Facts:

The borrower/landlord had mortgaged a secured asset to the bank to secure a credit facility. Due to the borrower's failure to repay, SARFAESI Act proceedings were initiated, leading to a magistrate's order for the bank to take possession of the secured asset. Subsequently, a tenant, claiming tenancy rights, sought a stay on the possession order.

Issues:

The validity of the tenant's tenancy claim during SARFAESI Act proceedings. Key questions included the existence and timing of the tenancy, compliance with legal requirements for tenancy protection, and the sufficiency of evidence supporting the tenant's claim.

Held:

SARFAESI Act Objective and Mechanism: The court emphasized the SARFAESI Act's objective of efficient debt recovery, highlighting its self-executory mechanism for banks. Section 13, as a pivotal provision, involves a notice triggering the recovery process, with consequences for the borrower's ability to create further encumbrances.

Reconciliation of Acts: The judgment outlines the reconciliation between SARFAESI Act, Transfer of Property Act, and Rent Act. It establishes conditions for protecting tenancy rights based on the timing and validity of the tenancy in relation to the creation of the mortgage.

Doubtful Tenancy Claim: The court expressed doubts about the tenant's bona fide tenancy claim due to insufficient evidence, including uncertainties regarding the date of creation of tenancy and discrepancies in the stated period of tenancy.

Lack of Conclusive Evidence: Emphasis was placed on the lack of conclusive evidence supporting the tenant's claim, such as a registered lease deed or relevant documents like tax receipts.

Timing of Tenancy Claim: The court noted that the tenant raised the issue of tenancy only after SARFAESI Act proceedings were initiated, suggesting a potential attempt to defeat the bank's rights.

Tenant-in-Sufferance: It was held that, in the absence of a valid tenancy, the tenant could be treated as a 'tenant-in-sufferance,' with no legal rights akin to trespassers.

Non-extension of Rent Act: The court concluded that the operation of the Rent Act cannot be extended to a 'tenant-in-sufferance' vis–a–vis the SARFAESI Act due to the operation of Section 13(2) read with Section 13(13).

Final Decision: The court dismissed the tenant's appeal, directing the tenant to hand over possession of the secured asset to the bank within a stipulated time due to the lapse of seven years from the deadline date.

Facts:

The petitioner retired as the Acting Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court.

He sought pensionary benefits applicable to a retired Chief Justice.

Dispute arose regarding the calculation of pension under the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954.

Issues:

Whether the petitioner, having served as the Acting Chief Justice, is entitled to pension benefits equivalent to those of a Chief Justice?

The interpretation of Rule 7 of Part I of the First Schedule of the 1954 Act.

Held:

Section 14 of the 1954 Act provides for pension payable to Judges. Rule 7 of Part I of the First Schedule is crucial for computing the pension, treating service as an Acting Chief Justice as if it were service rendered as Chief Justice.( Para 5.2)

Rule 2 of Part I of the First Schedule outlines the pension computation. The court emphasizes that for the 14 months of service rendered as Acting Chief Justice, the pension is to be calculated as if the petitioner served as Chief Justice.( Para 6)

The court distinguishes between a Chief Justice appointed under Article 217 and an Acting Chief Justice appointed under Article 223, stating that the latter is not equated with the former except for the limited purpose of salary computation.( Para 6.3)

The court concludes that the petitioner is not entitled to pensionary benefits, including the ceiling applicable to a retired Chief Justice, except for the period of service rendered as Acting Chief Justice.( Para 7)

Facts:

The dispute involves sharing of rent for leased spaces between the owners and developers.

Appellants filed petitions under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking arbitration in accordance with Clause 19 of the Addendum.

The lower courts dismissed the applications, stating that the disputes under Section 23 of the Societies Registration Act were not covered by Clause 19.

Issues:

Whether the dispute related to the sharing of rent falls within the scope of Clause 19 of the Addendum.

Whether the lower courts erred in not referring the dispute to arbitration.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the dispute, involving the sharing of rent, is related to the agreements and Addendum.

Clause 19 of the Addendum, which provides for arbitration, is applicable to the dispute.

The lower courts committed a grave error in not referring the dispute to arbitration.

The appeals were allowed, and the applications under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act were granted.

Facts:

The petitioner, Dr. Ashwani Kumar, filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking a legislative framework against custodial torture based on the UN Convention. The petitioner argued that custodial torture is a crime against humanity and violates Art.21.

Issues:

Whether the court should invoke jurisdiction under Arts.141, 142 for the protection and advancement of human dignity in the context of custodial torture.

Held:

The court acknowledged its authority to lay down general rules/guidelines in extraordinary cases of human rights violations. However, the court emphasized that a mere allegation of human rights violation or environmental concerns is not a sufficient basis for judicial intervention. It argued that directions should be issued with great care and circumspection.

The court stated that issuing directions when a matter is already pending consideration with the executive or Parliament would be inappropriate, as it might be interpreted as judicial participation in the legislative process. It asserted that any direction at this stage would undermine the role assigned to the judiciary under the Constitution.

The judgment emphasized the importance of respecting the constitutional separation of powers among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. It discussed the powers and functions of each branch and highlighted the need for interdependence and coordination for effective governance.

The court concluded that the judiciary should not encroach upon the fields reserved for the legislature and the executive. It clarified that judges, while interpreting statutes and exercising judicial review, do not legislate but ensure the legality and validity of legislation and governmental actions.

FACTS:

The case involved the interpretation of Section 11(6A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015, and its applicability to the appointment of arbitrators.

ISSUES:

The scope of the court's examination under Section 11(6A) and whether the court could go beyond determining the existence of an arbitration agreement at the stage of a Section 11(6) application.

HELD:

The court held that Section 11(6A) limited the court's examination to the existence of an arbitration agreement and left other preliminary issues to be decided by the arbitrator. The judgment overruled a previous decision in United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Antique Art Exports Private Limited (2019) 5 SCC 362, stating that it did not correctly interpret the law as amended by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015.

The court, after considering the arguments of both parties, decided not to interfere with the impugned decision of 12.03.2019, citing no necessity to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.( Para 4)

The court highlighted the legislative changes, specifically the omission of Section 11(6A) by the amendment Act of 2019, and clarified that the law now requires institutional appointment of arbitrators, removing the need for the court to appoint arbitrators and determine the existence of an arbitration agreement.( Para 6)

The judgment overruled the decision in United India Insurance Company Limited (2019) 5 SCC 362, stating that it did not correctly interpret the law as amended by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015.( Para 11)

REFERRED CASES:

Duro Felguera. S.A. vs. Gangavaram Port Limited, (2017) 9 SCC 729

Garware Wall Ropes Ltd. vs. Coastal Marine Constructions & Engineering Ltd.. (2019 SCC OnLine SC

Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. vs. Mehul Construction Co., (2000) 7 SCC 201

Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. vs. Rani Construction (P) Ltd., (2002) 2 SCC 388

National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Boghara Polyfab Pvt. Ltd., (2009) 1 SCC 267

ONGC Mangalore Petrochemicals Limited vs. ANS Constructions Limited and another, (2018) 3 SCC 373

SBP & Co. vs. Patel Engineering Ltd. and Anr., (2005) 8 SCC 618

Shin Etsu Chemicals Co. Ltd. v. Aksh Optifibre, (2005) 7 SCC 234

United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Antique Art Exports Private Limited, (2019) 5 SCC 362

Facts:

The appellant is the Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore.

The respondent is M/S Motorola India Ltd., a leading manufacturer of pagers.

The case involves an appeal from the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the violation of conditions in a customs exemption notification.

The exemption notification (Notification No. 30/1997-Customs) exempted materials imported for manufacturing pagers from customs duty.

Issues:

Whether an appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act lies before the High Court or Section 130E of the Customs Act.

Whether the respondent breached the conditions of the exemption notification by not utilizing imported materials for the declared final product.

Held:

The appeals should be considered under Section 130 of the Customs Act rather than Section 130E.

The issues do not involve questions related to the rate of duty, valuation of goods, classification of goods, or broader issues of general public importance.

The case is purely inter-se between the parties and should be adjudicated based on the available facts.

The appeals are allowed, and the orders of the High Court are set aside.

The appeals are remitted back to the High Court for de novo consideration on their own merits.

No order as to costs.

Facts:

The appellant, P. Chidambaram, was accused of irregularities in FIPB clearance. The CBI registered an FIR, and the Enforcement Directorate initiated a case under PMLA.

Issues:

The grant of anticipatory bail, perusal of materials during investigation, and the interference of the judiciary in the interrogation process.

Held:

The court held that it can peruse materials during investigation for various purposes, including considering bail applications. However, the court refrained from opening a sealed cover to avoid prejudice.

The court emphasized its power to peruse materials for the satisfaction of its conscience, especially during the consideration of bail applications.( Para 53)

The court clarified that the interrogation and determination of the adequacy of answers are within the domain of the investigating agency, and the court should not conduct a mini-trial.( Para 58)

Anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy and should be sparingly exercised, particularly in cases of economic offenses.( Para 67)

The court, considering the stage of investigation and materials collected, concluded that it was not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail.( Para 76, 77, 81)

Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the refusal of anticipatory bail.

Facts:

Dispute arising from a partnership where an FIR was filed on 17.11.2017, alleging siphoning of funds and business improprieties.

Arbitration Petition filed by the appellant under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of an Arbitrator based on the partnership deed dated 30.01.2015.

High Court, relying on 'A. Ayyasamy v. A. Paramasivam and Others,' dismissed the Section 11 application, citing the nature of the dispute involving serious allegations of fraud as unsuitable for arbitration.

Issues:

Whether the nature of the dispute, with allegations of fraud, is fit for arbitration proceedings.

Applicability of the principles laid down in 'A. Ayyasamy v. A. Paramasivam and Others' to the present case.

Held:

The Supreme Court clarifies that the relevant law is in paragraph 25 of 'A. Ayyasamy v. A. Paramasivam and Others.' It emphasizes the distinction between serious allegations affecting the entire contract and "simple allegations" related to internal affairs. The court concludes that the disputes are arbitrable as they fall under "simple allegations," and the Section 11 application is maintainable.

The court holds that the disputes raised between the parties are arbitrable, and thus, a Section 11 application under the Arbitration Act is maintainable.( Paragraph 7)

The judgment under appeal is set aside, and with the consent of the parties, Justice Amareshwar Sahay is appointed as the sole arbitrator to resolve all disputes.( Paragraph 8)

The court emphasizes that nothing in the judgment will affect the ongoing investigation pursuant to the FIR.( Paragraph 9)

The appeal is disposed of.( Paragraph 10)

Facts:

The accused, Jagbir Singh, was charged with murdering his wife by setting her on fire with kerosene oil.

Contradictory statements were made by the victim, initially claiming accidental fire due to petrol leakage, but later accusing the accused of pouring kerosene oil.

Issues:

Reliability of dying declarations.

Admissibility and consistency of multiple dying declarations.

Absence of a medical certificate regarding the fitness of the person making the dying declaration.

Presence of kerosene and the alleged conspiracy against the accused.

Held:

Conviction Based on Dying Declaration: The court emphasized the admissibility and evidentiary value of a dying declaration.Conviction can be solely based on a dying declaration if it inspires confidence and lacks suspicion.

Multiple Dying Declarations: Acknowledged the possibility of multiple dying declarations with inconsistencies. Emphasized the need to examine the entirety of materials and circumstances surrounding the dying declarations to determine the truthful one.

Medical Certificate and Dying Declaration: Absence of a medical certificate is not fatal if the voluntary and truthful nature of the declaration can be established otherwise.A certification by the doctor is a rule of caution, but its absence does not invalidate the dying declaration.

Dismissal of Conspiracy Claim: Dismissed the appellant's claim of a conspiracy to deprive him of the deceased's property.Highlighted that the appellant had no legal right to the property under the Hindu Succession Act.

Evidence of Kerosene Use: Overwhelming evidence indicating the use of kerosene, including its presence in the premises, forensic examination, and witness statements. Rejected the appellant's claim of an accidental fire caused by a motorcycle's petrol leakage.

Decision:

The appeal was dismissed, affirming the convictions based on the reliable dying declaration and supporting evidence.