Arbitration Law – Arbitrator Appointment – Section 12(5) read with Seventh Schedule, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Unilateral Appointment – The principle of equal treatment of parties under Section 18 of the Act, 1996, applies to the procedure for appointment of arbitrators, ensuring equal say in the constitution of the arbitral tribunal – A unilateral appointment of a sole arbitrator by one party, particularly by an authority having an interest in the dispute, is void ab initio and renders the arbitrator de jure ineligible under Section 12(5) read with the Seventh Schedule – The Chairman of the respondent, falling under Items 1, 2, 5, 12, and 13 of the Seventh Schedule, was ineligible to appoint an arbitrator, and any appointment made by such an ineligible person is ex facie invalid – The High Court erred in holding that the appointment was not unilateral merely because the respondent appointed the arbitrator pursuant to the appellant's notice invoking arbitration, as such a notice does not operate as consent to future appointments – The ineligibility stems from operation of law and cannot be cured by mere participation in proceedings – The Court emphasized that an arbitrator who cannot sit on a chair himself cannot authorize another to sit on it either [Paras 30-31, 33-34, 36, 38-39, 51-54, 57-58, 67-68, 69-70, 123(i), 123(ii)].

Arbitration Law – Waiver of Ineligibility – Section 12(5) Proviso, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – "Express Agreement in Writing" – The proviso to Section 12(5) mandates that the ineligibility of an arbitrator can only be waived by an "express agreement in writing" entered into after the disputes have arisen – This requirement signifies a deliberate, informed, and unequivocal manifestation of intent to relinquish the right to object, and cannot be inferred by conduct, tacit acceptance, or procedural participation – Mere participation in arbitral proceedings, filing a statement of claim, or jointly seeking extension of time under Section 29A does not constitute an "express agreement in writing" for waiver of Section 12(5) ineligibility – The first procedural order recording "no objection" to the arbitrator's appointment does not meet the standard of an "express agreement in writing" as it lacks the conscious and unequivocal written agreement required post-dispute – The Court clarified that the statutory design of Section 12(5) and its proviso is intended to overcome restrictions imposed by law and reinforce party autonomy through explicit consent – The High Court's view that continued participation constituted waiver was erroneous [Paras 71-73, 75-77, 79, 81-82, 84-87, 89-90, 92-95, 96, 123(iii)].

Arbitration Law – Challenge to Arbitrator's Ineligibility – Section 34, Section 14, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Public Policy of India – An objection to the de jure ineligibility of an arbitrator under Section 12(5) can be raised at any stage, including for the first time in an application under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 – An award passed by an ineligible arbitrator is a nullity, non-est, or void ab initio, and conflicts with the public policy of India under Section 34(2)(b) – The concept of "public policy of India" includes compliance with statutes, judicial precedents, and principles of natural justice, and bias falls within the "most basic notions of morality and justice" – An arbitrator who is de jure ineligible lacks inherent jurisdiction, and their mandate automatically terminates under Section 14(1)(a) – In such cases, a party may directly approach the court under Section 14(2) for termination of the mandate and appointment of a substitute arbitrator, or challenge the award under Section 34 if already passed – The Court emphasized that an arbitrator, upon entering reference, must ensure parties are willing to participate and insist on a written agreement waiving Section 12(5) requirements to prevent proceedings from being rendered futile – All High Court decisions taking a contrary view are overruled [Paras 99, 102, 104-106, 108-111, 112-113, 115-118, 120-121, 123(iv), 123(v)].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside, and the arbitral awards dated 30.07.2018 are also set aside – Parties are at liberty to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings in accordance with law [Paras 124-125].

Domestic Violence – Quasi-Criminal Proceedings – Bailable Warrants – Issuance of bailable warrants by the Magistrate in proceedings under the D.V. Act deprecated – Held: Proceedings under the D.V. Act are quasi-criminal in nature and do not attract penal consequences unless there is a breach of protection order – Magistrate unjustified in issuing bailable warrants in absence of such breach.

Transfer of Proceedings – Hardship to Petitioner – Petitioner, a dependent mother of a specially abled minor child, sought transfer of DV case from Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi to Ludhiana – Respondent (mother-in-law) remained unrepresented despite notice – Held: Considering petitioner’s circumstances and previous SC order transferring divorce case to Ludhiana, the present DV proceedings also liable to be transferred for convenience and judicial consistency.

Judicial Directions – Video Conferencing Facility – If available, courts directed to extend benefit of VC hearing to the parties – Trial court directed to transmit records to transferee court without delay.

Decision: Transfer Petition allowed – Domestic violence case MC No. 825/2023 pending in Mahila Court-05, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi transferred to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana – Magistrate’s order issuing bailable warrants found unjustified – Pending applications disposed of.

Constitutional Law – Judicial Review – Scope Under Article 32 – Dismissal of Writ Petition – Held: A writ petition under Article 32 challenging recovery proceedings initiated under SARFAESI Act and IBC is not maintainable – Petitioners failed to establish grounds for invoking Article 32 jurisdiction – Proper forum for such disputes lies with DRTs and NCLTs, as prescribed under respective statutes [Para 3].

Banking and MSMEs – Non-Performing Assets (NPAs) – MSME Notification – Implementation Gaps – Petitioners alleged failure of Central Government and RBI to enforce MSME Notification dated 29.05.2015, particularly provisions protecting MSMEs from being classified as NPAs – Held: Petitioners provided no sufficient basis for interference by the Supreme Court – No breach of statutory duty demonstrated [Para 2].

Separation of Powers – Legislative Frameworks for Debt Recovery – Challenge to SARFAESI Act, IBC, and RDB Act – Petitioners sought declarations of unconstitutionality – Held: Statutory frameworks under challenge provide alternative dispute resolution mechanisms – Petitioners’ remedies lie within specialized forums created under these laws, and not under the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court [Paras 2-3].

Jurisdiction of Civil Courts – Bar Under Special Statutes – Petitioners contended that the bar on civil court jurisdiction under SARFAESI Act, IBC, and RDB Act is unconstitutional in absence of special forums for MSME disputes – Held: Alternative forums under statutory frameworks provide adequate remedies – No merit in the contention that civil court jurisdiction must remain unaffected [Para 3].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Pending applications, if any, also disposed of.

Bail Application – Long Incarceration and Trial Progress – Regular Bail Granted – Appellant had been in custody for over 14 months and trial proceedings were nearing completion, with only three witnesses yet to be examined – Victim (PW-1) turned hostile during deposition, reducing the likelihood of conviction – Supreme Court observed that continued incarceration was unnecessary, and bail was granted subject to conditions to ensure the appellant’s cooperation in the trial [Paras 3–6].

Threat to Victim and Family – Relevance to Bail Decision – Respondent-State argued that the victim and her family faced continuous threats, despite the appellant being in custody – Supreme Court noted: Alleged threats are unsubstantiated, and no material on record demonstrates the appellant’s role in influencing witnesses or interfering with the trial – Appellant released on bail with specific conditions to safeguard trial proceedings [Paras 5–6].

Judicial Principles – Bail in Serious Offences – Court reiterated: While the allegations against the appellant are serious, pre-trial detention cannot continue indefinitely, especially when the trial is nearing conclusion – Reliance placed on the principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception – Appellant’s right to prepare his defence and personal liberty weighed against the gravity of allegations [Paras 6–8].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Appellant directed to be produced before the concerned Trial Court, which shall release him on bail subject to conditions to ensure his presence in trial proceedings arising out of FIR No. 636/2023 – Non-compliance with conditions would result in cancellation of bail [Paras 7–9].

Arbitration Law - Arbitral Proceedings – High Court’s Supervisory Jurisdiction – Excessive Judicial Interference – High Court directed the Arbitral Tribunal to allow further cross-examination of a witness (RW-1) despite Tribunal’s decision to conclude it – Held: High Court’s interference under Article 227 was unwarranted and unjustified; Tribunal had already provided sufficient opportunity to cross-examine RW-1 over 12 hours and followed procedural fairness [Paras 12-14].

Judicial Restraint in Arbitration – Principle of Minimal Interference – The High Court’s intervention breached the principle of judicial restraint under the Arbitration Act – Excessive interference undermines efficiency and independence of the arbitral process – Allowed only in cases of clear perversity or bad faith, which were absent here [Paras 15-16].

Opportunity for Cross-Examination – Procedural Fairness Upheld – Despite repeated adjournments and extended timelines, the Arbitral Tribunal provided ample time for cross-examination of RW-1 – Further requests for time were excessive and reflected lack of diligence by the respondent/claimant [Paras 10-11].

Decision: Appeals allowed; High Court orders set aside – Arbitral Tribunal directed to resume proceedings and conclude expeditiously [Paras 17-18].

Arbitration Law – Commencement of Limitation – Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 – Limitation Began Upon Awareness – The appellant's application under Section 17 of the Act was dismissed as premature by lower courts, interpreting the limitation to start only from formal notice of filing the award – Held: The limitation began on 21.09.2022 when the respondent was sufficiently aware of the award's filing; the appellant's Section 17 application filed after the limitation period was valid [Paras 2, 19].

Notice Requirement – Informal Communication Sufficient – Section 14(2) of the 1940 Act – Compliance Achieved Without Formality – The term "notice" does not mandate formal issuance; awareness through other means suffices – Informal communication, including court orders or directions, fulfills the purpose of apprising parties of the award's existence [Paras 15-16].

Speedy Resolution Intent – Preventing Procedural Delays – The Arbitration Act, 1940, aims to expedite dispute resolution – Relying solely on formal notices undermines this intent and allows delay tactics – Awareness triggers party obligations [Paras 17-18].

Decision:

The appeal is allowed, and the High Court's order dated 27.03.2024 in Civil Revision Petition No. 138/2022 is set aside – Direction issued to District Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur, to dispose of Misc. (J) 61 of 2022 within five months from the receipt of this judgment [Paras 20-21].

Land Acquisition - Claims Commission – Finalization of Claims – Pending Compensation and Benefits – The Claims Commission was established to determine compensation for lands acquired in Odisha villages – The Court previously directed no re-opening of finalized claims while emphasizing compliance with specific methodologies – Held: Commission tasked only with re-determination of differential compensation for four unresolved villages based on set parameters; issues regarding other villages were deemed resolved and final [Paras 13-20].

Jurisdiction and Finality – Powers of Commission – Unauthorized Actions Addressed – The Commission entertained disputes outside its mandate, including revisiting finalized claims and addressing suitability of resettlement sites – Held: Such actions violated the scope of its jurisdiction; High Court directed to adjudicate pending compensation issues [Paras 21-24].

Resettlement and Rehabilitation – Compliance with Court Directions – R&R Benefits for Villages – The applicants sought preparation of lists for project-affected families to enable rehabilitation and resettlement benefits – Held: Applicants directed to seek relief from State authorities as per established court orders; no further Commission term extension granted [Paras 25-27].

Decision:

M.A. No. 2662/2023 disposed of with no extension for the Claims Commission; pending applications dismissed. High Court directed to expeditiously resolve compensation disputes for Village Ratansara. Applications for new claims in M.A. (D) Nos. 28318/2024 and 30630/2024 dismissed, clarifying applicants' right to approach appropriate State authorities [Paras 24-28].

Appointment of Ombudsman cum Ethics Officer – Constitutionality of Appointment – High Court Allowed Appointment – The Apex Council's decision to appoint an Ombudsman and Ethics Officer was challenged on the grounds of non-conformance with the Hyderabad Cricket Association's Constitution – The High Court set aside the Civil Court's suspension order and dismissed the related suit, which led to the present Special Leave Petitions – Held: Recommendations for appointment were prima facie found appropriate by the Supreme Court as interim measures pending further hearings.

Supervisory and Election Conduct – Single Member Committee Supervision – Elections Held – A Single Member Committee under a retired Supreme Court judge was constituted to oversee fair elections and recommend amendments to the Hyderabad Cricket Association Constitution – The Supreme Court provisionally implemented these recommendations while objections were considered.

Conflict with BCCI Constitution – Integration of Regulations – Recommendations May Conflict – Petitioners argued potential conflicts between Hyderabad Cricket Association recommendations and BCCI Constitution guidelines, suggesting joint consideration with pending Civil Appeal No. 4235 of 2014 – Held: Matters to be tagged and heard with Civil Appeal No. 4235 of 2014 to ensure uniformity in Cricket Association governance.

Decision: Matters directed to be tagged with Civil Appeal No. 4235 of 2014 for consideration by the same bench to resolve potential conflicts in governance regulations across Cricket Associations.

Domestic Violence Proceedings – Quasi-Criminal Nature – Issuance of Bailable Warrants Unjustified – Petitioner challenged issuance of bailable warrants in proceedings under the D.V. Act – Held: Proceedings under the D.V. Act are quasi-criminal without penal consequences except in cases of protection order violation – Magistrate erred in issuing bailable warrants in the case [Paras 2–3].

Transfer of Proceedings – Petitioner’s Financial and Personal Challenges – Transfer Granted – Petitioner sought transfer of proceedings from Tis Hazari, Delhi, to Ludhiana, Punjab, citing unemployment, dependency on her father, and care responsibilities for her specially-abled minor child – Held: Considering the petitioner’s circumstances and earlier transfer of related divorce proceedings, the transfer petition is allowed.

Court Convenience – Role of Video Conferencing – Directions Issued – Transferee court directed to use video conferencing facilities for proceedings, if available, ensuring accessibility for both parties.

Decision: Transfer petition allowed – Proceedings under the D.V. Act transferred from Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari, Delhi, to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, Punjab – Pending applications disposed of.