Arbitration Law – Extension of Time under Section 29A – Post-Expiry Applications – Maintainability – Appeals concerning whether an application for extension of time under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, can be filed after the expiry of the mandate of the arbitral tribunal. The Calcutta High Court held that such an application must be filed before the mandate expires, a view supported by the Patna High Court. However, High Courts in Delhi, Bombay, Kerala, Madras, and Jammu & Kashmir took an opposite stance, allowing post-expiry applications. – Held: The Supreme Court accepted the broader view that applications for extension could be filed after expiry, as long as sufficient cause was shown. A narrow interpretation of “terminate” under Section 29A(4) would unduly restrict arbitration proceedings, contrary to legislative intent. The Court emphasized that flexibility is inherent in the provision, allowing extensions both before and after the tribunal’s mandate ends [Paras 1-9, 20].

Interpretation of “Terminate” – Conditional Nature – Purpose of Section 29A – The expression “terminate” in Section 29A(4) of the Act was interpreted in the context of ensuring efficient arbitration, not to impose strict finality. The word “terminate” is followed by “unless,” implying that the tribunal’s mandate can continue if the court grants an extension. The Court noted that a strict literal interpretation would lead to unnecessary disruptions in arbitration, forcing parties to restart proceedings. This interpretation would also undermine the legislative goal of expediting arbitration and reducing litigation costs. The Court reiterated that judicial discretion, as envisioned in Section 29A(5), provides sufficient safeguards against abuse of process [Paras 15-19].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Application for extension of time under Section 29A(4) maintainable even after expiry of the arbitral tribunal’s mandate – The High Court’s restrictive interpretation overturned – The matter was remitted for final hearing and disposal – Parties directed to proceed in accordance with the decision.

Constitutional Law – Right to Property – Threatened Demolition of Property – The petitioner, a co-owner of a legally constructed house, faced threats of demolition by municipal authorities after an FIR was filed against a family member – The petitioner argued that law should take its course against the accused, but the rest of the family should not be penalized through the demolition of their residence – Held: Actions of the State must be governed by the rule of law, and the alleged involvement in crime by one family member is no ground for the demolition of property legally constructed and occupied by other family members – The Court emphasized that such demolition threats are inconceivable in a nation where law is supreme and could be viewed as an overreach by authorities, effectively bulldozing over the laws of the land [Order].

Constitutional Law – Rule of Law – Due Legal Process – The Court observed that the alleged crime must be proven through due legal process in a Court of law – State actions should not transgress the rule of law by demolishing property based solely on accusations – Held: The State is to maintain the status quo regarding the petitioner's property until the matter is resolved through due legal process [Order].

Decision: Issue notice returnable in four weeks – Status quo in respect of the petitioner’s property is to be maintained by all concerned until the returnable date [Order].

Transfer Petition – Request for Transfer of Proceedings – Insufficient Grounds for Transfer – The petitioner, P. Srinivasan, sought the transfer of criminal proceedings from Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, to Saket, New Delhi, primarily on the grounds of relocation and failure of local police to conduct proper investigation. The court observed that while the petitioner had legitimate grievances regarding the investigation, relocation alone was insufficient to justify transfer. Instead, the court expanded the scope of the petition and directed a fresh investigation by a new Investigating Officer – Transfer Petition dismissed, and fresh investigation ordered [Paras 5-11].

Failure of Local Police to File Final Report – Contradictory Statements by Police – Despite the Nellore police’s claim that a final report was submitted on 08.12.2021, there was no record of such a report being filed. The police took contradictory stands before the High Court and the Judicial Magistrate regarding the status of the final report. The court declared the purported final report as "non-est" and ordered the Senior Superintendent of Police, Nellore, to appoint a new Investigating Officer to complete the investigation within three months [Paras 9-10].

Judicial Oversight – Expanding Scope of Transfer Petition – Instead of transferring the case, the court took cognizance of the police's failure to file a proper report and ensured judicial oversight by issuing directions to expedite the investigation. The court emphasized that the transfer of proceedings should not be based solely on the petitioner’s convenience when more effective remedies could be provided through judicial orders [Paras 10-11].

Decision: The Transfer Petition is dismissed. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Nellore, is directed to appoint a new Investigating Officer to complete the investigation of FIR No. 244/2019 within three months. The purported final report is declared non-est, and a fresh report is to be filed under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. [Paras 10-11].

Criminal Law – Transfer Petition – FIR Investigation – Non-Compliance by Investigating Officer – Petitioner sought transfer of C.F No. 2842/2018 from IVth Additional Judicial Magistrate, Nellore to Saket Court, New Delhi – Filed under Section 200 read with Section 190 Cr.P.C. for investigation into allegations of fraud (Sections 416, 418, 419, 420 IPC, etc.) – Petitioner claimed lack of proper investigation by Nellore police – Petition dismissed after directions for re-investigation under a new Investigating Officer were issued [Paras 1, 3, 9, 10, 11, 12].

Dispute Over Land Ownership – Petitioner and Respondents Related – Property dispute over Survey No.212/2 – Civil issues unresolved, court refrains from expressing any opinion on ownership [Paras 2].

Judicial Proceedings – Protest Petition – Final Report – SHO Nellore claimed filing of a final report on 08.12.2021, but no record of the report was found by the IVth Additional Judicial Magistrate – Conflicting statements made before High Court and Judicial Magistrate – SHO failed to file or re-submit final report despite repeated reminders from the court [Paras 7, 8, 9].

Court Directions – Investigation to be Handed Over to New Investigating Officer – Senior Superintendent of Police, Nellore, directed to assign new Investigating Officer for fresh investigation of FIR No. 244/2019 – Investigation to be concluded within three months – Previous final report declared "non-est" (null and void) – Fresh report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. to be filed [Paras 10].

Decision – Transfer petition dismissed as unnecessary – Case to remain under the jurisdiction of the IVth Additional Judicial Magistrate, Nellore, but with a fresh investigation as per court directions [Paras 11, 12].

Service Law – Selection Process – Irregularities – Appellants challenged the selection process for Laboratory Attendants by PSEB, alleging non-transparent shortlisting and arbitrary criteria – The Single Judge set aside the selection, directing a fresh process with revised criteria, including the elimination of marks awarded for rural area residence – The Division Bench reversed, finding the process generally fair, except for the rural area marks – On appeal, it was held that the selection criteria lacked transparency and merit-based shortlisting – Held: The selection process is set aside, and fresh selection to be conducted based on revised criteria [Paras 1, 8, 14, Conclusion].

Shortlisting of Candidates – Transparency and Merit – The court found that PSEB had shortlisted candidates 63 times the number of vacancies without any pre-determined criteria for selection – Marks from the written test were not considered, and the selection process lacked clarity and merit-based assessment – Held: The selection should be based on written test scores, with only candidates five times the number of vacancies proceeding to the interview stage [Paras 8, 19, 20].

Rural Area Marks – Legal Validity – Both the Single Judge and the Division Bench concluded that awarding marks for rural area residence was legally impermissible – Citing the precedent in Abhishek Rishi v. State of Punjab, the court agreed that such a criterion violated constitutional principles of equality – Held: Marks for rural areas eliminated from the revised selection process [Paras 14, 22, Conclusion].

Selection Criteria – Proportionality of Marks – The court emphasized that the selection criteria for Laboratory Attendants must strike a balance between academic qualifications, practical knowledge, and interview performance – It directed that marks for the interview, practical knowledge, and experience should not exceed 1/3rd of the total marks – Held: The merit of candidates should be reassessed based on revised criteria, with greater weightage given to written examination scores [Paras 22, 25, Conclusion].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Judgment of the Division Bench set aside – Fresh selection process to be conducted by PSEB within eight weeks based on revised criteria, eliminating rural area marks and focusing on merit in the written examination – Candidates five times the number of vacancies to be shortlisted for interviews – Waiting list of 10 candidates to be prepared.

Civil Law – Title Dispute – Compensation Allocation – Reversal of Lower Court Judgment – Appellant (Lakshmesh M.) claimed title to 1 acre and 12 guntas of land in Bangalore, which was granted to him by purchase from the original owner – Trial court upheld the Appellant’s title but awarded 30% of the compensation from the acquired portion to private defendants (members of a cooperative society) – High Court affirmed Appellant's title but upheld compensation to the private defendants – Held: Supreme Court reversed the compensation award, ruling that the Appellant is entitled to the full compensation for the acquired land [Paras 1-21].

Ownership of Property – Land Title – The Appellant proved ownership through a registered sale deed from the original owner, whose land was allotted occupancy rights under the Mysore Inams Abolition Act – The cooperative society members (Defendant No.1) attempted to claim rights over the land but failed to establish a valid title – High Court upheld the Trial Court's ruling confirming the Appellant’s ownership over the suit property [Paras 3-9].

Compensation Rights – Metro Rail Project Acquisition – The land was acquired for the Metro Rail Project – The High Court awarded 30% of the compensation to private defendants based on their possession of certain sites on the land, but without supporting legal claims – Supreme Court ruled that since these private defendants had not raised any claim for compensation at earlier stages, they were not entitled to a portion of the compensation for the acquired land – The Appellant was held to be the sole claimant of compensation for the entire acquired portion [Paras 15-20].

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – High Court's ruling on compensation to private defendants is set aside – Appellant entitled to the full compensation for the acquisition of the suit property for the Metro Rail Project – No costs awarded.

Landlord-Tenant Dispute – Appeal – Reversal of High Court Judgment – Appeal concerning ownership of property following a dispute between landlord and tenant – Supreme Court held that no right of ownership was conferred upon the tenant under the consent order, which merely dealt with the conditions for eviction or dismissal of eviction proceedings – High Court's decision to declare the tenant as the owner was reversed, and the judgments of the lower courts were restored – Appeal allowed with costs [Paras 1-50].

Consent Order – Interpretation of Terms – Tenant agreed to deposit a sum of Rs. 12,500 in court in the name of the landlord, as per a settlement under Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1971 – The settlement only stipulated that failure to deposit the amount would lead to eviction, while timely payment would result in the dismissal of the eviction application – The court clarified that this settlement did not confer ownership rights upon the tenant, and no registered document of title transfer existed [Paras 5-30].

Execution Proceedings – Tenant's Application for Ownership – Tenant's subsequent attempt to have his name recorded as the owner of the property, based on the consent order, was found to be unsustainable – The building had collapsed by the time the case reached execution proceedings, rendering the tenant’s claim moot – Court held that execution of the consent order was not a valid route for obtaining ownership rights [Paras 25-45].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment set aside – Judgments of the trial court and first appellate court dismissing the tenant's suit were restored – The tenant did not acquire ownership rights under the settlement – Costs awarded to the appellant [Paras 45-50].

Property Law – Joint Ownership – Validity of Sale Deed – Appellant purchased property based on sale deed executed by one co-owner without partition – Trial Court dismissed suit for lack of possession, but First Appellate Court reversed decision, disbelieving family settlement and ruling no partition had occurred – High Court affirmed this decision – Held: Sale deed valid only for the share of the co-owner who executed it; other co-owners' rights unaffected [Paras 1-50].

Co-Ownership – Right to Transfer – Appellant acquired property through sale deed from one co-owner (Brij Mohan) – Respondent (Nandu Lal) challenged sale, claiming joint ownership and lack of partition – Court found no evidence of partition or gift of property by other co-owners – Held: Brij Mohan could only sell his own share, not the entire property [Paras 25-40].

Partition of Property – Joint Ownership – Property originally purchased by two brothers – After their deaths, property devolved equally to their heirs – No evidence of gift, family settlement, or relinquishment of rights by other heirs – Held: Property remained joint and unpartitioned, requiring determination of shares before full transfer could occur [Paras 35-50].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Appellant restrained from asserting rights beyond Brij Mohan's share – Partition necessary to determine respective ownership rights – No costs awarded.

Family Law – Domestic Violence Act – Section 25 – Modification of Maintenance – Appellant-wife had obtained maintenance of ₹12,000 per month and compensation of ₹1,00,000 under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act in 2015 – Respondent-husband filed an application under Section 25 for revocation of the order, alleging the appellant was employed and not in need of maintenance – Held: The application was not maintainable as the modification or revocation under Section 25 can only be based on changes in circumstances occurring after the order of maintenance – The respondent’s claims pertained to a period before the original order [Paras 3, 10, 11].

Criminal Procedure – Appeal under Section 29 of the Domestic Violence Act – Respondent filed an appeal challenging the maintenance order, but it was dismissed on grounds of delay – Held: The earlier order of maintenance attained finality due to the respondent's failure to challenge it in a timely manner – The High Court and the Appellate Court were incorrect in remanding the matter for reconsideration [Paras 7, 8, 12].

Interpretation of Statutes – Section 25 of Domestic Violence Act – The scope of Section 25 allows for modification, alteration, or revocation of an order if a change in circumstances arises post the issuance of the order – In this case, the respondent’s application sought a retrospective change, which is impermissible under the statute – Held: The respondent's application seeking a refund of the maintenance amount was not maintainable, and the earlier order granting maintenance was upheld [Paras 13, 16].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – The High Court’s order remanding the matter is set aside – The respondent's application under Section 25 is dismissed, while liberty is granted to the respondent to file a fresh application if any change in circumstances arises in the future – No refund of maintenance can be claimed for periods prior to the application [Paras 13, 16, 17].