Family Law - Transfer Petition – Custody Proceedings – Welfare of Minor – Transfer Allowed – Petitioner-wife sought transfer of proceedings filed by husband under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act for custody of six-month-old child from Jalpaiguri to Dehradun – Court held that compelling the mother to travel with a breast-feeding child would result in grave hardship – Transfer granted in the interest of justice and welfare of the child [Paras 1, 7, 8].

Domestic Violence Allegations – Pending Criminal Proceedings – Relevant Factor – The petitioner had filed complaints against the respondent for harassment and dowry-related abuse – FIR registered under Sections 498A, 323, 504 IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act – Court took note of pendency of criminal case as relevant background while assessing motive and hardship in custody litigation [Paras 2, 3, 6].

Maintenance – Interim Maintenance Ordered – Conditional Right to Defend – Court directed Family Court, Dehradun to determine interim maintenance for the petitioner and child within one month – Respondent-husband permitted to contest custody petition only upon payment of arrears and monthly compliance – Non-payment to result in dismissal for non-prosecution [Paras 9, 10, 11].

Judicial Discretion – Power Under Article 142 – Transfer Jurisdiction – Court exercised its plenary powers to balance competing interests and ensure procedural justice – Directions issued to secure child’s welfare and prevent vexatious litigation – Petition allowed [Para 7–11].

Final Order – Transfer Petition Allowed – Proceedings titled “Magnanil Goswami v. Kajal Sharma” pending before District Judge, Jalpaiguri transferred to Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun – All interlocutory applications also disposed of [Paras 8, 12].

Civil Suit – Declaration & Injunction – Auction Purchase of Municipal Plot – High Court’s Reversal Set Aside – Appellant claimed ownership of plot No. 394 purchased in 1977 auction—Trial and first appellate courts decreed suit based on certified copies of auction records and adverse inference against municipal council for non-production of originals—High Court reversed, holding plaintiff failed to prove purchase—Held: Certified copies issued under Section 376 Karnataka Municipalities Act have same evidentiary value as originals; municipal body’s resolution cancelling registered sale certificate illegal—Non-production of records invited adverse inference—High Court’s finding perverse; trial court decree restored [Paras 26-34].

Arbitration Law  – Statutory Forum vs Contractual Clause – Exclusive Jurisdiction of Statutory Tribunal Upheld – The appellant, a private tollway company, initiated arbitration under Clause 44.3.1 of a Concession Agreement invoking the 1996 Act and ICADR Rules, after withdrawing a reference before the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal without liberty – The High Court quashed the arbitral proceedings, holding the dispute fell exclusively within the statutory regime of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 – Supreme Court upheld this view, holding that the contract was a ‘works contract’, the claims were ascertained, and the 1983 Act provided an overriding statutory mechanism barring recourse to arbitration under the 1996 Act – The Court allowed the appellant to seek revival of the earlier withdrawn petition before the Tribunal [Paras 1–3, 11–18].

Maintainability of Writ – Challenge by State Entity Against Private Party – Writ Held Maintainable – The Supreme Court upheld the maintainability of the writ petition filed by MPRDC under Article 226 challenging arbitration proceedings initiated by a private company – Held: Since the dispute involved the public function of road development and the legality of invoking arbitration despite a statutory dispute resolution mechanism, the writ involved a public law element and was maintainable [Paras 8-8.4].

Works Contract – Applicability of Statutory Arbitration Tribunal – Arbitration Clause in Concession Agreement Held Inoperative – The appellant sought arbitration under the 1996 Act as per Clause 44.3.1 of the Concession Agreement – Held: The Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal constituted under the 1983 Act has exclusive jurisdiction over disputes arising out of works contracts involving the State – Private arbitration proceedings are non est in law [Paras 9–11.10].

Quantified Claims – Tribunal Jurisdiction Valid – Claims Held Ascertained – The appellant argued its claims were not “ascertained” and hence outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction – Held: The claims totaling Rs. 280.1566 crores were clearly quantified and therefore fall within the ambit of “dispute” under Section 2(1)(d) of the 1983 Act, even post-amendment [Paras 11.2–11.3].

Doctrine of Election – Parallel Proceedings Not Permissible – Appellant Estopped – The appellant initially approached the statutory Tribunal, later withdrew without liberty, and initiated private arbitration – Held: This conduct violates the doctrine of election and amounts to forum shopping; Clause 44.3.1 cannot override the 1983 Act [Paras 12–13.1].

Limitation and Estoppel – Withdrawal Without Liberty Bars Re-agitation – The appellant withdrew its petition without permission under Rule 53(2), attracting the bar under Rule 53(3)(b) – Held: The appellant is precluded from raising the same claims before any forum including ICADR – However, Court permitted recall of the withdrawal order for justice [Paras 17–17.1].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Arbitration Under 1996 Act Quashed – Madhya Pradesh Tribunal Retains Exclusive Jurisdiction – The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court’s order quashing arbitration initiated under the 1996 Act – Directed the appellant to apply for revival of Reference Petition No. 61 of 2018 before the Tribunal, to be considered and decided within four months [Paras 16–18].

Service Law – Retirement Age – Applicability of State Notification – Appellant denied benefit of enhanced retirement age from 60 to 65 years under West Bengal Government’s Notification dated 24.02.2021 on ground that 10-year teaching experience was not in a State-aided institution within West Bengal – University and State contended that ‘any State-aided University or College’ in Notification must be interpreted per amended definitions under West Bengal Universities (Control of Expenditure) Act, 1976 – Supreme Court held such interpretation arbitrary and discriminatory – Held: No justification to restrict past teaching experience to within West Bengal when candidate had served 14 years post-selection based on Assam experience – Artificial classification violative of Article 14 [Paras 2-3, 5-6, 8, 14, 19-21, 24]

Statutory Interpretation – Contextual Meaning – Word ‘any’ in Notification – Division Bench of Calcutta High Court held ‘any’ must be confined to universities under West Bengal Act per statutory definitions – Supreme Court disagreed, emphasizing contextual interpretation – Held: Notification intended only to distinguish State-aided from private institutions, not to exclude teaching experience outside the State – Use of ‘any’ inclusive in nature – Context, object, and purpose must guide interpretation of subordinate legislation [Paras 16-18, 26-27]

Equality and Non-discrimination – Parochial Executive Action – Exclusion of candidates with teaching experience outside West Bengal held discriminatory and contrary to constitutional principles – Court emphasized that fraternity and unity are undermined by such parochial policies – Cited precedents on artificial classifications lacking rational nexus [Paras 3.1, 19-24]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Calcutta High Court Division Bench judgment dated 13.12.2023 set aside – Notification dated 28.06.2023 rejecting retirement age extension quashed – Appellant entitled to benefit of 24.02.2021 Notification – Costs of Rs. 50,000 awarded [Paras 28-29]

University Governance – Temporary Appointment of Vice-Chancellor – Section 13(7) of Technological University Act – Interpretation Affirmed – The Chancellor appointed temporary Vice-Chancellors “until further orders” – Supreme Court upheld High Court’s interpretation that such appointments cannot exceed six months and must conform to the statutory scheme – Held: Notification inconsistent with time limit under Section 13(7), but fresh appointment within six-month period permissible [Paras 3-6, 11].

Administrative Continuity – Avoiding Stalemate – Judicial Restraint and Pragmatic Relief – Despite setting aside the appointment notification, Court appreciated High Court’s concern for uninterrupted university administration – Directed stakeholders to work harmoniously and initiate appointment of regular Vice-Chancellors – Held: Education and student welfare must prevail over procedural disputes [Paras 12-14, 18].

Constitutional Powers – Fresh Notification Permissible – Chancellor Empowered to Reappoint Interim VC – Court clarified that while earlier notifications were invalid, it remains open to Chancellor to issue fresh notifications within statutory bounds – Held: Interim arrangements can continue for up to six months pending final appointment [Paras 15-20].

Judicial Directions – Cooperative Federalism – Harmonious Resolution Encouraged – Court urged the Chancellor and State Government to coordinate for expeditious constitution of Search Committee and regular appointments – Emphasized importance of cooperative resolution in educational governance [Paras 17-19].

Final Direction – Matter Kept Pending – Compliance Monitoring – Court kept the matter pending and directed reporting of further developments – Scheduled follow-up hearing on 13-08-2025 [Paras 22-23].

Criminal Law - Murder of Wife – Sole Testimony of Child Witness – Section 302 IPC – Conviction Upheld – The accused was convicted by the trial court for murdering his wife by inflicting head injuries—Case rested substantially on the testimony of his 9-year-old daughter (PW-3), an eyewitness who was sleeping beside the deceased—She saw her father covering the deceased with a bedsheet and forbidding her to see the body; the accused then absconded—Child witness’s testimony found natural, consistent, and corroborated by landlord (PW-1) and medical evidence—Bloodstains on accused’s shirt matched deceased’s blood group—Defence of false implication rejected—Held: Burden under Section 106 Evidence Act not discharged; conviction and life sentence affirmed—Appeal dismissed, bail cancelled, and accused directed to surrender [Paras 5-16].

Criminal Law - Murder  – Appeal Against Acquittal – Sections 302 & 449 IPC – Dying Declaration Found Unreliable – The State challenged the High Court’s reversal of the trial court’s conviction for murder and house trespass – The trial court had disbelieved the prosecution’s key eyewitness and convicted on the basis of dying declaration – High Court found serious doubts about the victim’s ability to give a coherent statement due to 100% burns, absence of measurable pulse or blood pressure, and feeble, unclear speech – Presence of relatives influencing the statement, discrepancies in timing, and suppression of earlier report further weakened prosecution – Held: Supreme Court upheld acquittal as findings were not perverse, contradictions were material, and alternative views were possible; no ground to interfere in acquittal [Paras 9-22].

Cricket Ban - Section 15(4)(s) of the Bye-laws of the Kerala Cricket Association - Cricket Administration – Ombudsman Proceedings – Non-Impleadment of District Associations – Proceedings Revived – The appellant, a former Ranji player, filed an application before the Ombudsman seeking implementation of model bye-laws across district units – The application was dismissed for failure to implead District Cricket Associations (DCAs) despite prior orders – The Supreme Court held that the Ombudsman proceedings were non-transparent, and the obligation to implead DCAs was not apparent due to contradictory prior directions – Held: Ombudsman’s order and High Court judgments set aside – Original application to be reheard [Paras 4–13].

Natural Justice – Virtual Hearing Irregularities – Denial of Records – Ombudsman’s Role – Appellant submitted that hearing links were unstable and he was denied access to records – Ombudsman rejected request citing persona designata status – Supreme Court found denial unjustified and procedural fairness lacking – Reiterated need for transparency and access to relevant orders [Paras 8–11].

Administrative Blacklisting – Life Ban by Association – Without Fair Hearing – KCA imposed a life ban following the High Court’s dismissal of the writ appeal – Supreme Court quashed the blacklisting order, terming it excessive and unmerited, especially in light of procedural lapses before the Ombudsman – Directed reinstatement of appellant’s rights as member of Thiruvananthapuram District Cricket Association [Paras 7, 13].

Final Relief – Ombudsman’s Order and High Court Judgments Set Aside – Application Restored – The impugned orders dated 3rd October 2020 (Ombudsman), 27th January 2021 and 21st June 2021 (High Court) were quashed – Original Application No. 10 of 2019 revived with direction to Ombudsman to decide it afresh within three months after hearing all concerned parties [Para 13].

Motor Accident Claim – Contributory Negligence – Rule 231 of the Road Regulation Rules, 1989 – Liability Reapportioned – The appellant, an engineering student, suffered amputation of his leg following a motor accident caused by sudden braking of a car, followed by a bus running him over – The Tribunal fixed 20% negligence on the appellant and 80% on the bus driver – The High Court revised it to 30% each on the appellant and bus driver, and 40% on the car driver – The Supreme Court re-evaluated and held the appellant 20% negligent, car driver 50%, and bus driver 30% negligent – Reasoning included failure to maintain distance by appellant and absence of precautionary measures by car driver [Paras 5-6].

Quantum of Compensation – Notional Income Assessment – Engineering Student – Future Prospects Considered – Relying on prior precedents including Navjot Singh v. Harpreet Singh – Supreme Court increased appellant’s notional income to Rs. 20,000/- per month with 40% future prospects and applied multiplier of 18 – Total loss of income calculated as Rs. 60,48,000/- [Paras 7-9].

Attendant Charges – Disability and Future Needs – Tribunal Award Upheld – High Court’s reduction from Rs. 18 lakhs to Rs. 5 lakhs was reversed – Supreme Court held that lifelong assistance was justified due to 100% functional disability from leg amputation – Rs. 18 lakhs restored [Para 10].

Loss of Marital Prospects – Inadequacy of Compensation – Increased – Tribunal’s and High Court’s award of Rs. 2.5 lakhs enhanced to Rs. 5 lakhs, considering severity and long-term impact of disability on personal life of the appellant [Para 11].

Decision – Compensation Recalculated – Held: Total compensation awarded at Rs. 1,14,24,066/- minus 20% contributory negligence, amounting to Rs. 91,39,253/- with 7.5% interest from the date of claim – Liability apportioned between insurance companies of car and bus according to respective drivers’ fault – Amount payable within four weeks [Para 12].