Arbitration Law – Remand by Appellate Court – The Division Bench's power to remand under Section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration Act – Held that the Division Bench was correct in remanding the matter for reconsideration as the Single Judge did not address several issues and provided inadequate reasoning – Appellate court can remand for fresh consideration when the lower court’s decision is unreasoned and incomplete [Paras 1-15].

Specific Performance – Continuous Supervision – Grant of specific performance in cases requiring continuous court supervision – Held that such contracts fall within the exceptions under Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act – The arbitrator's award for specific performance involving slum redevelopment with detailed continuous acts and permissions was improper [Paras 10-12].

Damages – Evidence and Natural Justice – Award of damages must be based on comprehensive evidence – The arbitrator’s reliance on external news reports post-arguments without the parties' knowledge violates natural justice – Arbitrator found to have applied different standards of proof to the parties [Paras 11-12].

Scope of Judicial Review – Arbitration Awards – Interference with arbitral awards under Section 34 and appeal under Section 37 – Courts should not reassess the merits but ensure no excess of jurisdiction or breach of natural justice – Division Bench correctly refrained from detailed re-evaluation and ordered remand due to inadequate reasoning by the Single Judge [Paras 15].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Matter remanded to the learned Single Judge for fresh consideration with a directive for comprehensive reasoning addressing all issues raised by the parties – Interim orders to continue till fresh hearing.

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Appellant convicted for the murder of Tillu @ Devi Singh and assault on Tularam – Trial court’s judgment upheld by the High Court – Supreme Court dismisses appeal, confirming the Appellant’s involvement and presence at the scene based on consistent eyewitness testimonies, medical evidence, and recovery of the weapon [Paras 1-70].

Eyewitness Testimony – Consistency and Credibility – Supreme Court emphasizes the reliability of eyewitness accounts, noting the consistent identification of the Appellant and the corroborative medical evidence – Reiterates that minor discrepancies do not vitiate the core of prosecution’s case [Paras 20-51].

Dying Declaration – Admissibility under Section 32(1) of IEA – Statement of deceased Tularam recorded by Investigating Officer treated as dying declaration despite absence of medical fitness certificate – Court underscores that procedural lapses do not invalidate otherwise credible and voluntary dying declarations [Paras 62-69].

Disclosure Statement and Recovery – Application of Section 27 of IEA – Knife used in the crime recovered based on the Appellant’s disclosure statement – Court validates admissibility and relevance of recovery as crucial corroborative evidence [Paras 52-58].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence affirmed – Appellant directed to surrender if on bail; otherwise, to serve the remainder of the sentence in custody [Paras 70-71].

Matrimonial Law – Divorce – Desertion – The appellant-husband sought a decree of divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion following a failed decree for restitution of conjugal rights. The Trial Court granted the divorce, but the High Court reversed this decision, leading to the current appeal. The Supreme Court found that the appellant had been deserted by the respondent without reasonable cause, meeting the grounds for desertion under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act [Paras 1-16].

Restitution of Conjugal Rights – Compliance and Consequences – The appellant's petition for restitution of conjugal rights was granted by the Trial Court and upheld by the High Court, but the respondent failed to comply. This non-compliance was critical in establishing desertion [Paras 13-14].

Alimony – Lump Sum Settlement – The appellant's offer to pay Rs. 30 lakhs as a lump sum alimony was deemed reasonable. The decree for divorce would come into effect only upon payment of this amount [Para 15].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, restoring the decree of divorce on grounds of desertion. The decree would become effective upon payment of Rs. 30 lakhs to the respondent as alimony [Paras 16].

Income Tax – TDS – Applicability of Section 206C – Assessee engaged in the manufacture and sale of arrack – Auctioning of retail vending rights by the state government – Assessing officer held that income tax should have been collected at source from the liquor vendors – High Court upheld the assessing officer’s decision – Supreme Court quashed the orders, stating that excise contractors are not "buyers" as defined under Section 206C​​.

Natural Justice – Principles of Natural Justice – Notice and Hearing – Orders under Section 206C(6) were passed without proper opportunity of hearing – Supreme Court emphasized the necessity of following principles of natural justice even if the statute is silent​​.

Income Tax – Section 206C of the Income Tax Act – Overview of statutory requirements including TDS collection, payment to central government, and conditions under which tax must be collected​​.

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Orders by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and the High Court set aside – Supreme Court held that Mysore Sales International Ltd. is not liable to collect TDS from the excise contractors under Section 206C​​.

Criminal Law – Conviction Reversed – The appellant was initially acquitted by the Trial Court but convicted by the High Court for murder and house trespass under Sections 302 and 450 read with Section 34 of IPC – Supreme Court found discrepancies in witness testimonies and lack of identification parade (TIP) for the appellant who was a stranger to the witnesses – Conviction set aside, appellant acquitted by giving benefit of doubt [Paras 1-19].

Eyewitness Testimony – Credibility and Contradictions – PW-1 and PW-2 identified the appellant as one of the assailants – Supreme Court found inconsistencies in their testimonies and discrepancies with the post-mortem report – Court noted absence of ligature marks on the back of the neck, contradicting the witnesses' account of strangulation [Paras 2-14].

Test Identification Parade (TIP) – Importance and Absence – No TIP conducted for the appellant who was unknown to the eyewitnesses – Court held that absence of TIP weakened the prosecution's case, as identification in court without prior TIP is inherently weak [Paras 8, 14-16].

Post-Mortem Report – Discrepancies with Witness Accounts – Post-mortem report did not fully support the eyewitnesses' version of the strangulation method – Ligature marks were not found encircling the neck as described by the witnesses, casting doubt on the prosecution's case [Paras 13-14].

Benefit of Doubt – Prosecution's Inability to Prove Beyond Reasonable Doubt – Supreme Court emphasized the need for the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt – Given the inconsistencies and lack of corroboration, the appellant was given the benefit of doubt and acquitted [Paras 17-19].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentencing by the High Court set aside – Appellant acquitted – Bail bonds and sureties discharged [Para 19].

Specific Performance – Refund of Advance Sale Consideration – Appellant sought specific performance of a sale agreement or, alternatively, refund of the advance paid – Trial Court directed refund of Rs. 18,00,000/- – High Court reduced the amount to Rs. 3,00,000/- – Supreme Court examines the evidence to determine the correctness of the High Court's findings [Paras 1-13].

Evidence – Proof of Payment – Supreme Court finds that the plaintiff failed to provide positive evidence to corroborate the payment of Rs. 15,00,000/- as additional advance – Agreement and endorsement scrutinized – Lack of supporting documents and inconsistencies noted [Paras 10-12].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Supreme Court upholds the High Court's modification of the refund amount – Confirms that the plaintiff proved payment of Rs. 3,00,000/- only, not Rs. 18,00,000/- as claimed [Para 13].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Complaint – Appellants, trustees of a trust, entered into agreements for sale with the respondent and his brother – Subsequent disputes led to civil suits and criminal complaints – Respondent’s complaint alleged conspiracy and fraud by the appellants – Supreme Court examines the validity of the complaint in light of subsequent settlement and withdrawal of the civil suit [Paras 1-18].

Abuse of Process – Settlement and Withdrawal – Court finds that the respondent had withdrawn his claim in the civil suit, acknowledging a settlement – Continuing the criminal complaint was deemed an abuse of the process of law – Complaint quashed [Paras 10-17].

Section 362 CrPC – Scope of Bar – Supreme Court clarifies that while Section 362 bars alteration of judgments in criminal cases, it does not preclude the High Court from entertaining a substantive writ petition under Article 226 to quash a complaint [Paras 15-16].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Criminal complaint quashed – Supreme Court emphasizes the importance of preventing abuse of the judicial process when a settlement has been reached and acknowledged by both parties [Paras 17-18].

Criminal Law – Discharge Application – Appellant sought discharge from charges of rape and criminal intimidation – Lower courts dismissed the application, framing charges based on prima facie evidence – Supreme Court re-evaluates the sufficiency of evidence, including contradictions in prosecutrix’s statements and lack of material evidence [Paras 1-19].

Consent – Misconception of Fact – Supreme Court examines the concept of consent under Section 90 IPC – Finds that prosecutrix’s consent was not vitiated by misconception or coercion – Relationship was consensual, allegations of blackmail and threats not substantiated by evidence [Paras 20-24].

Evidence – Lack of Corroboration – Court notes the absence of critical evidence such as photographs, mobile phone, and financial transactions – Finds that the prosecutrix’s claims are unsupported by tangible proof, weakening the prosecution’s case [Paras 17, 24].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Orders of the High Court and Sessions Judge set aside – Criminal proceedings quashed – Supreme Court emphasizes that continuing the trial would be an abuse of judicial process due to lack of credible evidence and consensual nature of the relationship [Paras 25-28].

Arbitration Law - Limitation for Setting Aside Award - Appellant State challenged arbitral award dated June 30, 2022 - Petition under Section 34 filed on October 31, 2022 after Pooja vacation - High Court dismissed the petition for being time-barred - Supreme Court affirmed High Court's decision - Held, limitation period expired on September 30, 2022 - No benefit under Section 4 of Limitation Act since prescribed period expired before court vacation - Petition under Section 34 not filed within extended period allowed by proviso to Section 34(3) [Paras 1-11].

Period of Limitation - Calculation under Arbitration and Conciliation Act - Limitation period for challenging arbitral award is three months - Computation of period excludes the date of receipt of award - Application filed beyond the three-month period plus maximum allowable extension of 30 days is time-barred [Paras 5-8].

Section 4 of Limitation Act - Applicability to Arbitration Cases - Explained that 'prescribed period' does not include the 30-day extension under Section 34(3) proviso - Section 4 not applicable where the original period of limitation expired before the court's closure [Paras 9-10].

Decision: Appeal dismissed - High Court's dismissal of the petition under Section 34 for being time-barred upheld - No merit in appellants' argument for extension under Limitation Act provisions [Para 11].