Accident Claim - Compensation Assessment – Incorrect Duration for Recovery – Enhanced - The Court found that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) had erred in granting compensation for therapies and attendant charges for a limited duration despite medical recommendations indicating ongoing needs. High Court also failed to correct these errors. Compensation under these heads was enhanced. [Paras 32-34].

Non-Pecuniary Compensation – Insufficient Award – Enhanced to Meet Needs - The Court held that the non-pecuniary compensation awarded by MACT was inadequate to address the petitioner's loss of amenities, mental suffering, and reduced quality of life due to permanent disability. This warranted an enhancement. [Para 34].

Multiplier Method – Correctly Applied for Loss of Income – Affirmed - The High Court correctly calculated loss of income using the multiplier method, considering 60% disability and a notional income of ₹15,000 per month. No error was found in this aspect. [Paras 31, 36].

Principle of Just Compensation – Applied to Enhance Total Award - Reiterating that monetary compensation should fairly address both pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses, the Court enhanced the total compensation to ₹48,00,000 in line with settled principles. [Paras 35-36].

Decision – Appeal Allowed, Compensation Enhanced - The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, enhancing the total compensation awarded to the appellant from ₹27,21,600 to ₹48,00,000. [Para 37].

Anticipatory Bail – Imposition of Maintenance Condition – High Court Exceeded Jurisdiction – Condition Set Aside – Held: Bail conditions under Section 438 CrPC should ensure that the accused does not abscond or evade trial – Imposing a condition to pay maintenance is irrelevant to the bail process and is beyond the scope of the court's power – Reference made to Munish Bhasin vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2009) 4 SCC 45 – The High Court’s imposition of a maintenance condition in its order dated 17.07.2023 is quashed – Trial Court directed to impose appropriate bail conditions ensuring the appellant's presence during trial [Paras 7-12].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Cognizance – Delay in Filing Complaint – Impermissible Cognizance – Respondent filed complaint under Section 138 of NI Act with a delay of two days – Magistrate took cognizance before condoning the delay – Supreme Court held that satisfaction of the Court regarding delay under proviso to Section 142(1)(b) must precede taking of cognizance – Cognizance taken without prior condonation is contrary to law and not a mere curable irregularity – Complaint quashed [Paras 13-15].

Criminal Procedure – Section 482 CrPC – Quashing of Proceedings – Magistrate erred in taking cognizance prior to deciding application for condonation of delay – High Court wrongly treated the irregularity as curable and refused to quash complaint – Supreme Court reversed High Court’s decision and quashed the complaint as the mandatory condition precedent for cognizance was not fulfilled [Paras 6-9, 14-15].

Interpretation of Statutes – Proviso to Section 142(1)(b) NI Act – Supreme Court clarified that legislative intent requires satisfaction regarding delay before cognizance – Reliance placed on Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra – Procedural safeguard under proviso to Section 142(1)(b) must be strictly followed to protect rights of the accused [Paras 12-14].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order of Karnataka High Court dated 28.06.2024 set aside – Complaint in CC No. 1439 of 2014 quashed – Held that cognizance taken before condoning delay was impermissible under law [Para 15].

Arbitration Law – Arbitrator Appointment – Section 12(5) read with Seventh Schedule, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Unilateral Appointment – The principle of equal treatment of parties under Section 18 of the Act, 1996, applies to the procedure for appointment of arbitrators, ensuring equal say in the constitution of the arbitral tribunal – A unilateral appointment of a sole arbitrator by one party, particularly by an authority having an interest in the dispute, is void ab initio and renders the arbitrator de jure ineligible under Section 12(5) read with the Seventh Schedule – The Chairman of the respondent, falling under Items 1, 2, 5, 12, and 13 of the Seventh Schedule, was ineligible to appoint an arbitrator, and any appointment made by such an ineligible person is ex facie invalid – The High Court erred in holding that the appointment was not unilateral merely because the respondent appointed the arbitrator pursuant to the appellant's notice invoking arbitration, as such a notice does not operate as consent to future appointments – The ineligibility stems from operation of law and cannot be cured by mere participation in proceedings – The Court emphasized that an arbitrator who cannot sit on a chair himself cannot authorize another to sit on it either [Paras 30-31, 33-34, 36, 38-39, 51-54, 57-58, 67-68, 69-70, 123(i), 123(ii)].

Arbitration Law – Waiver of Ineligibility – Section 12(5) Proviso, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – "Express Agreement in Writing" – The proviso to Section 12(5) mandates that the ineligibility of an arbitrator can only be waived by an "express agreement in writing" entered into after the disputes have arisen – This requirement signifies a deliberate, informed, and unequivocal manifestation of intent to relinquish the right to object, and cannot be inferred by conduct, tacit acceptance, or procedural participation – Mere participation in arbitral proceedings, filing a statement of claim, or jointly seeking extension of time under Section 29A does not constitute an "express agreement in writing" for waiver of Section 12(5) ineligibility – The first procedural order recording "no objection" to the arbitrator's appointment does not meet the standard of an "express agreement in writing" as it lacks the conscious and unequivocal written agreement required post-dispute – The Court clarified that the statutory design of Section 12(5) and its proviso is intended to overcome restrictions imposed by law and reinforce party autonomy through explicit consent – The High Court's view that continued participation constituted waiver was erroneous [Paras 71-73, 75-77, 79, 81-82, 84-87, 89-90, 92-95, 96, 123(iii)].

Arbitration Law – Challenge to Arbitrator's Ineligibility – Section 34, Section 14, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Public Policy of India – An objection to the de jure ineligibility of an arbitrator under Section 12(5) can be raised at any stage, including for the first time in an application under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 – An award passed by an ineligible arbitrator is a nullity, non-est, or void ab initio, and conflicts with the public policy of India under Section 34(2)(b) – The concept of "public policy of India" includes compliance with statutes, judicial precedents, and principles of natural justice, and bias falls within the "most basic notions of morality and justice" – An arbitrator who is de jure ineligible lacks inherent jurisdiction, and their mandate automatically terminates under Section 14(1)(a) – In such cases, a party may directly approach the court under Section 14(2) for termination of the mandate and appointment of a substitute arbitrator, or challenge the award under Section 34 if already passed – The Court emphasized that an arbitrator, upon entering reference, must ensure parties are willing to participate and insist on a written agreement waiving Section 12(5) requirements to prevent proceedings from being rendered futile – All High Court decisions taking a contrary view are overruled [Paras 99, 102, 104-106, 108-111, 112-113, 115-118, 120-121, 123(iv), 123(v)].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside, and the arbitral awards dated 30.07.2018 are also set aside – Parties are at liberty to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings in accordance with law [Paras 124-125].

Appointment of Ombudsman cum Ethics Officer – Constitutionality of Appointment – High Court Allowed Appointment – The Apex Council's decision to appoint an Ombudsman and Ethics Officer was challenged on the grounds of non-conformance with the Hyderabad Cricket Association's Constitution – The High Court set aside the Civil Court's suspension order and dismissed the related suit, which led to the present Special Leave Petitions – Held: Recommendations for appointment were prima facie found appropriate by the Supreme Court as interim measures pending further hearings.

Supervisory and Election Conduct – Single Member Committee Supervision – Elections Held – A Single Member Committee under a retired Supreme Court judge was constituted to oversee fair elections and recommend amendments to the Hyderabad Cricket Association Constitution – The Supreme Court provisionally implemented these recommendations while objections were considered.

Conflict with BCCI Constitution – Integration of Regulations – Recommendations May Conflict – Petitioners argued potential conflicts between Hyderabad Cricket Association recommendations and BCCI Constitution guidelines, suggesting joint consideration with pending Civil Appeal No. 4235 of 2014 – Held: Matters to be tagged and heard with Civil Appeal No. 4235 of 2014 to ensure uniformity in Cricket Association governance.

Decision: Matters directed to be tagged with Civil Appeal No. 4235 of 2014 for consideration by the same bench to resolve potential conflicts in governance regulations across Cricket Associations.

Arbitration Law – Commencement of Limitation – Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 – Limitation Began Upon Awareness – The appellant's application under Section 17 of the Act was dismissed as premature by lower courts, interpreting the limitation to start only from formal notice of filing the award – Held: The limitation began on 21.09.2022 when the respondent was sufficiently aware of the award's filing; the appellant's Section 17 application filed after the limitation period was valid [Paras 2, 19].

Notice Requirement – Informal Communication Sufficient – Section 14(2) of the 1940 Act – Compliance Achieved Without Formality – The term "notice" does not mandate formal issuance; awareness through other means suffices – Informal communication, including court orders or directions, fulfills the purpose of apprising parties of the award's existence [Paras 15-16].

Speedy Resolution Intent – Preventing Procedural Delays – The Arbitration Act, 1940, aims to expedite dispute resolution – Relying solely on formal notices undermines this intent and allows delay tactics – Awareness triggers party obligations [Paras 17-18].

Decision:

The appeal is allowed, and the High Court's order dated 27.03.2024 in Civil Revision Petition No. 138/2022 is set aside – Direction issued to District Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur, to dispose of Misc. (J) 61 of 2022 within five months from the receipt of this judgment [Paras 20-21].

Arbitration Law - Arbitral Proceedings – High Court’s Supervisory Jurisdiction – Excessive Judicial Interference – High Court directed the Arbitral Tribunal to allow further cross-examination of a witness (RW-1) despite Tribunal’s decision to conclude it – Held: High Court’s interference under Article 227 was unwarranted and unjustified; Tribunal had already provided sufficient opportunity to cross-examine RW-1 over 12 hours and followed procedural fairness [Paras 12-14].

Judicial Restraint in Arbitration – Principle of Minimal Interference – The High Court’s intervention breached the principle of judicial restraint under the Arbitration Act – Excessive interference undermines efficiency and independence of the arbitral process – Allowed only in cases of clear perversity or bad faith, which were absent here [Paras 15-16].

Opportunity for Cross-Examination – Procedural Fairness Upheld – Despite repeated adjournments and extended timelines, the Arbitral Tribunal provided ample time for cross-examination of RW-1 – Further requests for time were excessive and reflected lack of diligence by the respondent/claimant [Paras 10-11].

Decision: Appeals allowed; High Court orders set aside – Arbitral Tribunal directed to resume proceedings and conclude expeditiously [Paras 17-18].

Criminal Law – Grant of Bail – High Court’s Order Quashed – Factors Not Accounted – Held: While granting bail in cases involving heinous offenses, courts must evaluate all relevant factors, including the nature and gravity of the offense, antecedents of the accused, and the likelihood of tampering with evidence – Failure to assign adequate reasons in granting bail renders the order unsustainable – High Court’s orders granting bail quashed, and accused directed to surrender [Paras 1-4, SLP(Crl.) 15208/2024 and SLP(Crl.) 15209/2024].

Bail – Judicial Approach – Heinous Crime – Held: Courts must exercise caution in granting bail in serious crimes, ensuring that bail is not granted in contravention of law or by disregarding key evidence – Orders granting bail without accounting for the accused's conduct and evidence recovery are liable to be set aside [Paras 2-4, SLP(Crl.) 15208/2024].

Criminal Law – Precedents in Bail Applications – Consideration of Past Orders – Held: Subsequent orders rejecting co-accused’s bail due to serious allegations and violations of prior bail conditions establish the inconsistency in the grant of bail to similarly placed accused – High Court failed to consider these while granting bail to the petitioners [Paras 2-4, SLP(Crl.) 15209/2024].

Decision

SLP(Crl.) No. 15208/2024: High Court's order dated 14/08/2024 in CRM(DB) No. 2047/2024 quashed. Respondent No.2 directed to surrender within two weeks.

SLP(Crl.) No. 15209/2024: High Court's order dated 27/08/2024 in CRM(DB) No. 2198/2024 quashed. Respondent No.2 directed to surrender within two weeks.

Observations made are confined to the specific lis and will not prejudice other proceedings in accordance with law.

Constitutional Law – Judicial Review – Scope Under Article 32 – Dismissal of Writ Petition – Held: A writ petition under Article 32 challenging recovery proceedings initiated under SARFAESI Act and IBC is not maintainable – Petitioners failed to establish grounds for invoking Article 32 jurisdiction – Proper forum for such disputes lies with DRTs and NCLTs, as prescribed under respective statutes [Para 3].

Banking and MSMEs – Non-Performing Assets (NPAs) – MSME Notification – Implementation Gaps – Petitioners alleged failure of Central Government and RBI to enforce MSME Notification dated 29.05.2015, particularly provisions protecting MSMEs from being classified as NPAs – Held: Petitioners provided no sufficient basis for interference by the Supreme Court – No breach of statutory duty demonstrated [Para 2].

Separation of Powers – Legislative Frameworks for Debt Recovery – Challenge to SARFAESI Act, IBC, and RDB Act – Petitioners sought declarations of unconstitutionality – Held: Statutory frameworks under challenge provide alternative dispute resolution mechanisms – Petitioners’ remedies lie within specialized forums created under these laws, and not under the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court [Paras 2-3].

Jurisdiction of Civil Courts – Bar Under Special Statutes – Petitioners contended that the bar on civil court jurisdiction under SARFAESI Act, IBC, and RDB Act is unconstitutional in absence of special forums for MSME disputes – Held: Alternative forums under statutory frameworks provide adequate remedies – No merit in the contention that civil court jurisdiction must remain unaffected [Para 3].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Pending applications, if any, also disposed of.