Facts:

The case involved the calculation of Premium FSI charges for a construction project in Chennai. The initial planning permission was granted on 01.07.2009. The government introduced the "Premium FSI Scheme," and the developer submitted a revised plan seeking additional FSI under this scheme on 04.05.2011. The application was returned for defects on 10.02.2012, and after rectification, the government granted approval on 29.05.2012. The dispute arose regarding the calculation of Premium FSI charges based on the guideline value.

Issues:

Whether the Premium FSI charges should be calculated based on the guideline value as of the application date (04.05.2011) or the approval date (29.05.2012).

Held:

The court held that no right accrued to the builder until approval was granted. Regulation 36 mandated approval from the government for Premium FSI, and the crucial date for determining charges was the approval date. The court set aside the Division Bench's decision and allowed the appeal, stating that the charges should be based on the revised guideline value in force from 01.04.2012.

Conclusion: The judgment clarified the importance of the approval date in determining Premium FSI charges, emphasizing that no legal right accrues until the government sanctions the revised plan. The court upheld the authority's right to calculate charges based on the guideline value in force at the time of approval.

Facts:

The case involves appeals against orders in applications under Section 151 read with Order VII Rule 10 CPC and Section 2(1)(e)(i) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, where parties sought the return of petitions filed under Section 34 of the 1996 Act. The critical issue was the maintainability of such appeals.

Issues:

Whether appeals filed in this case fall within the scope of Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, 1996.

Determination of the juridical seat of the arbitral proceedings – New Delhi or Faridabad.

Held:

Maintainability of Appeals (Para 15-22): The court emphasized that Section 37(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 explicitly limits the grounds on which appeals can be filed. Appeals are restricted to orders falling under sub-clauses (a), (b), and (c) of Section 37(1). The crucial point highlighted was that the refusal to set aside an arbitral award must be under Section 34, following an adjudication on the grounds specified in that section. In the present case, there was no adjudication under Section 34. The appeals, having arisen from orders related to jurisdiction and return of the petition, did not fall within the purview of Section 37 and were deemed not maintainable.

3.2 Juridical Seat of Arbitral Proceedings (Para 2.5-2.17): The court delved into the concept of the 'juridical seat' of arbitral proceedings, emphasizing its significance in regulating arbitral proceedings. It pointed out that once a seat is designated by agreement, it operates akin to an exclusive jurisdiction clause. The analysis involved a detailed interpretation of Sections 20, 31(4), and 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration Act, 1996, along with a comparison with the UNCITRAL Model Law. The court clarified that the determination of the 'seat' is crucial, as it vests exclusive jurisdiction in the Courts at that location for arbitral proceedings.

Express Designation and Venue (Para 2.13-2.14): The court outlined that an express designation of a 'venue,' coupled with a lack of designation of any alternative place as the 'seat,' indicates that the stated 'venue' is the juridical seat of arbitral proceedings. The use of terms like "arbitration proceedings shall be held" reinforces this interpretation. In an international context, the application of supranational rules governing arbitration further supports the designation of the 'venue' as the 'seat.'

Application to the Present Case (Para 2.15-2.17): The court applied these principles to the arbitration clause in the present case. Notably, Clause 67.3(ii) specified that disputes with a foreign contractor would be resolved under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. The court concluded that the clause designates either New Delhi or Faridabad as the 'seat' based on the application of supranational rules. Importantly, even when the proceedings were held in New Delhi, the court determined that both parties had chosen New Delhi as the 'seat,' giving the Courts at New Delhi exclusive jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings.

4. DECISION: The impugned judgment was set aside, affirming that New Delhi was the 'seat' of arbitration, and the Section 34 petition was ordered to be presented in the Courts in New Delhi, as initially determined by the Special Commercial Court at Gurugram.

Facts:

The complainant, engaged in the business of cement sheets, filed a complaint in January 2009, accusing the appellant of hosting a group that published a defamatory article. The complaint pertained to an offense allegedly committed from July 31, 2008, onwards.

Issues:

The applicability of Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, the intermediary status of the appellant, and whether the appellant could be held liable for defamation.

Held:

The Court clarified the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC concerning defamation offenses, distinguishing cases of complaints from police reports. [Paragraph 43]

The judgment discussed the scope of Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, both before and after its substitution, emphasizing the conditions for immunity of intermediaries. [Paragraphs 59, 61, 63-64]

The Court declined to decide the question of whether the appellant was an intermediary or if Google LLC, the parent company, played that role. It emphasized the need for evidence to determine such matters. [Paragraphs 80, 81, 83]

An overview of defamation laws highlighted the essential elements of the offense under Section 499 of the IPC and the significance of exceptions. [Paragraphs 98, 99, 101]

The Court considered the effect of the substitution of Section 79 of the Act, emphasizing that the complaint was filed before the substitution, and hence, the case fell under the previous provisions. [Paragraphs 133-135]

The question of whether the appellant, as a subsidiary, could be considered an independent body immune from liability was deemed inappropriate for determination under Section 482. [Paragraph 136]

The judgment critiqued the High Court's finding that the appellant failed to act on notices to remove objectionable content, pointing out flaws in the reasoning and highlighting the intermediary's limited liability. [Paragraphs 137-139]

The Court emphasized the role of publication in defamation cases, especially in the context of the internet and intermediary responsibility. [Paragraphs 141, 142]

The Court addressed the appellant's response to the complainant's notice, emphasizing the need for evidence and the inappropriateness of addressing such matters in a Section 482 petition. [Paragraphs 146, 147, 149]

Facts:

The appeal challenges the High Court's judgment enhancing compensation from Rs. 3,72,620 to Rs. 5,02,620 in a motor vehicle accident case.

The deceased, a 19-year-old bachelor, died due to injuries from the accident caused by the negligence of a bus driver.

The Tribunal and the High Court used a multiplier of '15' based on the age of the deceased's mother.

Issues:

Calculation of compensation considering the age of the deceased, future prospects, and multiplier.

Applicability of the multiplier to a bachelor's age.

Held:

The Constitution Bench's decision in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680 is referred, emphasizing the consideration of future prospects.

The age of the deceased, not the dependents, is crucial in determining the multiplier.

The Court recalculates the compensation, adding 40% of the deceased's established income for future prospects and deducting 50% for personal expenses.

The final compensation is determined as Rs. 6,62,448, from which the High Court's awarded amount of Rs. 5,02,620 is deducted.

The balance compensation payable is Rs. 1,59,868, rounded off to Rs. 1,60,000.

The third Respondent/insurance company is directed to deposit this amount with 7% simple interest from the claim petition date within two months.

The appeal is partly allowed, and the insurance company is directed to deposit Rs. 1,60,000 as compensation with interest. No costs are awarded.

Facts:

Two FIRs filed - one by the petitioner against Respondent No.7, an IPS Officer, for alleged sexual assault and another by Respondent No.7's mother alleging pressure for money by the petitioner's family.

Petitioner sought the transfer of investigation to an independent agency, suspension of Respondent No.7, and protection for herself and her family.

Issues:

Fairness of investigation by Delhi Police due to Respondent No.7's police background.

Alleged attempts to deceive the court and suppression of material facts.

Held:

The investigation into the petitioner's FIR was conducted fairly by a Special Investigation Team.

No need to transfer the investigation to a Central Agency.

Observation of discrepancies in the petitioner's statements regarding an alleged car incident, leading to the issuance of a suo motu contempt notice.

The matter to be considered on its merits, and the charge-sheet to be evaluated by the court.

Facts:

The case involves seven accused, with five injured eye-witnesses. Accused Nos. 1 to 6 were identified in the Test Identification Parade by all the eye-witnesses. The trial court convicted six accused, while accused No.7 was acquitted. The High Court affirmed the trial court's order.

Issues:

The conviction of Accused Nos. 1 to 6 and the acquittal of Accused No.7. The key concern is the evidentiary value of the Test Identification Parade (TIP) and its role in corroborating the eye-witness accounts.

Held:

The substantive piece of evidence for the identification of an accused is the testimony given during the trial. However, the time gap between the incident and witness examination may raise questions about the correctness of identification, especially if the accused were unknown. The Test Identification Parade (TIP) is a crucial part of the investigation, providing corroboration to witness statements. The weightage given to TIP varies in each case.

In cases where material on record indicates the reasons for gaining an enduring impression of the identity on the witness's mind, non-holding of TIP may not be fatal to the prosecution. In this case, the eyewitnesses, having suffered injuries, had ample opportunity to observe the accused, making the TIP less crucial for establishing identity.

The TIP in the present case was held promptly after the arrest of the accused, except Accused No.6, who surrendered later. There was no delay attributable to the investigating machinery in conducting the TIP.

While there may be room to suggest that accused were shown to witnesses while in custody, the testimonies of certain witnesses stand on a different footing.

The facts indicate no delay in holding the TIP, and the witnesses had adequate opportunity to observe the features of each accused. Accused No.6's TIP has no infirmity, and witnesses consistently identified him.

Decision: Considering the totality of circumstances, the court affirms the presence and participation of Accused Nos. 1 to 6, based on eyewitness accounts. The evidence of identification by PWs 1 to 5 is deemed reliable, leading to the rightful conviction of the appellants for the charged offenses.

Facts:

The prosecution case revolves around the appellant receiving a phone call from the second respondent, her daughter's husband, reporting the alleged suicide of the victim-deceased. Upon reaching the scene, the appellant discovered the deceased's body, which had been bathed and buried by the second respondent and his relatives. Subsequently, injury marks were observed on the body. A chargesheet was filed against a friend of the second respondent, and during the trial, the appellant moved an application under Section 319 to summon the second respondent based on her substantive evidence.

Issues:

The summoning order for the second respondent. The trial court had allowed the application under Section 319, but the High Court set aside this order.

Held:

During the appellant's cross-examination, she provided details about the harassment her daughter faced from the second respondent. The trial court, after a careful evaluation of evidentiary material, summoned the second respondent, considering the incident's occurrence within the matrimonial home. The High Court's interference was deemed unjustified, as the evidence met the threshold required for summoning under Section 319.

The trial court's order was based on the principles outlined in the Constitution Bench's decision in Hardeep Singh, and reasons were provided, including the reliance on Section 114 of the Evidence Act. The High Court's dismissal of the order on the pretext of exploring the cause of death was criticized. Section 319 empowers the court to proceed against a person appearing guilty based on emerging evidence during the trial.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the trial court's order for summoning the second respondent was valid, while the High Court's interference was unsustainable.

Facts:

Appellant, a tanker driver, met with a severe accident resulting in the loss of one leg and permanent disability.

Filed a claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act against the Truck Owner and the Insurance Company.

Dispute over the assessment of functional disability and compensation.

Issues:

Assessment of the appellant's functional disability.

Determination of compensation amount under Section 4 of the Workmen's Compensation Act.

Reimbursement of medical expenses.

Held:

The Court affirmed the High Court's decision to assess the appellant's income at Rs. 4,000/- p.m.

The functional disability of the appellant was assessed at 100%, considering the permanent incapacity to work as a driver.

Relevant factor used was 201.66 as per Schedule IV to the Act.

Compensation payable to the appellant determined as Rs. 4,83,984/- under Section 4 of the Act.

Awarded a lump sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards hospitalization and medical expenses.

Directed the Insurance Company to pay the enhanced compensation with interest at 6% p.a., calculated from one month after the accident until the date of payment, within 4 weeks.

The Civil Appeal stands allowed.

Facts:

The case involves a challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 13(2) of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011.

The appellant contested an order of the Rent Control Tribunal and appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues:

The primary issue revolved around the legislative competence of the Chhattisgarh State Legislature in enacting Section 13(2) of the Rent Control Act.

Whether Section 13(2) providing for a direct appeal to the Supreme Court from orders passed by the Rent Control Tribunal is within the legislative powers of the State.

Held:

The State Legislature lacked legislative competence to enact Section 13(2) of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011. Therefore, Section 13(2) of the Rent Control Act is declared ultra vires the Constitution of India, null and void, and of no effect. (Para 89) [1127-E]

The analysis of legislative powers under Article 246 highlighted that while the State Legislature can enact laws related to land tenures, including the relation of landlord and tenant, it cannot legislate to confer appellate jurisdiction to the Supreme Court. Entry 64 of the State List and Entry 46 of the Concurrent List expressly debar the State Legislature from legislating with respect to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. (Para 54) [1121-B-C]

The Supreme Court, established under Article 124, does not have a provision for direct appeal from an order of a Tribunal constituted under state law. Articles 262(2) and 348 further demonstrate that matters pertaining to the Supreme Court fall exclusively within the legislative domain of the Union Parliament. (Para 41) [1118-F-G]

Article 323B(3)(d) does not empower a State Legislature to expand the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court by enacting a provision for further statutory appeal to the Supreme Court from an order of an Appellate Tribunal. (Para 55) [1121-D]

Section 13(2) providing for a direct appeal to the Supreme Court is not ancillary or incidental to the power of the Chhattisgarh State Legislature to enact a Rent Control Act. It overtly transgresses the limits of its legislative power. (Para 49) [1120-C]

While Article 136 of the Constitution grants discretionary power to the Supreme Court to interfere in appropriate cases, Section 13(2) mandates the Supreme Court to consider an appeal, which goes beyond the legislative competence of the State. (Para 57) [1121-E]

The second proviso to Article 200, which requires the Governor to reserve a bill for Presidential consideration if it derogates from the powers of the High Court, is not attracted in the case of Section 13(2) since it does not derogate from any power of the High Court. (Para 68) [1123-B-F]

The power of superintendence conferred by Article 227 is supervisory and not appellate. The High Court's interference is restricted to cases of patent error of law, perversity, arbitrariness, lack of jurisdiction, and usurpation of powers. The writ jurisdiction cannot be converted into an alternative appellate forum. (Para 86) [1126-G-H; 1127-A-C]