Criminal Appeal – Anticipatory Bail – Denial of anticipatory bail by the High Court – Appellants sought anticipatory bail in three separate cases – Non-disclosure of relevant facts regarding initiation of proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C. – Interim protection granted but subsequently found that relevant facts were not disclosed – Appellants not entitled to pre-arrest bail – Appeals dismissed. [Para 2-4]

Non-disclosure of relevant facts – Failure to mention the issuance of process under Section 82, Cr.P.C., and dismissal of Revision Petition against the same – Appellants approaching the Court with no clean hands – Lack of entitlement to leniency or favor – Disentitlement to relief at this stage. [Para 4]

Land Acquisition Dispute - Contempt Proceedings - Fresh Demarcation Ordered - Disposition of Special Leave Petition - Allegation against respondent Authority for utilizing land without proper acquisition process, including the construction of a bus stand - Previous proceedings led to the quashing of acquisition proceedings but allowed for compensation or possession restoration - Contempt initiated due to non-compliance - Contention over the specific land - Court orders a fresh demarcation by Revenue Authorities, compensation if construction found on Khasra No.276, restoration if unoccupied - Question of damages left open for future proceedings - Parties to approach Revenue Authorities for demarcation on 09th October, 2023.

Land Acquisition - Contempt Proceedings - Disputed land used for a bus stand - Court's order to determine compensation or restore land - Contempt initiated due to non-compliance - Contention over the land's identity - Previous demarcation proceedings - Exercise of Article 142 jurisdiction to resolve the matter - Direction for a fresh demarcation by Revenue Authorities - Compensation if construction found, restoration if unoccupied - Question of damages left open for future determination - Parties to approach Revenue Authorities for demarcation on 09th October 2023.

Criminal Appeal – Suspension of Sentence – Appellant aggrieved by the High Court’s refusal to suspend his sentence – Appellant and juvenile co-accused alleged to have committed an offence under Section 376D of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Victim initially went voluntarily with the accused – Sentence of the appellant suspended, and he is granted bail subject to terms and conditions imposed by the Trial Court, including reporting to the concerned Police Station on a weekly basis. [Para 2-6]

Arbitration - Validity of arbitral award - Dispute regarding delay in execution of a contract for a sewage water reclamation plant - Award allowed certain claims by Batliboi Environmental Engineers Limited (BEEL) for compensation - Arbitral award lacks detailed analysis and reasons for findings, especially concerning delay responsibility and computation of damages - Damages should be commensurate with the loss sustained - Method of computation depends on facts and circumstances of each case - Arbitrator has the discretion to determine the appropriate method - Whimsical and absurd computation should be avoided - Award fails to provide a reasonable basis for the damages awarded, and thus, requires further scrutiny. [Para 7-16]

Construction Contract – Calculation of Damages – Overheads and Profits – Arbitral Tribunal's Award – Challenge to the Award – Principles for Computation of Damages Under Hudson’s Formula – Application of Formula to Assess Loss of Overheads and Profits – Need for Justification and Care in Applying the Formula – Avoiding Double Recovery – Arbitral Tribunal's Failure to Adhere to Established Principles – Inflated Award of Damages – Overlapping Claims – Lack of Justification for Computed Loss – Failure to Apply Mitigation Principle – Award for Idle Machinery and Equipment – Lack of Reasoning for Award – Challenge to the Award Sustained. [Para 17-29]

Arbitration and Conciliation Act - Scope of Court's Power to Review Awards under Section 34 - Interpretation of "in conflict with the public policy of India" - Legislative amendments and judicial pronouncements - The need to interpret provisions as they existed at the time of filing objections to the award - Examination of amendments introduced by Act No. 3 of 2016 and judgments on the amended Section 34 not necessary. [Para 30]

Post-award interference and the role of courts under Section 34 of the A&C Act - Emphasis on party autonomy in arbitration - Arguments for and against post-award court interference - Balancing party autonomy with fundamental rights and due process - Courts' intervention justified when the award is unfair, arbitrary, perverse, or infirm in law. [Para 31]

Analysis of Section 34 of the A&C Act before and after the 2016 amendment - Grounds for setting aside an arbitral award - Examination of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 34 - Detailed discussion of the grounds for setting aside an award, including incapacity, invalid arbitration agreements, lack of proper notice, disputes beyond the scope of arbitration, and non-compliance with arbitration agreements. [Para 33-35]

Discussion of 'public policy' in Section 34 - Wide and narrow interpretations - Consideration of public interest, justice, morality, and legality - Impact of legislative changes and judicial decisions on the interpretation of 'public policy.' [Para 36-38]

Court's role in reviewing awards - Judicial approach, natural justice, and avoidance of irrationality - Principles governing interference with arbitral awards - Three fundamental principles constituting 'fundamental policy of Indian law' - Requirements for an award to be set aside, including irrationality, shock to the conscience, and patent illegality. [Para 41-43]

Dismissal of the appeal. [Para 45-46]

Civil Appeal – Redemption of Mortgage – Appellant, an auction purchaser, challenges High Court's order allowing borrowers to redeem the mortgage – Complex factual background involving loan default, auction proceedings, and redemption offer – Key issue of whether borrowers' offer to pay Rs. 129 crore for redemption is acceptable – Detailed analysis required. [Para 1-21]

SARFAESI Act – Interpretation of Amended Section 13(8) – The Telangana High Court's judgment in Amme Srisailam – Evaluation of the High Court's reasoning – Misplaced reliance on S. Karthik (supra) – Amendment to Section 13(8) subsequent to S. Karthik (supra) – Failure to consider the impact of the 2016 Amendment in S. Karthik (supra) – The High Court's misinterpretation of S. Karthik (supra) – Concern Readymix's misplaced relevance – Distinction between special enactment (SARFAESI Act) and general enactment (Act 1882) – Overriding clause under Section 35 of the SARFAESI Act – Impact of the 2016 Amendment on the inconsistency between Section 13(8) and Act 1882 – The necessity for a harmonious interpretation of Sections 35 and 37 of the SARFAESI Act – ejusdem generis principle – Interpretation of the expression "or any other law for the time being in force" in Section 37 – The significance of the change in the Joint Committee's proposal – Headings and marginal notes not determinative of a provision's substance – Ensuring sanctity and legal validity of auction processes under SARFAESI Act – Precluding borrowers from thwarting auctions by redeeming mortgages at the last moment – Preserving the SARFAESI Act's objective of timely recovery of dues by banks without court intervention. [Para 73-82]

Exercise of Extraordinary Jurisdiction by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in SARFAESI Matters – Examination of the need for High Court interference in the present case – Key facts:

(a) The appellant successfully bid Rs. 105.05 crore for a secured asset.

(b) The Bank confirmed the sale to the appellant on June 30, 2023.

(c) On July 27, 2023, the appellant paid the full bid amount of Rs. 105.05 crore to the Bank.

(d) Out of this amount, the Bank appropriated Rs. 63,50,45,000 against the Borrowers' dues.

(e) The Bank failed to issue the sale certificate to the appellant on July 27, 2023.

(f) The Borrowers invoked the Writ Jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court under Article 226, fearing their application in DRT might be denied.

(g) The Bombay High Court allowed the Writ Petition, citing a consent granted by the Bank to extend the Borrowers' repayment deadline until August 31, 2023.

Justification for entertaining the Writ Petition – High Court's rationale for entertaining the Writ Petition based on "peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case" and consensus between the Respondent Bank and the Petitioners – Analysis of High Court's decision – Conclusion that Writ Petition was not an abuse of process. [Para 91]

High Court's Exercise of Writ Jurisdiction – Reminder of High Courts not to entertain petitions under Article 226 if an effective remedy is available under the SARFAESI Act – Citing Satyawati Tondon case and emphasizing the need to exhaust statutory remedies before approaching the High Court – Discretion to entertain such petitions should be exercised cautiously. [Para 92]

Supreme Court's observations in Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal – Recognition of exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy – High Court's reluctance to entertain a writ petition when an effective alternative remedy exists is still valid – Reference to Thansingh Nathmal case, Titaghur Paper Mills case, and other similar judgments. [Para 93]

Supreme Court's observations in Phoenix ARC Private Limited v. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir & Ors. – Writ petition against a private financial institution (ARC) under Article 226 not maintainable – Borrowers must avail the remedy under the SARFAESI Act – Criticism of High Court's grant of stay orders – Filing of writ petitions by borrowers deemed an abuse of process. [Para 94]

Supreme Court's observations in Varimadugu OBI Reddy – Disapproval of High Courts entertaining writ applications under Article 226 without exhausting alternative statutory remedies – Criticism of adopting a circuitous route to avoid pre-deposit conditions under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act. [Para 95]

Continued concern about High Courts ignoring statutory remedies under the RDBFI Act and the SARFAESI Act despite repeated Supreme Court pronouncements – Need for High Courts to exercise discretion cautiously in such matters. [Para 96]

Conduct of the Bank – Identification of the root cause in the Bank's actions – Failure to issue a sale certificate to the auction purchaser despite full payment and redemption rights lapsing – Acceptance of the borrower's offer for redemption against the statutory provisions – Inconsistent actions by the Bank. [Para 97-100]

Bank's Duty to Follow the Law – Emphasis on the Bank adhering to the law as any other litigant – Mention of the Bank's duty to follow the SARFAESI Act's provisions – Criticism of the Bank's inconsistent actions and deviation from legal requirements. [Para 100-101]

Bank's Contrary Actions to Supreme Court Judgments – Highlighting the Bank's actions going against two specific Supreme Court judgments – Satyawati Tondon and Varimadugu OBI Reddy. [Para 101]

Supreme Court's Observations in National Spot Exchange Ltd. v. Anil Kohli – Emphasizing that when the law is clear and unambiguous, it must be followed – Equity cannot override the law – Reference to several Supreme Court judgments on this matter. [Para 102]

Conclusions:

(i) High Court's exercise of writ jurisdiction not justified when borrowers had alternative remedies under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.

(ii) Confirmation of sale by the Bank vested the auction purchaser with the right to obtain a sale certificate, per Rule 9(6) of the SARFAESI Act.

(iii) Borrower's right of redemption extinguished under the amended Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act upon publication of the auction notice under Rule 9(1).

(iv) Bank could not withhold the sale certificate and enter into a private arrangement with the borrower after confirming the sale.

(v) High Court could not apply equitable considerations to override statutory auction processes.

(vi) Criticism of certain High Court decisions that did not follow the correct legal position.

(vii) Bank ordered to refund the borrowers' deposit and issue the sale certificate, with the appellant making an additional payment.

(viii) Pending applications disposed of. [Para 105-109]

Appeal Allowed and setting aside the High Court's decision.

Criminal Appeal – Interpretation of FEMA and FERA – Prosecution for offences under Sections 56 and 57 of FERA after repeal – Validity of complaints filed by an Enforcement Officer – Sunset period provided under Section 49(3) of FEMA – Legal fiction preserving the application of FERA for prosecution purposes – Court's duty to adopt an interpretation making statutory provisions workable. [Para 5-12]

Repeal and Saving – Effect of repeal of FERA by FEMA – Preservation of rights, liabilities, penalties, and prosecutions under FERA – Application of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act – Prosecution for offences under FERA continued despite repeal – Reference to precedent in M/s. P.V. Mohammad Barmay Sons v. Director of Enforcement. [Para 13-14]

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Trial Court directed to prioritize the disposal of the complaint bearing CC.No.14/CW/2002. [Para 15]

Premature Release - Life Imprisonment - Petitioner seeks release after serving over 26 years in custody - State government's repeated rejection of release - Constitutional rights enforcement - Evaluation of state's remission policy. [Para 1-8]

Constitutional Rights - Right to Consideration for Remission - Legal entitlement to be considered for remission after serving 25 years - Challenge to state's policy excluding certain crimes from remission - Violation of Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India. [Para 9]

Statutory Provisions and Rules - Applicability of Prison Laws and Rules - Interpretation of relevant statutory provisions and rules - The judgment discusses the applicability of the Travancore-Cochin Prison Act, the 1958 Rules, and the Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Act, 2010 in the context of the petitioner's case. It also references Section 433-A of the CrPC. [Para 17]

Premature Release - Eligibility for Premature Release - Criteria for considering premature release of convicts - The judgment explains the statutory provisions and rules governing premature release, including Section 77 of the 2010 Act and Rule 462 to 468 of the 2014 Rules. It emphasizes that convicts completing 14 years of actual imprisonment become eligible for consideration. [Para 18]

Application of Remission Policy - Determining the applicable remission policy - The judgment clarifies the principle that the remission policy prevailing on the date of conviction is to be applied in a case, and if a more liberal policy exists on the day of consideration, then the latter would apply. [Para 19]

Retroactive Effect of Conviction - Retroactive effect of appellate conviction - The judgment cites the Maru Ram case to explain that when a person is convicted in appeal, the appellate conviction must relate back to the date of the trial court's verdict, and the remission system prevailing prior to certain amendments applies. [Para 20]

Deemed Sentence for Life Imprisonment - Calculation of deemed sentence for life imprisonment - The judgment discusses how the 1958 Rules and the 2014 Rules fix 20 years as the deemed sentence for a convict sentenced to life imprisonment. [Para 22]

Statutory Discretion and Fair Exercise - Exercise of statutory discretion by the state government - The judgment underscores the importance of exercising discretion fairly, reasonably, and not arbitrarily when it comes to matters of premature release and remission. [Para 26]

Guidelines and Executive Instructions - The judgment critiques the government's guidelines and executive instructions related to premature release and highlights the need for flexibility and individual consideration in such matters. It expresses concern that rigid guidelines may overlook the reformative potential of each convict. [Para 28-33]

Release of the Petitioner - The judgment orders the immediate release of the petitioner, considering his good conduct and positive recommendations from the Jail Advisory Board. It concludes the writ petition in this regard. [Para 35]

Succession and Will - Validity of Will - Requirements under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Execution of Will - Proof of execution under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Principles for proving the validity and execution of a Will - Compliance with statutory provisions - Examination of attesting witnesses - Removal of suspicions - Role of the propounder - Allegations of fraud, fabrication, undue influence, and suspicious circumstances - Test of judicial conscience - Factors to consider in evaluating the execution of a Will. [Para 7-11]

Validity of Will - Application of principles for proving the validity and execution of the Will - Testimony of attesting witnesses - Compliance with statutory requirements - Lack of evidence to conclude mental instability or suspicious circumstances - No undue influence detected - No interference warranted - Allegations of bigamy and second marriage not relevant to the main issue. [Para 12-16]

Disposition of Appeal - Lack of merit in the appeal - Dismissal of the appeal - Consequential benefits to be disbursed in accordance with the law. [Para 16]