Facts:

The appellant, a charitable trust, entered into a lease deed with the respondent for developing its land. Disputes arose, and the respondent invoked an arbitration clause within the lease deed, seeking arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. However, the lease deed was insufficiently stamped and was subject to issues of compliance with stamp duty.

Issues:

Whether an arbitration clause within an insufficiently stamped lease deed can be relied upon for enforcing arbitration proceedings.

Whether the lease deed, given its insufficiency in stamp duty, can be considered valid and admissible for arbitration proceedings.

Held:

The court considered the provisions of Sections 33 and 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, and the precedent case of SMS Tea Estates Private Limited vs. Chandmari Tea Company Private Limited (2011) 14 SCC 66. The court held that when an arbitration agreement is contained within an unregistered but compulsorily registerable and insufficiently stamped instrument, the court cannot act upon the document or the arbitration clause. The court emphasized that the instrument must be duly stamped before it can be admitted in evidence or acted upon.

The court noted that the lease deed containing the arbitration clause was insufficiently stamped, and despite the Registrar's directive to pay the deficit stamp duty and penalty, the respondents failed to comply. Thus, the court concluded that the High Court's reliance on the insufficiently stamped lease deed for appointing an arbitrator was erroneous.

Additionally, the court observed that the respondent's claims regarding the timing of registering the lease deed contradicted the terms of the deed itself and found that the respondents' actions were inconsistent and unsupported.

In conclusion, the court allowed the appeal, quashed the High Court's order, and rejected the respondents' application under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act.

Facts:

The plaintiff filed a suit for partition and separate possession of a share in the property. He claimed to be a minor at the time of his father's death, asserting joint possession and enjoyment of the family property. The plaintiff's signatures were allegedly obtained on documents without his awareness of their contents.

Issues:

Whether the plaintiff was a minor at the time of executing the release deed.

Whether the release deed executed by the plaintiff is valid and whether he is entitled to a share.

Held:

The trial court found that the plaintiff's age on the release deed was recorded as about 22 years and that he married after executing the deed, indicating he was not a minor. The court did not consider the school leaving certificate as evidence due to lack of authentication. The trial court held that the plaintiff was not a minor at the time of the release deed's execution.

The first appellate court affirmed the trial court's findings. The plaintiff did not challenge the release deed in his plaint based on his minority. The appellate court found that the plaintiff left the joint family, received consideration for the release deed, and upheld the release deed's validity.

The High Court reversed the concurrent findings, considering the school leaving certificate (Ex.P/1) as admissible proof of the plaintiff's minority. However, the Supreme Court held that the certificate lacked proper authentication and did not prove the plaintiff's age. The Court emphasized that findings of fact cannot be interfered with in a second appeal unless they are perverse or against the provisions of law.

Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the plaintiff's suit was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Facts:

The appellant, a construction company, entered into a contract agreement with the State of Punjab for the construction of the Sutlej Yamuna Link Canal. The appellant claimed that the scope of work increased during execution due to various factors, leading to additional payments. Disputes arose, and the matter was taken to arbitration as per the agreement. The arbitrator passed an award, which was presented before the Senior Sub-Judge for approval. The opposite party objected to the award, alleging misconduct by the arbitrator and lack of reasoning in the award.

Issues:

Whether the arbitrator's award was sustainable, particularly the claims related to extra work and the calculation of premium rates.

Whether the absence of reasons in the arbitrator's award rendered it invalid.

Whether certain contractual clauses affected the claims made by the appellant.

Held:

Issue 1 - Claims for Extra Work and Premium Calculation (Para 8-16): The court found that the arbitrator's award lacked proper reasoning, as required by the contract. The contract explicitly demanded that all awards above a certain amount state the reasons for the awarded sum. The court emphasized the importance of reason-giving in quasi-judicial functions and concluded that the award's cryptic conclusion was insufficient. The court then determined that the claimant's argument, which calculated premium rates at 93.12% based solely on the difference between estimated and contract costs, was not justifiable. Clause 39 of the contract provided for the application of the Punjab Common Schedule of Rates, and a communication indicated a premium rate of 35.02%. The court held that the claims under Claim Nos. 2, 3, and 12 should be allowed with premium rates calculated at 35.02%, and the opposite party should make the necessary calculations and payments.

Issue 2 - Claim No. 8 for DALDAL Work (Para 17-18): The court recognized that Clause 39 required monthly statements for extra work claims. However, it held that such a clause should not be a strict bar when claims were substantiated and filed in the arbitration process. The court found that the arbitrator had considered relevant documents, such as soil identification and test results, while awarding an amount. The court ordered that the claim under Claim No. 8 should be calculated with premium at 35.02% and awarded to the claimant.

Issue 3 - Claim No. 16 and Interest (Para 19-20): The court upheld the decisions of the High Court and the First Appellate Court on Claim No. 16 and interest. It agreed with the reduction of interest to 12% per annum, in the absence of a specified interest rate in the contract.

Facts:

The case involved M/S Baspa Organics Limited (Appellant) and United India Insurance Company Limited (Respondent). The Appellant's chemical factory experienced a fire incident, and they filed an insurance claim with the Respondent. The claim was denied on the grounds that the Appellant had overvalued the factory for insurance purposes and had not possessed the necessary licenses for storing hazardous substances.

Issues:

Whether the Appellant was required to possess a license for storing hazardous substances, particularly Hexane, and whether the lack of a license constituted a material non-disclosure.

Whether the Appellant had overvalued the factory while obtaining insurance.

Held:

Issue 1 - Licensing and Non-Disclosure: The Court examined the Petroleum Act and Petroleum Rules, specifically Articles 3, 6, and 7 of the First Schedule to the 1976 Rules. It determined that the Appellant was required to possess a license for storing Hexane of the quantity in question. The exemption under the 2000 Order did not exempt the Appellant from obtaining a license under the Petroleum Act and Rules. Non-disclosure of non-possession of a required license was a material breach of the insurance policy's terms.

Issue 2 - Overvaluation: The Appellant's contention regarding overvaluation was not deeply argued. The Court refrained from examining this issue further, considering it a question of fact not requiring in-depth analysis.

Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the National Commission's decision that the insurance claim repudiation was justified due to breach of policy terms and failure to possess necessary licenses.

Facts:

The case concerns a contempt petition highlighting the increasing presence of politicians with pending criminal cases and the failure to comply with the directions given by the Constitution Bench in the case of Public Interest Foundation and Ors. vs. Union of India and Anr., (2019) 3 SCC 224. The Court notes the alarming rise in criminal cases involving politicians across the last four general elections, with 43% of MPs having criminal cases in 2019.

Issues:

The escalating criminalization of politics, lack of transparency regarding candidates' criminal records, and non-compliance with prior court directions.

Held:

The Court invokes its constitutional powers under Articles 129 and 142. It observes the absence of explanations from political parties for choosing candidates with criminal cases. The Court then issues directions:

Political parties must upload detailed information about candidates with criminal cases on their websites, along with reasons for selection and why non-criminal candidates weren't chosen.

Candidates should be chosen based on merit, not just electability.

Information must be published in local/national newspapers and party social media within 48 hours of selection or two weeks before nominations.

Political parties must submit compliance reports to the Election Commission within 72 hours.

Non-compliance will be treated as contempt.

Referred Case:

Public Interest Foundation and Ors. vs. Union of India and Anr., (2019) 3 SCC 224

Facts:The case pertains to the interpretation and application of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, and the subsequent amendment introduced by Act 45 of 2009. The amendment sought to remove the deeming provision that had previously capped monthly wages at Rs. 4,000 for compensation purposes. The question before the court was whether the benefits of the 2009 amendment should apply to accidents occurring prior to its enactment on January 18, 2010.

Issues:

Whether the benefits of Act 45 of 2009, removing the deeming cap on monthly wages for compensation, apply to accidents that occurred prior to its enactment.

Whether the objective of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, and its subsequent amendment, Act 45 of 2009, support the extension of the amendment's benefits to pre-amendment accidents.

Held:

Issue 1: The court observed that the objective of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, was to provide relief to economically disadvantaged employees facing work-related risks. The amendment introduced by Act 45 of 2009 aimed to eliminate the deeming cap on monthly wages for compensation, ensuring that employees receive compensation based on their actual wages. However, the court held that there was no indication in Act 45 of 2009, either express or implied, that the legislature intended to apply its benefits retroactively to accidents occurring before its enactment. Therefore, the court concluded that the benefits of Act 45 of 2009 do not extend to accidents that occurred prior to its coming into force. (Para 25, 26)

Issue 2: The court emphasized that while amendments enhancing compensation benefit employees, they correspondingly impose a burden on employers to pay higher compensation rates. The court reiterated that the relevant date for determining compensation remains the date of the accident. In the present case, where the accident occurred on January 31, 2008, the court held that the High Court's extension of Act 45 of 2009's benefits was incorrect. (Para 28, 32, 33)

The court upheld the award of compensation ordered by the High Court since the employer had provided evidence of the deceased employee's monthly wage, and no appeal had been filed by the respondents against the High Court's compensation enhancement. The court emphasized that this decision was made under its inherent jurisdiction in accordance with Article 142 of the Constitution. (Para 34)

Facts:

Between 1999 and 2001, ONGC appointed about 800 persons on a term basis for four years. The appointments were made after interviews, but without public advertisement. The appellant-Employees Union demanded regular appointments for 577 term-based employees appointed by ONGC between 1991 and 2001. An industrial dispute arose, and the matter was referred to the Industrial Tribunal.

Issues:

The determination of the date from which the concerned workmen should be treated as regularized employees.

Held:

The Supreme Court noted that the employees' union sought full regularization from the date of initial appointment, while the High Court had granted regularization from a later date. The Court distinguished relevant judgments. It held that the concerned workmen, including those who were already regularized, should be treated as regular employees from the date on which the industrial dispute was referred (21.12.2004). The Court ordered all actual benefits to be granted from that date until 01.04.2013. The other directions given by the Single Judge were upheld. The appeal was allowed accordingly.

Facts:

Padma Mishra filed a writ petition to quash an FIR accusing them of gang-related activities under the Gangsters Act. The FIR alleged violent actions, threats, and coercion to disrupt public order and intimidate witnesses.

Issues:

Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the writ petition that sought to quash the FIR based on the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.

Held:

The Division Bench of the Supreme Court, consisting of Indira Banerjee and Aniruddha Bose, JJ., considered the appellant's appeal against the High Court's dismissal of the writ petition. The Court analyzed the definitions of "gang" and "gangster" as provided in Sections 2(b) and 2(c) of the Gangsters Act. It noted that a "gangster" includes a member, leader, or organizer of a gang involved in anti-social activities that disturb public order or seek undue advantage.

The Court emphasized that in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court's role is not to determine the accuracy of allegations in an FIR but to intervene only in exceptional cases where the allegations do not disclose any offense. The Court referred to the FIR's allegations of violent and coercive activities, which included threats and physical violence to silence witnesses. These activities were categorized as falling under the definition of "gangster" as per the Gangsters Act.

The Court clarified that the High Court had correctly refused to quash the FIR under Article 226 of the Constitution and had rightly dismissed the writ petition. It held that since the allegations in the FIR ex facie disclosed acts warranting penalization under the Gangsters Act, the appeal was dismissed.

Final Result : Dismissed

Facts:

Balwant Singh and Dungar Singh, real brothers, had disputes over the partition of family properties after their father's death. They opted for arbitration, appointing close relatives as arbitrators. The arbitrators passed an award on 23-11-1981, which the District Judge initially dismissed due to concerns about the arbitration process. The High Court later declared the award valid and enforceable.

Issues:

Was the arbitration award valid and enforceable despite objections raised?

Did the subsequent settlement modify the terms of the original award?

Held:

The arbitration award, though passed on the same day, was valid since it was unanimous and based on mutual consent. The arbitrators' close relationship with the parties did not invalidate the award, and no misconduct was established.

The High Court's decision to uphold the arbitration award was justifiable, given that no misconduct was proven, and the arbitrators' decision was based on the parties' claims and due deliberation.

The subsequent settlement, reached with the consent of both parties, modified the terms of the original award. The modified settlement included the payment of Rs. 10,00,000/- to one party in lieu of jewelry and the continuation of litigation over specific land.

Decision: Based on the parties' consent and the modified settlement, the Supreme Court disposed of the appeal. A decree reflecting the modified settlement's terms was ordered.