Arbitration – Appointment of Arbitrator – Prima Facie Test – The Supreme Court held that a deeper consideration of whether an arbitration agreement exists between the parties must be left to an arbitrator who is to examine the documentary evidence produced before him in detail after witnesses are cross-examined. The Court set aside the Delhi High Court's judgment insofar as it conclusively found that there is an arbitration agreement between the parties. However, the Court upheld the appointment of Justice G.S. Sistani, a retired Delhi High Court Judge, as the sole arbitrator to first determine as a preliminary issue whether an arbitration agreement exists between the parties [Paras 1-27].

Prima Facie Review – Existence of Arbitration Agreement – The Court noted that at the stage of reference to arbitration under Sections 8 and 11 of the Arbitration Act, the court should apply the prima facie test to determine the existence of an arbitration agreement. A more detailed examination should be left to the arbitrator, especially when the facts are contested or unclear [Paras 10-17].

Judicial Interpretation – Anomaly in Sections 11(7) and 37 – The judgment pointed out an anomaly where a refusal to refer parties to arbitration under Section 8 is appealable under Section 37(1)(a), but a similar refusal under Section 11(6) read with Sections 6(A) and 7 is not appealable. The Court suggested that Parliament may need to re-look at Sections 11(7) and 37 to align the appealability of orders made under Sections 8 and 11 [Paras 21-23].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the Delhi High Court's conclusive finding of an arbitration agreement but upheld the appointment of Justice G.S. Sistani as the sole arbitrator. The arbitrator will determine the existence of the arbitration agreement as a preliminary issue and proceed to the merits only if such an agreement is found to exist [Para 27].

Consumer Protection – Delay in Possession – Compensation – The Supreme Court upheld the NCDRC's decision that the appellant was liable to pay compensation for the delayed handing over of possession of a residential unit. The Court noted that the delay was not justified under the force majeure clause, and the compensation rate stipulated in the contract was one-sided and constituted an unfair trade practice. The Court modified the NCDRC's order regarding the date from which interest would become payable and the rate of interest [Paras 1-13].

Force Majeure – Inapplicability – The Court rejected the appellant's defense that delays caused by contractor disputes and boundary wall issues constituted force majeure events. The appellant, being an experienced developer, could not claim routine business delays as force majeure. This defense was similarly rejected in DLF Home Developers Ltd v. Capital Greens Flat Buyers Association [Paras 11-12].

Unfair Trade Practice – One-Sided Clauses – The Court agreed with the NCDRC that the contract's clause stipulating compensation at Rs. 2 per sq. ft. per month for delay was unfair and constituted an unfair trade practice. This clause was significantly more favorable to the developer compared to the penalties imposed on the buyer for delayed payments [Para 8].

Decision: Appeal partially allowed – The Supreme Court modified the NCDRC's order as follows:

(i) The appellant shall pay simple interest at the rate of 7% per annum from January 1, 2016, until July 26, 2018, the date on which possession was handed over to the respondent.

(ii) The award of Rs. 200,000 towards loss of rent was set aside in light of the interest compensation.

(iii) The appellant was directed to complete all necessary formalities for documentation, including registration, within one month [Paras 13-15].

Service Law – Reservation – Sections 27 and 27(f) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 – Reservation in direct recruitment – Meritorious candidates from reserved categories to be considered in the General Turn first – Backlog vacancies to be filled first among reserved category candidates – Misinterpretation of Section 27(f) caused dispute in selection process – Appeals dismissed [Paras 1-30].

Reservation – Meritorious Candidates – Reserved category candidates securing high marks to be adjusted against General Turn vacancies first – Followed by filling backlog vacancies and then current vacancies for reserved categories [Paras 23-27].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Orders of the High Court upheld – Reserved category candidates securing merit positions to be adjusted against General Turn vacancies first [Paras 30-31].

Criminal Procedure Code – Section 482 – Quashing of FIR – High Court cannot pass a blanket order of protection from arrest – Proceedings ended once High Court declined to quash the FIR – Remedies under CrPC available to accused for protecting liberty – Blanket direction impedes investigation – Appeal allowed, High Court order set aside [Paras 2-11].

Judicial Procedure – Anticipatory Bail – Section 438 CrPC – Accused can seek anticipatory bail or regular bail under Section 439 CrPC – High Court's blanket protection from arrest unjustified – Investigation and enforcement of criminal justice obstructed by such orders [Paras 8-10].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court's blanket order restraining arrest set aside – Third respondent to surrender and apply for bail – Regular bail application to be considered after hearing the public prosecutor [Paras 12-13].

Landlord and Tenant Relationship – Possession – No evidence of tenancy – Defendant's admission of not maintaining rent records – Relationship of landlord and tenant not proven – Defendant's claim of tenancy based on conjectures – Partnership deed executed on 18.12.1976 not a sham document – Defendant's tenancy claim denied – Appeal allowed [Paras 11-20].

Partnership Deed – Execution – Consequences of signed partnership deed – Parties cannot negate the partnership deed by calling it a sham – Deed signed to avoid rigours of clause 12 of the Allotment Order [Paras 20-21].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Judgment of the First Appellate Court restored – Estate Officer directed to ensure appellant's possession of Booth No. 186 – Appellant may seek damages and mesne profit for use of premises by the defendant [Paras 23].

Administrative Law – Promotion to IAS – Reconsideration of Promotion – High Court endorsed Tribunal's directions without independent analysis – 'Cut-copy-paste' judgment critiqued – Importance of reasoned judicial decisions emphasized – Judgment set aside, writ petition restored for fresh adjudication [Paras 3-9].

Judicial Reasoning – Necessity for independent application of mind – High Court failed to provide substantive reasoning – Prolific use of 'cut-copy-paste' function criticized – Reasons are the soul of a judicial decision – Need for crisp reasoning highlighted [Paras 7-8].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment set aside – Writ petition restored to file – High Court to dispose of the writ petition within four months [Paras 9-12].

Reservation for OBCs – Validity of Reservation Provisions – Section 12(2)(c) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 – Provision read down to mean reservation for OBCs may be up to 27% but must not exceed an aggregate of 50% of the total seats reserved for SCs/STs/OBCs together – Requirement for contemporaneous rigorous empirical inquiry into backwardness before reservation – Impugned notifications reserving seats for OBCs void as conditions not met [Paras 1-28].

Constitutional Law – Reservation in Local Bodies – SCs/STs/OBCs – Constitution Bench's dicta in K. Krishna Murthy v. Union of India – Reservation for OBCs must comply with the triple test: dedicated Commission for empirical inquiry, proportionate reservation, and overall ceiling of 50% [Paras 4-7, 12, 25].

Decision – Writ Petitions Partly Allowed – Held – Section 12(2)(c) to be read down – Notifications dated 27.07.2018 and 14.02.2020 quashed – State Election Commission to announce elections for vacated seats [Para 28].

Arbitration – Jurisdiction – Section 2(1)(f) Arbitration Act – International Commercial Arbitration – High Court's jurisdiction questioned – Transaction between parties had international flavour due to the respondents being US nationals and habitually resident there – High Court had no jurisdiction to appoint arbitrator – Appeal allowed [Paras 7-16].

Arbitration – Appointment of Arbitrator – Section 11(6) Arbitration Act – Arbitration becomes international commercial arbitration if one party is a foreign national or habitually resident in a foreign country – Matter to be filed under Section 11(6) read with Section 11(9) in the Supreme Court [Paras 16-17].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's order set aside – Respondents to follow procedure under Section 11(6) read with Section 11(9) Arbitration Act [Paras 17-18].

Arbitration – Scope of Judicial Review – Sections 30 and 33 of Arbitration Act, 1940 – Courts do not sit in appeal over arbitral awards – Reappraisal of evidence not permissible – Arbitrator’s reasonable interpretation upheld if not perverse or based on a wrong proposition of law – Appeals dismissed [Paras 10-13].

Construction Contracts – Rebate and Escalation Charges – Conditional rebate – Arbitrator interpreted rebate as conditional based on documents and negotiations – Escalation charges awarded for delay attributable to appellant – Courts upheld Arbitrator’s interpretation – Appeals dismissed [Paras 16-18].

Costs – Costs imposed by forums below not interfered with – Appellant directed to pay pending amounts within six months [Paras 27-29].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Appellant directed to pay pending amounts within six months [Para 29].