Criminal Law - Right of Private Defence - Appellant No. 1 (Pathubha Govindji Rathod) argued the plea of private defence after being attacked with a knife, subsequently using a licensed firearm resulting in death - Supreme Court accepts the plea of private defence under Exception 2 of Section 300 IPC, altering conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part-I IPC - Sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment considering the time already served [Paras 11-17].

High Court Judgment Modified - For appellant No. 1, life sentence under Section 302 IPC converted to 10 years under Section 304 Part-I IPC - Other accused's sentences altered to lesser offences under IPC Section 323 without the aid of Section 149 IPC, treating already served time as sufficient [Para 9].

Evidence and Witness Testimony - Over 50 witnesses presented, including medical professionals and police investigators, highlighting severe injuries and fatalities among both groups involved in the altercation [Paras 3-6].

Trial Court Findings - Initial conviction for multiple accused on charges including murder, attempt to murder, and rioting, using weapons ranging from firearms to sticks [Para 7-8].

Principles of Private Defence - Referring to precedents, the Supreme Court discusses conditions under which private defence may justify exceeding legal bounds, leading to a conclusion that appellant No. 1's actions were a result of immediate personal threat [Paras 12-16].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed; appellant No. 1's conviction altered to Section 304 Part-I IPC from Section 302 IPC, sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment; conviction and sentences for other accused modified or upheld as appropriate; detailed directions regarding bail bonds and fine payments provided. The appeal stands disposed of.

Referred Cases:

Dr. Mohammad Khalil Chisti Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, (2013) 2 SCC 541

Bhanwar Singh and Others Vs. State of M.P., AIR 2009 SC 768

State of Rajasthan Vs. Manoj Kumar, (2014) 5 SCC 744

Property Ownership and Eviction Suit - Initially filed by Shiv Kumar Dubey as heir of Raj Kumar; after Shiv Kumar's death, his sons Kuldeep Kumar and Pradeep Kumar substituted as plaintiffs - Despite possessing a Will making them direct beneficiaries, they were described merely as heirs in the suit, leading to challenges in maintainability - Trial court ruled in favor of eviction but was reversed by District Judge on technical grounds regarding proper representation [Para 3-7].

Will and Succession - Raj Kumar's Will dated 14th December 1988 bequeathed property directly to his nephews, Kuldeep and Pradeep, bypassing Shiv Kumar - District Judge held eviction suit invalid as Shiv Kumar lacked standing post-Raj Kumar's death; High Court upheld this [Para 4-6].

Supreme Court Judgment - Focus on procedural error of plaintiffs' description not affecting the merits of the case or jurisdiction - Invocation of CPC Section 99 to correct errors not impacting case outcome - Reversed District Judge and High Court's decisions, restoring eviction order [Para 8-12].

Decision - Appeal allowed; trial court's eviction decree restored - Emphasized non-prejudicial nature of misdescription in legal suits where substantive rights are unaffected [Para 12].

Referred Cases:

None

Seniority Dispute in Promotions - Appeals arising out of disputes over the correct criteria for determining seniority among Junior Telecom Officers for promotion to Sub-Divisional Engineer positions - Prior conflicting decisions of the Supreme Court led to inconsistent application of seniority rules, prompting calls for a uniform standard. [Para 2-3]

Previous Judgments and Orders - Examination of previous Supreme Court judgments on similar issues revealed conflicting rulings on whether the date of passing departmental exams or date of recruitment should govern seniority - This inconsistency led to the formation of differing seniority lists, affecting promotions. [Para 3-4]

Restoration of Rights and Seniority Lists - Acknowledgment of the need to uphold promotions and seniority as previously determined by courts or under specific orders, without being affected by subsequent contrary rulings - Importance of maintaining stability in employment and promotion rights emphasized. [Para 5, 17-19]

Establishment of Expert Committee - Supreme Court's decision to establish an independent Expert Committee, headed by a retired High Court Judge, to examine and resolve the seniority and promotion issues comprehensively - Aim to ensure equitable treatment of all affected employees and maintain service harmony. [Para 20-22]

Final Order - Direction for the Expert Committee to submit a report within six months, with future court proceedings scheduled to address the findings and implement necessary corrections based on the committee's recommendations. [Para 21-26]

Decision: Appeals disposed of with directions for further proceedings based on the Expert Committee's report.

Referred Cases:

Union of India (UOI) Vs. Madras Telephone SC and ST Social Welfare Association, , (2006) 12 JT 360 : (2006) 9 SCALE 626 : (2006) 8 SCC 662 : (2006) 7 SCR 694 Supp : (2007) 2 SLJ 179

Union of India Vs. Madras Tele S.C. and S.T. Social Welfare Association, , AIR 2000 SC 1717 : (2000) 86 FLR 461 : (2000) 6 JT 471 : (2000) 4 SCALE 241 : (2000) 9 SCC 71 : (2000) SCC(L&S) 835 : (2000) AIRSCW 1529 : (2000) AIRSCW 4454 : (2000) 8 Supreme 456 : (2000) 3 Supreme 754

Promotee Telecom Engineers Forum and Others Vs. D.S. Mathur, Secretary, Department of Telecommunications, , (2008) CriLJ 2999 : (2008) 4 SCALE 815 : (2008) 11 SCC 579 : (2008) 2 SCC(L&S) 1069 : (2008) 3 SLJ 306

Land Acquisition and Planning – MRTP Act Section 127 – Challenge to State's authority to modify development plan after lapse of reservation period – Appellant's land was reserved for railway use which was not acquired within the statutory 10-year period – After serving the requisite notice and lapse of additional six months, land deemed released from reservation – State later proposed modifying the reservation to Development Plan Road – Held: Such modification by State unauthorized post-lapse as per MRTP Act – Appeal allowed, impugned modification quashed. [Paras 1-18]

Statutory Interpretation – Interpretation of Sections 127 and 37 of the MRTP Act juxtaposed with Land Acquisition Act – MRTP Act’s Section 127 empowers landowner to deem reservation lapsed if not acquired within specified period – Once reservation lapsed, subsequent modification by State under Section 37 to repurpose the land held impermissible. [Paras 14-17]

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court order and quashed the impugned State notification proposing the modification of the Development Plan, as the reservation of the land had already lapsed and the modification was found to be legally unsustainable.

Referred Cases:

Girnar Traders Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2007) 7 SCC 555

Shrirampur Municipal Council, Shrirampur Vs. Satyabhamabai Bhimaji Dawkher and Others, (2013) 5 SCC 627

Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Dr. Hakimwadi Tenants' Association and Others, (1988) 2 SCR 21

Prakash R. Gupta Vs. Lonavala Municipal Council and Others, (2009) 1 SCC 514

Criminal Law - Corruption - Conviction under Prevention of Corruption Act upheld despite hostile witness - Prosecution proved demand and acceptance of bribe through recovery of tainted money and corroborative testimonies despite complainant turning hostile - Conviction based on meticulous examination of material evidence, including the chain of recovery, witness testimonies, and statutory presumptions under Section 20 of the Act [Para 1-42].

Legal Procedure - Importance of timely cross-examination highlighted to prevent tampering and undue influence on witnesses - Supreme Court criticizes delays in cross-examination and unnecessary adjournments, emphasizing their detrimental effect on the fairness and efficacy of trials [Para 39-42].

Decision: The appeal is dismissed - The Supreme Court affirms the conviction of the appellant under the Prevention of Corruption Act, emphasizing the reliability and corroboration of evidence pertaining to the demand and acceptance of the bribe despite the complainant’s hostile testimony - The court reiterates the need for swift and efficient trial procedures, condemning unwarranted adjournments and delays in witness cross-examinations as harmful to justice delivery.

Referred Cases:

M.R. Purushotham Vs. State of Karnataka, , (2014) AIRSCW 5740 : (2014) 3 SCC 721

Satvir Singh Vs. State of Delhi, , (2014) AIRSCW 4924 : (2014) 9 SCALE 528

Suresh Budharmal Kalani @ Pappu Kalani Vs. State of Maharashtra, , AIR 1998 SC 3258 : (1998) CriLJ 4592 : (1998) 6 JT 371 : (1998) 5 SCALE 282 : (1998) 7 SCC 337 : (1998) 1 SCR 608 Supp : (1998) AIRSCW 3182 : (1998) 7 Supreme 378

Rammi @ Rameshwar etc. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, , AIR 1999 SC 3544 : (1999) CriLJ 4561 : (1999) 7 JT 247 : (1999) 6 SCALE 69 : (1999) 8 SCC 649 : (1999) 3 SCR 1 Supp : (1999) AIRSCW 3546 : (1999) 8 Supreme 364

C.M. Sharma Vs. State of A.P. Th. I.P., , AIR 2011 SC 608 : (2011) CriLJ 975 : (2010) 12 JT 546 : (2011) 1 RCR(Criminal) 183 : (2010) 12 SCALE 381 : (2011) AIRSCW 297

Megha Singh Vs. State of Haryana, , AIR 1995 SC 2339 : (1995) CriLJ 3988 : (1996) 11 SCC 709

Swaran Singh Vs. State of Punjab, , AIR 2000 SC 2017 : (2000) CriLJ 2780 : (2000) 6 JT 623 : (2000) 4 SCALE 153 : (2000) 5 SCC 668 : (2000) AIRSCW 1895 : (2000) 4 Supreme 364

Sita Ram Vs. The State of Rajasthan, , AIR 1975 SC 1432 : (1975) CriLJ 1224 : (1975) 2 SCC 227 : (1975) 7 UJ 563

S. Jeevanantham Vs. The State through Inspector of Police, TN, , (2004) CriLJ 3834 : (2004) 94 ECC 130 : (2004) 5 SCALE 780 : (2004) 5 SCC 230 : (2004) 1 SCR 607 Supp : (2004) AIRSCW 4203 : (2004) 4 Supreme 245

Shri Rabindra Kumar Dey Vs. State of Orissa, , AIR 1977 SC 170 : (1977) 43 CLT 1 : (1977) CriLJ 173 : (1976) 78 PLR 928 : (1976) 4 SCC 233 : (1976) SCC(Cri) 566 : (1977) 1 SCR 439

Syad Akbar Vs. State of Karnataka, , AIR 1979 SC 1848 : (1979) CriLJ 1374 : (1980) 1 SCC 30 : (1980) 1 SCR 95

C.M. Girish Babu Vs. CBI, Cochin, High Court of Kerala, , AIR 2009 SC 2022 : (2009) CLT 850 : (2009) 3 JT 32 : (2009) 3 SCALE 107 : (2009) 3 SCC 779 : (2009) 2 SCR 1021 : (2009) 2 UJ 990 : (2009) AIRSCW 1693

Bhagwan Singh Vs. The State of Haryana, , AIR 1976 SC 202 : (1976) CriLJ 203 : (1976) 1 SCC 389 : (1976) SCC(Cri) 7 : (1976) 2 SCR 921 : (1976) 8 UJ 78

The State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Bhagwant Kishore Joshi, , AIR 1964 SC 221 : (1964) CriLJ 140 : (1964) 1 LLJ 60 : (1964) 3 SCR 71

State rep. by Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Tiruchirapalli, Tamil Nadu Vs. V. Jayapaul, , (2004) CriLJ 1819 : (2004) 3 JT 633 : (2004) 3 SCALE 507 : (2004) 5 SCC 223 : (2004) 1 SCR 330 : (2004) AIRSCW 1762 : (2004) 3 Supreme 434

Hazari Lal Vs. State (Delhi Administration), , AIR 1980 SC 873 : (1980) CriLJ 564 : (1980) 2 SCC 390 : (1980) SCC(Cri) 458 : (1980) 2 SCR 1053

The State of Bihar Vs. Basawan Singh, , AIR 1958 SC 500 : (1958) CriLJ 976 : (1959) 1 SCR 195

Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh and Another Vs. The State of Vindhya Pradesh, , AIR 1954 SC 322 : (1954) CriLJ 910 : (1954) 1 SCR 1098

Suraj Mal Vs. State (Delhi Administration), , AIR 1979 SC 1408 : (1979) CriLJ 1087 : (1979) 4 SCC 725 : (1980) SCC(Cri) 159 : (1979) 11 UJ 916

Major E.G. Barsay Vs. The State of Bombay, , AIR 1961 SC 1762 : (1961) CriLJ 828 : (1962) 2 SCR 195

K.S. Panduranga Vs. State of Karnataka, , (2013) 3 AD 414 : AIR 2013 SC 2164 : (2013) 116 CLT 669 : (2013) CriLJ 1665 : (2013) 3 CTC 631 : (2013) 3 JT 514 : (2013) 2 RCR(Criminal) 219 : (2013) 3 SCALE 152 : (2013) 3 SCC 721 : (2013) 1 SCC(L&S) 791 : (2013) AIRSCW 1382

Banarsi Dass Vs. State of Haryana, , AIR 2010 SC 1589 : (2010) CriLJ 2419 : (2010) 2 Crimes 351 : (2010) 3 JT 552 : (2010) 4 SCC 450 : (2010) 4 SCR 383

B. Jayaraj Vs. State of A.P., , (2014) AIRSCW 2080 : (2014) CriLJ 2433 : (2014) 7 JT 381 : (2014) 4 SCALE 81

Bhagwan Singh Vs. The State of Rajasthan, , AIR 1976 SC 985 : (1976) CriLJ 713 : (1976) 1 SCC 15 : (1975) 7 UJ 680

Khujji alias Surendra Tiwari Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, , AIR 1991 SC 1853 : (1991) CriLJ 2653 : (1991) 3 Crimes 82 : (1991) 3 JT 151 : (1991) 2 SCALE 80 : (1991) 3 SCC 627 : (1991) 3 SCR 1

Sat Paul Vs. Delhi Administration, , AIR 1976 SC 294 : (1976) CriLJ 295 : (1976) 78 PLR 194 : (1976) 1 SCC 727 : (1976) SCC(Cri) 160 : (1976) 2 SCR 11

Gurnaib Singh Vs. State of Punjab, , (2013) CriLJ 3212 : (2013) 3 JCC 1775 : (2013) 8 JT 1 : (2013) 3 RCR(Criminal) 407 : (2013) 7 SCALE 89 : (2013) 7 SCC 108 : (2013) AIRSCW 4956

Madhukar Bhaskarrao Joshi Vs. State of Maharashtra, , (2001) CriLJ 175 : (2000) 2 JT 458 Supp : (2000) 7 SCALE 382 : (2000) 8 SCC 571 : (2000) 4 SCR 475 Supp : (2001) 1 UJ 323

M.O. Shamsudhin Vs. State of Kerala, , (1995) 2 Crimes 282 : (1995) 3 JT 367 : (1995) 2 SCALE 298 : (1995) 3 SCC 351 : (1995) 2 UJ 79

M. Narsinga Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, , AIR 2001 SC 318 : (2001) CriLJ 515 : (2000) 3 JT 559 Supp : (2000) 10 JT 268 : (2000) 8 SCALE 303 : (2001) 1 SCC 691 : (2000) 5 SCR 584 Supp : (2000) AIRSCW 4427 : (2000) 8 Supreme 498

Raghubir Singh Vs. State of Haryana, , AIR 1974 SC 1516 : (1974) CriLJ 1062 : (1974) 4 SCC 560 : (1974) SCC(Cri) 596 : (1974) 3 SCR 799

State of Maharashtra Vs. Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao Wankhede, , (2009) 12 JT 515 : (2009) 10 SCALE 355 : (2009) 15 SCC 200 : (2009) 12 SCR 513

T. Subramanian Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, , AIR 2006 SC 836 : (2006) 101 CLT 516 : (2006) CriLJ 804 : (2006) 1 JT 101 : (2006) 1 SCALE 116 : (2006) 1 SCR 180 : (2006) AIRSCW 184 : (2006) 1 Supreme 1

Talab Haji Hussain Vs. Madhukar Purshottam Mondkar and Another, , AIR 1958 SC 376 : (1958) CriLJ 701 : (1958) 1 SCR 1226

Raj Rajendra Singh Seth @ R.R.S. Seth Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Another, , AIR 2008 SC 3217 : (2008) CLT 1085 : (2008) CriLJ 4306 : (2008) 10 SCALE 287 : (2008) 11 SCC 681 : (2008) AIRSCW 5442

Criminal Procedure - Quashing of FIR – Appeal against High Court's dismissal of the petition for quashing FIR, which was deemed premature as it was filed before investigation completion - Supreme Court evaluated whether uncontroverted allegations made out the offenses charged - Held that the FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings against appellants were not sustainable in law, as the actions described did not constitute criminal force or intimidation under IPC - FIR quashed - Ingredients of the offenses under Sections 353 and 506 IPC not satisfied as per allegations and evidence presented [Paras 2-16]

Interpretation of IPC Sections 353 and 506 – Analysis on whether online comments on public forum amounted to criminal force or intimidation - Found no substantial or convincing evidence of intent to alarm or cause harm necessary for said sections - Role of intention in determining applicability of criminal intimidation discussed [Paras 11-15]

Decision - Allowing the appeal, quashing the FIR registered against the appellants under Crime No. 174/2013, and setting aside the impugned order of the High Court [Para 17]

Referred Cases:

State of T.N. vs. Thirukkural Perumal, (1995) 2 SCC 449

State of Haryana and others vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604

Circumstantial Evidence & Conviction - Supreme Court sets aside conviction under Section 302/34 IPC of Italian nationals in a case based on circumstantial evidence - High Court's confirmation of life sentence for alleged murder within hotel room premises questioned - Focus on procedural lapses, non-production of crucial CCTV footage, and gaps in chain of circumstances leading to conviction - Appellants' version of leaving deceased in hotel room while going out contested but not convincingly disproven by prosecution - Absence of struggle marks and inconsistencies in medical reports noted - Held: Acquittal based on benefit of doubt due to non-fulfillment of criteria for conviction solely on circumstantial evidence [Paras 1-43].

Electronic Evidence & Investigative Lapses - Critique of non-production of CCTV footage and other electronic evidence which are crucial in substantiating the presence of the accused at the crime scene - Supreme Court underscores the necessity of adhering to Section 65B of the Evidence Act for admissibility of electronic records - Adverse inference drawn against prosecution for non-disclosure and missing evidence leading to failure in proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 22, 23, 26-28].

Decision: Allowed - Conviction and sentence set aside - Appellants to be released forthwith.

Referred Cases:

Shivu and Another Vs. R.G. High Court of Karnataka and Another, , (2007) CriLJ 1806 : (2007) 3 JT 332 : (2007) 3 SCALE 157 : (2007) 4 SCC 713 : (2007) 2 SCR 555

Radhakrishna Nagesh Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, , (2013) 1 AD 308 : (2013) 1 Crimes 325 : (2013) 4 JT 68 : (2012) 12 JT 616 : (2013) 1 RCR(Criminal) 659 : (2012) 12 SCALE 506

C. Chenga Reddy and Others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, , (1996) 5 AD 445 : AIR 1996 SC 3390 : (1996) CriLJ 3461 : (1996) 3 Crimes 119 : (1996) 6 JT 739 : (1996) 5 SCALE 318 : (1996) 10 SCC 193 : (1996) 3 SCR 479 Supp

Munshi Prasad and Others Vs. State of Bihar, , AIR 2001 SC 3031 : (2001) CriLJ 4708 : (2001) 8 JT 406 : (2001) 7 SCALE 114 : (2002) 1 SCC 351 : (2001) AIRSCW 4174 : (2001) 8 Supreme 11

Dayal Singh and Others Vs. State of Uttaranchal, , AIR 2012 SC 3046 : (2012) CriLJ 4323 : (2012) 7 JT 353 : (2012) 7 SCALE 165 : (2012) 8 SCC 263 : (2012) AIRSCW 4488 : (2012) AIRSCW 5243 : (2012) 5 Supreme 260 : (2012) 6 Supreme 722

Earabhadrappa Vs. State of Karnataka, , AIR 1983 SC 70 : AIR 1983 SC 446 : (1983) CriLJ 846 : (1983) 2 SCC 330

Gambhir Vs. State of Maharashtra, , AIR 1982 SC 1157 : (1982) CriLJ 1243 : (1982) 1 SCALE 388 : (1982) 2 SCC 351 : (1982) 14 UJ 475

Umesh Singh Vs. State of Bihar, , (2013) 4 AD 129 : AIR 2013 SC 1743 : (2013) CriLJ 2116 : (2013) 7 JT 130 : (2013) 4 JT 485 : (2013) 3 RCR(Criminal) 120 : (2013) 5 SCALE 83 : (2013) 4 SCC 360 : (2013) AIRSCW 4953 : (2013) 3 Supreme 457

Ashok Kumar Chatterjee Vs. State of M.P., , AIR 1989 SC 1890 : (1989) CriLJ 2124 : (1989) 2 Crimes 423 : (1989) 3 JT 451 : (1989) 1 SCALE 1313 : (1989) 1 SCC 560 Supp

Bhagat Ram Vs. State of Punjab, , AIR 1954 SC 621

Hukam Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, , AIR 1977 SC 1063 : (1977) CriLJ 639 : (1977) 2 SCC 99

Padala Veera Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, , AIR 1990 SC 79 : (1989) 4 JT 223 : (1989) 2 SCALE 906 : (1989) 2 SCC 706 Supp : (1990) 1 UJ 137

Thakur Prasad Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, , AIR 1954 SC 30

State of U.P. Vs. Sukhbasi and Others, , AIR 1985 SC 1224 : (1985) CriLJ 1479 : (1985) 2 Crimes 465 : (1985) 1 SCALE 1120 : (1985) SCC 79 Supp

State (N.C.T. of Delhi) Vs. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru, , AIR 2005 SC 3820 : (2005) CriLJ 3950 : (2005) 11 SCC 600 : (2005) 3 SCR 79 Supp : (2005) AIRSCW 4146 : (2005) 5 Supreme 414

Gosu Jairami Reddy and Another Vs. State of A.P., , AIR 2011 SC 3147 : (2011) CriLJ 4387 : (2011) 4 Crimes 244 : (2011) 3 JCC 2160 : (2011) 8 JT 263 : (2011) 4 RCR(Criminal) 540 : (2011) 8 SCALE 58 : (2011) 11 SCC 766 : (2011) 9 SCR 503 : (2011) AIRSCW 4717 : (2011) 7 Supreme 379

Eradu and Others Vs. State of Hyderabad, , AIR 1956 SC 316 : (1956) CriLJ 559

Property Law – Land Ownership and Encroachment – Appeal against High Court judgment partially modifying trial and first appellate court's decision regarding ownership and encroachment of property earmarked for road – Supreme Court restores judgments of lower courts establishing appellant's ownership of 'A' schedule property – Held that the appellant remains the absolute owner, with entitlement to compensation for the land if acquired by authorities – Respondents' encroachment on 'B' schedule property confirmed, leading to restoration of lower court orders for its vacating. [Paras 1-16]

Appellants are original owners of land in Chikmagalur village, converted for non-agricultural purposes and subdivided – Portions sold to Respondents, with 'A' schedule property reserved for future road – No road constructed, and municipal authority did not acquire 'A' schedule – Trial court and first appellate court declared appellants as absolute owners, entitled to both 'A' and 'B' schedule properties, latter being encroached by Respondents – High Court modified decree, denying absolute ownership and declaration of title over 'A' schedule to appellants, only granting potential compensation rights [Paras 2-6].

High Court’s interference deemed improper under Section 100 CPC as it involved re-assessment of factual determinations made by trial and lower appellate courts – Documentary and oral evidence supported appellant's title to 'A' schedule property – Concurrent findings by lower courts on ownership and encroachment upheld – High Court found to have erred in overturning these findings [Paras 7-15].

Decision: Supreme Court allows appeal, sets aside High Court's judgment, and restores decree of trial court as confirmed by the first appellate court – Parties to bear their own costs. [Para 16]

Referred Cases:

None

Arbitration Clause Activation - Works contract dated 20th December 2000 with arbitration clause invoked due to disputes - Appellant nominated an arbitrator and requested Respondent to appoint another within 30 days per agreement; Respondent failed, leading to ICADR intervention as stipulated by the contract and ICADR Rules [Para 1-3].

Dispute Over Arbitrator Appointment - Respondent appointed an arbitrator beyond the 30-day period without adhering to the panel provided by ICADR - Appellant challenged the appointment, arguing it deviated from the agreed procedure and questioned the arbitrator's independence and impartiality [Para 4-5].

Legal Assessment and Court Decision - Supreme Court finds Respondent’s appointment of arbitrator non-est (non-existent in law) due to non-compliance with the specific ICADR Rules agreed upon by the parties - Rules did not permit the Respondent to appoint an arbitrator of its choice independently from the ICADR panel [Para 8-9].

Appointment by Supreme Court - Court exercises powers under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act to appoint a new arbitrator, Shri Justice S.R. Sathe, for the Respondent due to the invalid initial appointment - Emphasizes the need for adherence to agreed arbitration procedures [Para 10].

Decision: Petition allowed - Appointment of arbitrator made by Respondent Corporation set aside - Shri Justice S.R. Sathe appointed as arbitrator on behalf of Respondent Corporation by the Court. . The arbitration petition is disposed of in the above terms.

Referred Cases:

Deep Trading Company Vs. Indian Oil Corporation and Others, (2013) 4 SCC 35

Antrix Corporation Ltd. Vs. Devas Multimedia P. Ltd., (2013) AIRSCW 2781

Datar Switchgears Ltd. Vs. Tata Finance Ltd. and Another, (2000) 8 SCC 151

Pricol Limited v. Johnson Controls Enterprise Ltd. and Ors., [Arbitration Case (Civil) No. 30 of 2014]