Service Law – Pension Fixation – Respondent retired as a selection grade Lecturer on voluntary retirement w.e.f. 31.7.2006 – Initial pension fixation errors corrected by High Court, confirming pre-revised pension at Rs. 8907 – Revised pension fixed at Rs. 19334 w.e.f. 1.1.2006 following High Court directions – Appellant challenged revised fixation citing leave without allowances period – Court upheld fixation based on average emoluments as if uninterrupted service – Account General's pension fixation upheld [Paras 1-10].

Average Emoluments Calculation – Kerala Service Rules – Circulars G.O.(P) No. 211/2011/Fin dated 7.5.2011 and G.O.(P) No. 230/2012/Fin dated 19.4.2012 – Clarified computation of average emoluments over 10 months preceding retirement, considering notional pay adjustments during leave without allowances – Court emphasized correct application of rule and circulars in pension fixation [Paras 5-9].

Legal Interpretation – Service Rules and Pension – Circulars must be read to provide equitable pension calculations ensuring uninterrupted service emoluments – Employee's pension to reflect potential earnings without penalizing for leave without allowances – Rule interpretation supported by High Court directions [Paras 7-9].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – High Court judgment confirming Accountant General's pension fixation upheld – No costs awarded [Para 10].

Criminal Procedure – Jurisdiction of Court-Martial vs. Criminal Courts – Concurrent jurisdiction exists for court-martial and ordinary criminal courts in cases involving army personnel charged with civil offences – Section 125 of the Army Act grants discretion to the designated officer to decide the trial forum – Designated officer's decision not to exercise this discretion implies default to ordinary criminal court jurisdiction – High Court erred in holding that only court-martial had jurisdiction – Sessions Judge’s competence affirmed, trial to proceed in criminal court [Paras 1-48].

Sections 69 and 125 of the Army Act – Interpretation – Section 69 subjects army personnel to Army Act for civil offences unless Section 70 applies – Section 125 provides discretion to the designated officer to opt for court-martial – No inherent ouster of criminal court jurisdiction without designated officer's decision for court-martial – Conjunctive requirement under Section 125 necessitates an explicit decision for court-martial jurisdiction [Paras 14-45].

Procedural Compliance – Section 475 CrPC and 1978 Rules – Magistrate required to issue notice to commanding officer to decide trial forum – However, established cooperation of army authorities and deferral to criminal court proceedings indicated compliance – High Court’s insistence on certified decision documents misplaced, given factual cooperation and evidence during criminal trial [Paras 46-48].

Punishment under Army Act vs. IPC – Concurrent jurisdiction ensures no preferential treatment in sentencing – Army Act provides for lesser punishment in certain offences, not for serious offences like murder – Interpretation confirms no legislative intent to favor military personnel over ordinary law application for grave crimes [Para 49-50].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court judgment set aside – Sessions Judge’s jurisdiction affirmed – Trial to resume from stage of interruption by jurisdictional decision – Accused transferred from military to civil custody for trial conclusion [Paras 51-52].

Criminal Law – Attempt to Murder – Conviction – Appellant convicted under Section 307/34 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act – No evidence establishing appellant fired a gun at police – Disparity in FSL report indicating no use of the gun seized from appellant – Conviction for attempt to murder and under Section 27 Arms Act set aside – Conviction under Section 25(1B)(a) Arms Act upheld [Paras 1-8].

Evidence and Proof – Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) Report – FSL report did not match cartridges with appellant’s gun – Testimonies of police personnel did not establish appellant’s intent or act of firing – Lack of independent witnesses further weakens prosecution’s case – Conviction under Section 307 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act unsustainable [Paras 2-8].

Defense Argument – False Implication – Appellant argued false implication by police after surrendering son – Proceedings prepared at police station, not on spot – Reasonable doubt established regarding appellant's guilt [Para 7].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 307/34 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act set aside – Appellant acquitted of these charges – Conviction under Section 25(1B)(a) Arms Act sustained – Appellant to be released if not required in any other case [Para 9].

Arbitration – Jurisdiction of Arbitrator – Lease and dealership agreements are distinct – Arbitration clause in dealership agreement invoked for dispute – Arbitrator appointed under dealership agreement adjudicated lease agreement issues – Held, arbitrator exceeded jurisdiction – Award on lease rent and term set aside [Paras 1-61].

Contractual Interpretation – Arbitrator’s Power – Arbitrator bound to act within terms of the contract – Misinterpretation vs. Ignoring terms – Arbitrator cannot alter lease agreement terms unless expressly permitted – Award increasing lease rent and altering lease term against contract and public policy [Paras 44-48].

Public Policy – Fundamental Principles – Award contradicting contract terms shocks conscience of the court – Arbitrator’s deviation from contract violates public policy – Lease rent increase and lease term reduction not permissible under existing agreement [Paras 49-51].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court judgment set aside – District Court judgment partly set aside – Arbitral award modified to exclude increased lease rent and reduced lease term – Lease agreement terms restored [Paras 60-61].

Civil Procedure – Contempt Jurisdiction – Order 39 Rule 2A CPC – Contempt for wilful disobedience requires proof of intentional, conscious, and deliberate violation of court orders – Mere disobedience insufficient for contempt – Court must exercise contempt powers cautiously, requiring evidence of bad purpose or stubborn, obstinate actions – Casual, accidental, bona fide, or unintentional acts excluded from "wilful" category [Paras 1-7].

Arbitration – Emergency Arbitrator’s Award – Enforceability – Emergency Arbitrator’s award under SIAC Rules can be enforced under Section 17(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Interim orders of Emergency Arbitrator considered valid and enforceable by Indian courts – Orders must be treated as orders of the court under Section 17(2) for enforcement [Paras 8-19].

Natural Justice – Procedural Compliance – Fair Hearing – Parties must be given sufficient opportunity to file responses and raise defenses – Orders passed without affording opportunity violate principles of natural justice – Courts must ensure procedural fairness, especially in commercial matters impacting economy and employment [Paras 33-38].

Interim Orders and Balance of Convenience – Courts must ensure interim orders do not disrupt ongoing proceedings unless necessary to protect rights – Courts should avoid substantive observations on merits during interim stages – Interim orders must balance interests without causing undue prejudice to parties [Paras 43-44].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Impugned orders dated 02.02.2021 and 18.03.2021 in OMP (ENF)(Comm.) No. 17 of 2021 set aside for procedural irregularities and lack of opportunity to appellants – Impugned order dated 29.10.2021 in Arb. A. (Comm.) No. 64 and 63 of 2021 set aside – Matters remitted for reconsideration on merits – Courts to ensure compliance with natural justice and procedural fairness in subsequent hearings [Para 47].

Hindu Succession Act – Absolute Property – Section 14(1) – Property of a female Hindu to be her absolute property – Objective is to convert limited interest of a wife into absolute ownership if the property was acquired in lieu of maintenance – A Hindu male can create a limited estate in a will for his wife, but it will mature into an absolute estate under Section 14(1) if for maintenance [Paras 1-18].

Will Interpretation – Limited vs. Absolute Ownership – Testamentary disposition by Tulsi Ram bequeathed limited ownership to wife Ram Devi for maintenance, to become absolute estate of appellant after her lifetime – Limited estate does not convert to absolute under Section 14(2) if created by will with restricted terms, unless it confirms a pre-existing right [Paras 19-31].

Res Judicata – Binding Precedent – Previous litigation adjudicated limited ownership of Ram Devi up to Supreme Court – Purchasers from Ram Devi cannot inherit better title – Transactions during litigation not bona fide, reflect attempt to undermine appellant’s rightful inheritance [Paras 32-34].

Legal Precedent – Shakuntla Devi Case – Not applicable as it dealt with pre-1956 will – Distinguishing factor that the rights were adjudicated in previous litigation with finality up to Supreme Court – No change in law applicable to current case [Paras 34-35].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Impugned High Court judgment set aside – Trial court judgment dated 13.8.2009 and first appellate court judgment dated 7.10.2010 reaffirmed – Respondents’ sales deeds declared unsustainable – Parties to bear their own costs [Paras 35-36].

Criminal Law – Conviction – Eyewitness Testimonies – Appellant convicted under Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC – Prosecution's case based on testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 – Material contradictions and improvements in testimonies – Cross-examination revealed inconsistencies and doubts about presence at the scene – Conviction cannot be sustained on such doubtful evidence [Paras 14-18].

Medical Evidence – Postmortem Report – Only one firearm injury found despite multiple accused allegedly firing – Injury pattern inconsistent with prosecution's narrative – Testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 regarding multiple attacks by different accused on neck not corroborated by medical evidence [Paras 16-17].

Benefit of Doubt – Inconsistencies and Doubts – Presence of key witnesses at crime scene in doubt – Prosecution failed to examine crucial witness (Chetram) – Accused entitled to benefit of doubt due to inconsistencies in prosecution's case and lack of credible evidence [Paras 18-19].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court judgment set aside – Appellants acquitted of charges – Ordered to be released from custody unless required in any other case [Para 19].

Criminal Law – Dying Declarations – Conviction based on dying declarations – If the Court is satisfied that the dying declaration is true and voluntary, it can base its conviction on it without corroboration – Case involved two dying declarations, one recorded by a police officer and another by a Magistrate – Trial Court convicted based on Magistrate's dying declaration, while High Court acquitted based on inconsistencies – Supreme Court reinstates Trial Court conviction, upholding the reliability of Magistrate's dying declaration [Paras 1-12].

Evidentiary Value – Magistrate's Dying Declaration – Higher credibility due to impartiality and responsibility – No allegations of bias against the Magistrate – High Court's reasoning for disregarding Magistrate's declaration not accepted – Declarations made under distress have higher trustworthiness [Paras 9-11].

Medical Evidence – Consistency with Dying Declarations – Injuries on the deceased corroborated with the dying declaration made to the Magistrate – Discrepancies in police officer's recorded statement not aligning with medical evidence, supporting the Magistrate's record [Para 10].

Multiple Dying Declarations – Acceptance Criteria – No absolute rule rejecting multiple dying declarations – Courts must examine facts and circumstances to determine reliability – Consistent incriminatory statements in multiple declarations increase reliability – Conviction can be based on reliable dying declarations without corroboration [Paras 9.1.2, 10.2].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court judgment set aside – Trial Court's conviction restored – Respondents to surrender to serve life imprisonment as ordered by the Trial Court [Paras 11-12].

Constitutional Law – Legislative Competence – Manipur Parliamentary Secretary Act, 2012 (2012 Act) – The 2012 Act provided for the appointment, salary, and allowances of Parliamentary Secretaries in Manipur – The Act was challenged in the High Court of Manipur for lack of legislative competence – The 2012 Act was repealed by the Manipur Parliamentary Secretary (Appointment, Salary, and Allowances and Miscellaneous Provisions) Repealing Act, 2018 (Repealing Act 2018) – The High Court declared both the 2012 Act and the Repealing Act 2018 as unconstitutional [Paras 1-4].

Repeal and Saving Clauses – The Repealing Act 2018 contained a saving clause to protect acts done under the 2012 Act – The High Court held the saving clause invalid as the State Legislature lacked competence to enact the 2012 Act – The Supreme Court evaluated the validity of the saving clause and the legislative competence to enact such provisions [Paras 5-7, 14-24].

Judicial Review and Prospective Overruling – Bimolangshu Roy Case – The Assam Parliamentary Secretary Act, 2004, which was similar to the 2012 Act, was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Bimolangshu Roy v. State of Assam – The Manipur Legislature repealed the 2012 Act in light of the Bimolangshu Roy judgment – The Supreme Court considered whether the Repealing Act 2018 could save past actions under the 2012 Act [Paras 10-14, 24-26].

Legislative Competence and Saving Clauses – The Supreme Court held that the Manipur Legislature could not use a saving clause to revive an unconstitutional statute – Acts done under the 2012 Act required saving to avoid confusion and protect third parties' interests [Paras 24-26].

Decision – Appeals disposed of – Manipur Legislature was competent to enact the Repealing Act 2018 – Saving clause in the Repealing Act 2018 struck down – Acts, deeds, and decisions taken under the 2012 Act during the tenure of Parliamentary Secretaries are saved under Article 142 of the Constitution [Paras 25-27].