Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Interpretation of Section 31(7) - The Supreme Court confirms that the Arbitral Tribunal has the discretion to include interest as part of the principal sum awarded for pre-award periods and that such sum may accrue interest post-award unless otherwise specified by the arbitral award - The term 'sum' as used in the award includes both the principal and any pre-award interest, thus permitting compound interest post-award unless expressly ruled out by the award - Clarifies that interest on the total sum awarded, inclusive of any interest component accrued pre-award, does not constitute 'interest on interest' but is a continuation of interest on the principal sum now inclusive of pre-award interest [Paras 30-32, 66-70].

Referred Cases:

McDermott International Inc. Vs. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. and Others, (2006) 2 ARBLR 498 : (2007) 3 CompLJ 213 : (2006) 11 JT 376 : (2006) 6 SCALE 220 : (2006) 11 SCC 181 : (2006) 2 SCR 409 Supp

U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. Vs. Three Circles, (2009) 12 JT 123 : (2009) 12 SCALE 443 : (2009) 10 SCC 374 : (2009) 15 SCR 310 : (2009) 9 UJ 4416

Bhai Jaspal Singh and Another Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and Others, (2010) 11 JT 562 : (2010) 11 SCALE 263 : (2011) 1 SCC 39 : (2010) 35 VST 456

Central Bank of India Vs. Ravindra and Others, AIR 2001 SC 3095 : (2001) 107 CompCas 416 : (2001) 9 JT 101 : (2001) 7 SCALE 351 : (2002) 1 SCC 367 : (2001) AIRSCW 4468 : (2001) 7 Supreme 764

State of U.P. and Another Vs. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. and Another, (1993) 41 ECC 326 : (1991) 3 JT 268 : (1993) 2 SCALE 65 : (1991) 2 SCALE 110 : (1991) 4 SCC 139 : (1991) 3 SCR 64 : (1992) 87 STC 289 : (1991) 2 UJ 396

Tamil Nadu State Electricity Board Vs. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission and Others, AIR 2007 SC 1711 : (2007) ELR 1155 : (2007) 6 JT 74 : (2007) 6 SCALE 26 : (2007) 6 SCR 416 : (2007) 1 UJ 575 : (2007) AIRSCW 2699

Union of India (UOI) Through Director of Income Tax Vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd., (2014) AIRSCW 4644 : (2014) 363 ITR 658 : (2014) 4 JT 430 : (2014) 4 SCALE 32 : (2014) 6 SCC 335

Darshan Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1953 SC 83 : (1953) 19 CLT 419 : (1953) CriLJ 525 : (1953) 4 SCR 319

Pratibha Processors and others Vs. Union of India and others, (1996) 8 AD 261 : AIR 1997 SC 138 : (2002) 82 ECC 233 : (1996) 88 ELT 12 : (1996) 9 JT 478 : (1996) 7 SCALE 737 : (1996) 11 SCC 101 : (1996) 7 SCR 596 Supp : (1996) AIRSCW 4299

H.P. Housing and Urban Devt. Auth. and Another Vs. Ranjit Singh Rana, AIR 2012 SC 1337 : (2012) 2 ARBLR 1 : (2012) 2 CTC 445 : (2012) 3 SCALE 412 : (2012) 4 SCC 505 : (2012) AIRSCW 2034 : (2012) 2 Supreme 558

M/s. Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd. Vs. Jindal Exports Ltd., AIR 2001 SC 2293 : (2001) 2 ARBLR 1 : (2001) 3 CompLJ 9 : (2001) 1 JT 263 Supp : (2001) 3 SCALE 708 : (2001) 6 SCC 356 : (2001) 3 SCR 479 : (2001) AIRSCW 2087 : (2001) 4 Supreme 141

Nasiruddin and Others Vs. Sita Ram Agarwal, AIR 2003 SC 1543 : (2003) 4 CTC 284 : (2003) 2 JT 56 : (2003) 1 SCALE 658 : (2003) 2 SCC 577 : (2003) 1 SCR 634 : (2003) 2 UJ 781 : (2003) AIRSCW 1474 : (2003) AIRSCW 908 : (2003) 2 Supreme 472 : (2003) 2 Supreme 50

N.S. Nayak and Sons, Heera Constructions and Rani Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Goa and Another, (2003) 3 ARBLR 109 : (2003) 3 CompLJ 193 : (2003) 4 SCALE 622 : (2003) 6 SCC 56 : (2003) 44 SCL 460 : (2003) 1 SCR 69 Supp : (2003) 2 UJ 1227

State of Haryana and Others Vs. S.L. Arora and Company, AIR 2010 SC 1511 : (2010) 2 JT 534 : (2010) 3 SCC 690 : (2010) 3 SCR 297

Sree Kamatchi Amman Constructions Vs. The Divisional Railway Manager (Works), Palghat and Others, AIR 2010 SC 3337 : (2010) 9 JT 57 : (2010) 8 SCC 767 : (2010) 10 SCR 487 : (2010) 8 UJ 3964 : (2010) AIRSCW 5326 : (2010) 6 Supreme 402

Keshavji Ravji and Co. etc., etc. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, AIR 1991 SC 1806 : (1992) 2 SCC 231 : (1990) 49 TAXMAN 87

Dr Ganga Prasad Verma and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others, (1995) 1 SCC 192 Supp : (1995) 1 SCC 192 : (1994) 5 SCR 455 Supp

Oil and Natural Gas Commission Vs. M.C. Clelland Engineers S.A., AIR 1999 SC 1614 : (1999) 3 JT 202 : (1999) 2 SCALE 727 : (1999) 4 SCC 327 : (1999) 2 SCR 830 : (1999) 2 UJ 825 : (1999) AIRSCW 1224 : (1999) 4 Supreme 235

Sayeed Ahmed and Co. Vs. State of U.P. and Others, (2009) 9 JT 429 : (2009) 9 SCALE 261 : (2009) 12 SCC 26 : (2009) 11 SCR 841 : (2009) 8 UJ 3559

Land Acquisition - Appellant challenged acquisition of his land used for firework manufacturing under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, citing violation of Article 14 due to discriminatory release of similar lands - High Court dismissed the writ - Supreme Court finds merit in appellant's claims under the Right to Fair Compensation Act, 2013, noting procedural lapses including non-payment of compensation within statutory timelines - Held, acquisition proceedings deemed lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 - Acquisition quashed [Paras 1-24].

Application of Section 24(2) - Held, proceedings lapse if compensation not paid or land not taken within five years prior to 2014 when the 2013 Act commenced - Court emphasized the non-exclusion of time during which land acquisition was stayed by court orders, following precedent in Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association vs. State of Tamil Nadu [Para 21].

Referred Cases:

Bimla Devi vs. State of Haryana, (2014) 7 SCALE 215: (2014) 6 SCC 583

Pune Municipal Corporation vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, AIR 2014 SC 982: (2014) 3 SCC 183

Bharat Kumar vs. State of Haryana, (2014) 3 SCALE 393: (2014) 6 SCC 586

Sube Singh vs. State of Haryana, AIR 2001 SC 3285: (2001) 7 SCC 545

Union of India (UOI) vs. Shiv Raj, AIR 2014 SC 2242: (2014) 6 SCC 564

Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2014) 10 SCALE 388

Kidnapping for Ransom – Prosecution story substantiated by testimonies of multiple witnesses including victim’s family and the rickshaw puller - Facts established show appellant’s involvement in kidnapping and subsequent ransom negotiation - Conviction upheld based on detailed witness accounts and corroborative evidence [Paras 3-14]

Legal Assessment – High Court's detailed discussion of evidence not cryptic, addresses every crucial aspect - Identification of accused by the victim’s father during ransom transaction crucial, upheld by court despite absence of test identification parade, relying on direct and circumstantial evidence - High Court’s reliance on established precedents regarding identification parades and in-court identification as adequate [Paras 8-14]

Decision – Appeal dismissed - High Court’s judgment affirmed as evidence and legal standards sufficiently met [Para 15]

Referred Cases:

Ashok Debbarma @ Achak Debbarma Vs. State of Tripura, (2014) 4 SCC 747

Rama and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2002 SC 1814

Kanta Prashad Vs. Delhi Administration, AIR 1958 SC 350

R. Shaji Vs. State of Kerala, AIR 2013 SC 651

Prasad @ Hari Prasad Acharya Vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 2009 SC 1911

Kanan and Others Vs. State of Kerala, AIR 1979 SC 1127

Ravi Kapur Vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2012 SC 2986

Ram Ratan Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2010) 13 SCC 509

Badam Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2004 SC 26

Jurisdiction and Authority of State Human Rights Commission - Analyzed in the light of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, and related State actions concerning land designated as surplus under previous legislation - Court held that the Human Rights Commission exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering the eviction of encroachers based on disputed title and possession rights, which were not conclusively established by any competent authority [Paras 42-47].

Property Rights and State Action - Appeal concerning the State's authority to dispose of land declared surplus under repealed statutes and the subsequent rights of possession and title held by a housing society and alleged encroachers - Supreme Court sets aside the lower court's and Human Rights Commission's orders, directing status quo on possession and calling for determination of rights by a competent court [Paras 48-50].

Impact of Repeal of Land Ceiling Act - Examination of how repeal impacted ongoing disputes over land declared surplus prior to repeal - Court emphasizes need for clear determination of possession and title post-repeal, highlighting legal complexities in transition from old to new regulatory frameworks [Paras 13-14, 37-40].

Decision: The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the Andhra Pradesh Human Rights Commission and the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 10414 of 2011 as well as the judgments in related Writ Appeals, leaving it open for the parties to seek remedies before appropriate legal fora and directed to maintain status quo regarding possession of the disputed land until rights are determined by a competent court.

Referred Cases:

Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Thummala Krishna Rao and Another, AIR 1982 SC 1081 : (1982) 1 SCALE 180 : (1982) 2 SCC 134 : (1982) 3 SCR 500 : (1982) 14 UJ 259

P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy and Others Vs. Revamma and Others, AIR 2007 SC 1753 : (2007) 6 JT 86 : (2007) 6 SCALE 95 : (2007) 6 SCC 59 : (2007) 5 SCR 491 : (2007) AIRSCW 2897 : (2007) 3 Supreme 751

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

DIVISION BENCH

G. MANIKYAMMA — AppellantVs.ROUDRI CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. — Respondent

( Before : Sharad Arvind Bobde, J; Jasti Chelameswar, J )

Civil Appeal Nos. 10534-10535 of 2014 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 26315-26316 of 2013) and Civil Appeal No. 10536 of 2014 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 38017 of 2013)

Decided on : 25-11-2014

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) - Section 9

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14, Article 21, Article 252, Article 300A

Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 - Section 12

Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 - Section 10, Section 10(1), Section 10(3), Section 10(5), Section 10(6), Section 20(1), Section 23, Section 6, Section 8, Section 9, Section 9(1), Section 9(3), Section 9(5)

Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 - Section 1, Section 2

Cases Referred

Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Thummala Krishna Rao and Another, AIR 1982 SC 1081 : (1982) 1 SCALE 180 : (1982) 2 SCC 134 : (1982) 3 SCR 500 : (1982) 14 UJ 259

P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy and Others Vs. Revamma and Others, AIR 2007 SC 1753 : (2007) 6 JT 86 : (2007) 6 SCALE 95 : (2007) 6 SCC 59 : (2007) 5 SCR 491 : (2007) AIRSCW 2897 : (2007) 3 Supreme 751

Judicial Discipline and Review – Supreme Court reexamines the Gujarat High Court's overturning of a dismissal order against a judicial officer accused of favoring an employer in a labor dispute – Initial ex-parte award set aside, reinstated on appeal, followed by disciplinary proceedings against the judicial officer – High Court, acting beyond its supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227, reevaluated evidence like an appellate court, undermining the disciplinary inquiry – Supreme Court found no procedural irregularities in the inquiry conducted under the Gujarat Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971 – Held: High Court improperly exercised its jurisdiction, leading to reinstatement of the dismissal of the judicial officer – Appeal allowed, setting aside the judgment of the High Court [Paras 1-7]

Referred Cases:

None

Civil Procedure - Challenge of Decree based on Compromise - Appellant contests High Court’s setting aside of Trial Court's decision based on a disputed compromise, alleging forgery and lack of consent – High Court rejected a separate suit to contest compromise under CPC, Order XXIII Rule 3A, asserting such issues must be addressed by the court that passed the decree [Paras 2-7].

Jurisdiction and Remedial Procedure - Application for setting aside decree under discussion – CPC Orders and Rules dictate procedural handling of disputed compromises – High Court initially errs by suggesting pursuit of a separate suit, contrary to CPC provisions which limit recourse to court that passed original decree [Paras 8-11].

Decision - Apex Court remands case to High Court to properly consider applications seeking to set aside the compromise decree under correct legal framework, without opining on merits of the underlying compromise dispute [Para 13].

Referred Cases:

Banwari Lal Vs. Smt. Chando Devi (through L.R.) and another, AIR 1993 SC 1139; (1993) 1 SCC 581

Pushpa Devi Bhagat (D) th. LR. Smt. Sadhna Rai Vs. Rajinder Singh and Others, AIR 2006 SC 2628; (2006) 5 SCC 566

Property Law - Title and Possession - Appellant is a government college claiming unauthorized occupation of its land by respondent for construction - Trial court ruled in favor of respondent, granting injunction against interference and ordering removal of unauthorized constructions - High Court dismissed the appeals against the trial court decision and rejected appellant's plea for condonation of delay in filing a subsequent appeal, citing unsatisfactory explanations and failure to accept a reasonable settlement offer. [Paras 2-9]

Procedural Law - Condonation of Delay - Supreme Court criticizes High Court’s handling of condonation of delay, noting that appeal could have been considered on merits given the public interest involved and the negligible size of the disputed property in practical use - Orders condonation of delay subject to costs, remands matter back to High Court for consideration on merits. [Paras 8-10]

Decision – Delay in filing appeal condoned – Supreme Court sets aside High Court's dismissal, allows the appeals, and remits the cases (RFA Nos. 806 of 2000 and 296 of 2011) back to High Court for detailed hearing on merits, subject to costs of Rs. 50,000/- to be paid by appellants. [Para 10]

Referred Cases:

None

Cooperative Societies Law - Constitutionality and interpretation of statutes and rules governing elections in cooperative societies - Appeals challenging the High Court's interpretation of Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act and related Rules - Supreme Court upholds the High Court's decision confirming the constitutionality and statutory validity of the Rules governing elections within specified cooperative societies - Addresses issues regarding the delimitation of constituencies, the electoral process, and the respective roles of bye-laws and statutory rules in determining election procedures [Paras 2-24]

Role of Collector in Elections - Legal authority for delimitation of constituencies - Upheld by Supreme Court - Confirms that delimitation by the Collector is a prerequisite for preparing voters' lists, ensuring each constituency aligns with statutory mandates [Paras 16-21]

Bye-Laws vs. Statutory Rules - Rules provided for election mechanisms take precedence over society bye-laws where discrepancies occur - Societies required to amend bye-laws to align with the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act and its Rules as per constitutional and statutory requirements [Paras 19-22]

Referred Cases:

Shri Sodvadar Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat and Others, (2010) 3 GLH 117 : (2010) 51 GLR 2154

Antakampa Milk Producers Cooperative Society Limited Vs. Sabarkantha District Cooperative Milk Producers, (2004) 1 GLR 310

Banaskantha District Co-op. Union Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat and Others, (2011) 2 GLH 1707 : (2011) 2 GLR 1707

Amreli District Co-operative Sale and Purchase Union Ltd. and Others Vs. State of Gujarat, (1984) 2 GLR 1244

Khanodar (Old) Milk Producers Cooperative Society Ltd. and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and Others, (2012) 1 GLH 245

Kuldip Nayar Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, AIR 2006 SC 3127 : (2006) 8 JT 1 : (2006) 8 SCALE 257 : (2006) 7 SCC 1 : (2006) 5 SCR 1 Supp : (2006) AIRSCW 4394 : (2006) 7 Supreme 44

Kihoto Hollohan Vs. Zachillhu and Others, (1992) 2 SCC 651 Supp

Ziley Singh, etc. Vs. Registrar, Cane Co-Operative Societies and Others, AIR 1972 SC 758 : (1972) 1 SCC 719 : (1972) 3 SCR 149 : (1972) 4 UJ 599

His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru Vs. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461 : (1973) 4 SCC 225 : (1973) SCR 1 Supp

Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi Vs. Shri Raj Narain and Another, AIR 1975 SC 2299 : (1975) SCC 1 Supp : (1976) 2 SCR 347

Mohinder Singh Gill and Another Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Others, AIR 1978 SC 851 : (1978) 1 SCC 405 : (1978) 2 SCR 272

Rameshwar Prasad and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, AIR 2006 SC 980 : (2006) 3 CTC 209 : (2006) 1 JT 457 : (2006) 1 SCALE 385 : (2006) 2 SCC 1 : (2006) 1 SCR 562 : (2006) AIRSCW 494 : (2006) 1 Supreme 393

Maintenance Order Scope and Application – Family Court granted interim and final maintenance to minor daughter but limited appellant-wife to interim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC and Section 24 Hindu Marriage Act – High Court affirmed maintenance but only from the date of its order – Supreme Court examined provisions of Section 125 CrPC and Section 354(6) CrPC, emphasizing the need for reasoning in orders regarding the effective date of maintenance - Held maintenance should be effective from the date of the application for maintenance due to lack of evidence of appellant’s income during marriage and the purpose of maintenance to prevent destitution - Ordered respondent to pay maintenance from the application date - Interim maintenance under H.M. Act remains unchanged. [Paras 3-9]

Legal Interpretation and Application – Supreme Court critiqued the absence of reasoning in lower court's orders regarding the start date for maintenance payments, reinforcing that maintenance aims to prevent vagrancy and destitution and requires judicious determination of effective dates based on specific case facts – Cited Shail Kumari Devi case to assert that maintenance can be awarded from the date of application if justified with reasons. [Paras 5-9]

Decision: The appeal was allowed, setting a precedent on the necessity of substantiating decisions regarding the date from which maintenance is awarded, emphasizing judicial discretion must be accompanied by clear reasoning to align with the principles of maintenance laws intended to prevent hardship.

Referred Cases:

Shail Kumari Devi and Another Vs. Krishan Bhagwan Pathak @ Kishun B. Pathak, AIR 2008 SC 3006 : (2008) CriLJ 3881 : (2008) 2 DMC 363 : (2008) 8 JT 227 : (2008) 10 SCALE 602 : (2008) 9 SCC 632 : (2008) AIRSCW 5063