Arbitration and Conciliation – Service of Award – The expression "party" in Section 31(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, refers to the party itself and not its agent or advocate – Proper compliance requires delivery of a signed copy of the arbitral award to the party – Service on the advocate does not fulfill the requirement [Paras 15-16].

Application to Set Aside Award – Limitation Period – An application under Section 34(3) must be filed within three months from the date the party receives the signed arbitral award – If the signed copy is not delivered to the party, the period does not commence – Petition filed within three months from the date the party obtained the signed copy is considered timely [Para 17].

Decision:

SLP dismissed – No order as to costs – Division Bench of the Delhi High Court's interpretation upheld – Proper service requires delivery of the signed award to the party, not the advocate [Paras 17-19].

Criminal Law – Bail – Cancellation – The High Court granted bail without adequately considering the gravity of the crime, the accused's criminal history, and the impact on societal security – High Court's order quashed – Bail cancellation justified in view of the accused's involvement in serious crimes and history of threatening and abduction [Paras 28-30, 32-34].

Liberty and Social Security – Individual liberty, while precious, must be balanced against the collective security of society – The court must ensure that liberty does not lead to anarchy or disorder – Bail decisions should reflect a judicious balance between personal freedom and societal safety [Paras 19-21].

Proper Consideration in Bail Orders – Courts must exercise discretion judiciously, keeping in mind the severity of the accusations, criminal history, and potential threat to witnesses and society – Bail granted without proper analysis of these factors can be annulled as perverse [Paras 10-12, 16-18].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – High Court’s order granting bail set aside – Bail bonds of the accused cancelled – Accused directed to surrender immediately [Paras 33-35].

Transfer of Land – Scheduled Caste – The transfer of land from a member of Scheduled Caste to a juristic person is void under Section 42(b) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 – The term "person" in Section 42(b) refers only to a natural person, not a juristic person – Transfer to a juristic person, followed by a potential transfer to a non-Scheduled Caste person, would defeat the legislative intent of protecting Scheduled Caste members from exploitation [Paras 14-15].

Interpretation of Statutes – Beneficial Legislation – The Act is designed to protect the interests of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe members – Any interpretation that undermines this protection must be avoided – The expression "person" in this context excludes juristic persons to prevent indirect transfers that would bypass the statutory restrictions [Paras 8-14].

Revenue Authorities – Refusal of Mutation – Revenue Authorities correctly refused mutation based on the transfer being void under Section 42(b) – The mutation should be done only in the name of a person who is a member of Scheduled Caste/Tribe, not a firm/company/society where such a person is an office-bearer [Paras 16-17].

Decision:

Appeals allowed – Judgments of the learned single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court set aside – Sale deed dated 26.9.2005 declared void – State entitled to re-possess the land and return it to the original Scheduled Caste owners [Paras 17-19].

Judgment on Admissions – Order 12 Rule 6 CPC – For a decree on admissions in a suit for possession from a tenant, the landlord must establish the existence of the landlord-tenant relationship and the termination of tenancy – Clear admissions on these aspects allow the court to pass a decree without further trial – Appeal allowed, decree for possession granted based on admissions [Paras 6-7, 17].

Tenancy and Termination – Section 106 Transfer of Property Act – The tenancy was month-to-month and could be terminated by notice – The notice for termination was served and not disputed by the tenant – The challenge to the landlord's title based on an order anterior to the commencement of tenancy is estopped by Section 116 of the Evidence Act [Paras 12-14, 16].

Estoppel of Tenant – Section 116 Evidence Act – A tenant cannot deny the title of the landlord at the commencement of the tenancy – The challenge to the landlord’s title based on an order from 1999, before the tenancy began in 2001, is not permissible – Tenant estopped from disputing the landlord's title [Paras 15-16].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment set aside – Trial Court’s decree for possession reinstated – Tenant granted time until 31st December 2012 to vacate the premises on furnishing an undertaking – Mesne profits to be paid as determined by the trial court [Paras 18-20].

Judicial Service – Ad-Hoc Appointments – Appointments of ad-hoc ADJs in FTCs not governed by the Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2001 – Rules meant for regular judicial service not applicable to ad-hoc appointments under temporary FTC scheme – High Court's decision to quash appointments upheld [Paras 1-9, 33-34].

Fast Track Courts – Legality of Appointments – FTC Judges appointed from a merit list not meant for such positions – Advertisement did not include FTC posts as vacancies – No provision for future vacancies in advertised posts – Appointments made without proper selection process, violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution [Paras 24-33].

Estoppel – Section 116 Evidence Act – Appointments of certain candidates, including Assistant Public Prosecutors, questioned for not meeting eligibility criteria under Advocates Act – Age relaxation and other irregularities noted in the appointment process [Paras 10-14].

Regularization and Absorption – Irregularly appointed FTC Judges do not have a right to regularization or absorption in regular judicial service – Relief of regularization cannot be granted as appointments were made for a temporary scheme and not under regular rules [Paras 43-44].

Decision:

Appeal dismissed – High Court's decision to quash appointments upheld – State of Jharkhand and High Court of Jharkhand to follow directions laid down in Brij Mohan Lal II for regularization and absorption of FTC Judges in a lawful manner [Paras 35-36, 44-48].

Criminal Procedure – Examination of Accused – Section 313 CrPC – Statement recorded under Section 313 cannot be used against the accused in isolation – It must be considered in conjunction with other prosecution evidence – Conviction cannot be based solely on the statement made under Section 313 CrPC [Paras 6-7].

Evidence – Eye-Witness Testimony – The High Court erred in relying solely on the postmortem report after rejecting the eye-witness testimonies – Conviction based on insufficient corroborative evidence – Postmortem report must corroborate with eye-witness evidence to sustain conviction [Para 9].

Common Intention – Section 34 IPC – The High Court acquitted co-accused but convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC based on a partial acceptance of witness testimony and appellant’s statement – Contradictions in the appellant's Section 313 statement and reliance on it by the High Court were improper – High Court's conviction set aside [Paras 6, 8-9].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC set aside – Appellant to be released forthwith if not required in any other case [Paras 9-10].

Murder and Dowry Death – Sections 302/34, 304-B, 201 IPC – Conviction upheld based on consistent medical evidence and circumstantial evidence – Dowry demands established – Deceased died of burn injuries in her matrimonial home – Defense plea of suicide rejected – Delay in FIR registration considered immaterial given the facts [Paras 6, 13-21].

Circumstantial Evidence – Each incriminating circumstance must be established with reliable evidence – The chain of circumstances must be complete and point only to the guilt of the accused – The court must scrutinize circumstantial evidence closely, especially in the absence of direct evidence [Paras 9-10].

Examination of Accused – Section 313 CrPC – Accused must explain incriminating circumstances – The court must consider the accused’s explanation along with other evidence – Failure to offer a reasonable explanation or providing false answers can complete the chain of circumstances [Para 10].

Appeal against Acquittal – Section 378 CrPC – Appellate court must consider the presumption of innocence and the trial court’s acquittal – Interference is justified only in exceptional cases where the judgment is perverse – Routine interference should be avoided unless compelling reasons exist [Para 7].

Decision - Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence upheld – Appellant No. 2 on bail directed to surrender within four weeks – Chief Judicial Magistrate to ensure compliance [Paras 18-21].

Family Pension – Employees Provident Fund Scheme – The widow of an employee is not entitled to family pension if the employee did not exercise the option under the Employees' Family Pension Scheme, 1971 – Notification and communication from the employer were sufficient to inform employees of the scheme – Appeal allowed, Tribunal’s award and High Court judgments set aside [Paras 3-4, 13-15].

Employee Notification and Option – Notification issued by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and communication from the appellant-corporation were sent to all employees to exercise their option for the family pension scheme – Several employees opted, while others preferred the provident fund under the CPF Scheme – Widow’s claim after nine years was untenable [Paras 12-14].

Tribunal and High Court's Errors – Tribunal and Courts below erred in not appreciating the facts correctly – Their findings were perverse and warranted interference – Facts indicated the employee had not opted for the family pension scheme and the widow had already received the provident fund amount [Paras 14-15].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – Tribunal’s award and judgments of the learned single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court set aside – No order as to costs [Para 15].

Land Acquisition – Subsequent Purchasers – Purchasers of land post-Section 4 notification do so at their own peril and cannot challenge the acquisition proceedings – They are only entitled to compensation based on the vendor's title – The sale of land post-notification is void against the State [Paras 6-9]​​.

Quashing of Acquisition – Benefit to Non-Objectors – Persons who did not file objections or challenge acquisition proceedings cannot benefit from a court's quashing of declaration under Section 6 in other cases – Land vested in the State cannot be divested even if subsequent proceedings lapse or are void [Paras 10-15]​​.

Vesting of Land – Once land is vested in the State free from encumbrances, it cannot be divested and proceedings under the Act would not lapse even if an award is not made within the statutorily stipulated period​​. The State cannot reconvey the land to the original owners once it has vested [Paras 16-22].

Honest Approach and Equity – Litigants must approach the court with clean hands and truthful intentions – False claims, misrepresentations, and forgery to obtain relief are condemned – Equity demands transparency and good faith [Paras 34-39]​​.

Decision:

Appeals dismissed – Sale deeds in favor of appellants declared void – Appellants ordered to vacate the land – Costs of Rupees Twenty-Five lakhs imposed on appellants to be deposited with the Supreme Court Legal Services Authority within six weeks – Chief Secretary of Tamil Nadu directed to investigate and hold responsible officials accountable [Paras 42-44]​​.