Criminal Appeal – Conviction and sentencing under Section 302 IPC – Appellant challenged the High Court's affirmation of conviction and life sentence for murder – Primary contention involved delay in FIR and absence of direct evidence linking appellant to administration of poison. [Para 1-5]

Delayed FIR – Examination of whether a one-year delay in FIR registration impacts the prosecution's case – FIR considered corroborative, not substantive evidence – Delay attributed to awaiting FSL report, not seen as fatal to the prosecution's case. [Para 8-18]

Dying Declaration – Reliability of the deceased's statements to family members as dying declarations questioned – The Court cautious about convicting solely based on such evidence without corroboration. [Para 22-24]

Murder by Poisoning – Prosecution’s failure to establish essential criteria for murder by poisoning – No clear motive, unclear if the deceased died of poison, no proof of poison in possession of accused, and no opportunity to administer poison established. [Para 20-26]

Acquittal of Accused – Supreme Court's rare intervention in reappreciating evidence due to significant infirmities in findings of lower courts – Appellant acquitted of all charges, bail bonds cancelled. [Para 27-28]

Criminal Procedure – Protest Petition Against Order Taking Cognizance – Inappropriateness of High Court’s Reference to Nupur Talwar Case – High Court erred in applying the principle of the Nupur Talwar case to the present matter, where the protest petition was against an order taking cognizance. The appellants successfully challenged the High Court’s judgment that incorrectly applied this principle. [Para 7-9]

Judicial Procedure – Cognizance of Offence – Limitation of Magistrate’s Power to Modify Previous Order – Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate exceeded his authority by entertaining a protest petition against his earlier order of taking cognizance, leading to an impermissible modification of that order. This oversight in legal understanding was not recognized by the High Court. [Para 10]

Decision – Setting Aside High Court and Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Orders – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order dated 20^th March, 2023, and the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s order dated 3^rd November, 2009. The Supreme Court maintained the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s order dated 9^th April, 2009, taking cognizance against Gupteshwar Singh. The judgment clarifies that no adjudication was made on the appellants’ involvement in the crime and does not prevent future legal proceedings in accordance with law. [Para 11]

Employees’ Provident Fund Act Interpretation – Applicability of the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, to an establishment engaged in manufacturing, assembling, and selling umbrellas – Central Government’s notification under clause (b) of sub-Section (3) of Section 1 of the 1952 Act includes ‘trading and commercial establishments’ – Establishment of appellant falls within the ambit of the said notification – Appeals dismissed. [Para 1-2, 8]

Applicability of Provident Fund Act – Distinction between clause (a) and (b) of sub-Section (3) of Section 1 of the 1952 Act – Clause (a) applies to factories engaged in industries specified in Schedule I, while clause (b) can extend to other establishments, including factories not covered in Schedule I, upon notification by the Central Government – Purposive interpretation affirms the inclusion of the appellant’s establishment under the Act. [Para 5-7]

Judicial Review – Concurrent findings by respondent, appellate authority, and Kerala High Court upheld – Appellant’s establishment conducting commercial activities falls under the category of ‘trading and commercial establishments’ as per the notification – No merit found in appellant’s contention – Appeals dismissed with no order as to costs. [Para 4, 9]

Time to Pay Liabilities – In consideration of the duration of legal proceedings since 2010, a grace period of three months granted to the appellant to fulfill any monetary liabilities as per the confirmed orders by the High Court. [Para 10]

Criminal Appeal – Rejection of Certificate under Section 65-B of Evidence Act – Appellant-State challenging High Court’s upholding of Trial Court’s decision – Application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall witness and produce certificate was rejected due to perceived delay – Appeal allowed, orders set aside, application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. granted. [Paras 1-16]

Terrorist Act – Bangalore serial bomb blasts of 2008 – Investigation and seizure of electronic devices – Certificate under Section 65-B Evidence Act sought for admissibility of electronic evidence – Trial Court’s denial of certificate on grounds of delay found unjust by Supreme Court, reversing lower courts’ decisions. [Paras 2-3, 7]

Evidence – Admissibility of electronic records – Primary evidence in the form of electronic devices already on record – Supreme Court clarifies that non-production of Section 65-B Evidence Act certificate is a curable defect and can be produced at any stage of the trial. [Paras 8-11, 13-15]

Fair Trial – Balance between prosecution and defense – Supreme Court emphasizes that fair trial entails truth-seeking and no prejudice to the accused – Section 311 of Cr.P.C. utilized to subserve justice and public interest without causing irreversible prejudice to the accused. [Para 15]

Judicial Discretion – Application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. – Supreme Court underscores the importance of judicial discretion in the interests of justice – Permits prosecution to recall witness and produce Section 65-B certificate. [Paras 4-6, 12, 16]

Compulsory Retirement – Consequences on Terminal Benefits – Appellant, a Sr. Manager in Punjab National Bank, was compulsorily retired and denied terminal benefits including leave encashment, provident fund, gratuity, and pension – Writ petition filed for claiming said benefits – Single Judge allowed claim partially, Division Bench reversed it in part – Supreme Court considered whether denial of benefits was justified. [Paras 1-5]

Provident Fund – Employer's Contribution – Denial of employer's contribution to appellant's provident fund by the bank – Single Judge ordered release of provident fund and gratuity – Division Bench reversed on provident fund and gratuity – Supreme Court examined rules and circumstances under which employer's contribution can be forfeited and found denial unjustified. [Paras 6-13]

Gratuity – Forfeiture of Gratuity – Appellant’s gratuity withheld due to compulsory retirement – Division Bench upheld withholding – Supreme Court analyzed the regulation and the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and circulars of the bank regarding forfeiture of gratuity – Found no basis for withholding gratuity as no proven loss to the bank or riotous behavior by the appellant. [Paras 14-26]

Decision – Restoring Benefits – Supreme Court allowed civil appeal, restoring Single Judge's order for release of employer’s contribution to provident fund and gratuity – Findings of Division Bench set aside – Appeal allowed with no order as to costs. [Para 27]

International Commercial Arbitration – Invocation of Arbitration Clause – Claim for Unpaid Dues and Contractual Breaches – Petitioner, a Swiss-based design consultancy firm, seeking appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for disputes arising from a contract with the respondent, Uttarakhand Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited. Disputes related to non-payment and subsequent termination of the contract. Petitioner challenges the unilateral right of appointment and pre-deposit clause in the contract as unenforceable and contrary to established legal precedents. [Paras 1-14, 58-62]

Pre-Deposit Clause in Arbitration – Arbitrariness and Violation of Article 14 – Analysis of the validity of a 7% pre-deposit clause for invoking arbitration. Discussion on the applicability of the principles established in the ICOMM Tele Limited v. Punjab State Water Supply and Sewerage Board case. Distinction made between pre-deposit clauses that are refundable and those leading to forfeiture, and their implications on arbitrariness and the violation of constitutional rights. [Paras 63-68, 69]

Jurisdiction Under Section 11(6) – Examination of Arbitration Agreement – Supreme Court's limited role under Section 11(6) post the 2015 Amendment to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, focusing on the existence of an arbitration agreement. Reference to the Vidya Drolia case for principles governing pre-referral jurisdiction and prima facie review of non-arbitrability issues. [Paras 24-30, 31]

Appointment of Arbitrator – Supreme Court directs the appointment of an arbitrator, overriding the contractual clauses for unilateral appointment and pre-deposit, in light of the principles of arbitrariness and fairness in arbitration proceedings. The case emphasizes judicial intervention to uphold the integrity of arbitration as an effective dispute resolution mechanism. [Paras 55, 66-69]

Arbitration Agreement – Pre-Deposit Condition – Constitutionality – Examining the constitutionality of the pre-deposit condition in an arbitration agreement under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. The Court rejected the respondent's argument that the validity or reasonableness of conditions in the arbitration clause should not be tested against Article 14 in a Section 11(6) petition under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court's authority to scrutinize arbitration clauses for compliance with Article 14 was affirmed with reference to previous Supreme Court decisions. [Para 70-76]

Kelsen’s Pure Theory of Law – Grundnorm Concept in Indian Legal Context – Application of Kelsen’s Pure Theory of Law and the concept of Grundnorm in the Indian legal system. The Indian Constitution is identified as the paramount law and the basic norm, determining the validity of other laws. The hierarchy of legal norms in India places the Constitution at the apex. [Para 77-81]

Arbitration Agreement Compliance with Legal Norms – Arbitration agreements must comply with Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, other relevant laws, and the Constitution. Arbitration clauses should be contractually valid and not in violation of fundamental rights. [Para 82-84]

Non-Waivability of Fundamental Rights – Reiterating the legal principle that there can be no consent or waiver against fundamental rights as observed by the Constitution Bench. This rejects the respondent’s argument regarding the petitioner’s irrevocable consent to the pre-deposit clause. [Para 85]

Validity of Arbitration Clause Allowing Specific Appointment – The Court's decision, covered by the ruling in Perkins Eastman, highlighted the importance of the appointment of arbitrators, especially in situations where there are justifiable doubts regarding their independence or other significant circumstances. [Para 86-88]

Neutrality of Arbitrators – Law Commission’s Recommendations – Discussion on the neutrality, independence, and impartiality of arbitrators, with references to the Law Commission's recommendations and amendments to Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act for ensuring arbitrator neutrality. [Para 89-91]

International Perspectives on Unconscionable Arbitration Agreements – Examination of foreign court judgments (Canada and the United States) on the doctrine of unconscionability in arbitration agreements. These judgments emphasize fairness and accessibility in dispute resolution mechanisms. [Para 95-101]

Appointment of Independent Arbitrator – Based on the legal principles and precedents discussed, the Court decided to appoint Mr. V.K. Bist, the Former Chief Justice of the High Court of Sikkim, as the sole independent arbitrator. The fees and other modalities of the arbitrator to be fixed in consultation with the parties. [Para 102-104]

Criminal Law – Reversal of Acquittal – Misapprehension of Dying Declaration and Circumstantial Evidence - scrutinized the High Court’s judgment which had reversed the Trial Court's order of acquittal. The apex court found that the High Court did not provide substantial reasons for its decision and failed to consider the established principles for the reliance on a dying declaration, circumstantial evidence, and recovery of weapons. The Supreme Court emphasized the principle that an appellate court should only overturn an acquittal for compelling reasons. [Para 29-33]

Dying Declaration – Evidentiary Value and Requirements - reaffirms the stringent requirements for a dying declaration to be admissible and relied upon, including the absence of tutoring, the declarant's fit mental state, and the direct relation of the statement to the facts of the death. The court found the dying declaration in question to be unreliable due to the absence of the scribe's examination and the possibility of tutoring, given the presence of multiple individuals at the time of its making. [Para 11, 18-19, 29.1]

Ocular and Circumstantial Evidence – Assessment of Credibility - held that the eyewitnesses' testimonies lacked consistency and credibility, and the circumstantial evidence did not point unequivocally to the guilt of the accused. The Court applied the standard of a "sterling witness" to determine the reliability of the witnesses and found the testimonies inadequate for conviction. [Para 21-24, 29.2-29.3]

Recovery of Incriminating Material – Scrutiny of Evidence - questioned the seizure of weapons allegedly used in the crime, noting the recoveries from places of common access and the lack of connection between the weapons and the injuries. [Para 4.5, 25-27]

High Court's Approach – Overturning Acquittal – High Court found to have erred in overturning trial court's acquittal without substantial reasons – Reiteration of the principle that an acquittal should not be interfered with absent compelling reasons – High Court's judgment set aside, and trial court's acquittal restored. [Para 30, 32-33]

Criminal Appeal – Maintenance for Minor Child – Reduction of maintenance from ₹20,000 to ₹7,500 per month by High Court – Family Court’s decision modified without clear reasons – Supreme Court sets aside High Court’s order for lack of detailed reasoning and remands the matter for fresh consideration. [Paras 3, 13-15]

Family Law – Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities – Non-compliance with Supreme Court’s guidelines in Rajnesh v. Neha for disclosing financial status in maintenance cases – Directions reissued for strict adherence to guidelines for expeditious case handling and decision-making. [Paras 7-8, 14-16]

Child Welfare – Maintenance Rights – Obligation of a parent to maintain child until majority irrespective of divorce – Supreme Court emphasizes continuous liability for child maintenance, taking into account the welfare of the child and the status of the parents. [Para 12]

Judicial Process – Directions for Compliance – Secretary General of Supreme Court to re-circulate Rajnesh judgment to all judicial officers and include in training programs – Aimed to ensure proper implementation of maintenance guidelines in family law cases. [Para 16]

Decision – High Court order set aside due to insufficient examination of facts and failure to apply established legal principles – Case remanded for fresh adjudication in line with Supreme Court guidelines on maintenance. [Para 15, 17]

Prayer for Preventing Further FIRs and Taking Cognizance of Complaints – Petitioner seeks mandamus to stop registration of new FIRs and cognizance of complaints based on the same cause of action – Court finds such a prayer cannot be granted by any court of law. [No specific para]

Clubbing of FIRs – Request to club 30 FIRs filed in multiple states into one jurisdiction – Petitioner's reference to a similar relief granted in Radhey Shyam case – Court notes the uniqueness of the Radhey Shyam case, where relief was granted under Article 142 of the Constitution by consent of the States, and declines to apply the same principle here. [No specific para]

Distinction from Previous Cases – Court observes differences from Mohammed Zubair and Pawan Khera cases, where FIRs were based on a single common offence – In the current case, FIRs involve state-specific enactments and special courts, making clubbing inappropriate. [No specific para]

Liberty to Approach Jurisdictional High Courts – Petitioner granted liberty to approach High Courts for clubbing FIRs within each state and seek other legal remedies. [No specific para]

Video Conferencing Facility for Trials – Considering multiple FIRs in different states and petitioner's incarceration, court allows petitioner to appear in trials via video conferencing if permitted. [No specific para]