Arbitration – Appointment of Arbitrator – Petition for appointment of an arbitrator under Sections 11(5) and (9) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, due to disputes related to the supply of defective billets – Supreme Court appointed an independent and impartial arbitrator to resolve the disputes [Paras 1-19].

Contract Disputes – Quality and Specifications – Disputes arose from the supply of Prime Alloy Steel Billets not meeting specified quality and physical standards – Applicant claimed billets were defective, leading to multiple communications and failed attempts at joint inspection and amicable settlement [Paras 3-6].

Legal Precedents – Relevance and Application – Supreme Court referenced judgments in S.B.P. and Co. vs. Patel Engineering Ltd. and Another and National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. BogharaPolyfab Pvt. Ltd., emphasizing the wide ambit of arbitration clauses and the necessity of resolving genuine disputes through arbitration [Paras 9-12].

Arbitration Clause – Scope and Interpretation – Clause in the contract covered all disputes and differences arising from the contract, mandating resolution through arbitration as per Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Supreme Court upheld the clause's applicability to the present disputes [Paras 12-16].

Bonafide Disputes – Determination and Referral – Court found bonafide disputes existed regarding the quality of supplied billets, payment of amounts drawn against Letter of Credit, and additional costs incurred – Directed all disputes to be resolved through arbitration [Paras 16-17].

Decision – Petition allowed – All disputes referred to arbitration – Hon. Mr. Justice S.N. Variava appointed as Sole Arbitrator – Registry directed to communicate the order to the Sole Arbitrator for expeditious resolution [Paras 17-19].

Criminal Law – Conspiracy and Murder – Appellants convicted for murder and conspiracy to commit murder – High Court upheld the Trial Court's judgment based on consistent eyewitness testimonies and circumstantial evidence – Supreme Court reviewed and found no material discrepancies, thereby upholding the convictions and sentences [Paras 1-17].

Eyewitness Testimonies – Reliability and Consistency – Statements of eyewitnesses PW-10 and PW-11 were found credible despite minor inconsistencies – Supreme Court held that minor discrepancies do not undermine the overall reliability of eyewitness accounts [Paras 9-13].

Medical Evidence – Corroboration with Eyewitness Accounts – Injuries on the deceased matched the account given by eyewitnesses – Supreme Court upheld that medical findings supported the prosecution's case [Paras 22-23, 36-38].

Confessional Statements and Recoveries – Admissibility and Segregation – Supreme Court upheld the recovery of the motorcycle used in the crime based on the admissible part of the confessional statement made by the accused – Inadmissible parts were segregated [Paras 17-21].

Delay in FIR – Justification – Delay in lodging FIR explained based on the circumstances – Supreme Court held that the delay did not cast doubt on the prosecution's case [Paras 22, 26-30].

Judicial Interpretation – Conspiracy and Common Intention – Supreme Court upheld that Jitender Kumar was guilty of conspiracy under Section 120B IPC, which made him liable for the offense of murder committed in furtherance of the conspiracy [Paras 24-25].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Convictions and life sentences under Sections 302 and 120B IPC upheld – Directions for continued custody and serving of sentences [Para 57].

Admissions – Cancellation of MBBS Admissions – Appeals challenging cancellation of admissions to MBBS course based on alleged violations of procedural rules and fairness – Supreme Court reviewed the procedural irregularities and favoritism involved – Upheld the cancellation but provided conditional relief due to the substantial completion of the course by the appellants [Paras 1-17, 30-31].

Procedural Fairness – Violation of Natural Justice – Admissions were cancelled without providing an opportunity for appellants to be heard – Supreme Court acknowledged this procedural lapse but held that subsequent hearings at High Court and Supreme Court remedied the procedural fairness concern [Paras 43-44].

Inquiry Findings – Examination of Validity – Inquiry report found admissions were not based on a fake letter but rather through State PMT merit – Supreme Court found the inquiry inconclusive and emphasized arbitrary nature of admissions on 30th September 2006 [Paras 38-40].

Merit and Transparency – Adherence to Prescribed Rules – Supreme Court reiterated the need for strict adherence to admission schedules and procedures to maintain fairness and prevent favoritism – Highlighted consequences of deviations from these rules [Paras 20-28].

Equity and Conditional Relief – Acknowledged substantial course completion by appellants – Provided relief by allowing completion of the course upon payment of Rs. 5 lakhs each to the college – Emphasized that this decision does not set a precedent for similar cases [Paras 50-52].

Decision – Appeals dismissed on merits – Appellants permitted to complete MBBS course upon payment of Rs. 5 lakhs each within one week – Non-compliance to result in non-declaration of results and non-registration by Medical Council of India [Paras 1, 50-53].

Criminal Law – Circumstantial Evidence – Appellant convicted based on circumstantial evidence for the murder of Baldevraj Seth and his family – High Court upheld the conviction – Supreme Court found no material discrepancies to overturn the High Court’s decision – Emphasized the reliability of the chain of evidence and corroborative testimonies [Paras 1-17].

Confession and Recoveries – Admissibility and Corroboration – Confessional statements of the accused led to recoveries of incriminating items – Supreme Court upheld admissibility under Section 27 of the Evidence Act – Statements corroborated by forensic and eyewitness evidence [Paras 30-31].

Eyewitness and Forensic Evidence – Consistency and Reliability – Statements of eyewitnesses and forensic experts found consistent and credible – Blood stains, finger prints, and forensic analysis supported the prosecution’s case – Supreme Court held the evidence collectively established the guilt of the accused [Paras 9-16, 22-23, 36-38].

Judicial Interpretation – Section 313 CrPC – Appellant’s failure to explain incriminating circumstances during examination under Section 313 CrPC used against him – Supreme Court emphasized the significance of the accused’s responses in forming adverse inferences [Paras 49-53].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentences upheld – Supreme Court directed the implementation of the sentences as per the trial court’s judgment [Para 53].

Arbitration – Appointment of Arbitrator – Petition under Sections 11(6) and 11(8) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for an independent arbitrator – Respondent insisted on appointing the Chairman and Managing Director of BEL or his nominee as per the arbitration clause – Supreme Court appointed an independent arbitrator due to reasonable apprehension of bias [Paras 1-54].

Arbitration Clause – Enforcement and Interpretation – The arbitration clause in the Purchase Order mandated disputes be referred to BEL’s Chairman and Managing Director or his nominee – Petitioner requested an independent arbitrator, citing potential bias and lack of impartiality – Supreme Court upheld the request for an independent arbitrator, stressing the importance of impartiality in arbitration proceedings [Paras 2-7].

Communication of Orders – Legal Principles – Order appointing an arbitrator by the respondent communicated late to the petitioner – Supreme Court highlighted that an order takes effect only when communicated to the affected party, aligning with the general legal principle and Section 3(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [Paras 23-31].

Precedents and Judicial Reasoning – Cited multiple judgments affirming that orders and appointments must be communicated to take effect – Supreme Court rejected the respondent's claim that internal appointment sufficed without proper communication [Paras 24-29].

Decision – Petition allowed – Justice Ashok C. Agarwal (Retd.) appointed as sole arbitrator – Directed the registry to communicate the order to the appointed arbitrator for expeditious resolution of disputes [Paras 43-45].

Bar Association – Implementation of Judgment – SCBA and others filed applications concerning the implementation of the Supreme Court's judgment regarding amendments to SCBA Rules – Supreme Court reviewed actions taken by the SCBA and its Implementation Committee, addressing procedural irregularities and ensuring compliance with its judgment [Paras 1-54].

Elections and Membership – Voting Rights – Dispute over eligibility to vote in SCBA elections and the preparation of a voters' list – Supreme Court upheld the need for strict adherence to its directions in the judgment dated 26th September 2011, emphasizing the principle of "One Bar One Vote" [Paras 43-46].

General Body Meeting and Resolutions – Legality and Compliance – Supreme Court scrutinized the resolutions adopted at the SCBA General Body Meeting held on 16th January 2012, finding them non-compliant with the Court's judgment – Declared resolutions invalid due to procedural improprieties and violation of Article 141 [Paras 47-51].

Contempt of Court – Disobedience of Court Orders – Reviewed actions of SCBA members for contemptuous conduct in disregarding Supreme Court's directions – Emphasized the binding nature of its judgments and the duty of SCBA members to comply [Para 50].

Implementation Committee – Role and Function – Affirmed the role of the Implementation Committee in overseeing compliance with the Court’s judgment – Directed the Committee to resume its work and finalize the voters' list while addressing objections [Paras 52-54].

Decision – Interlocutory application allowed – Resolutions from the General Body Meeting on 16th January 2012 declared invalid – Implementation Committee directed to finalize voters' list and proceed with SCBA elections as per Supreme Court's judgment – Contempt petition disposed of [Paras 54-55].

Criminal Law – Conviction and Death Sentence – Appellant convicted for the rape and murder of his four-year-old daughter – Trial court sentenced him to death – High Court affirmed the conviction and death sentence – Supreme Court reviewed the evidence, upheld the conviction but commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment [Paras 1-28].

Eyewitness Testimony – Reliability and Consistency – Testimonies of Roopa Devi (PW3) and Gulla (PW4) found reliable despite minor inconsistencies – Supreme Court held that minor discrepancies do not undermine the overall reliability of the eyewitness accounts [Paras 9-13].

Medical Evidence – Corroboration with Eyewitness Accounts – Injuries on the deceased matched the account given by eyewitnesses – Supreme Court upheld that medical findings supported the prosecution's case [Paras 6, 9-10].

Confessional Statement – Admissibility and Corroboration – Confessional statement of the accused led to the recovery of incriminating items – Supreme Court upheld admissibility under Section 27 of the Evidence Act – Statements corroborated by forensic and eyewitness evidence [Paras 14-16].

Circumstantial Evidence – Chain of Events – Prosecution established a consistent and credible chain of events leading to the appellant's guilt – Supreme Court upheld the circumstantial evidence presented [Paras 14-17].

Doctrine of Implied Powers – Applicability and Limits – Emphasized the significance of implied powers in exceptional cases where evidence lies within the knowledge of the accused – Applied Section 106 of the Evidence Act to infer guilt due to lack of explanation from the accused [Paras 17-18].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Conviction upheld – Death sentence commuted to life imprisonment – Appellant to serve a minimum of 30 years without remission before consideration for pre-mature release [Para 27].

Intellectual Property – Copyright – Compulsory Licensing – Appeals against the Delhi High Court's reversal of the Copyright Board’s decision not to grant interim compulsory licenses – Supreme Court examined whether the Copyright Board has the authority to grant interim relief under Section 31 of the Copyright Act – Upheld that the Copyright Board lacks the power to issue interim compulsory licenses as the statute does not expressly confer such authority [Paras 1-45].

Tribunal Powers – Inherent and Implied Powers – Considered whether the Copyright Board, as a statutory tribunal, could exercise inherent or implied powers to grant interim relief – Supreme Court held that in the absence of express statutory provision, tribunals do not possess inherent powers to grant interim relief similar to the final relief sought – Rejected the doctrine of implied power in this context, distinguishing from other tribunals with explicit statutory authority [Paras 39-45].

Doctrine of Implied Powers – Applicability and Limits – Discussed judicial precedents on implied powers of tribunals – Emphasized that implied powers must be essential to the functioning of the tribunal and cannot grant final relief at an interim stage – Supreme Court reiterated that such powers must be explicitly stated in the statute governing the tribunal [Paras 38-45].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court's order set aside – Original decision of the Copyright Board restored – Held that the Copyright Board does not have the power to grant interim compulsory licenses under Section 31 of the Copyright Act [Para 45].

Criminal Procedure – Anticipatory Bail – Appeals challenge High Court's directions allowing accused to surrender and seek bail from Magistrate despite denial of anticipatory bail – Supreme Court set aside these directions, emphasizing strict adherence to Section 438 CrPC and the necessity of judicial discretion in granting bail [Paras 1-34].

Judicial Discretion – Scope and Limits – High Court's order granting bail upon surrender despite denying anticipatory bail deemed contradictory – Supreme Court reiterated the need for courts to operate within statutory parameters and maintain judicial propriety – Emphasized that courts cannot indirectly grant what is directly impermissible [Paras 7-16].

Statutory Interpretation – Compliance with Section 438 CrPC – Supreme Court highlighted the importance of adhering to statutory provisions when dealing with anticipatory bail – Directed that such orders must be clear, reasoned, and conform to legal requirements without creating ambiguity or inconsistency [Paras 17-18, 30-32].

Precedents and Principles – Reviewed past judgments to reinforce the necessity for judicial restraint and adherence to established legal principles in bail matters – Reiterated that anticipatory bail should be granted only when justified and within the scope of Section 438 CrPC [Paras 18-21, 26-29].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court's directions set aside – Accused directed to seek bail under Section 439 CrPC – Emphasized proper judicial process and adherence to statutory mandates [Para 34].