Arbitration – Applicability of Arbitration Act vs. Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal – Section 7, Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 – Arbitration clause in contract – Jurisdictional conflict resolved in favor of the Arbitration Act – High Court set aside award based on 1983 Act – Supreme Court reinstates appeal for merits consideration – Held – High Court's judgment set aside – Case remanded for fresh consideration without setting aside the award solely on jurisdictional grounds. [Paras 1-10].

Article 142 – Exercise of Jurisdiction for Complete Justice – Failure to raise objection at the appropriate stage – Supreme Court intervenes to ensure fair adjudication – High Court directed to decide the appeal on merits without jurisdictional technicalities undermining justice. [Paras 7-10].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – High Court’s judgment set aside – Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act restored for merits-based adjudication – Deposit of the awarded amount required pending final decision. [Paras 8-10].

Contempt of Court – Non-Appearance of Counsel – Supreme Court addressed the issue of counsels marking online appearances in proceedings without being physically or virtually present – Court emphasized that only those advocates who are actively participating in the hearing, either in person or via video conferencing, should be allowed to mark their presence online – The Court noted the potential negative implications on the integrity of the proceedings and the legal profession if this practice continues – Orders were given to the Supreme Court Bar Association and Advocates on Record Association to ensure strict compliance with this directive. [Paras 3-7]

Judicial Administration – Court Procedures – The Court observed the misuse of the online appearance marking system by certain advocates who were neither present in court nor assisting in proceedings – Directed that online appearances should only be marked for those advocates who are physically or virtually present and participating in the proceedings – Aimed at maintaining the sanctity of court proceedings and ensuring fairness in the legal profession. [Paras 4-6]

Decision – Case Reserved for Orders – Supreme Court reserved the case for orders after hearing the arguments and addressing the issues related to the marking of online appearances by counsels – Directed that further hearing would continue on the specified date with instructions for parties to submit relevant documents as deemed necessary. [Paras 9-10]

Mortgage by Deposit of Title Deeds – Creation of Security – Equitable Mortgage – Appellant claimed a mortgage was created by the respondent by depositing title deeds as security for a loan. The Single Judge held that a valid mortgage had been created under Section 58(f) of the Transfer of Property Act. However, the Division Bench reversed the judgment, concluding that the evidence did not prove the creation of a mortgage. The Supreme Court restored the judgment of the Single Judge, holding that the agreement between the parties constituted an equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds and that the Division Bench had erred in its interpretation [Paras 22-30].

Burden of Proof – Coercion and Threat – Respondent’s plea of coercion in signing the agreement was rejected due to the absence of supporting evidence. The Court emphasized that mere allegations without evidence cannot negate the legal effect of the agreement [Paras 24-25].

Registration Requirements – Section 17(1)(c) of the Registration Act – The Court reiterated that a memorandum recording the deposit of title deeds as security does not require registration unless it creates or extinguishes rights or liabilities. In the present case, the agreement did not require registration as it merely recorded the transaction already concluded [Paras 26-29].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Judgment of the Single Judge restored with a modification – Interest reduced from 36% p.a. to 12% p.a. – Costs imposed on the appellant for legal misadventure [Paras 33-36].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – FIR under Section 406 IPC and Section 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – Complainant filed an FIR against his daughter’s former in-laws alleging non-return of 'stridhan' – Supreme Court quashed the proceedings based on the absence of evidence to prove the entrustment of property and misappropriation by the accused – The Court highlighted the principle that a woman holds absolute ownership of her 'stridhan' and only she has the authority to claim it – Delay of over 20 years in filing the complaint and the complainant’s lack of locus standi further invalidated the case – Appeal allowed and proceedings quashed [Paras 9-20].

Evidence Evaluation – Lack of Proof of Entrustment – The Court found no evidence of the complainant having entrusted the 'stridhan' to the accused – The complainant’s claims were unsupported by any documentation or witness testimony – Previous divorce settlements had already resolved all property disputes – The Court reaffirmed that the complainant, not being the owner of the 'stridhan,' had no legal standing to file the FIR – [Paras 14-16].

Decision – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Held – The Supreme Court quashed the FIR and all proceedings arising from it due to lack of evidence, absence of legal standing, and the significant delay in filing the complaint – The judgment emphasizes the misuse of criminal proceedings as a tool for harassment and reaffirms the sole authority of women over their 'stridhan' – [Paras 17-21].

Criminal Law – Revision against Framing of Charges – High Court's Revisionary Power under Section 397 Cr.P.C. – Further Investigation Ordered by High Court Challenged – The Supreme Court considered whether the High Court could set aside a Sessions Court order framing charges and order further investigation – High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by allowing the revision application and discharging the accused despite previous dismissal of a similar application – Held, High Court’s order was illegal, and the framing of charges was restored by the Supreme Court [Paras 1-13].

Criminal Procedure – Section 397 Cr.P.C. – Revisional Jurisdiction of High Court – The Supreme Court emphasized that revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C. is limited, particularly against interlocutory orders like framing of charges – The High Court improperly exercised this power, leading to the setting aside of its order [Paras 9-11].

Costs and Directions – The Supreme Court imposed costs of ₹50,000 on the Respondent for filing frivolous applications and directed the Sessions Court to expedite the trial, warning that non-cooperation by the accused could lead to cancellation of bail [Paras 13-15].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, restoring the original order of the Sessions Court that framed charges against the accused – The Respondent was directed to pay costs to the Appellant and cooperate with the trial proceedings [Paras 13-15].

Seniority – Determination in Government Service – Direct Recruitment vs. Promotion – Dispute between direct recruits and promoted officers regarding seniority in the cadre of Junior Engineers – Contention that promoted Sectional Officers, Grade-I, whose posts were upgraded, should not be granted seniority over direct recruits – Held, direct recruits must be granted seniority from the date of their appointment as Junior Engineers, while those promoted after upgradation should be placed based on the date of upgradation – Seniority cannot be assigned retrospectively from a date when the incumbents were not yet in the cadre [Paras 1-16].

Promotion – Upgradation of Posts – Non-Gazetted to Gazetted Status – Posts of Sectional Officer, Grade-I, upgraded to Junior Engineer (Class-II Gazetted) – Court held that incumbents in upgraded posts cannot claim seniority over those directly recruited to the Junior Engineer cadre – Upgradation should be recognized from the actual date of entry into the cadre, not retrospectively [Paras 10-15].

Judicial Review – Misapplication of Service Rules – High Court misinterpreted service rules and granted undue seniority to promoted Junior Engineers over direct recruits – Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s decision, restoring the seniority list finalized on March 26, 2018 – Emphasized correct interpretation and application of service rules in determining seniority [Paras 13-16].

Decision:

Appeals allowed – The order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court is set aside – The seniority list of Junior Engineers as finalized on March 26, 2018, is upheld – No order as to costs.

Seniority – Determination in Government Service – Direct Recruitment vs. Promotion – Dispute between direct recruits and promoted officers regarding seniority in the cadre of Junior Engineers – Contention that promoted Sectional Officers, Grade-I, whose posts were upgraded, should not be granted seniority over direct recruits – Held, direct recruits must be granted seniority from the date of their appointment as Junior Engineers, while those promoted after upgradation should be placed based on the date of upgradation – Seniority cannot be assigned retrospectively from a date when the incumbents were not yet in the cadre [Paras 1-16].

Promotion – Upgradation of Posts – Non-Gazetted to Gazetted Status – Posts of Sectional Officer, Grade-I, upgraded to Junior Engineer (Class-II Gazetted) – Court held that incumbents in upgraded posts cannot claim seniority over those directly recruited to the Junior Engineer cadre – Upgradation should be recognized from the actual date of entry into the cadre, not retrospectively [Paras 10-15].

Judicial Review – Misapplication of Service Rules – High Court misinterpreted service rules and granted undue seniority to promoted Junior Engineers over direct recruits – Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s decision, restoring the seniority list finalized on March 26, 2018 – Emphasized correct interpretation and application of service rules in determining seniority [Paras 13-16].

Decision:

Appeals allowed – The order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court is set aside – The seniority list of Junior Engineers as finalized on March 26, 2018, is upheld – No order as to costs.

Compassionate Appointment – Nature of Employment – High Court’s determination of the appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules as permanent – Challenge before Supreme Court – Appointment found to be contractual under the preferential policy, not compassionate – Termination order for misconduct without inquiry held invalid despite contractual nature of employment – High Court orders partially set aside.

The Supreme Court examined the nature of the respondent's appointment, which the High Court had treated as permanent under the Uttar Pradesh Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. The Supreme Court held that the appointment was contractual under a preferential scheme for dependents, not compassionate under the Dying in Harness Rules. The Court further found that the termination for misconduct violated the Principles of Natural Justice due to the absence of a proper inquiry. Thus, while the High Court's quashing of the termination order was upheld, the characterization of the appointment as permanent was overturned. [Paras 1-22]

Principles of Natural Justice – Termination of Employment – Contractual Employee – Termination order stigmatic and passed without regular inquiry – Supreme Court upholds quashing of termination order despite the employee being on a contract basis – Clarification on employee’s right to claim regularization under the law.

The Supreme Court addressed the procedural impropriety in terminating the respondent’s contractual employment for alleged misconduct without holding a proper inquiry or providing an opportunity to be heard. The termination was found to be in violation of the Principles of Natural Justice as it was based on a stigmatic report that was not communicated to the respondent. The Court upheld the quashing of the termination order by the High Court but clarified that the employee's appointment was contractual, not permanent, thus leaving open the possibility for the respondent to seek regularization according to the law. [Paras 19-22]

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Held – The Supreme Court partially allows the appeal by setting aside the High Court's finding that the respondent's appointment was under the Dying in Harness Rules and permanent in nature. However, it upholds the quashing of the termination order due to the violation of Natural Justice.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the High Court’s determination that the respondent's appointment was under the Dying in Harness Rules and thus permanent. However, it upheld the High Court’s decision to quash the termination of the respondent due to the procedural irregularities in the termination process. [Para 22]

Criminal Law – Cancellation of Bail – Economic Offences – High Court granted bail to respondent accused in a case involving misappropriation of ₹79.54 Crores by a credit society's president and co-accused – Supreme Court set aside the High Court's bail order due to lack of consideration of relevant factors, such as the gravity of the offence and likelihood of tampering with evidence – Bail order found to be perverse and not in consonance with established legal principles – Direction issued for respondent to surrender, with liberty to apply for bail under changed circumstances – [Paras 18-27].

Evidence Evaluation – Court considered the extensive forensic audit report and witness statements indicating respondent’s involvement in the misappropriation – Noted the High Court's failure to appreciate the material evidence and the potential impact on the victims of the scam – Supreme Court emphasized the need for strict scrutiny in granting bail in economic offences involving public funds [Paras 19-24].

Decision – Bail order set aside – Held – Supreme Court directed the respondent to surrender within three weeks, with the option to apply for bail if circumstances change – The trial court to proceed without being influenced by the observations in this judgment, ensuring that the case is decided purely on its merits [Para 27].

Constitutional Law – Scheduled Castes/Tribes – Jurisdiction to Amend Presidential Orders – Supreme Court reaffirms that the power to include or exclude castes from the Scheduled Castes/Tribes list rests solely with the Parliament. State Governments cannot amend or modify the list through circulars or notifications. Any such amendments or inclusions by State Governments, even if implemented through administrative measures, are deemed ultra vires and without legal standing [Paras 7, 26].

Employment – Validity of Caste Certificates – Protection of Service – The Court held that employees who secured employment based on caste certificates issued under State Government circulars, which were later invalidated, are entitled to retain their positions under the General Merit category. This protection is conditional on the caste certificates being obtained through the due process at the time, without misrepresentation or fraud [Paras 25-29].

Service Law – Government Circulars – Effect and Applicability – The Karnataka Government's circulars dated 11th March 2002 and 29th March 2003, which provided protection to employees whose caste certificates were invalidated, are binding on state and central institutions. The Ministry of Finance’s communication dated 17th August 2005, which endorsed these circulars, reinforces this protection, barring disciplinary actions against such employees [Paras 28-35].

Decision:

Appeals allowed. The Court quashed the impugned judgments of the Karnataka High Court and set aside the show-cause notices issued to the appellants by their employers. The appellants’ services are to be protected, and they are to be reclassified as General Merit category employees without further disciplinary actions.