Criminal Law – Quashing - Cheating Allegations – Ingredients Not Established – FIR Quashed - The appellant was accused of selling property without the consent of co-owners. The court held that the allegations did not meet the essential ingredients of Section 415 IPC, as the appellant did not induce any deception or harm to the complainant. [Paras 8-13].

Civil vs. Criminal Dispute – Predominantly Civil Nature – Criminal Proceedings Abused - The dispute related to the sale of undivided shares in a property, a matter already under adjudication in pending civil suits. Initiation of criminal proceedings two years after filing civil suits, with suppressed material facts, was deemed an abuse of process. [Paras 10-13].

Role of Complainant in Cheating Allegations – Third-Party Complaint Invalid - Relying on precedent, the court reiterated that a third party, not the purchaser, cannot allege cheating where no direct deception is evident. The sale was limited to the legal rights of the co-owners, with no misrepresentation regarding the complainant's interests. [Paras 12-13].

Decision – FIR Quashed, No Prejudice to Pending Civil Suits - The Supreme Court quashed the FIR registered against the appellant and clarified that its decision did not affect the merits of the pending civil dispute. Appeal allowed. [Paras 13-14].

Criminal - Appeal against Conviction – Murder - Credibility of Witness Testimony – Minor Contradictions Not Fatal – Conviction Upheld - The appellants argued inconsistencies in witness statements and alleged bias due to political rivalry. The Court held that minor contradictions do not impair the credibility of eyewitness accounts when corroborated by medical and circumstantial evidence. [Paras 14-15, 20-23].

Doctrine of Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus – Not Applicable in Indian Law - The Court reiterated that this doctrine is not a rule of evidence in Indian jurisprudence. Testimonies can be partly believed if they inspire confidence, even if some portions are found unreliable. [Paras 19, 25].

Investigation Lapses – Not Grounds for Acquittal if Core Evidence is Strong - The defense highlighted investigative lapses, including alleged tampering with FIR details. The Court observed that defects in investigation do not vitiate the prosecution's case if eyewitness and medical evidence remain consistent and credible. [Paras 17, 22].

Homicidal Death Established – Medical Evidence Corroborates Witness Accounts - Postmortem reports confirmed that the deaths of the victims resulted from injuries inflicted during the attack, validating the prosecution's narrative. [Paras 13-14].

Conviction Under Explosive Substances Act – A3's Role Affirmed - A3's use of a bomb during the incident was sufficient to sustain his conviction under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. [Para 24].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed, Convictions Upheld - The Supreme Court found no fault in the High Court's judgment, maintaining the conviction of the appellants while dismissing the appeal. [Paras 26-27].

Criminal Law – Bail - Bail Conditions for Foreign Nationals – Applicability of Civil Authority Notification – Compliance Mandated - The appellant challenged the procedural requirements for notifying Civil Authorities when bail is granted to foreign nationals. The court noted that under Clause 5 of the Foreigners Order, 1948, a foreigner cannot leave India without the Civil Authority's permission if required to answer criminal charges. Directions were issued for prosecuting agencies to notify the concerned Registration Officer upon the grant of bail to ensure compliance with legal provisions and administrative efficacy. [Paras 6-8].

Non-Impleadment of Civil Authorities – Rationale Explained - The court declined to mandate impleadment of Civil Authorities in all bail applications involving foreigners, reasoning that such a requirement could delay judicial processes. Instead, authorities should be notified post-bail to take necessary legal steps under the Foreigners Act and associated orders. [Paras 5-7].

Powers under Foreigners Act vs. Criminal Courts’ Bail Jurisdiction – Distinct Yet Harmonized - The court clarified that the power to arrest or detain a foreigner under Clause (g) of Section 3(2) of the Foreigners Act is independent of the criminal court's jurisdiction to grant bail. Hence, bail does not preclude the enforcement of administrative orders under the Act. [Paras 5-6].

Decision – Directions Issued to Ensure Administrative Compliance Post-Bail - The Supreme Court issued directives to prosecuting agencies and Registration Officers for ensuring coordination between judicial orders and administrative requirements. Criminal appeals were disposed of accordingly. [Paras 8-9].

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].

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.

Domestic Violence – Quasi-Criminal Proceedings – Bailable Warrants – Issuance of bailable warrants by the Magistrate in proceedings under the D.V. Act deprecated – Held: Proceedings under the D.V. Act are quasi-criminal in nature and do not attract penal consequences unless there is a breach of protection order – Magistrate unjustified in issuing bailable warrants in absence of such breach.

Transfer of Proceedings – Hardship to Petitioner – Petitioner, a dependent mother of a specially abled minor child, sought transfer of DV case from Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi to Ludhiana – Respondent (mother-in-law) remained unrepresented despite notice – Held: Considering petitioner’s circumstances and previous SC order transferring divorce case to Ludhiana, the present DV proceedings also liable to be transferred for convenience and judicial consistency.

Judicial Directions – Video Conferencing Facility – If available, courts directed to extend benefit of VC hearing to the parties – Trial court directed to transmit records to transferee court without delay.

Decision: Transfer Petition allowed – Domestic violence case MC No. 825/2023 pending in Mahila Court-05, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi transferred to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana – Magistrate’s order issuing bailable warrants found unjustified – Pending applications disposed of.

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.

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].

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].