Domestic Violence – Maintenance and Compensation – The appellant (wife) filed a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, seeking maintenance and compensation – The Magistrate awarded Rs. 12,000 per month as maintenance and Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation – The respondent (husband) did not challenge this order, which attained finality – The respondent later filed an application under Section 25 of the Act seeking revocation of the order on grounds of fraud, claiming that the appellant was employed – The Magistrate dismissed the application, but the Appellate Court remanded the matter for fresh consideration – On appeal, the Supreme Court found that the prayers for setting aside the original maintenance order and refund of maintenance were not maintainable under Section 25(2) of the Act as they pertained to a period prior to the order [Paras 1-4, 12-15].

Section 25(2) of the Act – Scope and Application – Section 25(2) permits alteration, modification, or revocation of orders made under the Act in case of a change in circumstances – However, the Court clarified that such changes must occur after the original order is passed and cannot retrospectively affect earlier periods – The respondent’s prayers to set aside the maintenance order and recover past payments were found to be inconsistent with the intent of Section 25(2) [Paras 13-15].

Finality of Orders – Appeal Dismissed Due to Delay – The respondent's failure to appeal the original order within the stipulated time led to its finality – The Court emphasized that an order cannot be set aside under Section 25(2) unless a change in circumstances is shown after the order is passed – Consequently, the prayers for retrospective revocation and refund were rejected [Paras 14-16].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Orders of the High Court and Appellate Court set aside – Application under Section 25 of the Act dismissed – Liberty granted to the respondent to file a fresh application if advised, but only concerning events post the original maintenance order [Paras 18-19].

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].

Arbitration Law – Post-Award Interest – Section 31(7)(b) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act – Interest Awarded – The appellant, a contractor, was awarded a sum by an Arbitrator, but the Arbitrator denied post-award interest, mistakenly believing the contract prohibited it – The District Court reversed this decision and granted 18% interest from the date of the award – The High Court set aside this order, holding that the contract disallowed interest – Held: Post-award interest is statutorily mandated by Section 31(7)(b) and cannot be contracted out – Restoring the District Court's order of 18% post-award interest [Paras 1-9].

Contractual Provisions – Limitation on Pre-Award Interest – The High Court erroneously applied a contractual clause prohibiting interest on security deposits to the post-award period – Held: While Section 31(7)(a) allows parties to limit pre-award interest, Section 31(7)(b) mandates post-award interest regardless of contractual terms – Post-award interest is distinguishable from pre-award interest and cannot be waived by agreement [Paras 9-13].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court judgment set aside – District Court order granting 18% post-award interest restored – Parties to bear their own costs [Paras 14-15].

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of Summons under Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) – Appellants sought quashing of summons issued by Directorate of Enforcement (ED) under Section 50 PMLA – Supreme Court held that the provisions of PMLA, being a self-contained code, prevail over the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) – Summons issued under Section 50 are valid, and appellants are bound to appear – No territorial jurisdiction limit under Section 50, PMLA [Paras 1-3, 13-21].

Jurisdiction and Procedure – ED’s Summons – Appellants challenged summons requiring them to appear in Delhi despite their domicile being Kolkata – Court held that Section 50 PMLA does not provide for territorial limitations, and proceedings under PMLA are governed by special procedure overriding CrPC – Summons for personal appearance in Delhi upheld – Appellants required to comply [Paras 5-10, 20-21].

Constitutional Law – Right to Life and Liberty under Article 21 – Challenge to Summons under PMLA based on violation of Article 21 rejected – Court found procedure under PMLA to be fair and reasonable – Summons for personal appearance in inquiry does not violate rights under Article 20(3) or Article 21 of the Constitution [Paras 18-19].

Decision – Dismissal of Appeals – Held – Appeals dismissed as meritless – Summons issued under Section 50 PMLA are legally valid, and appellants are bound to comply – No constitutional rights violated, and procedural safeguards under PMLA upheld [Paras 22-23].

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Section 438 of CrPC – Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to a person already in custody for a different offence – Held, an accused can apply for anticipatory bail in relation to a different offence while in custody – Supreme Court clarifies that arrest in one offence does not preclude arrest for another, and formal arrest can be made even while the accused is in custody in another case – No express bar in CrPC on anticipatory bail for those already in custody – [Paras 20-70]. 

Constitutional Law – Article 21 – Right to Liberty and Anticipatory Bail – The Supreme Court emphasized that the right to apply for anticipatory bail is a statutory right, rooted in the protection of personal liberty under Article 21 – Rejection of the argument that being in custody eliminates the humiliation and loss of dignity caused by subsequent arrests – The right to anticipatory bail cannot be extinguished merely because the person is already in custody for another offence – [Paras 58-64]. 

Judicial Precedent – Contradiction in High Court Rulings – Rajasthan, Allahabad, and Delhi High Courts ruled that a person in custody cannot apply for anticipatory bail in a different offence – Supreme Court disapproved of this view, citing errors in the reasoning and potential misuse by investigative agencies – The Court followed earlier rulings allowing formal arrest in different offences even while in custody – [Paras 37-53]. 

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The appeal was dismissed, holding that anticipatory bail can be sought even by a person in custody for another offence – The High Court was directed to decide the application on merits – [Paras 67-69]. 

Arbitration – Application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Appointment of Arbitrator – Group of Companies Doctrine – Scope of Court's powers at referral stage under Section 11(6) – Prima facie determination of arbitration agreement – Non-signatory respondent – Referral of complex issues to arbitral tribunal for final determination – Court appointed arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising from multiple interlinked agreements despite objections on jurisdiction and involvement of a non-signatory party. [Paras 18-35]

Referral to Arbitration – Section 11(6) of Arbitration Act – Supreme Court held that at the stage of appointing an arbitrator, the court's role is limited to ascertaining prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement – Any objections regarding the involvement of non-signatory parties to be determined by the arbitral tribunal – Principle of "competence-competence" reaffirmed. [Paras 31-34]

Impleadment of Non-Signatory – Complex issues of joinder of non-signatory party referred to arbitral tribunal – Prima facie determination of the existence of an arbitration agreement – Tribunal to decide the extent of involvement of the non-signatory respondent, applying legal doctrines and considering the available evidence. [Paras 34-35]

Decision – Appointment of Sole Arbitrator – Petition allowed – Held – Justice Mohit S. Shah, former Chief Justice of Bombay High Court, appointed as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes – All rights and contentions of the parties, including the jurisdictional objections regarding non-signatory respondents, left open for the arbitral tribunal to decide. [Paras 35-36]

Company Law – Appeal under Section 423 of the Companies Act, 2013 – Rectification of the Register of Members – Allegation of Oppression and Mismanagement – The Supreme Court set aside the dismissal of the appellants’ claims by the NCLT and NCLAT. The appellants had sought rectification of the Register of Members under Sections 59 and 88 of the Companies Act, 2013, alleging fraud and oppression in the company's management by erasing their shareholding. The Court emphasized that the NCLT and NCLAT failed to properly examine the documentary evidence, including share certificates and financial transactions, requiring further inquiry into factual issues. [Paras 1-37]

Jurisdiction – Scope of NCLT’s Summary Jurisdiction – Adjudication of Fraud Claims – Powers under Section 59 of the Companies Act, 2013 – The Court reiterated that while NCLT has summary jurisdiction, it must thoroughly examine factual disputes, especially where claims of fraud and fabricated documents are involved. The case law under Section 59 allows NCLT to adjudicate fraud issues when clear factual evidence is presented. Ignoring material evidence without full inquiry was deemed improper. [Paras 23-35]

Limitation – Mixed Question of Fact and Law – The Court held that the question of limitation, being a mixed question of law and fact, must be fully examined in light of the events and the date of knowledge of the appellants regarding the alleged fraudulent exclusion of their names from the Register of Members. NCLAT’s summary dismissal of the claim as time-barred was erroneous. [Paras 12, 18]

Decision – Appeal Allowed – The Supreme Court restored the appellants' Company Petition to the NCLT for fresh consideration on merits, directing that proper inquiry into the evidence be undertaken. The judgments of both the NCLT and NCLAT were set aside. [Paras 34-37]

Constitutional Law – Arms Export License Cancellation – Petition under Article 32 for International Treaty Violations – Rejection by Supreme Court – Petitioners, including former civil servants and activists, sought directions to cancel licenses for exporting arms to Israel, citing India’s international obligations under the Genocide Convention and related treaties. The Supreme Court held that the petition was not maintainable, as foreign policy and treaty enforcement fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Union Government (Article 73 and 253). The Court could not adjudicate matters involving Israel’s sovereign actions or disrupt contracts without breaching international commitments. Held: Petition dismissed. [Paras 1-50].

Foreign Affairs – Judicial Review of Foreign Policy – The Court reaffirmed the principle of non-intervention in foreign policy, noting that any judicial directive against exporting arms to a sovereign nation like Israel could strain international relations. It ruled that such matters, including arms contracts, are best left to the Union Government's discretion, considering national and international interests [Paras 25-40].

International Law Obligations – Implementation through Parliament – The Court underscored that while international law is part of Indian law unless excluded by legislation, enforcing treaties like the Genocide Convention requires parliamentary enactment, not judicial intervention [Paras 35-50].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Court refuses to interfere in foreign policy – Arms export licenses remain valid. [4].