Facts:

Dispute arose between Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (Appellant) and Pratibha Industries Ltd. (Respondent) regarding a tender contract.

Respondent filed an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking an interim injunction.

An arbitrator was appointed based on an oral agreement between the parties during the Section 9 petition hearing.

Appellant filed a notice to recall the order appointing the arbitrator, arguing that the clauses cited by the Respondent did not constitute arbitration clauses but were in-house procedures.

Single Judge of the High Court recalled the order appointing the arbitrator, but the Division Bench overturned this decision.

Issues:

Whether the clauses cited by the parties constituted arbitration clauses or in-house procedures.

Whether the High Court had the inherent power to recall its own orders in this context.

Whether the Arbitration Act's self-contained nature precluded a review or recall application in the absence of a valid arbitration agreement.

Held:

The clauses cited by the parties did not constitute arbitration clauses but were related to in-house procedures. The oral agreement during the Section 9 petition hearing could not supersede the absence of arbitration clauses in the contract (Para. 10).

High Courts, as courts of record, have the inherent power to recall their own orders to prevent miscarriage of justice or correct errors. This power has been recognized in previous judgments (Para. 11).

The Arbitration Act's self-contained nature did not preclude a review or recall application in this case, as there was no valid arbitration agreement (Para. 15).

The Division Bench's decision was set aside, and the original order appointing the arbitrator was continued for four weeks, allowing the parties time to approach the appropriate forum (Para. 16).

Facts:

Mahabir Prosad Choudhary was an Accountant at Octavius Tea and Industries Ltd since 1986.

He was not allowed to work from May 2, 2005, following a change in management in 2004.

The State of West Bengal referred the industrial dispute between the company and the appellant to the Fifth Industrial Tribunal.

The Tribunal proceeded ex parte after the company failed to appear despite summons being issued.

An ex parte award was passed in favor of the appellant, granting him reinstatement with full back wages.

The company filed an application to recall the ex parte award, which was rejected by the Tribunal.

The company filed a writ petition in the Calcutta High Court, which set aside the award and directed the Tribunal to reconsider the issue.

The appellant appealed this decision before the Division Bench of the High Court, which was subsequently dismissed.

Issues:

Whether the application for recall of the ex parte award should have been entertained despite being filed after 30 days from the publication of the award.

Whether there was a violation of Rule 20B(5) of the West Bengal Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958.

Held:

The application for recall of the ex parte award should have been entertained despite being filed after 30 days from the publication of the award. The Tribunal retains jurisdiction over the dispute until the award becomes enforceable under Section 17 A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

There was a violation of Rule 20B(5) of the West Bengal Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958, as the Tribunal failed to fix a date for the service of the written statement and failed to intimate the same to the party concerned.

The High Court's decision to set aside the ex parte award and direct the Tribunal to proceed afresh was upheld by the Supreme Court.

The appeal was dismissed, and parties were directed to bear their own costs.

Facts:

The case involved appeals against the final judgment and order passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla. The High Court allowed the revision petitions filed by the respondents, which led to the appeals before the Supreme Court.

Issues:

Whether there were sufficient grounds to interfere with the remand order issued by the High Court.

Held:

The Supreme Court, after considering the arguments presented by the appellant's counsel and examining the case record, found no substantial ground to interfere with the impugned order. The High Court had only remanded the case to the first Appellate Court to decide the first appeal and cross-objection afresh on merits in accordance with the law. The Court opined that such an order of remand did not warrant any interference, especially considering that the High Court found it necessary. However, the Court noted that the High Court's decision was overly verbose, devoting 60 pages to writing the impugned order. The Court emphasized the virtue of brevity and suggested that the examination should have been limited to the issue of remand without citing several decisions in detail. Therefore, the Court dismissed the appeals in limine.

Facts:

The U.P. Avas Vikas Parishad invited applications for the allotment of a plot of land.

The appellant participated in the bidding process, offering the highest bid initially.

The Parishad decided to re-auction the land, leading to the appellant filing a writ petition challenging this decision.

The High Court dismissed the appellant's writ petition, stating that he had no standing in the matter since he did not participate in the re-auction.

The Parishad executed the sale deed in favor of another party during the pendency of the writ petition.

Issues:

Whether the appellant has standing to challenge the re-auction of the land.

Whether the execution of the sale deed during the pendency of the writ petition affects the appellant's rights.

Held:

The appellant has standing to challenge the re-auction as the Parishad did not adequately publicize the auction, and the reserve price was deemed too low.

A fresh auction should be conducted to ensure fairness and maximize the value of the land.

The Parishad must give wide publicity to the auction, consult experts to determine an appropriate reserve price, and ensure transparent conduct of the auction.

The appellant and the successful bidder are entitled to refunds of their deposits, along with interest.

Respondent No. 5, the successful bidder, is entitled to claim a refund of the stamp duty paid on the void sale deed.

Both the appellant and respondent No. 5 are allowed to participate in the fresh auction proceedings.

The deadline for completing the fresh auction proceedings is set at six months from the date of the Court's order.

Facts:

The accused-respondents were convicted by the Trial Court under Section 21 or Section 22 of the NDPS Act for possession of manufactured drugs. They appealed to the High Court seeking suspension of sentence under Section 389 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which was granted. The State filed appeals against the High Court's decision.

Issues:

Whether the actions of the accused-respondents amounted to a violation of Section 8 of the NDPS Act.

Whether the accused-respondents should be tried under the NDPS Act or the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 for possession of manufactured drugs.

Whether the High Court's decision to suspend the sentence and grant bail to the accused-respondents was justified.

Held:

The accused-respondents' actions amounted to a prima facie violation of Section 8 of the NDPS Act, which prohibits possession of narcotic substances except for medical or scientific purposes.

The High Court's decision to try the accused-respondents under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 instead of the NDPS Act was incorrect. The NDPS Act operates in addition to the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, and it is the prerogative of the State to prosecute offenders accordingly.

The High Court's order directing suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the accused-respondents was unsustainable in law due to the gravity of the offence alleged against them. The High Court should have expedited the appeals instead.

The appeals were allowed, and the High Court's order was set aside. The accused-respondents were directed to be taken into custody, and the High Court was requested to expedite the appeals.

Facts:

The appellant, Kanubhai Bhagvanbhai Nayak, appealed against the judgment of the High Court of Gujarat, which affirmed his conviction and sentence under Section 302 of the IPC.

The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appellant's criminal appeal without adequately discussing the issues raised or properly appreciating the evidence.

The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court seeking a review of the High Court's decision.

Issues:

Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the appellant's criminal appeal without proper discussion of the issues and appreciation of evidence.

Whether the appellant's right to a fair trial and appellate review was violated due to the High Court's inadequate judgment.

Held:

The Court held that the High Court's dismissal of the appellant's criminal appeal without thorough discussion and appreciation of evidence was improper. The Bench emphasized the duty of the appellate court to examine evidence and issues raised by the parties before arriving at a decision.

As a result, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and remanded the case back to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits.

Facts:

The appellants filed an appeal against the High Court's order dated September 5, 2018, which dismissed their application under Section 482 of the CrPC.

The appellants sought to quash the proceedings initiated against them under Section 498A of the IPC in Complaint Case No. 537/2018.

The proceedings were pending in the Court of 2nd Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Judicial Magistrate, Amroha, JP Nagar.

Issues:

Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the appellants' application under Section 482 of the CrPC without adequately considering the factual background of the case.

Held:

The Supreme Court observed that the High Court had failed to address the factual matrix of the case before dismissing the appellants' application.

The Court noted that the High Court did not provide essential details such as the nature of the complaint, the allegations made, and the grounds for challenging the proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC.

Justice Sapre, delivering the judgment, emphasized the importance of outlining the factual background of the case before applying legal principles. Without understanding the facts, it becomes difficult to assess the validity of the legal arguments presented.

Therefore, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the case to the High Court for fresh consideration.

The High Court was directed to examine the application afresh on its merits after issuing notice to the respondents.

The Supreme Court refrained from delving into the merits of the case itself, leaving it to the High Court to decide uninfluenced by any observations made in the Supreme Court's order.

Facts:

The appellants filed an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, which dismissed their application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The application sought to quash proceedings in a complaint case filed against them under Sections 498-A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

Issues:

Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the appellants' application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Held:

The Supreme Court, after hearing arguments and examining the record, held that the High Court erred in its judgment by failing to discuss the factual matrix of the case adequately. The High Court focused solely on legal principles without considering the specifics of the case. Therefore, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and remanded the case back to the High Court for fresh consideration. The High Court was directed to reconsider the appellants' application on its merits, taking into account the observations made by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court refrained from delving into the merits of the case itself, as its primary concern was the procedural lapse in the High Court's judgment.

Facts:

Appellant entered into an agreement to sell property with the respondent.

Despite the agreement, possession of the property was not transferred.

Appellant filed for registration of a complaint when the transaction wasn't completed.

Economic Crime Cell concluded the dispute was civil.

FIR was registered under various sections of IPC.

Chargesheet filed, and charges framed against the respondent.

High Court quashed proceedings citing lack of criminal intent.

Issues:

Whether the High Court's decision to quash proceedings was justified.

Whether the allegations made in the FIR establish criminal intent.

Held:

The Court held that the High Court was not justified in quashing the proceedings. The Court noted crucial aspects emerging during the investigation, suggesting potential criminal intent on the part of the accused. It emphasized that the decision to quash criminal proceedings should not be taken lightly, especially after charges have been framed and the trial has commenced.

The Court reinstated the criminal proceedings, clarifying that its decision did not imply an opinion on the merits of the accusations, as they are to be determined through the trial process. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.