vs. Statutory Rules – The Court reaffirmed the principle that executive instructions cannot supplant or amend statutory rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. The 2004 clarification by the State Government, which sought to restrict the application of bonus marks to cases of tie, was held to be an executive instruction that could not override the statutory rules. [Paras 26-28]

Decision – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, ruling that the 2001 Rules governed the selection process and no additional marks could be awarded to apprentice candidates as per the 2003 Rules. The appeals were allowed, and the High Court's directions were quashed. [Paras 29]

Criminal Procedure - Cancellation of Bail - Proviso to Section 439(1) CrPC Compliance - Criminal Appeal challenging High Court order cancelling bail granted to appellant in economic offence involving public money defalcation - Sessions Judge granted bail without giving the mandatory notice to the public prosecutor or providing adequate time to respond - High Court found this to be a breach of mandatory provisions, justified the cancellation of bail citing a perverse and unjustified order - High Court's order upheld by the Supreme Court. [Paras 23-27]

Bail Cancellation - Economic Offences - Influence and Pressure on Witnesses - Seriousness and Nature of Offence - Court notes that economic offences have a severe impact on society and should be dealt with stringently - Appellant accused of leading protests against police and pressurizing witnesses, indicating misuse of bail - High Court's decision to cancel bail further justified on grounds of ensuring a fair trial and preventing tampering with evidence. [Paras 22, 27]

Jurisdiction - High Court's Inherent Powers under Section 482 CrPC - Appeal challenges locus standi of respondents in filing for bail cancellation - High Court can invoke inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to secure ends of justice - Appeal to quash bail on grounds of procedural breaches and perverse orders permissible even when moved by private parties or complainants. [Para 30]

Decision - Appeal Dismissed - Transfer of Trial - Supreme Court upholds High Court's decision to cancel bail - Orders the trial to be transferred outside Jalgaon district to ensure a free and fair trial environment, acknowledging the intimidation of witnesses and potential for influence within Jalgaon - Trial transferred to Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule. [Paras 31-33]

Central Excise - MODVAT Credit - Retrospective Withdrawal - Finance Act, 2000 - Section 112 - Rule 57(I) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 – Civil Appeals against High Court judgment allowing MODVAT credit on HSD Oil used as input - Assessees wrongfully availed MODVAT credit despite 1995 Notification withdrawing it - Revenue issued show cause notices and demanded interest - High Court set aside Revenue's orders - Supreme Court held that Section 112 of Finance Act, 2000, enacted to validate denial of MODVAT credit retrospectively - Interest at 24% p.a. justified on wrongful credit post 30 days of President's assent to 2000 Act - No necessity for adjudication before demanding interest - High Court erred in quashing Revenue's orders - Appeals allowed - High Court judgment set aside. [Paras 1-30]

Retrospective Legislation - Interpretation - MODVAT Credit on HSD Oil - Held - Section 112 of Finance Act, 2000, intended to deny credit retrospectively, ensuring return of wrongfully availed credit with interest - Legislative intent to address non-admissibility from 1995 through 2000 Act - Revenue entitled to recover wrongfully availed credit with interest without prior adjudication. [Paras 24-29]

Interest on Wrongful Credit - Analysis - Held - Imposition of interest at 24% p.a. from 30 days post enactment justified - No need for show cause notice before interest demand - Compliance required within 30 days of President’s assent to avoid interest - Non-payment justifies interest imposition. [Para 29]

Decision - Appeals allowed - Impugned High Court judgment set aside - Respondents liable to repay MODVAT credit with interest at 24% p.a. - Revenue’s action upheld. [Paras 30]