Criminal Law - Dying Declaration – Reliability – Criminal appeals against High Court order upholding the conviction of the accused persons under Sections 302/498A read with Section 34 IPC – High Court confirmed the trial court’s judgment based on dying declaration and other evidence – Supreme Court held dying declaration as reliable but examined its sufficiency to convict co-accused Prem Kumar Gulati – No substantial evidence implicating Prem Kumar Gulati – Conviction based solely on dying declaration without corroborative evidence held insufficient to sustain conviction – Prem Kumar Gulati acquitted. [Paras 12-20]

Role of Accused in Commission of Crime – Analysis – Held – main accused Mahender Singh Gulati’s guilt established beyond reasonable doubt based on dying declaration and corroborative evidence – Co-accused Prem Kumar Gulati found not involved in the crime based on investigation and lack of specific role in dying declaration – No evidence linking Prem Kumar Gulati to the act of pouring kerosene or setting the deceased on fire. [Para 18-19]

Decision – Conviction and Sentence – Supreme Court acquits Prem Kumar Gulati and directs his immediate release – Conviction and sentence of Mahender Singh Gulati upheld based on substantial evidence. [Para 21-23]

Referred Cases:

P. Mani v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2006 SC 1319

Tapinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Another, AIR 1970 SC 1566

Godhu and Another v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1974 SC 2188

K. Ramachandra Reddy and Another v. The Public Prosecutor, AIR 1976 SC 1994

Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1973 SC 2773

Atiar Rahman v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1972 SC 2529

State of Karnataka v. Shariff, AIR 2003 SC 1074

Khushal Rao v. The State of Bombay, AIR 1958 SC 22

Lallubhai Devchand Shah and Others v. The State of Gujarat, AIR 1972 SC 1776

Harbans Singh and Another v. State of Punjab, AIR 1962 SC 439

Mohan Lal and Others v. State of Haryana, (2007) 9 SCC 151

Family Law - Joint Family Property - Partition and Rights of Co-heirs - Appeal against High Court order affirming lower courts’ decisions - Trial court and High Court held Respondent No. 1 (defendant) to be the absolute owner of the inam lands due to individual grant of occupancy rights under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 - Supreme Court reversed the finding, holding that the grant of occupancy rights was for the benefit of all legal heirs - Held that possession by one co-heir is possession for all co-heirs unless there is clear evidence of ouster - Legal principles regarding joint family property and adverse possession by a co-heir applied. [Paras 1-17]

Property Law - Inam Lands - Abolition and Grant of Occupancy Rights - Analysis - Held - Grant of occupancy rights under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, in favor of one family member (defendant) does not exclude other co-heirs from their rights in the property - Legal heirs of the deceased are entitled to their respective shares in the joint family property, including inam lands. [Para 10-11]

Decision - Partition of Property - Appeal Allowed - Judgment and order of the lower courts reversed to the extent of excluding inam lands from partition - Suit for partition decreed in favor of the appellant - Inam lands to be partitioned among all legal heirs of the deceased. [Para 17]

Referred Cases:

N. Padmamma and Others v. S. Ramakrishna Reddy and Others, AIR 2008 SC 2834

Kalgonda Babgonda Patil v. Balgonda Kalgonda Patil and Others, AIR 1989 SC 1042

P. Lakshmi Reddy v. L. Lakshmi Reddy, AIR 1957 SC 314

Bhubaneshwar Prasad Narain Singh and Others v. Sidheswar Mukherjee and Others, AIR 1971 SC 2251

Lokraj and Others v. Kishan Lal and Others, (1995) 3 SCC 291

Shivappa Tammannappa Karaban v. Parasappa Hanammappa Kuraban and Others, (1995) 1 SCC 162 Supp

Administrative Law - Validity of Pension Scheme - Competence of Vikas Parishad: The Vikas Parishad, a statutory body under the Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965, implemented a Pension/Family Pension and Gratuity Scheme for its employees. The High Court quashed State Government orders dated 13.9.2005 and 12.7.2007 that had prohibited the implementation of the scheme and directed the Vikas Parishad to proceed with it. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision, holding that the Vikas Parishad was competent to frame and implement the scheme under Section 95 of the 1965 Act. [Paras 1-25]

State Directions on Policy - Scope and Limitations: The State Government's directives under Section 2(1) of the Uttar Pradesh State Control Over Public Corporations Act, 1975, cannot extend to matters beyond the functions stipulated in Section 15 of the 1965 Act. The Court found that the conditions of service of employees did not constitute the functions of the Vikas Parishad and hence, the State Government's directions were not binding. [Para 12]

Financial Liability upon Dissolution - Limited to Board's Properties: The Court clarified that under Section 93 of the 1965 Act, the financial liability transferred to the State Government upon the dissolution of the Vikas Parishad is limited to the fund and properties vested in it. The State is not liable for additional financial obligations. [Para 13]

Interest on Delayed Pension Payments: The Court directed the Vikas Parishad to release the pensionary benefits to the retired employees as per the notification dated 19.5.2009, within three months. Any differential amount due, owing to payments made under the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme, is to be compensated with interest at 9% per annum, recoverable from the State of Uttar Pradesh. [Para 16]

Decision: The appeal was dismissed. The High Court's direction to implement the Pension/Family Pension and Gratuity Scheme was upheld, and the Vikas Parishad was instructed to comply with the notification dated 19.5.2009 and compensate eligible retired employees with applicable pensionary benefits and interest for delayed payments.

Referred Cases:

None

Administrative Law – Seniority and Appointment – Ad hoc Principal – Fraudulent Order – Quashing and Remand – The appellant's claim to the post of ad hoc principal challenged based on seniority. High Court focused on the appellant's initial appointment as lecturer, deemed fraudulent, and ordered salary recovery. Supreme Court finds High Court's scrutiny incomplete, overlooking earlier orders and the subject recognition issue. Quashes High Court's decision, remits matter for detailed examination. [Paras 1-15]

Validity of Appointment – Analysis – Dispute over recognition of 'Sociology' as a subject and appellant's appointment. Series of litigations between appellant and management over appointment legitimacy and seniority. Supreme Court emphasizes need for thorough re-examination by High Court. [Paras 10-14]

Decision – Remand for Fresh Consideration – Supreme Court sets aside High Court order, remands case for fresh consideration with directions to reassess all relevant materials and prior litigations. Urges expeditious handling due to the appellant's age and case pendency since 2002. [Para 15]

Referred Cases:

State of Haryana v. Krishan (2017) 8 SCC 204

Hari and Anr. v. State of UP 2021 SCC Online SC 1131

Arvind Singh v. State of Maharashtra (2021) 11 SCC 1

Yakub Abdul Razak Memon v. State of Maharashtra (2013) 13 SCC 1

Indrakunwar v. State of Chhattisgarh 2023 SCC Online 1364

P.N. Krishna Lal v. Govt. of Kerala 1995 Supp (2) SCC 187

Chandran v. State of Kerala (2011) 5 SCC 161

Ramanarayan Popli v. CBI (2003) SCC (Crl.) 869

Criminal Law - Conviction and Sentencing – Criminal Appeal against High Court judgment converting death sentences to life imprisonment – Offenses involving brutal murders due to family disputes and land litigation – High Court found the case did not fall within the 'rarest of rare' category – Compassion in sentencing emphasized, considering potential for remorse and rehabilitation over time. [Paras 1-8]

Rarest of Rare Doctrine - Analysis – Held – Supreme Court agrees with the High Court that the present case does not meet the stringent criteria for the 'rarest of rare' doctrine – Notes the importance of balancing justice with mercy, and the possibility of reform and remorse over time. [Para 5]

Decision – Dismissal of State's Appeals – Supreme Court upholds the High Court's decision to reduce death sentences to life imprisonment – Finds no merit in the appeals and concurs with the view that prolonged incarceration may instill remorse and repentance in the convicts. [Para 8]

Referred Cases:

Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684

Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983) 3 SCC 470

Sushil Sharma v. State of NCT of Delhi (2014) 4 SCC 317

Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra (2009) 6 SCC 498

Rajesh Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2011) 13 SCC 706

Administrative Law – Disciplinary Proceedings – Setting aside of Enquiry Report – Appeal against rejection of enquiry report by disciplinary authority and constitution of a new Inquiry Board – Enquiry Officer exonerated appellant of all charges – Disciplinary authority rejected the report citing non-compliance with procedural rules and ordered a fresh inquiry – Supreme Court held that the rejection was untenable as there were no factual disputes requiring investigation and the procedural grounds cited were inapplicable – Orders quashed and appeal allowed with costs. [Paras 1-45]

Quashing of Disciplinary Action – Procedural Defects – Analysis – Held – Enquiry report was wrongly rejected for being cursory and not following procedural mandates – Charges were undisputed factual allegations, thus procedural rules for evidence and additional evidence were inapplicable – Court emphasized the right to judicial remedies and criticized the respondent's intent as harassment for exposing maladministration. [Para 27-41]

Decision – Quashing of Impugned Order – Court quashed the impugned order dated 26.9.2012, rejecting the enquiry report and constituting a new Inquiry Board – The judgment under appeal set aside and the original application allowed – Costs imposed on respondents jointly and severally. [Paras 45]

Referred Cases:

Ram Jethmalani and Others v. Union of India (UOI) and Others, (2011) 8 SCC 1

K.R. Deb v. The Collector of Central Excise, Shillong, (1971) 2 SCC 102

Family Law – Cruelty as a Ground for Divorce – Appeal against the High Court’s Decision- Husband filed for divorce on grounds of cruelty, citing mental and physical torment by the wife during their marriage – Wife contested the petition, denying the allegations and seeking restoration of conjugal rights – Trial court dismissed the divorce petition and granted wife's counter-claim for conjugal rights – High Court reversed the trial court's decision, granting divorce on the grounds of cruelty – Supreme Court upholds the High Court’s decision, finding sufficient evidence of cruelty by the wife, including non-consummation of marriage and abusive behavior – [Paras 1-14]

Mental Cruelty – Analysis and Evidence- Held – Mental cruelty established through husband's detailed testimony of wife's violent outbursts, refusal to consummate the marriage, and derogatory communications – High Court’s evaluation of the wife's explanations found them to be unsubstantiated and an afterthought – Supreme Court affirms that sustained abusive behavior and refusal to engage in marital relations constitute mental cruelty – [Para 12-13]

Permanent Alimony – Section 25 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955- Court awards one-time lump sum alimony of Rs. 40 lakhs to the wife – Consideration of economic status and wife's current unemployment – Alimony to be paid within three months – [Para 14-15]

Decision – Divorce Granted and Alimony Awarded- Supreme Court affirms High Court's decree of divorce on grounds of cruelty and directs the respondent to pay Rs. 40 lakhs as lump sum permanent alimony within three months – [Para 15]

Referred Cases:

Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511

Vinita Saxena v. Pankaj Pandit, (2006) 3 SCC 778

Environmental Law – Validity of Executive Guidelines as Law – Civil Appeal against the High Court's orders upholding the demolition of hotel and resort constructions in Goa – Appellants argued that the constructions were permitted by competent authorities before the enactment of CRZ notification – Supreme Court examined whether executive guidelines restricting construction within 500 meters of the HTL had the force of law – Held that guidelines were not duly promulgated or authenticated and thus could not be enforced to the appellants' prejudice – Demolition orders set aside. [Paras 1-25]

Implementation of International Environmental Commitments – Analysis – Held – Guidelines based on India's commitments at the Stockholm Conference did not automatically acquire the force of law without proper legislative or executive action under Article 73 – Absence of clear, unambiguous mandate in guidelines – Necessity of publication and proper promulgation for enforceability – Guidelines considered as mere expressions of policy without penal consequences. [Paras 6-14]

Form and Authentication of Executive Orders – Compliance – Held – Executive actions must be expressed in the name of the President and authenticated as per Article 77 – Guidelines in question lacked proper authentication and publication as required – Orders based on these guidelines deemed unenforceable. [Paras 15-20]

Decision – Demolition Orders and High Court Judgments Set Aside – Court allowed appeals, setting aside the impugned orders and judgments of the High Court – Observed that the absence of statutory backing for the guidelines rendered the demolition orders unsustainable. [Paras 21-23]

Referred Cases:

Vineet Narain and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, AIR 1998 SC 889

Vishaka and others Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, AIR 1997 SC 3011

Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum Vs. Union of India and others, AIR 1996 SC 2715

Air India Cabin Crew Association Vs. Yeshawinee Merchant and Others, AIR 2004 SC 187

B.K. Srinivasan and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, AIR 1987 SC 1059

Goan Real Estate and Construction Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India (UOI) through Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Others, (2010) 3 JT 462

Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd. and Another Vs. Minguel Martins and Others, (2009) 1 JT 470

Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur and Others Vs. The State of Punjab, AIR 1955 SC 549

Harla Vs. The State of Rajasthan, AIR 1951 SC 467

Bennett Coleman and Co. and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, AIR 1973 SC 106

The State of Karnataka and Another Vs. Shri Ranganatha Reddy and Another, AIR 1978 SC 215

Gramophone Company of India Ltd. Vs. Birendra Bahadur Pandey and Others, AIR 1984 SC 667

State of Uttaranchal and Another Vs. Sunil Kumar Vaish and Others, (2011) 10 JT 26

Arbitration Law - Setting Aside Arbitral Award – Civil Appeal challenging High Court’s dismissal of petition under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act – Appellant contested award on grounds of error and illegality – High Court found no patent illegality or perversity in award – Supreme Court upheld High Court's decision – Found award and High Court’s decision consistent with terms of NIT and work order – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 1-24]

Interpretation of Contract Terms – Applicability of Taxes – Analysis – Held – Arbitrator and High Court correctly interpreted contract terms – Terms of NIT and work order consistent and binding on parties – Appellant liable for taxes as per contract terms – No grounds for setting aside award under Section 34. [Paras 15-20]

Public Policy – Conflict with Arbitral Award – Analysis – Held – Arbitral award not contrary to public policy – Contract terms and award do not violate fundamental policy of Indian law – No patent illegality found – Appeal dismissed on grounds of no conflict with public policy. [Paras 21-23]

Decision – Dismissal of Appeal – Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment and dismissed the civil appeal – Found no merit in appellant's arguments – Confirmed that arbitral award was binding and consistent with contract terms – No order as to costs. [Paras 24]

Referred Cases:

Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. SAW Pipes Ltd., AIR 2003 SC 2629

SAW Pipes Ltd. v. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., (2003) 5 SCC 705

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

DIVISION BENCH

SWAN GOLD MINING LTD. — AppellantVs.HINDUSTAN COPPER LTD. — Respondent

( Before : Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J; M. Yusuf Eqbal, J )

Civil Appeal No. 9048 of 2014 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 10849 of 2013)

Decided on : 22-09-2014

Arbitration Act, 1940 - Section 30

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 34, Section 34(2)

Contract Act, 1872 - Section 23

Cases Referred

Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. SAW Pipes Ltd., AIR 2003 SC 2629 : (2003) 2 ARBLR 5 : (2003) 3 CompLJ 1 : (2003) 4 JT 171 : (2003) 4 SCALE 92 : (2003) 5 SCC 705 : (2003) 44 SCL 89 : (2003) 3 SCR 691 : (2003) 2 UJ 1035

Final Result : Dismissed