Hindu Law – Maintenance Rights – A Hindu widow's right to maintenance is a tangible right against the property, recognized under Shastric Hindu Law and reinforced by subsequent legislation – Exclusive possession of HUF property by a widow presumes the property was earmarked for her maintenance, creating a pre-existing right that can convert to full ownership under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [Paras 14-20].

Possession and Ownership – Section 14(1) of Hindu Succession Act – The term "possessed by" includes ownership without physical possession, thereby converting limited ownership of a Hindu widow into full ownership – The widow’s settled possession and right to maintenance from the estate entitle her to full ownership under the Act [Paras 11-13, 20-21].

Civil Procedure – Appeal and Mesne Profits – Dismissal of suit for possession and mesne profits affirmed – Widow’s claim to the property upheld, recognizing her absolute ownership by virtue of Section 14(1) [Paras 21-22].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court's decision upheld – Hindu widow's right to maintenance confirmed as a basis for full ownership of the property under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Parties to bear their own costs [Para 22].

Medical Admissions – NRI Quota – Unfilled NRI quota seats in private medical colleges cannot be transferred to the unreserved category without proper legal provisions – The High Court's decision allowing such a transfer based on Clause 5.5.4 of the Prospectus was erroneous, as NRI quota does not fall under 'special reservation' as defined in the Prospectus [Paras 10-11].

Extension of Time – Sufficient Time Provided – The appellants sought an extension of time for the submission of documents for the NRI quota, but sufficient extensions had already been provided – The request for further extension was rightly rejected by the CEE [Paras 7, 19].

Precedents and Observations – Conflict in Judgments – The issue of transferring vacant NRI seats is pending before a Constitution Bench – Previous judgments in Modern Dental College cases and PA Inamdar establish that NRI quota seats should be filled by the management at its discretion if unfilled [Paras 12-15].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – The conversion of vacant NRI seats to unreserved seats was done per the Information Bulletin, which was not challenged – No further extension of time for submission of NRI quota documents granted – Parties to bear their own costs [Paras 20-21].

Governor’s Discretion – Non-Exercise of Article 161 – The advice of the State Cabinet is binding on the Governor in matters relating to commutation or remission of sentences under Article 161 of the Constitution – The Governor does not have the authority to refer the recommendation of the State Cabinet to the President of India – Inordinate delay in exercising such power not attributable to the prisoner is subject to judicial review [Paras 13-20, 29(a)-(c)].

Judicial Review – Immunity and Limits – While the Governor enjoys immunity under the Constitution, non-exercise of power under Article 161 is not immune from judicial review – The reference by the Governor to the President of India was without constitutional backing and inimical to the constitutional scheme [Paras 20, 29(b)-(c)].

Exceptional Circumstances – Article 142 – In light of the prolonged incarceration of the appellant, satisfactory conduct in jail, educational qualifications acquired, chronic ailments, and the pendency of the petition under Article 161 for over two and a half years, the Supreme Court exercised its power under Article 142 to deem the appellant to have served his sentence – The appellant, already on bail, was set at liberty forthwith [Paras 28-29(f)].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Appellant deemed to have served the sentence in connection with Crime No. 329 of 1991 – Appellant set at liberty forthwith – Bail bonds cancelled [Paras 28-30].

Arbitration – Jurisdictional Seat – The appointment of a new arbitrator who conducts arbitration proceedings at a different location does not change the jurisdictional 'seat' already fixed by the first arbitrator – The place of arbitration in such an event should be treated as a venue where arbitration proceedings are held – Jurisdictional 'seat' remains static once determined by the arbitrator unless parties mutually agree to change it [Paras 2, 23, 27].

Arbitration – Party Autonomy – Section 20 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Parties are free to agree on the place of arbitration (seat) – If the parties do not specify the seat, the arbitrator determines it – Once determined, the seat provides exclusive jurisdiction to the courts of that place [Paras 16-17, 20].

Case Laws Discussed – The Court referred to decisions in Antrix Corpn. Ltd. v. Devas Multimedia (P) Ltd., BGS SGS Soma JV v. NHPC Limited, Bhartiya Aluminium Company v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc, Brahmani River Pellets Limited v. Kamachi Industries Limited, C v. D, Indus Mobile Distribution Private Limited v. Datawind Innovations Private Limited and Others, Inox Renewables Ltd v. Jayesh Electricals Ltd., State of West Bengal and Others v. Associated Contractors to elucidate the principles governing the 'seat' of arbitration and its jurisdictional implications [Paras 14-22, 27-30].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Jurisdictional 'seat' fixed by the first arbitrator remains unchanged – Delhi courts lack jurisdiction as the jurisdictional 'seat' is Panchkula, Haryana – Parties to bear their own costs [Paras 33-34].

Fraud and Collusion – The appellant is the victim of fraud played by the original plaintiff and defendant (wife and husband) – The original plaintiff obtained a collusive decree in her favor against the original defendant (her husband) without contest, claiming the property based on an unsubstantiated family settlement – The appellant purchased the property based on a sale deed executed by the original defendant, who concealed the prior decree – The First Appellate Court's decision setting aside the trial court's judgment was justified, and the High Court erred in reversing it [Paras 3-4, 6-7].

Limitation – Suit for Cancellation of Sale Deed – The suit seeking cancellation of the sale deed must be filed within three years from the date of knowledge of the sale deed – The suit filed by the original plaintiff after five years was barred by limitation – The relief of possession being a consequential prayer does not extend the limitation period for the substantive relief of cancellation of the sale deed [Paras 6-7].

Bona Fide Purchaser – The appellant, a bona fide purchaser, acquired the property for valuable consideration without knowledge of the prior collusive decree – The High Court failed to appreciate the appellant's position as a bona fide purchaser and the fraudulent nature of the prior decree [Paras 6-7].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The impugned judgment of the High Court quashed – Judgment of the First Appellate Court restored – Suit filed by the original plaintiff dismissed – No order as to costs [Para 8].

Quashing Criminal Proceedings – Inherent Powers of High Court – Section 482 CrPC – The High Court must provide a reasoned and speaking order while quashing criminal proceedings – The ground "no useful purpose will be served by prolonging the proceedings" is inadequate for quashing proceedings when a clear case for the offences alleged is made out – High Court's cryptic, non-reasoned order quashing the proceedings is unsustainable [Paras 3, 6.2-6.4].

Application of Mind – The High Court failed to apply its mind independently to the allegations and the legality of the Magistrate's order – The Magistrate issued summons after due application of mind and considering the statements and evidence on record – The High Court's order lacked proper reasoning and independent assessment of the case [Paras 6.1-6.4].

Restoration of Magistrate’s Order – The Supreme Court restored the Magistrate’s order summoning the accused, emphasizing the need for a thorough judicial approach when dealing with serious allegations under Sections 307, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(10)(15) of the SC/ST Act [Paras 6.4-7].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s order quashed – Magistrate’s order summoning the accused restored – No useful purpose served ground rejected – High Court must provide reasoned orders in such matters [Para 7].

Restoration of Forfeited Property – Rule 119(2) – The Government amended Rule 119(2) to allow restoration of forfeited property if applications were made within one year from the date of the amendment – The appellant applied for restoration within the prescribed period – The High Court quashed the Forest Department’s transfer of the property and restored it to the respondent, who continued possession despite forfeiture for non-payment of revenue [Paras 4-5, 10-11].

Forest Department’s Intervention – The property was transferred to the Forest Department for a land bank, not as a reserved forest – The Government Order did not affect the respondent’s right to restoration under the amended Rule 119(2) – The respondent's possession and cultivation of the property were recognized, and the Forest Department's objections were found impermissible [Paras 12-17].

Judicial Review – Factual Findings – The High Court’s findings on possession and restoration were based on factual records and reports, which are not subject to reappreciation under the limited scope of Article 136 – The factual continuity of possession by the respondent supported the restoration claim under the amended rule [Paras 15-18].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court’s decision upheld – Property restored to respondent – No order as to costs [Paras 18-19].

Contempt Jurisdiction – Appointment Process – The SCSC recommended 41 persons for appointment as ITAT members (28 in the main list and 13 in the waitlist) – The Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) selected 22 persons, leaving 19 unappointed – The Court found the Government's selective appointment process lacked transparency, especially in handling subsequent feedback and Intelligence Bureau (IB) reports not presented to the SCSC – The feedback lacked underlying material, affecting the fairness of the selection process [Paras 4-12].

Procedural Fairness – Subsequent Inputs – All inputs, including IB reports and other feedback, must be presented to the SCSC before finalizing recommendations – In exceptional cases where new material emerges post-recommendations, it should be referred back to the SCSC for consideration to ensure procedural integrity – The Attorney General's submissions were noted, and the Government was directed to submit all relevant materials to the SCSC for reevaluation [Paras 11-13].

Pending Vacancies – The pendency position before the ITAT was reviewed, highlighting the need for filling vacancies to manage the backlog – Contempt proceedings were not pursued further; instead, the petition was converted to an interlocutory application – The Court scheduled a follow-up hearing to monitor the final decision and appointment orders [Paras 14-19].

Decision: Contempt Petition re-numbered as interlocutory application – Government directed to submit all relevant materials to SCSC within one week – Final decision on appointments to be reported to the Court – Case listed for further hearing on 12 July 2022 [Paras 18-20].

Promotion Criteria – Medical Fitness – The Indian Army's promotion to higher ranks, including that of Major General, requires meeting medical fitness criteria – Regulation 67(b) allows officers with specific medical classifications to be considered for promotion if certain conditions are met – The No.1 Selection Board considered the respondent's medical status and recommended his promotion, which was approved by the Chief of Defence Staff and the competent authority [Paras 8-11].

Medical Classification – SHAPE-2 to SHAPE-1 – Despite initial SHAPE-2 classification due to hypertension, the respondent's medical condition improved to SHAPE-1 as per the Re-Medical Board on 20.09.2021 – The respondent was found asymptomatic and without medication – The Military Secretary's objections to the promotion based on medical fitness were overruled by the tribunal, considering the improved medical status and performance of duties [Paras 12-16].

Authority and Procedure – The No.1 Selection Board's recommendations, endorsed by the Chief of Defence Staff and other high-ranking officials, were found valid – The tribunal emphasized that the selection process considered all relevant medical records and the respondent's ability to perform duties in the next higher rank [Paras 13-14].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Armed Forces Tribunal's order promoting Brigadier Javed Iqbal to Major General upheld – No order as to costs – Immediate implementation of the tribunal's order directed [Paras 17-19].