Compulsory Retirement – Consequences on Terminal Benefits – Appellant, a Sr. Manager in Punjab National Bank, was compulsorily retired and denied terminal benefits including leave encashment, provident fund, gratuity, and pension – Writ petition filed for claiming said benefits – Single Judge allowed claim partially, Division Bench reversed it in part – Supreme Court considered whether denial of benefits was justified. [Paras 1-5]

Provident Fund – Employer's Contribution – Denial of employer's contribution to appellant's provident fund by the bank – Single Judge ordered release of provident fund and gratuity – Division Bench reversed on provident fund and gratuity – Supreme Court examined rules and circumstances under which employer's contribution can be forfeited and found denial unjustified. [Paras 6-13]

Gratuity – Forfeiture of Gratuity – Appellant’s gratuity withheld due to compulsory retirement – Division Bench upheld withholding – Supreme Court analyzed the regulation and the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and circulars of the bank regarding forfeiture of gratuity – Found no basis for withholding gratuity as no proven loss to the bank or riotous behavior by the appellant. [Paras 14-26]

Decision – Restoring Benefits – Supreme Court allowed civil appeal, restoring Single Judge's order for release of employer’s contribution to provident fund and gratuity – Findings of Division Bench set aside – Appeal allowed with no order as to costs. [Para 27]

International Commercial Arbitration – Invocation of Arbitration Clause – Claim for Unpaid Dues and Contractual Breaches – Petitioner, a Swiss-based design consultancy firm, seeking appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for disputes arising from a contract with the respondent, Uttarakhand Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited. Disputes related to non-payment and subsequent termination of the contract. Petitioner challenges the unilateral right of appointment and pre-deposit clause in the contract as unenforceable and contrary to established legal precedents. [Paras 1-14, 58-62]

Pre-Deposit Clause in Arbitration – Arbitrariness and Violation of Article 14 – Analysis of the validity of a 7% pre-deposit clause for invoking arbitration. Discussion on the applicability of the principles established in the ICOMM Tele Limited v. Punjab State Water Supply and Sewerage Board case. Distinction made between pre-deposit clauses that are refundable and those leading to forfeiture, and their implications on arbitrariness and the violation of constitutional rights. [Paras 63-68, 69]

Jurisdiction Under Section 11(6) – Examination of Arbitration Agreement – Supreme Court's limited role under Section 11(6) post the 2015 Amendment to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, focusing on the existence of an arbitration agreement. Reference to the Vidya Drolia case for principles governing pre-referral jurisdiction and prima facie review of non-arbitrability issues. [Paras 24-30, 31]

Appointment of Arbitrator – Supreme Court directs the appointment of an arbitrator, overriding the contractual clauses for unilateral appointment and pre-deposit, in light of the principles of arbitrariness and fairness in arbitration proceedings. The case emphasizes judicial intervention to uphold the integrity of arbitration as an effective dispute resolution mechanism. [Paras 55, 66-69]

Arbitration Agreement – Pre-Deposit Condition – Constitutionality – Examining the constitutionality of the pre-deposit condition in an arbitration agreement under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. The Court rejected the respondent's argument that the validity or reasonableness of conditions in the arbitration clause should not be tested against Article 14 in a Section 11(6) petition under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court's authority to scrutinize arbitration clauses for compliance with Article 14 was affirmed with reference to previous Supreme Court decisions. [Para 70-76]

Kelsen’s Pure Theory of Law – Grundnorm Concept in Indian Legal Context – Application of Kelsen’s Pure Theory of Law and the concept of Grundnorm in the Indian legal system. The Indian Constitution is identified as the paramount law and the basic norm, determining the validity of other laws. The hierarchy of legal norms in India places the Constitution at the apex. [Para 77-81]

Arbitration Agreement Compliance with Legal Norms – Arbitration agreements must comply with Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, other relevant laws, and the Constitution. Arbitration clauses should be contractually valid and not in violation of fundamental rights. [Para 82-84]

Non-Waivability of Fundamental Rights – Reiterating the legal principle that there can be no consent or waiver against fundamental rights as observed by the Constitution Bench. This rejects the respondent’s argument regarding the petitioner’s irrevocable consent to the pre-deposit clause. [Para 85]

Validity of Arbitration Clause Allowing Specific Appointment – The Court's decision, covered by the ruling in Perkins Eastman, highlighted the importance of the appointment of arbitrators, especially in situations where there are justifiable doubts regarding their independence or other significant circumstances. [Para 86-88]

Neutrality of Arbitrators – Law Commission’s Recommendations – Discussion on the neutrality, independence, and impartiality of arbitrators, with references to the Law Commission's recommendations and amendments to Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act for ensuring arbitrator neutrality. [Para 89-91]

International Perspectives on Unconscionable Arbitration Agreements – Examination of foreign court judgments (Canada and the United States) on the doctrine of unconscionability in arbitration agreements. These judgments emphasize fairness and accessibility in dispute resolution mechanisms. [Para 95-101]

Appointment of Independent Arbitrator – Based on the legal principles and precedents discussed, the Court decided to appoint Mr. V.K. Bist, the Former Chief Justice of the High Court of Sikkim, as the sole independent arbitrator. The fees and other modalities of the arbitrator to be fixed in consultation with the parties. [Para 102-104]

Criminal Law – Reversal of Acquittal – Misapprehension of Dying Declaration and Circumstantial Evidence - scrutinized the High Court’s judgment which had reversed the Trial Court's order of acquittal. The apex court found that the High Court did not provide substantial reasons for its decision and failed to consider the established principles for the reliance on a dying declaration, circumstantial evidence, and recovery of weapons. The Supreme Court emphasized the principle that an appellate court should only overturn an acquittal for compelling reasons. [Para 29-33]

Dying Declaration – Evidentiary Value and Requirements - reaffirms the stringent requirements for a dying declaration to be admissible and relied upon, including the absence of tutoring, the declarant's fit mental state, and the direct relation of the statement to the facts of the death. The court found the dying declaration in question to be unreliable due to the absence of the scribe's examination and the possibility of tutoring, given the presence of multiple individuals at the time of its making. [Para 11, 18-19, 29.1]

Ocular and Circumstantial Evidence – Assessment of Credibility - held that the eyewitnesses' testimonies lacked consistency and credibility, and the circumstantial evidence did not point unequivocally to the guilt of the accused. The Court applied the standard of a "sterling witness" to determine the reliability of the witnesses and found the testimonies inadequate for conviction. [Para 21-24, 29.2-29.3]

Recovery of Incriminating Material – Scrutiny of Evidence - questioned the seizure of weapons allegedly used in the crime, noting the recoveries from places of common access and the lack of connection between the weapons and the injuries. [Para 4.5, 25-27]

High Court's Approach – Overturning Acquittal – High Court found to have erred in overturning trial court's acquittal without substantial reasons – Reiteration of the principle that an acquittal should not be interfered with absent compelling reasons – High Court's judgment set aside, and trial court's acquittal restored. [Para 30, 32-33]

Criminal Appeal – Maintenance for Minor Child – Reduction of maintenance from ₹20,000 to ₹7,500 per month by High Court – Family Court’s decision modified without clear reasons – Supreme Court sets aside High Court’s order for lack of detailed reasoning and remands the matter for fresh consideration. [Paras 3, 13-15]

Family Law – Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities – Non-compliance with Supreme Court’s guidelines in Rajnesh v. Neha for disclosing financial status in maintenance cases – Directions reissued for strict adherence to guidelines for expeditious case handling and decision-making. [Paras 7-8, 14-16]

Child Welfare – Maintenance Rights – Obligation of a parent to maintain child until majority irrespective of divorce – Supreme Court emphasizes continuous liability for child maintenance, taking into account the welfare of the child and the status of the parents. [Para 12]

Judicial Process – Directions for Compliance – Secretary General of Supreme Court to re-circulate Rajnesh judgment to all judicial officers and include in training programs – Aimed to ensure proper implementation of maintenance guidelines in family law cases. [Para 16]

Decision – High Court order set aside due to insufficient examination of facts and failure to apply established legal principles – Case remanded for fresh adjudication in line with Supreme Court guidelines on maintenance. [Para 15, 17]

Prayer for Preventing Further FIRs and Taking Cognizance of Complaints – Petitioner seeks mandamus to stop registration of new FIRs and cognizance of complaints based on the same cause of action – Court finds such a prayer cannot be granted by any court of law. [No specific para]

Clubbing of FIRs – Request to club 30 FIRs filed in multiple states into one jurisdiction – Petitioner's reference to a similar relief granted in Radhey Shyam case – Court notes the uniqueness of the Radhey Shyam case, where relief was granted under Article 142 of the Constitution by consent of the States, and declines to apply the same principle here. [No specific para]

Distinction from Previous Cases – Court observes differences from Mohammed Zubair and Pawan Khera cases, where FIRs were based on a single common offence – In the current case, FIRs involve state-specific enactments and special courts, making clubbing inappropriate. [No specific para]

Liberty to Approach Jurisdictional High Courts – Petitioner granted liberty to approach High Courts for clubbing FIRs within each state and seek other legal remedies. [No specific para]

Video Conferencing Facility for Trials – Considering multiple FIRs in different states and petitioner's incarceration, court allows petitioner to appear in trials via video conferencing if permitted. [No specific para]

Civil Appeal – Rights of Appellants for Alternative Site or Compensation – Appellants in possession since 1976, assessed to tax by Municipal Corporation – Initial legal action commenced with notice under Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, leading to a series of legal challenges and decrees in favor of appellants – High Court's acceptance of appeal against Trial Court's decree in appellants' favor, challenged in present appeal. [Paras 2-3, 5]

Property Possession and Rehabilitation – Admitted long-term possession by appellants, property alignment with town planning – Entitlement of appellants for consideration of rehabilitation or compensation as per Town Planning Scheme and subsequent circulars, unaddressed by Corporation – Supreme Court allows appeal, directs Corporation to consider appellants' claim within three months. [Paras 6-7]

Decision – High Court's order set aside – Corporation directed to consider appellants' claim for rehabilitation or compensation in line with the Town Planning Scheme – Resolution to be provided within a specified timeframe. [Para 8]

Value Added Tax – Input Tax Credit – Entitlement to full Input Tax Credit (ITC) by the assessee on goods purchased for manufacturing final products – Whether the assessee is entitled to claim full ITC on raw Rice Bran used for manufacturing Rice Bran Oil (RBO), a taxable product, and De-Oiled Rice Bran (DORB), an exempted by-product – Supreme Court allows full ITC. [Para 3-7, 13, 24, 47-50, 65-71]

Statutory Interpretation – Construction of UP VAT Act provisions – Applicability of Section 13(1)(f) of UP VAT Act restricting ITC claim to the extent of tax payable on the sale value of goods – Supreme Court finds that the High Court erred in not considering the legislative intent and deeming provisions of the UP VAT Act, allowing full ITC for taxable goods even if by-products are exempt. [Para 25-34, 37-44, 68]

Comparison of VAT Legislations – Difference between the provisions of the UP VAT Act and Karnataka VAT Act – Supreme Court distinguishes the case from M.K. Agro Tech Private Limited based on legislative provisions affecting the ITC claim, upholding the entitlement of full ITC under the UP VAT Act. [Para 52-68]

Judicial Precedent – Reliance on Supreme Court decisions – Inapplicability of the decision in M.K. Agro Tech Private Limited to the present case – Supreme Court clarifies the non-applicability of a decision based on different state legislation, leading to the allowance of full ITC under the UP VAT Act. [Para 51-59, 69]

Decision – High Court’s judgment set aside – Supreme Court restores the orders of the Commercial Tax Tribunal, granting the assessee the full benefit of ITC claimed on the goods purchased for manufacturing its final product. [Para 70-72]

Civil Appeal – Challenge to High Court’s modification of Trial Court’s preliminary decree in a partition suit – Appellant’s claim through co-sharer contested – Preliminary decree upheld with modification concerning demolition of buildings – Final decree process and consideration of construction’s legality deferred to Trial Court. [Paras 1-7]

Trial Court Directions – Final decree proceedings to be expedited without Supreme Court’s opinion on merits of the controversy. [Para 8]

Military Promotion – Consideration of Service Records for Promotion to Colonel – Issue concerning the consideration of Confidential Reports (CRs) for promotion of women officers in the Indian Army to the rank of Colonel post Permanent Commission (PC) – Grievance regarding non-empanelment for promotion and exclusion of recent CRs addressed. [Para 1-2, 10-12]

Army Policy Framework – Analysis of policy communications relevant to CRs for promotion selection boards – Evolution from 2002 to 2017 highlighting the importance of CRs after nine years’ reckonable service and the establishment of the Quantified System for selection. [Para 3-9]

Judicial Precedent – Reference to the Supreme Court's judgment in Nitisha v. Union of India – Emphasis on considering the entire service record for grant of PC to Women Short Service Commission Officers (WSSCOs) and the implications for current empanelment for Colonel rank. [Para 9]

Discrepancy in Promotion Criteria – Assertion that the approach for empanelment of women officers as Colonels is inconsistent with policy directives and the Supreme Court's judgment in Nitisha – Argument that a significant portion of service CRs was arbitrarily excluded from consideration. [Para 14-18, 20]

Arbitrariness and Constitutional Violation – Determination that the cutoff application for CRs in empanelment as Colonels is arbitrary and violates fairness principles – Directions for a fresh selection board exercise and consideration of all eligible women officers with a common cutoff date. [Para 18-23]

Decision – Direction for reconvening of Special No 3 SB for all women officers previously considered, with a common cutoff for CRs and inclusive of retired officers – Assurance of unaffected seniority for officers already empaneled or promoted. [Para 23-24]