Divorce by Mutual Consent – Settlement Under Article 142 of the Constitution – Petitioner sought transfer of restitution of conjugal rights proceedings – Parties agreed to dissolve marriage amicably with the respondent paying ₹25 lakhs to the petitioner as full and final settlement – Supreme Court exercised its powers under Article 142 to dissolve the marriage solemnized on 14/02/2021 by mutual consent and to quash all pending litigation between the parties – Held: Transfer petition disposed of as infructuous; decree of divorce passed [Paras 2–6, 8].

Quashing of Multiple Proceedings – Domestic Disputes Resolved Amicably – Court quashed all pending cases inter se parties under Article 142 of the Constitution, including cases under Section 9 HMA, maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., domestic violence under Section 12 DV Act, FIR under IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act – Parties sought closure of all litigation to avoid further disputes – Held: Litigation closed, decree drawn in terms of settlement [Paras 7–9].

Scope of Article 142 – Finality in Matrimonial Disputes – Supreme Court reiterated that powers under Article 142 can be invoked to grant complete justice between parties, including dissolving a marriage and quashing associated litigations where parties mutually agree – Held: Article 142 ensures expeditious and final resolution in matrimonial disputes [Para 6].

Decision:

Marriage dissolved by mutual consent under Article 142 of the Constitution of India – All pending cases, including restitution of conjugal rights, maintenance, domestic violence, and criminal cases, quashed – Transfer petition disposed of as infructuous – Registry directed to draw decree in terms of settlement [Paras 6–9].

Criminal Law – Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder – Conversion of Conviction under Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC – Sentencing – Appellants convicted for the murder of the deceased by the Trial Court and High Court under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC – Trial Court sentenced appellants to life imprisonment – On appeal, Supreme Court held that the motive and circumstances of the assault do not establish premeditation or intent to murder – Assault caused by the appellants with deadly weapons proved to have been done with knowledge of likelihood of causing death but without clear intention to kill – Conviction altered from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC – Appellants sentenced to period already undergone, subject to a fine of ₹50,000 each to be paid to the deceased’s family, failing which additional six months simple imprisonment to be served [Paras 90-94].

Witness Testimony – Credibility of Sole Eye-Witness – Sole eye-witness Lata Bai (PW-10), the mother of the deceased, testified to witnessing the assault – Defence challenged her credibility due to delayed recording of her statement under Section 161 CrPC and alleged contradictions – Supreme Court upheld her testimony as credible and corroborated by medical evidence and other witnesses – Minor discrepancies held insufficient to undermine her testimony – Evidence of the hostile witnesses and informant Santosh (PW-6) partially relied upon for corroboration – Trial Court and High Court’s acceptance of her evidence upheld [Paras 50-84].

Motive and Circumstantial Evidence – Motive Not Clearly Established – Motive for the assault by the appellants on the deceased not conclusively proved – No evidence of premeditated intention or prior enmity – Circumstances indicated a sudden quarrel – Recovery of weapons corroborated the assault but motive remained ambiguous – Supreme Court held motive absence not fatal as guilt proved beyond reasonable doubt by other evidence [Paras 90-91].

Hostile Witnesses – Evidentiary Value – Informant Santosh (PW-6) and other non-official witnesses turned hostile – Their partial corroboration of the prosecution case used to support conviction – Supreme Court reiterated that hostile witnesses’ testimony need not be entirely discarded if parts are corroborated by credible evidence [Paras 76-77].

Medical Evidence – Injuries Sustained – Medical evidence confirmed grievous head injuries leading to the deceased’s death due to coma – Injuries consistent with weapons recovered – Medical reports corroborated eye-witness testimony and prosecution narrative – Supreme Court relied on the unchallenged testimony of medical witnesses to affirm the cause of death [Paras 69-70].

Seizure Evidence – Recovery of Weapons – Blood-stained axe and iron pipe recovered at appellants’ instance – Seizure witnesses turned hostile but admitted signatures on seizure memos – Supreme Court held seizure memos proved by the Investigating Officer and recovery valid – Deficiencies in procedure not fatal to the prosecution [Paras 67-68].

Decision: Conviction under Section 302 IPC altered to Section 304 Part I IPC – Sentence of life imprisonment reduced to period already undergone – Fine of ₹50,000 each imposed on appellants to be paid to the deceased’s family – Appeal partly allowed [Paras 93-95].

Anticipatory Bail – Section 306 IPC – FIR No. 13 dated 14.02.2023 – Appellant sought anticipatory bail in connection with a case registered under Section 306 IPC at Police Station-Gharinda, District-Amritsar – High Court rejected the petition for anticipatory bail – Supreme Court noted that the appellant had cooperated with the investigation, and the Investigating Officer confirmed that no custodial interrogation was required – Held: Appeal allowed – Directed that in the event of arrest, the appellant shall be released on bail on terms and conditions imposed by the Trial Court – Liberty granted to the respondent-State to seek cancellation of bail if conditions are violated [Paras 2, 4-7].

Custodial Interrogation – Investigation Compliance – Appellant complied with the direction of the Supreme Court to join the investigation as and when called – Investigating Officer confirmed through a letter that custodial interrogation of the appellant was no longer necessary – Court relied on this submission to grant anticipatory bail [Paras 4, 5].

Judicial Directions – Bail granted in the event of arrest – Trial Court empowered to impose conditions – Liberty to the State to seek cancellation of bail in case of breach – Pending applications, if any, were closed [Paras 6-9].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Anticipatory bail granted subject to conditions – Appellant to be released on bail if arrested in connection with the FIR [Paras 6, 8].

Civil Law - Arbitration Agreement – Requirement of Validity – Mandatory Precondition - Arbitration relies on the existence of a valid arbitration agreement as per Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – In this case, no such agreement was evidenced between the parties, rendering the awards invalid – Held: Awards declared null and void [Paras 20-21, 24].

Fraudulent Arbitration Proceedings – Lack of Party Consent – Violation of Party Autonomy - Respondent No. 1 unilaterally appointed arbitrators, violating the core principle of mutual consent – Proceedings found fraudulent under Section 18 of the Act, which requires fairness and impartiality – Such awards are unenforceable [Paras 21-24].

Execution Proceedings – Jurisdiction and Limitation – Fraud Can Be Raised at Execution Stage - Although objections under Section 34 were dismissed as time-barred, fraud and lack of subject matter jurisdiction were validly raised at the execution stage under Section 47 of the CPC – Held: Awards unenforceable for lack of jurisdiction [Paras 18, 24].

Unilateral Arbitrator Appointments – Judicial Scrutiny – Invalidity and Standards of Impartiality - Referring to Central Organisation of Railway Electrification v. ECI PIC SMO MCPL, unilateral appointments breach standards of independence – Arbitrators must maintain impartiality akin to judicial officers – Held: Proceedings lacked legal sanctity [Paras 23-24].

Judgment Outcome – Appeals Allowed - The ex-parte awards dated 15.02.2008 and 25.06.2008 were declared null and void – Execution proceedings dismissed – Costs awarded to the appellants [Paras 25].

Criminal Law – Cross-Cases – Sentencing – Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 – The appellant was convicted under Sections 326, 325, 452, and 323 IPC while being acquitted of more serious charges under Sections 307, 148, and 149 IPC – High Court refused to grant the benefit of probation under the Probation Act despite acknowledging a settlement between the disputing parties in the cross-case – Supreme Court invoked its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution and Section 11 of the Probation Act to extend the benefit of probation to the appellant, considering his age, absence of criminal antecedents, and the amicable settlement reached between the parties [Paras 13-19].

Cross-Cases – Settlement – Sentencing Disparity – Incident involved two groups of the same family, leading to cross-complaints arising from the same transaction on 01.01.1993 – While accused in the cross-case were released on probation, the High Court denied similar relief to the appellant despite the identical context and amicable settlement – Supreme Court rectified this disparity and extended probation benefits to the appellant, considering the interconnected nature of both cases [Paras 12-16].

Probation Act – Applicability – Appellant, aged 70, had already undergone over four months of imprisonment out of the six-month sentence imposed by the High Court – Benefit under Section 4 of the Probation Act granted, considering his advanced age, absence of adverse material, and the prolonged pendency of proceedings – Personal bond and surety of ₹10,000 each imposed with an undertaking to maintain peace and good conduct [Paras 17-19].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Appellant released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation Act – Interim bail order regularized with additional conditions [Paras 19-21].

Criminal Law – Quashing – Set Aside - Section 143, Railways Act, 1989 – Unauthorised Ticket Procurement and Supply – Section 143 prohibits unauthorized procurement and supply of railway tickets to ensure system integrity – Penal provisions aim to regulate ticket procurement and eliminate touting – The provision remains valid and applicable irrespective of physical or online ticketing modes, considering the legislative objective [Paras 14, 27-28].

Statutory Interpretation – Development of Technology – Provisions Broadly Construed - Statutory provisions must accommodate technological advancements if their language permits – Section 143 encompasses illegal online ticketing, contrary to the Kerala High Court’s interpretation – The provision applies to the e-ticketing system as it regulates the business of procuring tickets irrespective of the method used [Paras 20-22].

Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Section 482 CrPC – Differential Outcomes - Quashing is permissible if FIR reveals no cognizable offence or continuance would result in injustice – Mathew, an unauthorized agent, must face trial under Section 143 – Ramesh, being an authorized agent, cannot be criminally prosecuted for contractual breaches, which require civil remedies [Paras 32-37].

Online Ticketing Rules – Use of Multiple User IDs – Unauthorized Practice Penalized - Use of multiple personal user IDs for profit by unauthorized agents violates IRCTC rules and attracts penalties under Section 143 – However, the provision does not criminalize such actions when committed by authorized agents [Paras 19, 36].

Decision  – Differential Relief Granted - Criminal proceedings against Mathew restored for trial under Section 143, while proceedings against Ramesh quashed due to lack of statutory violation – Appeals allowed partially [Paras 37-40].

Land Acquisition – Compensation Under 2013 Act – Supreme Court’s Powers Under Article 142 – The respondents, landowners, sought compensation for acquired lands – The Supreme Court, following K.L. Rathi Steels Ltd. (2024) 7 SCC 315, directed that compensation be paid under the 2013 Act – The time for fresh acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act was extended by one year, from 01/08/2024 – Held: Respondents entitled to compensation under the 2013 Act, subject to procedural compliance as outlined in K.L. Rathi (2024) [Para 3].

Article 142 – Exercise of Inherent Powers – Balancing Public and Private Interests – The Court exercised Article 142 powers to ensure uniformity in compensation awards and to balance public interest with private rights – Provisions of Chapters II and III of the 2013 Act (Social Impact Assessment) were dispensed with, given the urban/semi-urban nature of the land – Held: Directions issued to expedite fresh acquisition proceedings, while waiving procedural requirements to ensure fairness and efficiency [Paras 3-4].

Land Acquisition – Procedural Directions – Expedited Compensation Payment – The Court issued specific directions:

a) Time limit for acquisition extended by one year (from 01/08/2024).

b) Status quo to be maintained on possession and land use.

c) Social Impact Assessment waived due to urban nature of land.

d) Pre-2014 notifications deemed preliminary notifications under Section 11 of the 2013 Act.

e) Compensation to be assessed as of 01/01/2014, with all monetary benefits except rehabilitation.

f) Collector to determine compensation as per Section 28, award solatium under Section 30 – Landowners may seek enhancement under Chapter VIII of the 2013 Act.

Held: Orders passed to ensure fair compensation while streamlining procedural requirements [Para 3].

Decision: Miscellaneous Applications Disposed of – Supreme Court extended the time for fresh acquisition proceedings and ordered compensation to be paid under the 2013 Act, with procedural waivers to ensure expeditious resolution – Pending interlocutory applications also disposed of [Paras 5-6].

Limitation Law – Filing of Subsequent Suit for Specific Performance – Article 113 and Order VII Rule 13 of the Code – Suit Barred – The second suit filed in 2007 for specific performance was barred under Article 113 of the Limitation Act – Held: The second suit must be filed within three years from the rejection of the earlier plaint in 1998; filing the suit beyond 2001 made it time-barred under Order VII Rule 11(d) [Paras 9.8-9.12].

Pleadings – Misuse of Extension Letter – Letter dated 15.07.1991 used in second suit not mentioned in first suit filed in 1993 – Attempt to misuse it for continuity of cause of action – Held: Such reliance was mischievous and inadmissible [Paras 9.9-9.11].

Law of Limitation – Nature and Scope – Doctrine of Continuous Running of Time – Once time starts running under limitation, it continues unless interrupted by statutory provisions – Held: Extension based on pending litigation irrelevant for computing limitation under Article 113 [Para 9.11].

Decision – Second Suit for Specific Performance Rejected – Application under Order VII Rule 11(d) allowed – Appeal allowed, setting aside trial court and High Court orders [Paras 9.12, 10].

Arbitration – Delay Attributable to Claimant – Section 14 of the Limitation Act – Interest Granted from Specific Date – Arbitral Tribunal directed interest @ 12% per annum for the delay, which was upheld by the High Court – Held: In peculiar facts, interest allowed only from 06/03/2010, the date on which the Arbitral Tribunal condoned the delay and deemed claims within limitation [Paras 2-3].

Contractual Obligation – Insurance Claim and Delayed Payment – Liability for Interest – Respondent approached legal remedies due to appellant’s refusal to pay – Held: Appellant liable to pay interest for outstanding dues; justice requires modifications to interest start date [Paras 3-4].

Decision – Modification of Interest Period – Arbitral Award modified to calculate interest @ 12% per annum from 06/03/2010 – Appellant directed to pay the balance within four weeks [Para 4].