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.

Criminal Law – Preventive Detention – COFEPOSA Act – Detention order quashed due to procedural violations – The appellant, wife of the detenu (Shaji A.K.), challenged the preventive detention of her husband under COFEPOSA for allegedly engaging in illegal foreign exchange transactions – Detention based on statements, WhatsApp chats, and documents linking the detenu to hawala transactions – Detention order passed on 31st August 2023 and confirmed on 28th November 2023 by the Central Government – Supreme Court quashed the detention on the grounds of (i) non-supply of crucial documents (statements of a key witness) relied on by the Detaining Authority, and (ii) excessive and unjustified delay of nearly nine months in considering the detenu’s representation – Held: Both procedural lapses violated the detenu’s fundamental rights under Article 22(5) of the Constitution, which mandates the earliest opportunity for making an effective representation [Paras 1-72].

Constitutional Law – Article 22(5) – Right to make effective representation – Non-supply of key documents – The Detaining Authority had relied upon multiple statements, including those of Preetha Pradeep, in arriving at its subjective satisfaction for the detention order – These statements were not provided to the detenu, violating his right to make an effective representation – Supreme Court emphasized that the right to representation under Article 22(5) requires the supply of all material documents relied upon by the Detaining Authority – Citing precedent from cases such as M. Ahamedkutty v. Union of India (1990) and Radhakrishnan Prabhakaran v. State of Tamil Nadu (2000), the Court held that failure to supply such documents vitiates the detention [Paras 17-44].

Preventive Detention – Delay in consideration of representation – The detenu’s representation, submitted on 27th September 2023, was not transmitted or decided until June 2024, despite repeated judgments stressing the importance of expeditious consideration of such representations – The delay of almost nine months, largely due to jail authorities sending the representation via ordinary post, was deemed excessive – Supreme Court held that such delay infringes the detenu’s constitutional right under Article 22(5) – Referencing earlier cases such as Tara Chand v. State of Rajasthan (1981), Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab (1981), and Vijay Kumar v. State of Jammu & Kashmir (1982), the Court reaffirmed that even delays of 20-27 days in considering a representation can vitiate the detention [Paras 45-63].

Failure of Prison Authorities – Negligent transmission of representation – The Court criticized the prison authorities for their negligent handling of the detenu’s representation, which was sent via ordinary post without any tracking mechanism – Supreme Court expressed the need for authorities to adopt modern communication methods (e.g., email, speed post) to ensure that representations are promptly transmitted to the Detaining Authority and Central Government – The failure to promptly forward the representation deprived the detenu of his valuable constitutional right to a speedy decision, thereby invalidating the detention [Paras 60-70].

Preventive Detention – Procedural lapses – Inadequate explanation for delays – The Court noted the lack of any plausible explanation for the delay in deciding the representation even after it was received by the Central Government and Detaining Authority – Despite receiving the representation on 14th/15th May 2024, the authorities delayed its consideration by 20-27 days without any justification – Relying on Aslam Ahmed Zahire Ahmed Shaik v. Union of India (1989) and B. Alamelu v. State of Tamil Nadu (1995), the Court reiterated that such unexplained delays violate constitutional guarantees and render the detention unlawful [Paras 63-71].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Detention order set aside – High Court’s order in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1271 of 2023 quashed – Detenu to be released forthwith if not required in any other case [Paras 72].

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].

Criminal Law – PCPNDT Act – Illegal Search and Seizure – Reversal on Appeal – The appellant, a radiologist, was convicted under Section 23 of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994, for allegedly conducting illegal sex determination tests. A raid conducted solely by the Civil Surgeon at the appellant's clinic led to the seizure of evidence. The trial court convicted the appellant based on this evidence. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the raid and search were unauthorized, as they were not sanctioned by the full District Appropriate Authority as required under Section 30(1) of the Act – Held: The search and seizure were illegal, vitiating the entire prosecution case [Paras 1-14].

Search and Seizure – Legality of Raid – Section 30(1) of the 1994 Act – The raid on the appellant’s clinic was conducted by a team formed solely by the Civil Surgeon without the approval or involvement of other members of the District Appropriate Authority, as mandated by Section 30(1) of the Act. The Court observed that the procedural safeguards requiring the full Authority’s approval were ignored. The Civil Surgeon acted unilaterally, rendering the search illegal. Since the raid did not comply with the law, all evidence obtained through the raid was inadmissible, and the FIR was quashed [Paras 10-12].

Offence under Section 23 of the 1994 Act – Illegality of Evidence – The Court found that the prosecution’s case rested entirely on the evidence obtained from the illegal search. Since the search was unauthorized, the evidence collected was inadmissible. Consequently, continuing prosecution based on this tainted evidence would amount to an abuse of the legal process. The conviction and the FIR were quashed, and the appellant was acquitted [Paras 13-14].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction under Section 23 of the 1994 Act set aside – FIR and complaint quashed – Appellant acquitted [Paras 13-14].

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.

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]