Arbitration Clause – Applicability of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Public Premises Act, 1971 – The appellant raised a question whether the Public Premises Act overrides the Arbitration Act – Held: The dispute arises from the lease agreement containing a valid arbitration clause, covering issues of storage charges and lease renewal – The Public Premises Act governs eviction and possession post-expiry of lease but does not override or interfere with arbitration matters under the agreement [Paras 13-14].

Jurisdiction – Section 11 of the Arbitration Act – Appointment of Arbitrator – The High Court appointed an arbitrator for disputes under the agreement, including revised storage charges and the respondent's right to renew the lease – Held: The High Court correctly exercised its jurisdiction as the disputes fell under the arbitration clause, and the referral court’s role under Section 11 is limited to ascertaining the existence of a valid arbitration agreement [Paras 14-15].

Costs and Resumption of Arbitration – Appeal Dismissed – The appeal was deemed unnecessary and dismissed with costs imposed on the appellant – The arbitration proceedings, stayed during appeal, were directed to resume with the arbitral tribunal to expedite its award [Paras 15-17].

Decision: Appeal Dismissed – The Court rejected the appeal and upheld the High Court’s order appointing an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act. The appellant was ordered to pay costs of Rs. 50,000, and the arbitral proceedings were directed to continue without delay [Paras 15-17].
 

Criminal Law – Acquittal – Section 498-A IPC – Appellant convicted for cruelty towards the deceased based on dowry demands – Trial court and High Court convicted appellant under Section 498-A IPC, sentencing him to three years of rigorous imprisonment – High Court modified the sentence to the period already undergone – Appellant argued he was falsely implicated, as his marriage occurred only months before the deceased’s death and no evidence specifically linked him to any acts of cruelty – Supreme Court found no direct evidence of cruelty or harassment against the appellant and held that over-implication was likely – Held: Conviction set aside, appellant acquitted [Paras 1, 9, 13, 14].

Witness Testimony – Over-Implication – Appellant argued that his conviction stemmed from over-implication, a concept previously acknowledged by the Supreme Court in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand – Court noted that no witness specifically implicated the appellant in the alleged dowry harassment or cruelty – Absence of complaints against the appellant prior to the FIR, coupled with vague allegations, supported the appellant's claim of over-implication – Held: Conviction of the appellant unsustainable due to lack of evidence [Paras 5, 9, 12].

Section 498-A IPC – Relative by Marriage – Appellant argued that his marriage to the second accused (the sister of the deceased's husband) occurred only months before the deceased’s death, limiting his interaction with her – Court acknowledged this fact and found no specific accusation or evidence tying the appellant to the alleged dowry demands – Held: Appellant not a "relative" involved in cruelty as per Section 498-A IPC – Acquittal granted [Paras 5, 9].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 498-A IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted – Impugned judgments of the High Court and Trial Court, insofar as they relate to the appellant, set aside [Para 14].

Service Law – Revised Pension – Interest on Delayed Payment – Claim by Retired Lecturers of Government Aided Private Colleges – Denied – Appellants, retired lecturers, claimed interest on delayed payment of revised pension with effect from 01.01.2006 – High Court dismissed their claim, labeling them "fence-sitters" as they initiated legal action only after Government College lecturers had successfully contested similar issues – Held: Appellants are not entitled to interest on delayed payment – Since the appellants sought parity with original litigants, who did not receive interest, the appellants cannot claim a better position – The grant of revised pension was based on a concession made by the State, not on merits – Appeal dismissed [Paras 17-20].

Rule 6, Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pension) Part I Rules, 2009 – Minimum Pension Fixation – Government revised pension under Rule 6, applicable retrospectively from 01.01.2006, but delayed in payment to certain retirees – Supreme Court upheld denial of interest on delayed payment, noting no specific provision for interest under Rule 6, and observing that the appellants waited until after others had litigated the same issue, making them "fence-sitters" [Paras 8, 13, 19].

Government Concessions – Oral Instructions in Court – State's oral concessions regarding payment of interest on delayed pensions, made during writ proceedings, were not substantiated by written instructions – Court emphasized that only written concessions or instructions from the State should be relied upon, and oral statements alone cannot be the basis for legal obligations – Held: No basis for interest payment, appellants’ claim denied [Paras 18, 22].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – No interest on delayed payment of revised pension granted – High Court judgment upheld [Para 21].

Workman Classification – Definition under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act – Employee Not a Workman – The employee, who was employed as a Junior Engineer and later promoted to Assistant Engineer, claimed to be a “workman” under Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act. The management contended that he performed supervisory duties and earned more than the salary threshold applicable at the time of termination. The Supreme Court held that the employee, performing supervisory tasks and earning above the statutory limit, did not fall within the definition of “workman” under the pre-amended Act. Therefore, the provisions of the I.D. Act were not applicable to his case [Paras 11-16].

Termination Procedure – Section 25F of the I.D. Act – No Violation in Termination Process – The management terminated the employee’s service in compliance with the terms of his employment contract, paying one month's salary in lieu of notice, which the employee accepted and encashed. The Supreme Court held that there was no procedural violation of Section 25F of the I.D. Act, as the employee was not entitled to protection under the Act [Paras 13-17].

Reinstatement and Compensation – Labour Court’s Award – High Court's Partial Allowance Upheld – The Labour Court directed reinstatement of the employee with compensation in lieu of back wages, but the High Court set aside the reinstatement order. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, finding no justification for reinstatement or further compensation since the employee was not a “workman” and the termination was lawful [Paras 17-19].

Decision – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the employee and allowed the appeal by the management, affirming that the employee was not entitled to reinstatement or compensation under the I.D. Act [Paras 18-19].

Criminal Law – Remand of Trial – Appeal against acquittal – Appellant challenged the order of the Allahabad High Court, which had remanded the case back to the Trial Court for retrial from the stage of testimony of PW 2 – The High Court found the trial process unfair due to the admission of prosecution documents without formal proof – Directed the retrial, allowing the defence to cross-examine witnesses and the prosecution to call formal witnesses – Held: High Court erred in ordering remand as the genuineness of documents had been admitted under Section 294 CrPC, rendering formal proof unnecessary – Appeals allowed, and the High Court's judgment set aside [Paras 1, 2, 8, 22, 23].

Section 294 CrPC – No formal proof of admitted documents – The prosecution's documents, including autopsy reports and police memos, were admitted by the defence during trial, making formal proof unnecessary – Trial Court had rightly relied on these documents under Section 294(3) CrPC – Reliance on judgments in Sonu v. State of Haryana, Shamsher Singh Verma v. State of Haryana, and Akhtar v. State of Uttaranchal to uphold the validity of reading such documents into evidence without formal proof – High Court’s reliance on Munna Pandey v. State of Bihar was misplaced, as it dealt with different legal issues [Paras 14-21].

Witness Testimony – Cross-examination of PW 2 – High Court’s order directing the cross-examination of PW 2 and summoning of additional witnesses was unnecessary since the defence had already admitted the genuineness of crucial documents – No compelling reason to remand the case for a retrial from this stage – High Court should have decided the appeals based on the evidence already on record [Paras 10, 16, 17].

Decision: Appeals allowed – The judgment and order of the Allahabad High Court are set aside – The criminal appeals are restored to the High Court for fresh consideration on the merits, based on the existing record – Respondents to surrender within six weeks, and may apply for suspension of sentence before the High Court [Paras 23-25].

Service Law – Pay Discrepancy – Appellant, an Artificer III in the Indian Navy, challenged the lower grade pay granted to Artificers I, II, and III, compared to the non-technical Chief Petty Officers, despite their technical competence and relative ranks – The appellant contended this was discriminatory, arguing that Artificers of Class III and above should receive the same grade pay as non-technical Chief Petty Officers (Rs. 4200) based on Navy instructions and regulations – Held: The differentiation in grade pay based on the promotional hierarchy and responsibilities is neither arbitrary nor illegal [Paras 2, 4, 6, 12].

Navy Regulations – Command and Rank – Regulation 247 and other Navy instructions indicated that Chief Artificers hold command over Artificers I, II, and III – While the rank equivalency for seniority purposes was acknowledged between Artificers III and Chief Petty Officers, the Court emphasized the operational and hierarchical differences between these ranks – The promotional avenues available to Artificers and Chief Petty Officers justified the variance in grade pay [Paras 7, 9, 10].

Grade Pay Anomaly – Speaking Order – The 2009 speaking order clarified that while Artificers I to III are given relative ranks akin to Chief Petty Officers for seniority, they are not directly promotable to higher posts like Master Chief Artificers, unlike Chief Petty Officers – The appellant’s claim for equal grade pay was denied as Artificers I to III are positioned between Artificer IV and Chief Artificer in the pay structure, justifying the lower grade pay of Rs. 3400 compared to the Rs. 4200 granted to Chief Artificers [Paras 11, 12].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, affirming that the pay disparity between Artificers III to I and Chief Petty Officers is lawful and not discriminatory – No merit in the appeal [Paras 13, 14].

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 – Conviction – Deposit Condition under Section 148 – Authorized Signatory's Liability - Authorized Signatory Liability – Deposit Condition Quashed -  appellant, an authorized signatory/director of M/s. Gee Pee Infotech Pvt. Ltd., challenged the requirement to deposit 20% of the fine amount as a condition for suspension of sentence under Section 148(1), NI Act. The Supreme Court held that an authorized signatory is not a “drawer” under Section 148(1), aligning with the principles in Shri Gurudatta Sugars Marketing Pvt. Ltd. vs. Prithviraj Sayajirao Deshmukh & Ors., and therefore, cannot be directed to deposit any amount under the said provision. The High Court’s decision imposing such a condition was set aside [Paras 13, 28-35].

Distinction Between Drawer and Signatory – Sections 143-A and 148 of the NI Act – Liability Clarified - Supreme Court emphasized that liability under these provisions pertains strictly to the "drawer" of the cheque. Authorized signatories are not considered drawers for the purposes of interim or additional compensation under Sections 143-A and 148, reinforcing the principle of strict interpretation of penal statutes [Paras 13, 28-35].

Appellate Court Powers – Exceptional Circumstances – Mechanistic Application of Section 148 Rejected - Court highlighted that imposing a deposit condition under Section 148 must be based on a proper assessment of whether the appellant is indeed the drawer of the cheque, and not applied mechanically. The orders imposing the deposit condition were quashed as they failed to consider these principles [Paras 13, 28-35].

Decision – Appeals Allowed - Supreme Court quashed the orders directing deposit of 20% of the fine amount by the appellant, an authorized signatory, under Section 148(1) of the NI Act. The suspension of sentence granted by the Appellate Court was upheld with execution of bonds as the sole condition until the disposal of the pending appeals [Para 35].

Service Law - Revision of Pension – Government-Aided College Staff Entitlement – Rule 6 of the Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pension) Part I Rules, 2009 – The appellants, retired from government-aided private colleges before 01.01.2006, claimed entitlement to revised pension under Rule 6 on par with government college staff – Held: Revised pension is payable to the appellants as per the Rule 6 guidelines, in alignment with orders passed for government college retirees; however, interest on delayed payment was not warranted [Paras 8-10].

Interest on Delayed Pension Payment – No Entitlement for Interest Based on Fence-Sitting – Rule 6 of the Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pension) Part I Rules, 2009 – The appellants contended they were entitled to interest on delayed pension as the State initially committed to pay such interest through oral instructions in court – Held: The High Court correctly ruled that the appellants, who waited until previous litigations resolved, could not claim interest by simply following the outcomes; the absence of written commitment from the State negates entitlement to interest [Paras 17-18].

Oral Instructions in Judicial Proceedings – Caution Advised – The Court emphasized the importance of government counsel relying solely on written instructions to avoid misrepresentations that can mislead judicial proceedings – Observed: Future representations by government officials should be substantiated with written documentation to ensure accuracy and accountability; failure to provide truthful information may result in penalties [Para 22].

Decision: Appeals are dismissed, with no costs awarded.

Land Acquisition – Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act – Compliance with Procedure – Objections Dismissed – The respondents challenged the acquisition of their land, asserting that their objections under Section 5A were not duly considered and that similarly situated lands were exempted from acquisition – Held: The State Government complied with the mandatory procedure of Section 5A, including hearing and report stages, and was entitled to disagree with the Collector's recommendation based on a High-Powered Committee's findings. The objections were not automatically binding on the Government [Paras 11-18].

Discrimination – Article 14 of the Constitution – Claim of Discriminatory Treatment – The respondents alleged discrimination in the acquisition, claiming that similarly situated lands were exempted – Held: The High Court’s finding of discrimination was erroneous as the State had acquired 99.78% of the notified land, including the exempted land at a later stage. Negative equality cannot be claimed to invalidate the acquisition [Paras 27-31].

Doctrine of Merger – Appeals Dismissed for Non-Prosecution – Whether the present appeals are maintainable – Held: The doctrine of merger does not automatically apply in cases of dismissal for non-prosecution. The Supreme Court invoked its powers under Article 142 to ensure complete justice, holding that the previous dismissal did not bar the present appeal [Paras 47-53].

Settlement Between Parties – Agreement to Release Land – State’s Decision to Release the Land During Appeal Scrutinized – Held: The decision to release the land was arbitrary, lacked due consideration of public interest, and was not accepted by the Court. The land was ordered to be acquired for the intended public purpose [Paras 32-46].

Decision: Appeal Allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and directed the acquisition of the respondents' land to proceed in accordance with the original notifications under the Land Acquisition Act. The Court further directed the State to take possession and utilize the land for public purposes, with appropriate compensation to be awarded. The Court also granted liberty to the respondents to seek higher compensation under Section 18 of the Act, if applicable [Paras 54-57].