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.

Domestic Violence – Maintenance and Compensation – The appellant (wife) filed a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, seeking maintenance and compensation – The Magistrate awarded Rs. 12,000 per month as maintenance and Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation – The respondent (husband) did not challenge this order, which attained finality – The respondent later filed an application under Section 25 of the Act seeking revocation of the order on grounds of fraud, claiming that the appellant was employed – The Magistrate dismissed the application, but the Appellate Court remanded the matter for fresh consideration – On appeal, the Supreme Court found that the prayers for setting aside the original maintenance order and refund of maintenance were not maintainable under Section 25(2) of the Act as they pertained to a period prior to the order [Paras 1-4, 12-15].

Section 25(2) of the Act – Scope and Application – Section 25(2) permits alteration, modification, or revocation of orders made under the Act in case of a change in circumstances – However, the Court clarified that such changes must occur after the original order is passed and cannot retrospectively affect earlier periods – The respondent’s prayers to set aside the maintenance order and recover past payments were found to be inconsistent with the intent of Section 25(2) [Paras 13-15].

Finality of Orders – Appeal Dismissed Due to Delay – The respondent's failure to appeal the original order within the stipulated time led to its finality – The Court emphasized that an order cannot be set aside under Section 25(2) unless a change in circumstances is shown after the order is passed – Consequently, the prayers for retrospective revocation and refund were rejected [Paras 14-16].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Orders of the High Court and Appellate Court set aside – Application under Section 25 of the Act dismissed – Liberty granted to the respondent to file a fresh application if advised, but only concerning events post the original maintenance order [Paras 18-19].

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].

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].

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.

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].

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]