Criminal Law – Transfer Petition – FIR Investigation – Non-Compliance by Investigating Officer – Petitioner sought transfer of C.F No. 2842/2018 from IVth Additional Judicial Magistrate, Nellore to Saket Court, New Delhi – Filed under Section 200 read with Section 190 Cr.P.C. for investigation into allegations of fraud (Sections 416, 418, 419, 420 IPC, etc.) – Petitioner claimed lack of proper investigation by Nellore police – Petition dismissed after directions for re-investigation under a new Investigating Officer were issued [Paras 1, 3, 9, 10, 11, 12].

Dispute Over Land Ownership – Petitioner and Respondents Related – Property dispute over Survey No.212/2 – Civil issues unresolved, court refrains from expressing any opinion on ownership [Paras 2].

Judicial Proceedings – Protest Petition – Final Report – SHO Nellore claimed filing of a final report on 08.12.2021, but no record of the report was found by the IVth Additional Judicial Magistrate – Conflicting statements made before High Court and Judicial Magistrate – SHO failed to file or re-submit final report despite repeated reminders from the court [Paras 7, 8, 9].

Court Directions – Investigation to be Handed Over to New Investigating Officer – Senior Superintendent of Police, Nellore, directed to assign new Investigating Officer for fresh investigation of FIR No. 244/2019 – Investigation to be concluded within three months – Previous final report declared "non-est" (null and void) – Fresh report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. to be filed [Paras 10].

Decision – Transfer petition dismissed as unnecessary – Case to remain under the jurisdiction of the IVth Additional Judicial Magistrate, Nellore, but with a fresh investigation as per court directions [Paras 11, 12].

Civil Law – Title Dispute – Compensation Allocation – Reversal of Lower Court Judgment – Appellant (Lakshmesh M.) claimed title to 1 acre and 12 guntas of land in Bangalore, which was granted to him by purchase from the original owner – Trial court upheld the Appellant’s title but awarded 30% of the compensation from the acquired portion to private defendants (members of a cooperative society) – High Court affirmed Appellant's title but upheld compensation to the private defendants – Held: Supreme Court reversed the compensation award, ruling that the Appellant is entitled to the full compensation for the acquired land [Paras 1-21].

Ownership of Property – Land Title – The Appellant proved ownership through a registered sale deed from the original owner, whose land was allotted occupancy rights under the Mysore Inams Abolition Act – The cooperative society members (Defendant No.1) attempted to claim rights over the land but failed to establish a valid title – High Court upheld the Trial Court's ruling confirming the Appellant’s ownership over the suit property [Paras 3-9].

Compensation Rights – Metro Rail Project Acquisition – The land was acquired for the Metro Rail Project – The High Court awarded 30% of the compensation to private defendants based on their possession of certain sites on the land, but without supporting legal claims – Supreme Court ruled that since these private defendants had not raised any claim for compensation at earlier stages, they were not entitled to a portion of the compensation for the acquired land – The Appellant was held to be the sole claimant of compensation for the entire acquired portion [Paras 15-20].

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – High Court's ruling on compensation to private defendants is set aside – Appellant entitled to the full compensation for the acquisition of the suit property for the Metro Rail Project – No costs awarded.

Transfer Petition – Request for Transfer of Proceedings – Insufficient Grounds for Transfer – The petitioner, P. Srinivasan, sought the transfer of criminal proceedings from Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, to Saket, New Delhi, primarily on the grounds of relocation and failure of local police to conduct proper investigation. The court observed that while the petitioner had legitimate grievances regarding the investigation, relocation alone was insufficient to justify transfer. Instead, the court expanded the scope of the petition and directed a fresh investigation by a new Investigating Officer – Transfer Petition dismissed, and fresh investigation ordered [Paras 5-11].

Failure of Local Police to File Final Report – Contradictory Statements by Police – Despite the Nellore police’s claim that a final report was submitted on 08.12.2021, there was no record of such a report being filed. The police took contradictory stands before the High Court and the Judicial Magistrate regarding the status of the final report. The court declared the purported final report as "non-est" and ordered the Senior Superintendent of Police, Nellore, to appoint a new Investigating Officer to complete the investigation within three months [Paras 9-10].

Judicial Oversight – Expanding Scope of Transfer Petition – Instead of transferring the case, the court took cognizance of the police's failure to file a proper report and ensured judicial oversight by issuing directions to expedite the investigation. The court emphasized that the transfer of proceedings should not be based solely on the petitioner’s convenience when more effective remedies could be provided through judicial orders [Paras 10-11].

Decision: The Transfer Petition is dismissed. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Nellore, is directed to appoint a new Investigating Officer to complete the investigation of FIR No. 244/2019 within three months. The purported final report is declared non-est, and a fresh report is to be filed under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. [Paras 10-11].

Service Law – Selection Process – Irregularities – Appellants challenged the selection process for Laboratory Attendants by PSEB, alleging non-transparent shortlisting and arbitrary criteria – The Single Judge set aside the selection, directing a fresh process with revised criteria, including the elimination of marks awarded for rural area residence – The Division Bench reversed, finding the process generally fair, except for the rural area marks – On appeal, it was held that the selection criteria lacked transparency and merit-based shortlisting – Held: The selection process is set aside, and fresh selection to be conducted based on revised criteria [Paras 1, 8, 14, Conclusion].

Shortlisting of Candidates – Transparency and Merit – The court found that PSEB had shortlisted candidates 63 times the number of vacancies without any pre-determined criteria for selection – Marks from the written test were not considered, and the selection process lacked clarity and merit-based assessment – Held: The selection should be based on written test scores, with only candidates five times the number of vacancies proceeding to the interview stage [Paras 8, 19, 20].

Rural Area Marks – Legal Validity – Both the Single Judge and the Division Bench concluded that awarding marks for rural area residence was legally impermissible – Citing the precedent in Abhishek Rishi v. State of Punjab, the court agreed that such a criterion violated constitutional principles of equality – Held: Marks for rural areas eliminated from the revised selection process [Paras 14, 22, Conclusion].

Selection Criteria – Proportionality of Marks – The court emphasized that the selection criteria for Laboratory Attendants must strike a balance between academic qualifications, practical knowledge, and interview performance – It directed that marks for the interview, practical knowledge, and experience should not exceed 1/3rd of the total marks – Held: The merit of candidates should be reassessed based on revised criteria, with greater weightage given to written examination scores [Paras 22, 25, Conclusion].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Judgment of the Division Bench set aside – Fresh selection process to be conducted by PSEB within eight weeks based on revised criteria, eliminating rural area marks and focusing on merit in the written examination – Candidates five times the number of vacancies to be shortlisted for interviews – Waiting list of 10 candidates to be prepared.

Property Law – Joint Ownership – Validity of Sale Deed – Appellant purchased property based on sale deed executed by one co-owner without partition – Trial Court dismissed suit for lack of possession, but First Appellate Court reversed decision, disbelieving family settlement and ruling no partition had occurred – High Court affirmed this decision – Held: Sale deed valid only for the share of the co-owner who executed it; other co-owners' rights unaffected [Paras 1-50].

Co-Ownership – Right to Transfer – Appellant acquired property through sale deed from one co-owner (Brij Mohan) – Respondent (Nandu Lal) challenged sale, claiming joint ownership and lack of partition – Court found no evidence of partition or gift of property by other co-owners – Held: Brij Mohan could only sell his own share, not the entire property [Paras 25-40].

Partition of Property – Joint Ownership – Property originally purchased by two brothers – After their deaths, property devolved equally to their heirs – No evidence of gift, family settlement, or relinquishment of rights by other heirs – Held: Property remained joint and unpartitioned, requiring determination of shares before full transfer could occur [Paras 35-50].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Appellant restrained from asserting rights beyond Brij Mohan's share – Partition necessary to determine respective ownership rights – No costs awarded.

False Statements in Writ Petition – Premature Release – Misrepresentation of Facts – The writ petition claimed that all four petitioners had completed 14 years of actual imprisonment without remission – The State's counter affidavit revealed that petitioners no. 2 and 4 had not completed 14 years of actual sentence – False assertions were made in both the petition and an email dated 15th July 2024, addressed to the Jail Authorities, repeating the misrepresentation – The Court noted that its interim relief granted on 19th July 2024 was based on incorrect statements regarding the furlough period of the petitioners – Held: The writ petition was dismissed with no relief granted to petitioners no. 2 and 4, and the State was directed to consider the case of petitioner no. 3 in accordance with applicable policies [Paras 1, 3, 6].

Failure to Verify Facts – Consequences for Legal Representation – While the Court recognized that exemplary costs were warranted due to the submission of false statements, it declined to penalize the petitioners for the errors made by their legal representatives – The Court emphasized that the judicial system operates on trust, and when false statements are presented, it shakes the court's faith in the Bar – The Court expressed concern over the increasing number of cases involving false statements and noted that this undermines the efficiency of judicial proceedings [Paras 2, 4, 5, 7].

Specific Relief for Petitioner No. 1 – Procedural Directions – As petitioner no. 1 had not exhausted his furlough period by 19th July 2024, the Court allowed him to challenge the impugned order dated 30th June 2023 before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution – The Court directed the State Government to consider petitioner no. 3’s case under the applicable remission policies, while no relief was granted to petitioners no. 2 and 4, as they had not completed the requisite period of imprisonment [Paras 8, 9, 11].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Petitioner no. 1 may challenge the relevant order before the High Court – The State was directed to consider petitioner no. 3’s case – No relief was granted to petitioners no. 2 and 4, and no costs were imposed on the petitioners despite the errors in legal representation [Paras 9, 10, 12].

Arbitration Law – Post-Award Interest – Section 31(7)(b) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act – Interest Awarded – The appellant, a contractor, was awarded a sum by an Arbitrator, but the Arbitrator denied post-award interest, mistakenly believing the contract prohibited it – The District Court reversed this decision and granted 18% interest from the date of the award – The High Court set aside this order, holding that the contract disallowed interest – Held: Post-award interest is statutorily mandated by Section 31(7)(b) and cannot be contracted out – Restoring the District Court's order of 18% post-award interest [Paras 1-9].

Contractual Provisions – Limitation on Pre-Award Interest – The High Court erroneously applied a contractual clause prohibiting interest on security deposits to the post-award period – Held: While Section 31(7)(a) allows parties to limit pre-award interest, Section 31(7)(b) mandates post-award interest regardless of contractual terms – Post-award interest is distinguishable from pre-award interest and cannot be waived by agreement [Paras 9-13].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court judgment set aside – District Court order granting 18% post-award interest restored – Parties to bear their own costs [Paras 14-15].

Family Law – Divorce by Mutual Consent – Settlement Agreement – Transfer Petition Disposed – The petitioner sought the transfer of a matrimonial suit under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, from Serampore, West Bengal, to Hisar, Haryana – The matter was referred to mediation, resulting in a settlement agreement where the parties agreed to divorce by mutual consent – The Supreme Court, exercising its powers under Article 142, dissolved the marriage by mutual consent and disposed of the transfer petition [Paras 1, 7].

Settlement Terms – Custody and Maintenance – As per the settlement, the custody of the minor child remained with the respondent, with visitation rights granted to the petitioner – The petitioner paid Rs. 28 lakhs to the respondent in three installments, after which neither party had any further claims against each other – All pending cases between the parties, including those under the Domestic Violence Act and Section 125 of the CrPC, were quashed [Paras 2, 5, 7(iv)].

Visitation Rights – Subsequent Mediation Agreement – An issue regarding visitation rights for the father was referred back to mediation, resulting in a new agreement allowing monthly virtual visitation and quarterly physical meetings with the child, supervised by the mother – The settlement was accepted, and the earlier clause denying visitation rights was ignored [Paras 3-4].

Article 142 of the Constitution – Divorce by Mutual Consent – The Supreme Court granted divorce by mutual consent in exercise of its extraordinary powers under Article 142, based on the settlement agreements dated 04.12.2023 and 22.08.2024 – The marriage between the parties was dissolved, and all pending litigation between them was quashed [Paras 6-7].

Decision – Transfer Petition Allowed – Divorce Granted – The Supreme Court, after considering the settlement agreements between the parties, dissolved the marriage by mutual consent and quashed all ongoing legal proceedings between them – The visitation rights issue was resolved through mediation, with the father granted monthly virtual and quarterly physical visitation – The petitioner's payment of Rs. 28 lakhs to the respondent was confirmed as full and final settlement for all claims – The transfer petition was allowed, and all related cases were disposed of [Paras 7-11].

Domestic Violence – Maintenance and Compensation – The appellant (wife) filed a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, seeking maintenance and compensation – The Magistrate awarded Rs. 12,000 per month as maintenance and Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation – The respondent (husband) did not challenge this order, which attained finality – The respondent later filed an application under Section 25 of the Act seeking revocation of the order on grounds of fraud, claiming that the appellant was employed – The Magistrate dismissed the application, but the Appellate Court remanded the matter for fresh consideration – On appeal, the Supreme Court found that the prayers for setting aside the original maintenance order and refund of maintenance were not maintainable under Section 25(2) of the Act as they pertained to a period prior to the order [Paras 1-4, 12-15].

Section 25(2) of the Act – Scope and Application – Section 25(2) permits alteration, modification, or revocation of orders made under the Act in case of a change in circumstances – However, the Court clarified that such changes must occur after the original order is passed and cannot retrospectively affect earlier periods – The respondent’s prayers to set aside the maintenance order and recover past payments were found to be inconsistent with the intent of Section 25(2) [Paras 13-15].

Finality of Orders – Appeal Dismissed Due to Delay – The respondent's failure to appeal the original order within the stipulated time led to its finality – The Court emphasized that an order cannot be set aside under Section 25(2) unless a change in circumstances is shown after the order is passed – Consequently, the prayers for retrospective revocation and refund were rejected [Paras 14-16].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Orders of the High Court and Appellate Court set aside – Application under Section 25 of the Act dismissed – Liberty granted to the respondent to file a fresh application if advised, but only concerning events post the original maintenance order [Paras 18-19].