Arbitral Award Modification & Judicial Intervention - Challenge to the High Court's judgment confirming the Senior Civil Judge's decision to modify the arbitral award - The issue concerns judicial intervention under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the scope of such intervention in arbitral awards. [Paras 1, 11-12, 14-15, 28-32, 37-43]

Contractor's Claims for Delay in Construction - S.V. Samudram, a contractor, claimed financial losses due to delays in construction work caused by the State's failure in timely site handover, supply of materials, and payment clearances. The Arbitrator found the State liable and awarded compensation. [Paras 2-3, 5-6]

Court's Assessment of Arbitrator's Decision - The Civil Judge modified the Arbitrator's decision, reducing the compensation amount and interest rate. The High Court affirmed this decision. The Supreme Court scrutinized the appropriateness of such judicial intervention under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. [Paras 7-10, 13, 28-32, 37-43]

Restoration of Arbitral Award - The Supreme Court found the lower courts' intervention inappropriate, restoring the original Arbitrator's award. The judgment highlights the limited scope of judicial review in arbitral awards and reaffirms the sanctity of arbitration as an alternate dispute resolution mechanism. [Paras 47-48]

Detention Order Validity - Detention under Section 3 of COFEPOSA Act following arrest due to possession of gold and foreign currencies - Detention order challenged by brother-in-law of detenue on grounds of improper service of detention grounds and denial of right to representation - High Court of Calcutta upheld the detention order. [Paras 2-5]

Detenue's Refusal to Receive Grounds - Detenue refused to accept the grounds of detention multiple times - Grounds finally accepted on a later date - Detenue's refusal to accept grounds recorded in a panchnama, undermining his claim of not being informed of his right to representation. [Paras 4-5, 9, 16]

Legal Principles of Detention - Importance of communicating grounds of detention in a language understood by the detenue - Article 22(5) of the Constitution requires informing detenue of their right to make a representation against detention - Detenue must have effective knowledge of grounds for meaningful representation. [Paras 10-14]

Adequate Compliance by Authorities - Authorities made several attempts to serve the detention grounds in both English and Bengali - Detenue eventually read the grounds and documents - Authorities fulfilled their duty under Article 22(5) by providing sufficient opportunity for representation. [Paras 16, 18]

Dismissal of Appeal - Supreme Court found no merit in the appeal - No error in procedure adopted by respondents - Detenue's knowledge of English evident, diminishing his claim of ignorance - Appeal dismissed, upholding the High Court's decision. [Paras 16-19]

Circumstantial Evidence and Presence at Crime Scene – Murder of Amrik Kaur by poisoning – Appellant Darshan Singh convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC – Prosecution based on circumstantial evidence, particularly the presence of appellant at the scene – Evidence of appellant's presence and opportunity to commit the crime critical in the case. [Paras 1-5, 10-13, 17, 21-25, 29-31, 34-37]

Testimony of Witnesses – PW3 and PW4's testimonies crucial for establishing appellant's presence at the crime scene – Cross-examination revealed significant omissions and inconsistencies – Testimony of PW5 (a chance witness) not reliable enough to confirm appellant's presence – Overall, the evidence of presence was not established beyond a reasonable doubt. [Paras 18-25, 29]

Suicide Versus Homicide – Defence suggested deceased committed suicide – Prosecution failed to conclusively negate this possibility – Doubts about the mode of administration of poison – No forceful administration indicated due to lack of injury marks – Circumstances do not definitively point to homicide over suicide. [Paras 30, 34-37]

Benefit of Doubt and Acquittal – Co-accused Rani Kaur acquitted, raising doubts about appellant's presence and participation – Inconsistent application of the benefit of doubt by the High Court in appellant's case – Acquittal of appellant due to failure to establish his presence at the scene and the possibility of suicide not being conclusively negated. [Paras 34-38]

Decision – Appeal allowed – Conviction of appellant Darshan Singh set aside due to gaps in the chain of circumstantial evidence and failure to conclusively establish his presence at the crime scene, along with unresolved ambiguities regarding the possibility of suicide.

Murder and Concealment of Evidence – Conviction Affirmed by Supreme Court – Appellant Perumal Raja @ Perumal convicted for murder of Rajini @ Rajinikanth under Section 302 and Section 201 of the IPC – High Court's judgment affirming conviction upheld – Conviction based on circumstantial evidence including recovery of deceased’s body parts and belongings, and superimposition report confirming identity. [Para 2, 3, 31]

Circumstantial Evidence – Principles for Conviction – Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires satisfaction of the 'panchsheel' principles – Circumstances must point only towards the guilt of the accused, forming a conclusive chain that excludes every hypothesis except guilt. [Para 37]

Section 27 of the Evidence Act – Admissibility of Statements Leading to Discovery – Statements made by the appellant leading to recovery of evidence admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act – Statements must directly relate to and lead to discovery of a fact. [Para 19, 20, 22, 25, 30]

Absence of Direct Eyewitnesses – Reliance on Recovery and Forensic Evidence – In absence of eyewitnesses, conviction based on recoveries made from appellant's disclosure, forensic evidence, and superimposition report – Recovery of body parts and belongings crucial in establishing guilt. [Para 32, 33, 34, 35, 36]

False Explanation by Accused – Consideration as an Additional Link in Circumstantial Evidence – Appellant's false explanation considered as an additional link in the chain of circumstantial evidence, reinforcing the conclusion of guilt. [Para 38, 39, 40]

Acquittal of Co-accused – Different Evidentiary Standards – Acquittal of co-accused not impacting appellant's conviction – Co-accused acquitted due to lack of direct evidence implicating them. [Para 43]

Decision – Supreme Court Upholds High Court’s Judgment – Appellant Perumal Raja @ Perumal’s conviction for murder and concealment of evidence affirmed – Appeal dismissed, maintaining life imprisonment and fines as sentenced. [Para 45]

Abduction and Attempted Murder – Neeraj Sharma and Ashwani Kumar Yadav convicted for abduction and attempted murder of Arjit Sharma (PW-6) - Incident involved choking the victim with a motorcycle clutch wire, setting him on fire, and robbing him - Victim sustained 45-48% burns leading to amputation of his right leg [Paras 2-3, 9-10].

Conviction and Sentence – Trial court convicted appellants under Sections 307/120B, 364-A, and 392/397 IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment under Section 364-A IPC for attempted murder - High Court upheld the conviction and sentence [Para 2].

Evidence and Witness Testimonies – Reliance on the victim’s testimony (PW-6), medical evidence (PW-4, PW-9), and other witnesses - Complainant's testimony crucial, corroborated by medical evidence of severe burn injuries and witness accounts [Paras 4, 8-10].

Questioning Section 364-A Conviction – Supreme Court analyzed the applicability of Section 364-A IPC (kidnapping or abduction with ransom demands) - Found prosecution failed to establish a ransom demand, crucial for Section 364-A - Conviction under Section 364-A IPC set aside [Paras 12-16].

Conversion of Conviction – Supreme Court converted the conviction from Section 364-A to Section 364 IPC (kidnapping or abducting to murder) - Sentenced appellants to rigorous imprisonment of ten years and a fine of Rs. 10,000 each under Section 364 IPC [Para 17].

Compensation to Victim – Directed State of Chhattisgarh to pay Rs. 5,00,000 as compensation to the victim under Section 357A of Cr.PC - Acknowledged the severe impact on the victim’s life [Para 20].

Decision – Convictions under Sections 307/120B and 392/397 IPC affirmed, but conviction under Section 364-A IPC set aside and replaced with Section 364 IPC. Appellants sentenced to ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine, with compensation awarded to the victim.

Judicial Discipline and Precedent - Importance of adhering to judicial discipline and doctrine of precedents emphasized - Binding nature of decisions of co-equal benches of the same High Court, subject to the right to refer to a larger bench - Ensures certainty and consistency in judicial decisions. [Para 1]

Property Rights Dispute - Appeal against the judgment of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court - Original suit filed for declaration of title, possession, and permanent injunction - Initial suits and appeals culminated in a High Court decision, deemed final. [Paras 2-4]

Property Possession and Title - Trial Court's partial decree and subsequent modifications by the appellate courts - Controversy over whether the High Court's earlier decision covered the entire property or only a part - Issue of interpreting the scope of the previous High Court judgment. [Paras 5-12]

Doctrine of Merger - Legal principle that lower court judgments merge into the appellate court's decision - Ensures a single operative order on a subject matter - Trial Court and First Appellate Court decisions merged with the High Court's decision in the first round of litigation. [Paras 13, 17]

Judicial Discipline Violation - High Court's second round decision seen as contrary to its own previous judgment - Accusations of breaching judicial discipline by not adhering to the established facts and conclusions of the earlier judgment. [Paras 14-16, 20]

Property Boundaries and Possession Claims - Analysis of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court judgments in the context of property boundaries and possession claims - Clarification of the property in dispute and the basis of possession claims. [Paras 22-23]

Decision - Supreme Court allows the appeal - Sets aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and restores the judgment of the First Appellate Court dated 13.10.2003 - Upholds the principle of judicial discipline and correct interpretation of prior judgments. [Paras 24-25]

Insolvency and Bankruptcy – Application of Section 30(2)(b)(ii) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) to dissenting financial creditors – Entitlement to payment not less than the liquidation value of their security interest – Applicability of the IBC (Amendment) Act, 2019 to pending proceedings and appeals. [Para 22, 23, 24]

Secured Creditors – Different treatment of secured financial creditors based on the nature of their security – Protection of minority autonomy of creditors under Section 30(2)(b)(ii) of the IBC – Requirement for payment to dissenting financial creditors equivalent to their security interest value. [Para 25, 26, 27]

Committee of Creditors (CoC) – Authority to decide the distribution of resolution proceeds – Commercial wisdom of CoC respected – Minimum payment protection for operational creditors and dissenting financial creditors under Section 30(2)(b)(ii). [Para 25, 30, 35, 36]

Legal Interpretation – Interpretation of Section 30(2)(b)(ii) and its application to dissenting financial creditors – Ensuring fair and equitable treatment in the resolution process – Dissenting financial creditors entitled to liquidation value of their security interest. [Para 33, 34, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49]

Judicial Discrepancy – Contradiction in judicial reasoning in India Resurgence ARC Private Limited case – Referral to a larger bench for clarification on the interpretation of Section 30(2)(b)(ii) of the IBC. [Para 31, 37, 49]

Decision – Resolution plan approval by NCLT and NCLAT challenged – Dissenting creditor’s claim for liquidation value of security interest under scrutiny – Matter referred to a larger bench for definitive interpretation of Section 30(2)(b)(ii) of the IBC. [Para 17, 18, 49]

Title and Possession of Property – Ownership Claim through Sale Deed Validated – Plaintiff appellant’s ownership of disputed land established through registered sale deed dated 21.01.1966 from erstwhile Zamindar. Attempt to construct on land led to dispute in 1975. Trial Court and First Appellate Court's findings upheld, decreeing suit for possession in plaintiff's favor. High Court's dismissal on grounds of limitation, based on adverse possession claim by defendants, set aside. [Paras 1-9.6]

Adverse Possession – Incorrect Application by High Court – High Court erred in applying concept of adverse possession. First, plaintiff's ownership was not disputed; second, the defendants' possession, originating from tenancy, could not be adverse to the Zamindars or the subsequent owner, plaintiff appellant. The suit filed in 1975 was within 12 years of the sale deed, negating adverse possession claim. [Paras 9-9.5]

Non-Agricultural Land – Relevance in Zamindari Abolition – First Appellate Court found the disputed land to be non-agricultural, negating defendants' claim of ownership through Zamindari abolition. This finding, not disturbed by the High Court, supported the plaintiff’s title claim. [Para 9.6]

Decision – High Court's Judgment Set Aside, First Appellate Court’s Decree Upheld – Supreme Court allows the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment on limitation grounds. Upholds the First Appellate Court's decree for possession in favor of the plaintiff appellant. [Para 10]

Right to Claim Set-Off in Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process – Examining the applicability of set-off during the resolution process under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Bharti Airtel Limited’s claim for set-off rejected by Resolution Professional and subsequently by the Adjudicating Authority. [Paras 1, 11, 30-34]

Interpretation of Set-Off – Different types of set-off including contractual, statutory/legal, equitable, and insolvency set-off discussed – Emphasis on the legal preference and principles of set-off in economic terms, litigation reduction, and natural equity. [Paras 3-10, 16-22]

Analysis of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code – Distinction between Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process and liquidation process – No recognition of the right to set-off in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under the Code. [Paras 12-14, 26-31]

Set-Off and Insolvency Process – Discussion on the United Kingdom's insolvency law for insolvency set-off – Requirement of mutuality and prohibition of set-off post commencement of insolvency process. [Paras 17-19]

Application of Set-Off Principles to the Case – Bharti Airtel's claim for set-off based on contractual obligations and spectrum trading agreements with Aircel entities – Set-off not permissible post commencement of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. [Paras 23-25, 35-37, 50]

Conclusion – Appeals of Bharti Airtel Limited and another dismissed – No merit found in the appeals against the decision of the Resolution Professional and the Adjudicating Authority. [Para 51]