Criminal Conspiracy – Discharge of Accused – Section 120B of IPC – Sections 7, 12, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act – Alleged Corruption – Discharge Upheld – The prosecution alleged that the Respondent No. 1, as Managing Director of the company, conspired with co-accused to pay illegal gratification to customs officials for clearing refunds – The High Court discharged the respondent based on lack of prima facie evidence of his involvement in the conspiracy – Held: There was insufficient material to link the respondent to the alleged payments or conspiracy, and the reference to "DM" in key entries was admitted to be referring to a different individual (Dushyant Mulani) – The High Court's decision to discharge the respondent was upheld [Paras 9-15].

Material Evidence – Diary Entries and Witness Statements – Inadequate to Implicate Respondent – The prosecution relied on diary entries made by co-accused, mentioning “DM” in connection with illegal payments – The prosecution admitted that "DM" referred to another co-accused (Dushyant Mulani) and not the respondent – No direct telephonic conversations or statements implicated the respondent – Held: The material on record, including diary entries, was insufficient to establish a prima facie case against the respondent [Paras 11-14].

Prima Facie Case – High Court's Role in Assessing Evidence at Discharge Stage – Legal Threshold – At the stage of framing charges, the court should only ascertain whether a prima facie case exists based on the charge sheet – The High Court carefully assessed the charge sheet, witness statements, and documentary evidence, concluding that there was no prima facie case against the respondent – Held: No error in the High Court's finding of discharge – Appeal dismissed [Paras 7, 13, 15].

Decision: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's order discharging the respondent, finding that the material presented in the charge sheet did not establish a prima facie case of involvement in the alleged conspiracy or bribery – Appeal dismissed [Para 16].

Arbitration Agreement – Non-Signatory to Arbitration Agreement – Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Referral of Non-Signatory to Arbitration Upheld – The petitioners sought appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to resolve disputes arising under a Family Arrangement Agreement (FAA), including the involvement of the SRG Group which was not a signatory to the FAA – Held: Even though the SRG Group was not a signatory to the FAA, their conduct and involvement in the performance of the FAA raised a prima facie case for them being bound by the arbitration clause – The referral court is required to conduct only a prima facie inquiry into the existence of an arbitration agreement, with the arbitral tribunal left to determine whether the non-signatory (SRG Group) is bound by the arbitration agreement – The involvement of the SRG Group in implementing the FAA provisions, such as share transfers in Millenium and Deegee companies, prima facie indicates their role in the FAA, warranting referral to arbitration [Paras 52-80].

Prima Facie Determination – Section 11(6A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Scope of Referral Court’s Jurisdiction Limited – Under Section 11(6A), the referral court's inquiry is confined to a prima facie examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement – Held: The referral court must avoid conducting a detailed inquiry into the facts and instead limit its examination to the prima facie existence of the arbitration agreement – Any further detailed examination, including whether a non-signatory can be bound by the arbitration agreement, must be left to the arbitral tribunal – Referral of SRG Group to arbitration was prima facie justified based on their involvement in the execution of the FAA [Paras 60-63, 80].

Non-Signatory Bound by Arbitration Agreement – Consent and Conduct – Factors for Determining Non-Signatory’s Intent – A non-signatory may be bound by an arbitration agreement if there is evidence of consent, conduct, or involvement in the underlying contract – Held: In this case, email exchanges, involvement in performance, and negotiations involving the SRG Group raised questions about their intent to be bound by the FAA – The issue of whether the SRG Group is a veritable party to the arbitration agreement should be decided by the arbitral tribunal after evaluating the evidence [Paras 68-79].

Decision:

The Supreme Court allowed the petition, appointing Justice Akil Kureshi (Retd.) as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes under the FAA – The arbitral tribunal is empowered to decide the involvement of the SRG Group as a veritable party to the arbitration agreement based on the evidence – All contentions of the parties were left open for adjudication by the tribunal [Paras 81-84].

Eviction Suit – Judgment on Admission – Order XII Rule 6 of CPC – Admission Must be Clear and Unambiguous – Judgment Set Aside - The appellants challenged the eviction decree based on the alleged admission in a different case regarding the succession of tenancy rights. The Court emphasized that a judgment under Order XII Rule 6 requires an unequivocal and unconditional admission. The alleged admission in this case did not meet that standard, as it was mixed with questions of law and fact. The decree passed by the Single Judge and upheld by the Division Bench was set aside [Paras 2-4, 8-9, 14].

Tenancy Succession – Interpretation of Section 2(g) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 – Retrospective Application Not Intended - The Court held that the 1997 Act did not retrospectively extinguish tenancy rights accrued under the 1956 Act. The phrase "whichever is later" in Section 2(g) of the 1997 Act was deemed superfluous, and the appellants’ tenancy rights, inherited under the 1956 Act, could not be nullified by the 1997 Act [Paras 19-21, 48-50].

Retrospective Legislation – Presumption Against Retrospective Operation of Statutes - The Court reiterated that unless expressly stated, statutes are presumed to operate prospectively. The rights vested in the appellants under the 1956 Act were protected, and the 1997 Act could not retrospectively divest those rights [Paras 25, 28-30].

Decision – Appellants’ Tenancy Rights Affirmed – Eviction Order Set Aside - The Court concluded that the appellants’ tenancy rights did not expire with the introduction of the 1997 Act. The eviction order passed by the Single Judge and upheld by the Division Bench was set aside, and the appeals were allowed [Paras 48-50].

Property Law – Common Passage – Right of Access – The plaintiff-respondents claimed use of the entire common passage marked X-Y, Y-Z, and Z-Z1 in the map attached to the sale deeds – Trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that only passage X-Y was designated for joint use, as per the sale deeds – The High Court, however, decreed the suit, granting the plaintiff-respondents the right to use the entire passage – Held: The sale deed of the plaintiff-respondents only granted a right of use over the passage X-Y, and there was no stipulation that they could use the passage Y-Z and Z-Z1 in portion B owned by the defendants-appellants – High Court’s interpretation was incorrect – The Trial Court's judgment restored [Paras 1, 10, 20-24].

Interpretation of Sale Deeds – No Right over Defendants' Portion – The sale deed executed in favor of the plaintiff-respondents only stipulated the right to a 15 feet wide common passage (X-Y) for access to the defendants-appellants' back portion (B) – The defendants-appellants’ sale deed did not mandate leaving any passage for the plaintiff-respondents' use – Held: The High Court erred in granting the plaintiff-respondents’ claim over the Y-Z and Z-Z1 passages in portion B, which exclusively belongs to the defendants [Paras 14-16, 22].

Literal Interpretation of Contracts – No Ambiguity – The language in both sale deeds is clear, and there is no ambiguity requiring inference beyond the literal meaning – Courts should give effect to the express terms of a contract where the wording is unambiguous – Held: The plaintiff-respondents' right to a common passage is limited to X-Y, and no further access is permissible through portion B [Paras 18, 22].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Judgment and order of the First Appellate Court set aside – Trial Court’s judgment restored, dismissing the plaintiff-respondents' suit – No order as to costs [Paras 24-25].

Labour Law – Kalelkar Award – Holidays on 2nd and 4th Saturdays – Overtime Compensation – The respondent-employees, who were employed in the Public Works Department, claimed entitlement to public holidays, including holidays on the 2nd and 4th Saturdays, and overtime pay for work performed on those days as per the Kalelkar Award – The Industrial Court allowed their complaint, granting the said benefits, which was affirmed by the High Court – Held: The Kalelkar Award explicitly provides for such benefits to all employees except daily-wage workers, and the respondents, being temporary employees, are entitled to these holidays and compensations – The appellants’ reliance on the Government Circular dated 27th May 1996 to deny these entitlements was misplaced – Appeal dismissed, and Industrial Court’s decision upheld [Paras 20-25].

Unfair Labour Practices – Denial of Holiday Benefits – Section 28, Maharashtra Act – The appellants-employer engaged in unfair labour practices by denying the respondent-employees their rightful entitlements under the Kalelkar Award – The Industrial Court held that the respondents were entitled to public holidays and overtime compensation for work performed on 2nd and 4th Saturdays – Held: The Industrial Court's order was justified, and the High Court rightly upheld it [Paras 8-9, 14-16].

Interpretation of Government Circular – Applicability of Benefits – The appellants relied on a Government Circular dated 27th May 1996 to argue that the respondents were ineligible for public holidays and overtime compensation – Held: The Circular did not apply to the respondents, who were on the Converted Temporary Establishment under the Kalelkar Award, which clearly granted them such benefits – The Circular was limited to cases disposed of or pending before the Industrial Court at Bombay and did not override the Kalelkar Award [Paras 22-23].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Judgment of the Industrial Court and High Court affirmed – Appellants directed to comply with the order within eight weeks – No order as to costs [Paras 25-26].

Motor Accident Claims – Contributory Negligence – Reversal of Findings – The appellants, survivors, and legal heirs of passengers involved in a collision with a parked truck, contested the reduction of their compensation due to contributory negligence – The parked truck was abandoned in the middle of a highway at night, without any warning signs – Held: The deduction of 50% of compensation on the grounds of contributory negligence was unjustified – Full compensation to be awarded – The vicarious liability of the car driver could not be attributed to the passengers – Compensation reinstated to full amount [Paras 3-5, 16-42].

Vicarious Liability – Passengers Not Liable for Driver’s Negligence – The contributory negligence attributed to the driver of the car was improperly extended to the passengers and their legal heirs – This imputation of liability was inconsistent with established tort principles – Held: The passengers were not responsible for the driver's negligence and thus, their compensation should not have been reduced – Compensation to be restored to the full amount [Paras 17-20, 36-39].

Highway Safety – Parking Regulations Violated by Stationary Truck – The offending truck was abandoned in the middle of the highway at night without any illumination or warning indicators, creating a traffic hazard – The truck's driver was found in violation of various provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the Rules of Road Regulation, 1989 – Held: The full responsibility for the accident rested on the truck's owner and driver – No contributory negligence can be imputed to the car driver under such circumstances [Paras 21-33].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Deduction of 50% of compensation on account of contributory negligence set aside – Full compensation to be paid as awarded by the Tribunal and modified by the High Court – Respondent No. 2 (Insurer of the offending truck) held jointly and severally liable with the truck's owner to indemnify the compensation – No costs [Paras 42-44].

Public Employment – Reservation Policy – Recruitment for Primary Teachers – Notification for 1423 posts of Primary Teachers was issued on 12.09.2006 – OBC reservation was introduced on 27.12.2006 after the recruitment process had commenced – High Court ruled that OBC reservation could not be applied retrospectively – Held: High Court’s judgment upheld, and a revised select list excluding OBC candidates directed to be prepared [Paras 9-11].

Constitutional Law – Equal Opportunity in Public Employment – Article 16 – OBC candidates were included in the final selection list despite no mention of OBC reservation in the recruitment notification – High Court held that such inclusion violated the principles of equal opportunity under Article 16 of the Constitution – Held: The failure to notify OBC reservation before the recruitment process led to arbitrary and illegal selection, and the process was quashed from the stage where the error occurred [Paras 10-11].

Judicial Review – Scope of Interference in Recruitment Process – Petitioners challenged the entire selection process, alleging irregularities in the written exam and viva-voce – High Court found no evidence of manipulation in the written exam or viva-voce but quashed the selection of OBC candidates due to retrospective application of reservation – Held: Interference by the Court was limited to the erroneous application of the OBC reservation [Paras 9-10].

Employment Law – Continuity of Service – Long-serving Teachers – Primary teachers appointed in 2011 continued to serve for over 13 years – Some of these teachers may lose their positions due to the revised selection list – Held: The Government is granted discretion to protect the service of long-serving teachers, even if their names do not appear in the revised list [Paras 17-18].

Decision: High Court’s judgment upheld – The revised selection list to be prepared within four weeks, excluding OBC candidates – Appointments based on the revised list to be made within four weeks of its publication – Notional appointment benefit from 09.12.2011 granted for superannuation purposes, but no arrears of salary to be paid – Government granted discretion to retain long-serving teachers not included in the revised list [Paras 17-18].

Criminal Law – Acquittal Reversed by High Court – Conviction Set Aside by Supreme Court – Appellants convicted by the High Court under Sections 302, 148, and 120B read with Section 149 IPC for conspiring to murder the deceased, Babureddy, and attacking him with deadly weapons – Trial Court had acquitted the appellants, finding that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Supreme Court held that the High Court’s reversal of acquittal was not justified – Trial Court’s reasoning based on contradictions in witness testimonies and lack of corroborative evidence was cogent – Appellants' conviction set aside, acquittal restored [Paras 3, 14-16].

Witness Testimony – Contradictions in Eyewitness Accounts – Key prosecution witnesses (PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3) provided contradictory versions of the events, including who accompanied the deceased to the hospital and when the police recorded the Spot Mahazar – Delayed recording of statements of key witnesses (PW-2 and PW-3) further cast doubt on their credibility – Trial Court’s reliance on these contradictions was valid – Supreme Court noted that the High Court failed to address these discrepancies sufficiently before reversing acquittal [Paras 6-10, 14-15].

Appellate Interference in Acquittal – Parameters for Reversing Acquittal – Supreme Court emphasized the principle that appellate courts must be cautious while overturning acquittals, as there is a double presumption of innocence in favor of the accused – High Court failed to provide clear findings to overturn the Trial Court’s detailed judgment – Held: High Court’s interference was unjustified without addressing key contradictions and offering firm reasons for discarding Trial Court findings [Paras 15-16].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Conviction and sentences under Sections 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and Section 120B IPC set aside – Appellants acquitted – Bail bonds and sureties discharged [Paras 16].

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Acquittal – Appellants (Accused Nos. 3 and 5) convicted by the Trial Court for the murder of Madhavrao Krishnaji Gabare – High Court sustained their conviction under Sections 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and Section 148 IPC – Appellants challenged the conviction before the Supreme Court – Court found discrepancies and contradictions in the sole testimony of PW-1 (widow of the deceased), the key prosecution witness – Held: Prosecution failed to prove the appellants’ guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Appellants acquitted [Paras 1, 6, 12-13].

Witness Testimony – Reliability of Sole Eye-Witness – PW-1 (widow of the deceased) was the only credible witness, as other alleged eye-witnesses (PW-4, PW-5, and PW-8) were disbelieved by the High Court – PW-1's testimony was riddled with inconsistencies between her initial complaint and deposition in court – She added details regarding the involvement of the accused, raising reasonable doubt about the certainty of her identification of the attackers during a power cut at the time of the incident – No other evidence substantiating her claim of moonlight visibility was presented – Court found her testimony unreliable for conviction [Paras 5, 7-10, 12].

Circumstantial Evidence – Power Cut and Visibility – Incident occurred during a power cut, with no corroboration regarding the availability of sufficient moonlight for proper identification of the accused – Court found that the identification of the assailants in such circumstances lacked clarity – Further, PW-1’s claim that the assault occurred for two hours was implausible, raising doubts about the prosecution’s version – Lack of clarity on weapon attribution further weakened the case [Paras 7, 8, 11].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Conviction and sentences under Sections 148 IPC and 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC set aside – Appellants acquitted – Bail bonds discharged, and any fines paid to be refunded [Paras 13].