Arbitration Law – Validity and enforceability of arbitration agreement – Dispute arose regarding transfer of shares as per restructuring agreement – Appellant sought arbitration under ICC rules per agreement dated 12th January 2002 – Respondent challenged arbitration clause as void or unenforceable based on subsequent agreements – Held, arbitration clause in original agreement remained valid and enforceable despite supplementary agreements – High Court judgment granting injunction against arbitration proceedings set aside – Parties directed to resolve disputes through arbitration. [Paras 20-31, 37-38]

Contract Law – Novation of contract – Subsequent agreements between parties – Whether subsequent agreements dated 8th March 2002 and 30th July 2004 nullified arbitration clause of original agreement – Held, subsequent agreements did not extinguish arbitration clause of original agreement – Principal agreement remained binding with supplementary agreements not altering core obligations. [Paras 21-28]

Civil Procedure – Maintainability of suit – Respondent’s suit for declaration and injunction against arbitration – Maintainability questioned – Held, suit unsustainable as arbitration clause remained valid – Section 5 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act bars judicial intervention except as provided – Suit dismissed. [Paras 32-37]

Decision – High Court judgment granting injunction against arbitration proceedings set aside – Respondent’s suit dismissed – Parties directed to resolve their disputes through arbitration as per agreement dated 12th January 2002. [Para 38]

Criminal Law - Acquittal and Revisional Jurisdiction - Appeals -

High Court's Order Setting Aside Conviction - Requirement of Reasons - Remand for Reconsideration

Criminal appeal against the High Court's order that set aside the Sessions Court's decision convicting the respondents and restored their acquittal by the trial court. The High Court, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction, failed to provide reasons for its decision. Supreme Court remanded the matter to the High Court for reconsideration, emphasizing that the High Court must assign specific reasons while setting aside a lower court's order in revisional jurisdiction.

[Paras 1-13]

Retrial - Parameters and Legal Requirements - Section 311 CrPC - Dismissal of Appeal Seeking Retrial

The appellant's plea for retrial was dismissed. The Supreme Court held that retrial should not be ordered on flimsy grounds or at the mere asking of the prosecution. Only in cases where the initial trial is a farce or mock trial should a retrial be considered. The investigation in the instant case did not justify a retrial.

[Paras 10-12]

Decision - Remand for Fresh Consideration - High Court to Reassign Reasons -

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal (SLP (Crl.) No. 4149/2011) in part, remanding the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration. The High Court must reassess the evidence and assign specific reasons for its decision on setting aside the conviction and acquittal orders. The appeal (SLP (Crl.) No. 4150/2011) seeking retrial was dismissed.

[Paras 12-13]

Pharmaceutical Law - Price Control - Enforcement Period - Criminal and Civil Appeals concerning interpretation of the Drugs (Prices Control) Orders, 1987 and 1995 - Issue of whether prices fixed under DPCO are applicable immediately upon notification or if manufacturers have a 15-day grace period for compliance - Supreme Court clarifies that price control measures take effect immediately upon notification to ensure consumer benefit - Previous stocks must reflect new prices within 15 days, preventing dual pricing and ensuring uniform benefit to consumers - Appeals dismissed. [Paras 48-67]

Interpretation of DPCO - Manufacturer's Compliance - Analysis - Held - Manufacturers must implement price changes immediately but are given a 15-day period to adjust their operations - Existing stocks must comply with new prices within this period - The scheme of DPCO aims to benefit consumers by ensuring reduced prices are effective across all stages of distribution, from manufacturer to retailer. [Paras 49-51]

Decision - Appeals Dismissed - Supreme Court upholds Karnataka High Court's interpretation - Delhi High Court's reliance on a 1979 circular deemed incorrect - Circular not binding if contrary to statutory provisions - Manufacturer/distributor appeals dismissed, Union of India appeals allowed. [Paras 66-67]

Contempt of Court - Maintainability of Contempt Petition - Criminal Investigation - Court Monitored Investigation – Contempt petition filed by Enforcement Directorate officer alleging interference and intimidation by respondents in the investigation of the 2G Spectrum Scam – Respondents argued the petition was not maintainable due to lack of Attorney General's consent and non-compliance with procedural rules – Supreme Court held that its inherent powers under Articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution were sufficient to hear the contempt petition – Consent of Attorney General not required for court's suo motu proceedings – Petition maintainable. [Paras 1-26]

Court's Power to Punish for Contempt - Scope and Limitations - Court examined its powers under Articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution – Held that these powers are independent of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Supreme Court's authority to punish for contempt cannot be curtailed by statutory provisions – Inherent power to ensure obedience to its orders and prevent interference with the administration of justice. [Paras 19-25]

Interference with Court Monitored Investigation – Analysis – Allegations of intimidation and obstruction by respondents against the investigating officer – Court noted that any attempt to interfere with a court-monitored investigation constitutes a serious offense impacting the administration of justice – Investigation to be conducted without fear or pressure – Notice issued to respondents to show cause why contempt proceedings should not be initiated. [Paras 17-26]

Decision – Maintainability of Contempt Petition – The contempt petition is found maintainable under the constitutional powers of the Supreme Court – Notice issued to respondents to respond to the allegations of interference with the court-monitored investigation. [Paras 26]

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Compensation Calculation - Multiplier Method – Civil Appeal arising from a motor accident claim – Deceased aged 48, employed, earning a gross monthly salary of Rs. 13,331/-. Tribunal awarded compensation based on deductions for personal expenses and future prospects, but High Court used split multiplier reducing compensation – Supreme Court held that split multiplier method inappropriate – Proper multiplier for age 48 is 13 per Sarla Verma ruling – Future prospects to be considered – Total compensation recalculated to Rs. 23,43,688/- with 12% interest per annum from filing date. [Paras 63-64]

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Applicability of Second Schedule - Structured Formula – Supreme Court noted anomalies in Second Schedule - Emphasized need for Central Government to amend the Schedule considering current cost of living – Directed immediate amendments ensuring fair compensation. [Paras 40-56]

Interest on Compensation - Various legislations compared – Directed 12% interest on enhanced compensation considering past precedents and current economic indicators – Importance of fair and just compensation stressed to avoid prolonged litigation. [Paras 57-62]

Compliance with Sections 158(6) and 166(4) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Highlighted mandatory reporting and processing requirements for accident information by police and Claims Tribunals – Directed State compliance ensuring swift and just compensation processes. [Paras 35-39]

Decision – Appeal allowed – Enhanced compensation awarded – Judgment of High Court set aside for erroneous application of split multiplier and inadequate consideration of future prospects – Directions issued to Central Government for amendment of Second Schedule and to Respondents for compliance and payment within three months. [Paras 64-65]

Constitutional Law - Habeas Corpus – Criminal Appeal against High Court's dismissal of writ petition seeking habeas corpus for minor girl allegedly abducted by forest officials – High Court ruled case as missing person, not illegal confinement – Supreme Court finds High Court ignored eye-witness testimony and appellant’s specific allegations – Held, inadequate investigation by state police warrants CBI investigation to ensure fair and thorough probe – Direction for CBI to investigate issued to uphold fundamental rights under Article 21 – Appeal allowed. [Paras 1-24]

Investigative Standards – Entrustment to CBI – Analysis – Held, investigation by local police found deficient due to failure to interview key eyewitnesses and reliance solely on accused officials’ statements – Supreme Court invokes Article 21 protections, emphasizing duty of state to ensure fair and impartial investigation in safeguarding human rights – Criteria from Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights case applied to justify CBI intervention. [Para 20-23]

Decision – Fresh Investigation by CBI Ordered – Supreme Court directs transfer of all case documents to CBI – CBI to conduct fresh investigation into abduction claims and produce report within six months – Ensures adherence to constitutional rights and instills confidence in investigative processes. [Para 23-24]

Land Acquisition - Limitation for Reference - Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Reference made by the Collector for enhanced compensation after decision under Section 30 regarding apportionment of compensation - High Court held reference time-barred - Supreme Court finds appellants unaware of award until after Section 30 decision - Reference within six weeks of date of knowledge - High Court's finding reversed - Reference not time-barred. [Paras 1-14]

Date of Knowledge - Section 18(2) of the Act - Determination of "date of award" - Supreme Court clarifies "date of award" to be understood as date when award is communicated or known to party - Reference to earlier cases - Finding that appellants knew of award only after Section 30 decision - Reference made within statutory period post-knowledge. [Paras 10-12]

Sections 18 and 30 - Interrelation - Supreme Court clarifies distinct operations - Section 18 deals with objections to award - Section 30 deals with apportionment disputes with no prior allocation by Collector - Entitlement to enhanced compensation arises post-apportionment - Court holds High Court erred in conflating the two provisions. [Paras 12-13]

Decision - Appeal allowed - High Court order dated 09.09.2008 set aside - Reference Court's order dated 29.10.1993 restored - Enhanced compensation affirmed as correct. [Para 14]

Constitutional Law - Retrospective Legislation - Validity of Notification:

The challenge was against the constitutional validity of the Rajasthan Finance Act, 2008, imposing environment and health cess on mineral rights. The High Court held that the notification dated 23.01.2009, amending the earlier notification dated 25.02.2008 with retrospective effect from 01.04.2008, was ultra vires. The Supreme Court concurred, noting that a subordinate legislation can only have retrospective effect if expressly or by necessary implication provided by the statute. The Rajasthan Finance Act, 2008, did not confer such power. Thus, the notification could not apply retrospectively. [Paras 1-47]

Delegated Legislation - Exercise of Power - Section 16 of Rajasthan Finance Act, 2008:

Section 16 of the Act permitted the State Government to levy and collect cess on mineral rights "from time to time." The Court clarified that "from time to time" allows for prospective changes and does not grant the power to make changes retrospectively. The retrospective amendment of the cess rate on Rock Phosphate was thus invalid. [Paras 18-46]

Fiscal Legislation - Interpretation - Strict Construction:

The Court reiterated the principle that taxing statutes must be interpreted strictly. Any ambiguity in fiscal legislation must be resolved in favor of the taxpayer. Unless clearly stated, a provision cannot have retrospective operation. [Paras 12-17]

Decision - Notification Declared Ultra Vires:

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the High Court's decision that the notification dated 23.01.2009 amending the cess rate on Rock Phosphate with retrospective effect was beyond the scope of the powers conferred by the Rajasthan Finance Act, 2008. The notification was declared ultra vires and void for the period prior to its publication. [Paras 47]

Criminal Law - Anticipatory Bail - Grant of Bail - Legal Principles -

Supreme Court examined the legality of anticipatory bail granted to respondents accused of murder under Sections 120B, 302, and 34 IPC. The Court noted that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy intended for exceptional cases where the accused may be falsely implicated or where there's a risk of abuse of power by authorities. [Paras 1-11]

Absconding Accused - Proclamation under Section 82 CrPC -

Respondents were declared absconders under Section 82 CrPC. Supreme Court reiterated that absconding accused are generally not entitled to anticipatory bail, especially when they have failed to cooperate with the investigation and were intentionally evading arrest. [Paras 12-13]

Decision - Cancellation of Anticipatory Bail -

Supreme Court set aside the High Court orders granting anticipatory bail to the respondents, citing improper consideration of the respondents' status as absconders and the gravity of the offenses involved. The subsequent regular bail granted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate based on the High Court's anticipatory bail orders was also set aside. Respondents were directed to surrender within two weeks. [Paras 13-15]