Insolvency and Bankruptcy – Jurisdiction – National Green Tribunal (NGT) does not oust the jurisdiction of High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution – The power of judicial review remains intact and unaffected by the NGT Act – High Courts' prerogative to exercise writ jurisdiction continues [Paras 12-15].

Tribunal Location – Bench Establishment – The principle of proportionality applied – The NGT Benches need not be located in every State or at the principal seat of the High Court – Low volume of cases does not justify establishing NGT Benches in all States – Petitioners' plea for relocating NGT Bench from Bhopal to Jabalpur rejected [Paras 16-23].

Direct Appeal to Supreme Court – Constitutional Validity – Remedy of direct appeal to the Supreme Court under Section 22 of the NGT Act upheld – Does not amount to denial of access to justice – Right to appeal is statutory and cannot be created by judicial order – No rational basis to strike down Section 22 [Paras 24-31].

Delegation of Powers – Validity – Section 3 of the NGT Act not a case of excessive delegation – Government guided by the objectives of the Act and Supreme Court directions – Petitioners' reliance on the National Tax Tribunal case misplaced – Conditions of service and tenure under the Tribunal Reforms Act 2021 not within the scope of the instant proceedings [Paras 32-37].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – The National Green Tribunal's jurisdiction under Sections 14 and 22 does not oust the High Court's jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 – Section 3 of the NGT Act is not excessive delegation – The seat of the NGT benches can be located as per exigencies – Petitioners to bear their own costs.

Interim Administration – Committee of Administrators (CoA) – CoA constituted to formulate the Constitution of AIFF in line with National Sports Code and Model Guidelines – CoA to ensure constitution of Executive Committee and holding of elections – CoA reconstituted with three members: Justice Anil R. Dave, Dr. S.Y. Qureshi, and Mr. Bhaskar Ganguly – CoA to take charge of AIFF's affairs, prepare electoral roll, and manage day-to-day governance – Former Executive Committee to cooperate with CoA [Paras 2-8].

Constitution Formulation and Elections – Proposed Constitution to be circulated to all parties for objections/suggestions – Objections to be submitted by 30 June 2022 – CoA to collate and present a tabulated statement of objections and suggestions by 15 July 2022 – Elections to be conducted expeditiously after finalization of the Constitution – CoA to facilitate smooth governance until elections are held [Paras 4-10].

Compensation and Expenses – CoA to propose honorarium and reimbursement of incidental expenses for its members – CoA authorized to issue directions regarding operation of accounts and payment of expenses for AIFF’s functioning [Para 11].

Decision: Application for intervention allowed – Direction for temporary arrangement to facilitate AIFF elections – Process of conducting elections to be completed expeditiously – Objections to proposed Constitution to be heard on 21 July 2022 [Paras 1, 12].

Compromise Decree – Validity – A compromise decree cannot be appealed but must be challenged before the court that issued it, proving the agreement underlying the decree is invalid – High Court erred in setting aside Lok Adalat's compromise decree without thorough reasoning or considering fraud allegations [Paras 27-29, 34].

Lok Adalat Awards – Finality and Binding Nature – Awards by Lok Adalat are deemed decrees of civil courts and are final and binding – They can only be set aside upon proving fraud or invalidity of the agreement – The High Court's casual and unreasoned order undermines the sanctity of such awards [Paras 27-28, 35-36].

Fraud Allegations – Burden of Proof – Allegations of fraud must be strictly proved to invalidate an agreement or compromise decree – In this case, the respondents failed to provide conclusive proof of fraud – High Court's decision to set aside the compromise decree was not justified [Paras 32-35].

Decision: Impugned judgment of the High Court set aside – Order of the Lok Adalat dated 07th July 2012, recording the compromise between the parties, restored – Appeals allowed – Parties to bear their respective costs [Paras 37-38].

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].