Arbitration Law – Interim Measures – Jurisdiction – Gujarat Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1992 – Tribunal constituted under Section 3 has jurisdiction to grant interim measures under Section 17 of the A&C Act – Contractor’s remedy lies with the Tribunal – High Court’s order restraining recovery without adjudication set aside – Appeals allowed [Paras 1-22].

Statutory Arbitration – Consistency of Laws – A&C Act and Gujarat Act – No inconsistency in grant of interim relief under Section 17 of the A&C Act by the Tribunal – Gujarat Act’s provisions supplemented by Section 17 – Tribunal empowered to adjudicate disputes and grant interim measures [Paras 17-21].

Interim Injunction – Unilateral Recovery – State issued notice to recover alleged dues from other contracts – Contractor challenged notice – High Court relied on precedents to restrain unilateral recovery – Supreme Court finds Tribunal competent to decide legality and grant interim relief – High Court’s order reversed [Paras 6-22].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – High Court’s judgments set aside – Contractor may approach Tribunal within two months – Tribunal to decide on merits without limitation bar [Para 22].

Land Acquisition – Adverse Possession – Public Purpose – Appellant, an illiterate widow from a rural background, was divested of her property by the State in 1967 without compensation or legal sanction for the construction of a road – High Court dismissed her writ petition citing laches – Supreme Court finds continuing cause of action, orders compensation on same terms as a similar case – Appeals allowed [Paras 1-14].

Right to Property – Constitutional and Human Right – Appellant’s property taken when right to property was a fundamental right under Article 31 – Despite its conversion to a constitutional right under Article 300A, the obligation to pay compensation remains – State’s claim of adverse possession rejected as inconsistent with welfare state principles [Paras 10-11].

Delay and Laches – Continuing Cause of Action – Appellant’s delay in approaching the Court due to unawareness does not bar relief – Judicial discretion to condone delay exercised due to compelling circumstances – State’s inaction deemed unjust [Paras 10.7-11].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – State directed to pay compensation as per Reference Court’s award in a similar case, including statutory benefits, within eight weeks – Costs of Rs. 1,00,000 awarded to appellant – High Court’s orders set aside [Para 13-14].

Disciplinary Proceedings – Authority to Impose Penalties – Appeal against High Court's decision quashing punishment order – Regulation 5(3) of Discipline and Appeal Regulations 1976 allows the Disciplinary Authority or any higher authority to impose penalties – General Manager imposed punishment on respondent, originally initiated by Deputy General Manager – Supreme Court found Division Bench erred in holding General Manager lacked authority – Appeal allowed, order of Single Judge restored, matter remitted to Appellate Authority for reconsideration [Paras 1-14].

Misconduct – Departmental Proceedings – Respondent, a Scale I officer, suspended and charged with misconduct – Inquiry report found respondent guilty – Punishment of compulsory retirement imposed by General Manager – Division Bench quashed the order citing lack of authority, remitted to Deputy General Manager – Supreme Court clarifies General Manager's authority per Regulation 5(3) [Paras 2-13].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Order of Division Bench set aside – Order of Single Judge remitting matter to authorized Appellate Authority restored – Costs to be borne by respective parties [Paras 14-15].

Criminal Law – Suspension of Sentence – Appeal against the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court upholding the vacation of suspension of sentence due to non-compliance with the condition of deposit – Court finds Additional Sessions Judge acted within jurisdiction in declaring suspension vacated for non-compliance with deposit condition – Upholds mandatory deposit condition as per amended Section 148 of NI Act – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-22].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Dishonour of Cheque – Appellants convicted for cheque dishonour – Conditional suspension of sentence requiring deposit of 25% of compensation – Non-compliance led to vacation of suspension by Additional Sessions Judge – Supreme Court affirms that amended Section 148 applies even to pre-amendment cases if appeals filed post-amendment [Paras 3-18].

Applicability of Section 148 NI Act – Retrospective Effect – Supreme Court holds that Section 148 NI Act applies retrospectively to pending appeals even if complaints were filed before amendment – Aligns with purposive interpretation and legislative intent to prevent delay tactics by unscrupulous drawers of dishonoured cheques [Paras 11-16].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Vacation of suspension of sentence for non-compliance with deposit condition upheld – Orders of Additional Sessions Judge and High Court affirmed [Para 22].

Compassionate Appointment – Gratuity and Scheme Applicability – Respondents sought compassionate appointment post demise of employee – Court affirms that only the scheme prevalent at the date of death applies – Scheme of 4.4.1979 applies, not subsequent schemes – Respondents opted for full gratuity; hence, compassionate appointment not available – Subsequent schemes do not apply retrospectively, nor do they provide for ex gratia payments if income exceeds benchmark – Appeal allowed [Paras 1-20].

Income Benchmark – Disqualification from Subsequent Schemes – Even under subsequent schemes, respondent's income disqualified them from benefits – Bank's call to apply under new schemes conditional on eligibility, which respondents did not meet – Non-disclosure of respondent’s employment further disentitles them [Paras 16-17].

Judicial Review – Court's Role – Courts cannot modify or extend schemes beyond their terms – Judicial review limited to ensuring adherence to existing scheme, not creating new benefits [Para 17].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court order set aside – Writ petition dismissed – Parties to bear their own costs [Para 20].

Coparcenary Property – Inheritance and Partition – Property of deceased coparcener devolves per Hindu Succession Act if there are female Class-I heirs – After the death of Moola Gounder, his property was inherited as tenants-in-common, not joint tenants – Mother's execution of release deed on behalf of minor daughter without court sanction is voidable, not void – Suit for partition filed 18 years later barred by limitation [Paras 1-19].

Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act – Natural Guardian's Powers – Mother acted as natural guardian of minor daughters in releasing their share – Document executed without court sanction is voidable under Section 8, must be challenged within three years of attaining majority – Karta cannot act as guardian in a release deed involving his interest due to conflict of interest [Paras 7, 10-17].

Judicial Precedents – Application of Hindu Succession Act – Court emphasizes property inherited by Class-I heirs is individual property, not HUF property – Reference to relevant precedents including Gurupad Khandappa Magdum v. Hirabai Khandappa Magdum, Commissioner of Wealth Tax Kanpur v. Chander Sen, and Appropriate Authority (IT Deptt) v. M. Arifulla [Paras 11-14].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court judgment set aside – Trial court judgment restored – Pending applications disposed of [Para 19].

Criminal Law – Conspiracy and Corruption – Appellant, a former Director of Mines and Geology in Karnataka, sought discharge from charges of conspiracy and corruption – High Court set aside Magistrate's order granting discharge – Supreme Court examines evidence and legal principles under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. – Held that sufficient material existed to frame charges – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-30].

Legal Principles for Discharge – Section 227 of Cr.P.C. – Court outlines principles for discharge applications – Emphasizes that at the stage of framing charges, probative value of material is not to be weighed – Court must proceed on assumption that materials are true – If two views are possible, and one gives rise to grave suspicion, charges should be framed [Paras 14-15].

Evidence and Findings – Allegations against appellant include conspiracy with other accused to issue Mineral Dispatch Permits (MDPs) illegally – Prosecution evidence included statements of officials and documents – High Court found sufficient material to raise grave suspicion – Supreme Court agrees, noting that appellant's defense cannot be considered at discharge stage [Paras 16-30].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – High Court's order setting aside Magistrate's discharge order upheld – Charges to be framed against appellant based on material evidence – Observations made are for the purpose of deciding the discharge application and do not affect the trial's merits [Para 30].

Landlord-Tenant Law – Sub-letting and Arrears of Rent – Appellant (landlady) filed eviction suit against tenant (respondent) on grounds of sub-letting and arrears of rent – Rent Controller dismissed suit, but Appellate Authority decreed eviction – High Court quashed eviction decree – Supreme Court examines evidence and finds clear case of sub-letting – High Court’s order set aside, eviction decree restored [Paras 1-10].

Sub-letting – Definition and Proof – Sub-letting involves parting with possession and granting exclusive possession to third party without landlord’s consent – Landlord must prove prima facie case of sub-letting – Once established, burden shifts to tenant to rebut – In this case, evidence showed exclusive possession and control by sub-tenant [Paras 8-9].

Eviction Petition – Maintainability – Appellant as power of attorney holder of property owner filed eviction petition – Respondents challenged appellant’s status as landlady – Supreme Court held eviction petition maintainable under Section 2(6) of the Act – Appellant deemed landlord due to execution of rental agreement and receipt of rent [Para 6.1].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court’s order set aside – Judgment and decree of Rent Control Appellate Authority restored – Respondents ordered to vacate premises within three months on filing usual undertaking and payment of arrears of rent within four weeks [Para 10].

Telecom Law – Spectrum Charges – Union of India challenged TDSAT’s order directing refund of excess amount encashed from bank guarantees provided by RCL for deferred spectrum charges – Supreme Court examines NIA 2013 and NIA 2015 terms – Holds that refund of unadjusted amount was justified – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-12].

Bank Guarantees – Encashment and Refund – RCL failed to pay deferred spectrum charges – Union encashed bank guarantees for Rs. 908.91 crores against liability of Rs. 774.25 crores – RCL furnished fresh guarantees for Rs. 774.25 crores – Excess encashment of Rs. 134.66 crores sought to be refunded – TDSAT directed refund of Rs. 104.34 crores – Supreme Court upheld the decision [Paras 3-11].

Financial Stress and Relief – Telecom sector facing financial difficulties – Union revisited and modified payment terms for deferred spectrum charges – RCL’s financial stress and restructuring cited – Supreme Court finds Union’s refusal to refund excess amount unreasonable – Orders refund as directed by TDSAT [Paras 2, 10-11].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Supreme Court upholds TDSAT’s order directing Union of India to refund Rs. 104.34 crores to RCL for excess amount encashed from bank guarantees – No costs [Para 12].