Civil Law - Rent Control - Uttar Pradesh Urban Building (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act 1972 - Section 21 - Enhancement of rent - Premises let out to Trade Tax Department in 1966 - Landlords sought rent enhancement - Rent Control Officer fixed monthly rent at Rs 14400 based on Rs 4 per sq ft - Appellate Authority remanded matter for rehearing due to lack of findings on commencement date and five-year intervals - High Court in writ petition set aside remand and enhanced rent to Rs 14 per sq ft based on oral statement by landlord's counsel regarding adjacent premises without evidentiary material - State challenged High Court's direct enhancement under Article 227 and maintainability of enhancement application following deletion of clauses (ii) and (iv) of Section 21(1) - Supreme Court held that Section 21(8) applications remain valid despite amendments - Held - High Court erred in enhancing rent based on mere statements without material on record - Impugned judgment set aside and matter remanded to Rent Control Officer Bahraich for fresh determination within four months - [Paras 1-12].

Writ Law - Supervisory Jurisdiction - Constitution of India - Article 227 - Scope of power - High Courts possess power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals to ensure they function within statutory confines - Principle of exercise is to prevent abuse of power or grave injustice rather than correcting decisions as an appellate court - Power must be exercised sparingly and cautiously in rent control matters which are governed by special statutes - Held - Routine exercise of Article 227 to substitute findings of specialized authorities is unwarranted especially when evidence for the substituted decision is absent from the record - [Paras 9-11].

Civil Law - Statutory Interpretation - Uttar Pradesh Urban Building (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act 1972 - Section 21(8) - Effect of deletion of Clauses (ii) and (iv) of Explanation to Section 21(1) by 1976 Amendment - State contended that deletion extinguished the ground for enhancement - Supreme Court observed that the proviso to Section 21(8) is the only recourse for landlords when eviction of Government tenants is restricted - Restrictive reading would defeat the purpose of the landlord-tenant relationship and prevent landlords from reclaiming property value - Held - Deletion of specified grounds for eviction does not impact the operationality of the proviso allowing for rent enhancement - [Paras 7-8].

Decision: Appeals allowed to the extent of remanding the matter – Impugned judgment of High Court set aside – Rent Control Officer Bahraich directed to decide rent payable afresh within four months – Order shall be applicable from the date of original application in 2008.

Writ Law - Service Benefits - Constitution of India - Article 21 - Bihar Reorganisation Act 2000 - Non-payment of salaries and retiral dues of employees of five State-owned Corporations post-bifurcation - Prolonged humanitarian and legal controversy involving successor States of Bihar and Jharkhand - Earlier intervention in Kapila Hingorani case provided interim relief but proved insufficient - Supreme Court constituted a Committee headed by Justice Dinesh Maheshwari Retd to examine the complex factual matrix - Committee submitted final report on 30.04.2026 after conducting twenty-five meetings - Court accepted recommendations regarding apportionment of liability between States based on Union of India affidavit dated 22.12.2023 - Determination of Pay Revision Commission benefits confined to those adopted prior to corporations becoming defunct - Directed structured mechanism for Employees Provident Fund disbursal including statutory interest - Noted that identification of untraceable employees and compensation for deaths during deprivation remain residual issues - Held - Substantial part of Committee recommendations accepted and States remain bound to discharge liabilities - Matter kept part-heard for residual issues - [Paras 1-42].

Writ Law - Employees Provident Fund - Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952 - Section 7Q - Vested Statutory Right - Committee observed that provident fund accumulations are protected retiral benefits that cannot be defeated by administrative lapses or financial incapacity - Obligation to ensure disbursal survives notwithstanding the functional collapse of corporations - Held - States directed to disburse employer and employee contributions along with accrued interest directly to beneficiaries where reconciliation or reactivation of accounts is unfeasible - [Paras 27-29].

Writ Law - Pay Revision - Service Conditions - Claim for extension of benefits under subsequent Pay Revision Commissions after corporations ceased functioning - Committee found no resolution or statutory adoption of subsequent PRCs by competent authorities prior to closure - Held - In the absence of a subsisting employer-employee framework or contractual mandate no enforceable legal right accrues for grant of benefits under subsequent Pay Revision Commissions - [Paras 22-23].

Writ Law - Interest on Delayed Payment - Restitution - Committee recommended interest at seven point five percent per annum on delayed salary arrears and twelve percent per annum on delayed provident fund dues - Findings suggested interest constitutes a measure of restitution and fair recompense for inordinate delay and deprivation - Held - Interest entitlement to be adjudicated as a surviving residual issue - [Paras 33-35].

Decision: Matter kept part-heard for residual issues – Directions issued for payment of additional honorarium of Rs 3500000 to Committee Chairman to be borne equally by States of Bihar and Jharkhand – Compliance affidavits to be filed by States – Listed for 01/09/2026.

Constitutional Law - Human Trafficking and Rehabilitation - Constitution of India - Articles 21 and 23 - Petitioner-NGO filed PIL in 2004 seeking a robust Victim Protection Plan for survivors of commercial sexual exploitation (CSE) - Union of India originally committed in 2015 to create an Organised Crime Investigation Agency (OCIA) and enact a comprehensive anti-trafficking law but later claimed that amendments to the NIA Act and the enactment of BNS/BNSS obviated the need for separate measures - Supreme Court found that existing laws like ITPA 1956 and BNS 2023 were fragmented and failed to provide a cohesive rehabilitation framework - Court noted that rescue without rehabilitation returns victims to the same conditions of vulnerability and poverty - Held - Right to rehabilitation is a fundamental right flowing from Article 21 and Article 23 - The State has a positive obligation to provide material well-being - psychological support - and social recognition to victims - In exercise of powers under Articles 32 and 142 - Court issued a comprehensive Victim Protection Plan covering pre-rescue - rescue - post-rescue - rehabilitation - and reintegration stages - [Paras 30-71 - 251-290 - 303-362].

Criminal Law - Primacy of Consent in Rehabilitation - Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act 1956 - Sections 17 and 19 - Inquiry into victim's status - ITPA often conflates sex trafficking with voluntary prostitution by treating all third-party involvement as exploitative - Court observed that adult victims are frequently processed through Section 17 without differentiating between forced victims and voluntary sex workers - Held - Magistrates must conduct a threshold inquiry to identify voluntary adult sex workers at the outset to ensure the principle of non-interference - Consent of an adult victim must be the driving factor in decisions regarding placement in protective homes or restoration to family - Departure from victim's wishes permissible only where safety is at risk or consent is a product of coercion/undue influence - Reasons for departure must be recorded in writing - [Paras 307-356].

Criminal Law - Investigative Agency - National Investigation Agency Act 2008 - Sections 6 and 10 - Constitution of OCIA - Petitioner sought creation of a new national investigative body (OCIA) for trafficking cases - Union contended that NIA is now empowered to investigate Sections 370 and 370A IPC (now 143/144 BNS) - Held - Court cannot issue a writ of mandamus to the legislature to create a specific statutory body or enact law in a particular manner - Since the NIA has been legally empowered to handle trafficking cases - there is no functional gap justifying judicial interference - Parliamentary wisdom in choosing an existing agency over a new one is not subject to scrutiny - [Paras 363-386].

Criminal Law - Definitional Anomalies - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 - Section 143 - Palermo Protocol - Definition of trafficking in BNS requires 'means' element (threat/force/fraud) to be proved even for child victims - Palermo Protocol stipulates that for children - 'action' for the purpose of 'exploitation' is sufficient - Held - BNS definition creates a concerning anomaly by setting a higher threshold for child trafficking than international standards - Recommendation made to the Union to re-visit Section 143 BNS to remove the 'means' element requirement for children - [Paras 197-206 - 417-418].

Criminal Law - Non-Criminalisation of Victims - Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act 1956 - Sections 7 - 8 and 20 - Victimization - Rescued persons are often booked as offenders under sections meant to curb public nuisance - Held - Law enforcement must adopt a victim-centric approach - Recommendation made to the Union to introduce a proviso to Sections 7 - 8 and 20 ITPA clarifying they do not apply to suspected victims of trafficking - [Paras 387-393].

Rehabilitation Law - Shelter Homes - Mission Shakti Programme - Shakti Sadans - Existing data revealed discrepancy between approved and functional One-Stop Centres (OSCs) and lack of mental health care in many states - Held - Protective homes must not emulate jails or lock-ups - Guidelines issued for mandatory appointment of case workers - provision of vocational training - and regular social audits by District/State committees - [Paras 75-76 - 300 - 357-362].

Decision: Application disposed of with mandatory directions – Union and States directed to implement the Victim Protection Plan immediately – Compliance report required by September 2026.

Civil Law - Removal of Mathadhipathi - Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 1987 - Section 51 - Principles of Natural Justice - Appellant Mathadhipathi of Sri Swamy Hathiramji Mutt was removed from office following an enquiry report by a three-member committee of the Dharmika Parishad which found 13 out of 16 charges proved - Appellant challenged the removal alleging non-supply of over 600 pages of relied-upon documents - invalid service of notice by affixation on premises already seized by the State - and pre-decisional bias by the adjudicating body - High Court dismissed the appeal holding that the appellant had replied to charges in detail and was in possession of documents - Supreme Court observed that service by affixation on premises in the physical possession of the Respondents is a legal absurdity - held that the right to respond to a charge is rendered nugatory if the evidentiary basis and material forming the foundation of the action are not supplied - found the enquiry committee composed of members of the same body that initiated the charges was structurally biased - Held - proceedings culminating in removal were vitiated by multiple violations of natural justice - High Court judgment and removal order set aside - [Paras 1-55].

Evidence Law - Service of Notice - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order V Rule 17 - Substituted Service - Respondents claimed service of charge memo by affixation on the Mutt residence and by email to the institutional account - record established that the State had already dispossessed the appellant and taken control of the premises and email account - Held - legal fiction of constructive notice collapses once the State assumes total control of the premises - substituted service can only be validly executed where the noticee actually resides - service on a door to which the noticee has no access is not service in the eyes of law - [Paras 31-32].

Administrative Law - Bias - Nemo Judex In Causa Sua - Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 1987 - Rule 26 of 2009 Rules - Enquiry committee was constituted from amongst members of the Dharmika Parishad which had already resolved to charge and suspend the appellant before charges were framed - Held - a member of a body that has already collectively determined a course of action cannot sit as an impartial enquiry officer - adjudicating authority cannot itself become the investigator and the decision-maker - Rule 26 of the 2009 Rules applies to administrative committees and cannot be used to constitute an enquiry committee for quasi-judicial proceedings - [Paras 35-39].

Constitutional Law - Plenary Powers - Constitution of India - Article 142 - Remedying structural gaps - The Court identified a procedural vacuum in the 1987 Act which prescribes no independent or neutral mechanism for conducting enquiries before removal - observed that a simple remand to the same body would lead to procedural circularity and repetition of systemic vulnerabilities - exercised Article 142 jurisdiction to appoint a One-man independent enquiry committee comprising a retired District Judge - constituted an Administrative Committee to aid the restored Mathadhipathi to ensure transparency and accountability - Held - Article 142 is supplementary in nature and operates to fill legal gaps to ensure complete justice - [Paras 42-51].

Religious Law - Concept of Mahantship - Right to Religious Office - Office of Mathadhipathi involves a blend of duties and personal interest in property where the spiritual headship cannot be detached from temporal management - any arrangement that seeks to permanently bifurcate religious functions from administrative functions or vests the latter in a Fit Person indefinitely amounts to a denial of the concept of Mahantship - Held - deprivation of the office of the spiritual head must be affected only through procedures that are demonstrably fair - neutral - and minimally invasive - [Paras 45-47].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of the High Court dated 09.05.2025 in C.M.A. No. 538 of 2023 - removal order dated 24.11.2023 - and confirmation G.O.Ms. No. 581 dated 08.12.2023 set aside – Appellant restored as Mathadhipathi – One-man independent enquiry committee appointed – Administrative Committee constituted to assist in management.

Civil Law - Review Jurisdiction - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order 47 Rule 1 - Scope of Review - Batch of review petitions filed against the judgment in Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust v State of Maharashtra - Petitioners alleged erroneous interpretation of RTE Act and NCTE Act regarding TET requirements for teachers appointed prior to 2010 - Court observed that review is not an appeal in disguise and is permissible only for errors apparent on the face of record - Error must be self-evident and not requiring long-drawn reasoning - Although parameters of Section 114 CPC were not strictly met the Court allowed open court hearing to satisfy audi alteram partem and address grievances of various States and teachers associations - Held - No palpable error found in the original judgment warranting a reversal of the legal position - [Paras 1-11].

Writ Law - Right to Education - Constitution of India - Article 21-A - TET as Constitutional Necessity - Challenge to the applicability of TET to in-service teachers - Petitioners argued that subsequent imposition of TET violates service jurisprudence and causes prejudice to validly appointed teachers - Court reiterated that TET is a constitutional necessity flowing from the right to quality education under Article 21-A - Operation of a statute for public good cannot be viewed as an evil - Educational welfare of children is paramount and cannot be sacrificed for the service interests of teachers - Held - TET is a mandatory eligibility condition for continuation in service and promotion irrespective of the date of recruitment - [Paras 3, 23-25, 28].

Civil Law - Statutory Interpretation - Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 - Section 23 - Prospective vs Retrospective Application - Analysis of Section 23(1) and the provisos to Section 23(2) - Distinction between usage of word any person in sub-section 1 and teacher in the provisos - Sub-section 1 governs future appointments - First proviso to sub-section 2 specifically deals with teachers already in service at the commencement of the Act - 2017 Amendment Act provided a further window for compliance until 2019 - Court found that the legislature always intended for in-service teachers to meet minimum qualifications - Subordinate legislation including NCTE notifications cannot override the clear mandate of the parent statute - Held - Provisions of Section 23 do not result in a new condition of service but reflect a time-bound mechanism for maintaining educational standards - [Paras 12-20, 25].

Writ Law - Extension of Compliance Window - Constitution of India - Article 142 - Inherent Power and Pragmatic Approach - States and petitioners sought extension of the 2-year period granted in the original judgment to acquire TET - Concern raised that mass displacement of thousands of teachers would disrupt the edifice of public education - Court applied the principle from State of Nagaland v Lipok AO emphasizing substantial justice over a technical approach - While TET rigour cannot be diluted the practical repercussions on school functioning must be considered - Held - In exercise of power under Article 142 the Court extended the timeline for acquiring TET qualification from 2 years to 3 years - In-service teachers must now obtain the qualification by 31st August 2028 - [Paras 30-36].

Decision: Review petitions dismissed with modification – Compliance period for in-service teachers to acquire TET extended to 31st August 2028 – States directed to conduct TET preferably twice a year – No further extensions to be granted.

Arbitration Law - Jurisdictional Challenge - Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 - Sections 14 and 16 - Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam 1983 - Sections 7 and 20 - Finality of Litigation - Appellant entered into a Concession Agreement for a road project on Build-Operate-Transfer basis - Disputes arose leading to termination of agreement by Appellant - Arbitral Tribunal constituted under 1996 Act - Appellant initially challenged jurisdiction before District Court and High Court contending that the dispute must be heard by the Tribunal under the local Adhiniyam - High Court in earlier writ proceedings held that 1996 Act applied and that the agreement was not a works contract - That order attained finality after Supreme Court dismissed SLP and Review Petition - Appellant again raised jurisdictional plea in the present appeal relying on subsequent overruling of the earlier precedent - Held - Jurisdictional issue attained finality inter-se the parties and cannot be resurrected - Doctrine of issue estoppel applies - Once appellate remedies and review jurisdiction are exhausted the dispute is settled for eternity in the eye of law even if a precedent is subsequently overruled - Plea also barred by Section 16-2 as it was raised after filing statement of defence - Appellant's conduct shows complete acquiescence to 1996 Act process - [Paras 11-14 and 41-65].

Arbitration Law - Scope of Interference - Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 - Sections 34 and 37 - Minimal Judicial Interference - Nature of Jurisdiction - Narrowly circumscribed grounds - Held - Jurisdiction under Section 34 is not an appellate forum - Court cannot correct errors of fact or reappreciate evidence or substitute its own interpretation of contract if the Tribunal's view is plausible - Appellate power under Section 37 is even more constrained - The structure of appeal is a narrowing pyramid where higher courts have lesser propensity to interfere - Deference must be given to the Arbitral Tribunal as the final authority on evidence and contractual interpretation - [Paras 24-40 and 74].

Civil Law - Termination Payment - Concession Agreement - Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 - Section 34-2-a-iv - Scope of Reference - Appellant contended that Tribunal travelled beyond scope of reference by awarding termination payment when the claim was for value of work done - Held - Harmonious construction of the Concession Agreement - The claim for termination payment was covered under the broad heads of claims raised and contested - Interpretation of Clause 32-6 by the Tribunal as an independent mandatory payment clause is a plausible view - Mere existence of a different possible view is insufficient to set aside an award - No perversity found in awarding termination payment inclusive of debt due to the respondent rather than the lender as privity of contract exists only between the parties to the agreement - [Paras 66-71].

Arbitration Law - Interest - Party Autonomy - Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 - Section 31 - Pre-award and Post-award Interest - Appellant challenged pre-award interest of 14-75 percent and post-award interest of 18 percent as exorbitant - Held - Pre-award interest was contractually agreed as SBI PLR plus 2 percent - Post-award interest of 18 percent was as per the statutory rate under the unamended Section 31 - Party autonomy is the backbone of arbitration - Courts must uphold the bargain between parties unless the rate is so perverse as to shock the conscience - Conduct of Appellant in delaying payments for 19 years warrants no interference with interest rates - [Paras 72-73].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Impugned orders of High Court and District Court affirmed – Registry of High Court directed to release deposited amounts to Respondent within two weeks – Appellant directed to pay balance amount with accrued interest within three months.

Writ Law - Delay in Judgment - Constitution of India - Articles 21 and 142 - Mandatory Guidelines - Supreme Court addressed various Writ Petitions seeking the pronouncement of reserved judgments pending indefinitely in High Courts - Lead case involved life convicts whose appeals were heard in early 2022 but remained pending for years - Court noted a startling picture of delays and expanded the proceedings to frame pan-India guidelines - Identified a statutory lacuna as no specific outer limit for High Court judgments is provided in CPC or CrPC unlike Trial Courts - Observed that delay violates Article 21 rights especially for those in custody - Invoked Article 142 to provide a structured framework - Held - Binding directions issued - High Courts must endeavour to pronounce reasoned judgments within 3 months of reservation - Special promptitude required for bail and personal liberty matters - Chief Justices to exercise administrative oversight through automated monitoring - Litigants permitted to seek early pronouncement or case re-assignment after 3 to 6 months of delay - [Paras 1-26].

Constitutional Law - Personal Liberty - Constitution of India - Article 21 - Ratio Decidendi - Court held that the right to life and personal liberty extends to every stage of a proceeding including the delivery of judgment - Delay in pronouncement is as much a violation of rights as a denial of a hearing - Regularity in pronouncing judgments sustains public trust in judicial institutions - Held - Convicts or accused awaiting decisions cannot be expected to accept judicial silence with equanimity - [Paras 9-11].

Procedural Law - Judicial Accountability - Constitution of India - Article 142 - Transparency Measures - Directions issued to improve transparency and monitoring of reserved matters - Benches must seek clarifications in criminal appeals within 7 days of reservation and 1 month for other cases - Reasoned judgments must be uploaded within 24 hours of open court pronouncement - High Court websites must reflect reservation status and upload dates - Automated emails to be sent to Chief Justices regarding pending reserved judgments beyond 1 month - Held - Registrars General directed to incorporate guidelines into High Court Rules and websites - [Paras 16-17].

Decision: Writ Petitions disposed of – Comprehensive binding guidelines issued under Article 142 for all High Courts to ensure timely pronouncement of judgments and upload of orders – Registrars General directed to place guidelines before respective Chief Justices for immediate implementation.

Civil Law - Judgment on Admissions - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order XII Rule 6 - Scope and mandatory requirements - Family dispute concerning sale proceeds of ancestral land where Respondent 1 sought recovery of money from Defendant 3 on the basis of a statement in the Written Statement - Defendant 3 stated he received Rs. 3 Crores via family settlement while Respondent 1 claimed her share was later fixed at 1/6th making the receipt an excess - Trial Court dismissed the application for decree on admission holding that the controversy required trial - High Court in revision set aside the order and decreed the suit - Supreme Court held that for a decree under Order XII Rule 6 the admission must be categorical unambiguous unconditional and unequivocal - Held - pleadings must be construed holistically and cannot be read in a piecemeal manner - isolation of a single portion of a written statement to construe liability is legally unsustainable - High Court order set aside - [Paras 1-48].

Civil Law - Revisional Jurisdiction - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 115 - Limits of High Court power - Trial Court found existence of triable issues and directed parties to lead evidence - High Court reversed this finding by substituting its own interpretation of the pleadings - Supreme Court observed that the revisional court cannot act as an appellate court to reassess findings of fact or substitute conclusions unless jurisdictional error or material irregularity is demonstrated - Held - High Court travelled beyond the permissible limits of Section 115 by reassessing the factual matrix and substituting its interpretation - [Paras 17, 42-44].

Evidence Law - Admission - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Sections 17 and 18 - Nature of statements - Definition of admission as a statement suggesting inference to a fact in issue - Every statement made by a party does not automatically result in a decree - Judicial discretion must be exercised with caution as a decree on admission denies the defendant a right to trial and appeal on merits - Held - where substantial triable issues arise and the alleged admission requires interpretation or examination of surrounding circumstances the matter must proceed to trial - [Paras 31-40].

Civil Law - Triable Issues - Family Settlement - Inter-se liabilities - Suit originally sought relief jointly and severally against multiple family members - No specific pleading that one defendant alone was exclusively liable - High Court decreed the suit against one defendant solely on an isolated statement regarding family distribution - Supreme Court found that whether the amount received represented money belonging to the plaintiff involved disputed factual assumptions - Held - such questions require adjudication upon evidence and cannot be determined merely on pleadings - [Paras 38-41].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment of the High Court dated 16.04.2019 set aside – Order of the Additional District Judge dated 20.12.2017 restored – Trial Court directed to adjudicate the suit independently and strictly in accordance with law.

Civil Law - Arbitration in Suits - Arbitration Act 1940 - Section 21 - Mandatory Compliance - Plaintiffs-Appellants filed a suit for possession in 1982 - During pendency the parties referred the dispute to private arbitration - An award was passed on 15.09.1983 - Trial Court and High Court dismissed the suit holding the award had attained finality - Supreme Court observed that the 1940 Act envisioned three distinct modes of arbitration under Chapters II III and IV - Once a suit is pending between the parties the only valid route for referring the matter to arbitration is Section 21 under Chapter IV which requires a written application to the court where the suit is pending - Held - Any arbitral award passed without the leave of the Trial Court when a suit is already pending is not in compliance with the provisions of the 1940 Act - The arbitral proceedings conducted sans the mandatory requirements of Section 21 are legally ineffective as a bar to the suit - [Paras 30-46].

Civil Law - Arbitration Award as Compromise - Arbitration Act 1940 - Section 47 Proviso - Post-Award Consent - The Respondents contended that the award should be treated as a compromise of the suit - Supreme Court analyzed the proviso to Section 47 which allows an award obtained otherwise than in accordance with the Act to be considered as a compromise or adjustment of a suit - The Court held that the sine qua non for invoking this proviso is the post-award consent of all interested parties - In the present case the Plaintiffs consistently opposed the award and never consented to it being treated as a compromise - Held - In the absence of post-award consent the award cannot be given effect as a compromise under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC - The award remains unenforceable and cannot be used to non-suit the Plaintiffs - [Paras 48-58].

Civil Law - Validity of Arbitration - Arbitration Act 1940 - Section 21 - Knowledge of Pendency - The Defendants-Respondents claimed they were unaware of the 1982 suit at the time of reference to arbitration - Supreme Court held that knowledge of pendency is not a condition precedent for the applicability of Section 21 - The determinative factor is the fact of institution or pendency of the suit - Even otherwise the Defendants had been served summons before the award was passed and failed to seek leave of the court - Held - The award arising out of arbitral proceedings initiated without following the mandate of Section 21 cannot operate as a valid defence - [Paras 42-43 and 63].

Civil Law - Appellate Procedure - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order 41 Rule 22 - Challenge to Adverse Findings - The Trial Court found that the Plaintiffs had validly purchased the property through a court auction in 1963 but dismissed the suit based on the arbitration award - The Respondents did not challenge these favourable findings for the Plaintiffs - Supreme Court noted that while a respondent need not file cross-objections to challenge adverse findings as long as the decree is in their favour such findings stand once the legal bar of the award is removed - Held - Since the award is unenforceable and the purchase of property is proved the suit for possession must be decreed - [Paras 59-60].

Decision: Appeal allowed - Judgment of the High Court and Trial Court set aside - Arbitration award dated 15.09.1983 held unenforceable qua the Plaintiffs - Decree for recovery of possession passed in favour of the Plaintiffs - Matter remitted for enquiry into mesne profits - Costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- imposed on Respondents.