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.

False Statements in Writ Petition – Premature Release – Misrepresentation of Facts – The writ petition claimed that all four petitioners had completed 14 years of actual imprisonment without remission – The State's counter affidavit revealed that petitioners no. 2 and 4 had not completed 14 years of actual sentence – False assertions were made in both the petition and an email dated 15th July 2024, addressed to the Jail Authorities, repeating the misrepresentation – The Court noted that its interim relief granted on 19th July 2024 was based on incorrect statements regarding the furlough period of the petitioners – Held: The writ petition was dismissed with no relief granted to petitioners no. 2 and 4, and the State was directed to consider the case of petitioner no. 3 in accordance with applicable policies [Paras 1, 3, 6].

Failure to Verify Facts – Consequences for Legal Representation – While the Court recognized that exemplary costs were warranted due to the submission of false statements, it declined to penalize the petitioners for the errors made by their legal representatives – The Court emphasized that the judicial system operates on trust, and when false statements are presented, it shakes the court's faith in the Bar – The Court expressed concern over the increasing number of cases involving false statements and noted that this undermines the efficiency of judicial proceedings [Paras 2, 4, 5, 7].

Specific Relief for Petitioner No. 1 – Procedural Directions – As petitioner no. 1 had not exhausted his furlough period by 19th July 2024, the Court allowed him to challenge the impugned order dated 30th June 2023 before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution – The Court directed the State Government to consider petitioner no. 3’s case under the applicable remission policies, while no relief was granted to petitioners no. 2 and 4, as they had not completed the requisite period of imprisonment [Paras 8, 9, 11].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Petitioner no. 1 may challenge the relevant order before the High Court – The State was directed to consider petitioner no. 3’s case – No relief was granted to petitioners no. 2 and 4, and no costs were imposed on the petitioners despite the errors in legal representation [Paras 9, 10, 12].

Family Law – Divorce by Mutual Consent – Settlement Agreement – Transfer Petition Disposed – The petitioner sought the transfer of a matrimonial suit under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, from Serampore, West Bengal, to Hisar, Haryana – The matter was referred to mediation, resulting in a settlement agreement where the parties agreed to divorce by mutual consent – The Supreme Court, exercising its powers under Article 142, dissolved the marriage by mutual consent and disposed of the transfer petition [Paras 1, 7].

Settlement Terms – Custody and Maintenance – As per the settlement, the custody of the minor child remained with the respondent, with visitation rights granted to the petitioner – The petitioner paid Rs. 28 lakhs to the respondent in three installments, after which neither party had any further claims against each other – All pending cases between the parties, including those under the Domestic Violence Act and Section 125 of the CrPC, were quashed [Paras 2, 5, 7(iv)].

Visitation Rights – Subsequent Mediation Agreement – An issue regarding visitation rights for the father was referred back to mediation, resulting in a new agreement allowing monthly virtual visitation and quarterly physical meetings with the child, supervised by the mother – The settlement was accepted, and the earlier clause denying visitation rights was ignored [Paras 3-4].

Article 142 of the Constitution – Divorce by Mutual Consent – The Supreme Court granted divorce by mutual consent in exercise of its extraordinary powers under Article 142, based on the settlement agreements dated 04.12.2023 and 22.08.2024 – The marriage between the parties was dissolved, and all pending litigation between them was quashed [Paras 6-7].

Decision – Transfer Petition Allowed – Divorce Granted – The Supreme Court, after considering the settlement agreements between the parties, dissolved the marriage by mutual consent and quashed all ongoing legal proceedings between them – The visitation rights issue was resolved through mediation, with the father granted monthly virtual and quarterly physical visitation – The petitioner's payment of Rs. 28 lakhs to the respondent was confirmed as full and final settlement for all claims – The transfer petition was allowed, and all related cases were disposed of [Paras 7-11].

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].

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].

Armed Forces Law – Appointment of Judge Advocate – Army Rules 39, 40 – Whether the appointment of a junior officer as Judge Advocate without recording reasons for non-availability of a senior officer invalidates the General Court Martial (GCM) proceedings – Held, the failure to record reasons in the convening order for appointing a junior officer as Judge Advocate, as mandated by Union of India & Anr. v. Charanjit Singh Gill, renders the GCM proceedings invalid. The junior officer's appointment without justification violates Army Rule 40(2), which requires Judge Advocates to be of equal or higher rank to the officer facing trial unless specific reasons are recorded. [Paras 25-40].

Army Rules – Rule 103 – Invalidity of GCM Proceedings – The appellant’s reliance on Rule 103, which permits certain irregularities in the appointment of a Judge Advocate, was rejected. The rule does not apply when the officer appointed is not "fit" for the role. In this case, the omission of reasons for appointing a junior officer under Rule 40(2) could not be cured by Rule 103. [Paras 42-60].

Judicial Precedent – Charanjit Singh Gill Case – Applicability – The Supreme Court reiterated the principle from Charanjit Singh Gill that a Judge Advocate must be of equal or higher rank than the officer facing trial, or specific reasons for appointing a junior officer must be recorded. The court held that failing to follow this requirement invalidates the GCM proceedings. [Paras 62-75].

Decision:

Appeal Dismissed – The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision quashing the General Court Martial, citing procedural irregularities in the appointment of the Judge Advocate. The court confirmed that the GCM proceedings were invalid due to the failure to record reasons for appointing a junior officer. [Paras 80-90].

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].

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]

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]