Family Law – Cruelty as a Ground for Divorce – Appeal against the High Court’s Decision- Husband filed for divorce on grounds of cruelty, citing mental and physical torment by the wife during their marriage – Wife contested the petition, denying the allegations and seeking restoration of conjugal rights – Trial court dismissed the divorce petition and granted wife's counter-claim for conjugal rights – High Court reversed the trial court's decision, granting divorce on the grounds of cruelty – Supreme Court upholds the High Court’s decision, finding sufficient evidence of cruelty by the wife, including non-consummation of marriage and abusive behavior – [Paras 1-14]

Mental Cruelty – Analysis and Evidence- Held – Mental cruelty established through husband's detailed testimony of wife's violent outbursts, refusal to consummate the marriage, and derogatory communications – High Court’s evaluation of the wife's explanations found them to be unsubstantiated and an afterthought – Supreme Court affirms that sustained abusive behavior and refusal to engage in marital relations constitute mental cruelty – [Para 12-13]

Permanent Alimony – Section 25 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955- Court awards one-time lump sum alimony of Rs. 40 lakhs to the wife – Consideration of economic status and wife's current unemployment – Alimony to be paid within three months – [Para 14-15]

Decision – Divorce Granted and Alimony Awarded- Supreme Court affirms High Court's decree of divorce on grounds of cruelty and directs the respondent to pay Rs. 40 lakhs as lump sum permanent alimony within three months – [Para 15]

Referred Cases:

Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511

Vinita Saxena v. Pankaj Pandit, (2006) 3 SCC 778

Environmental Law – Validity of Executive Guidelines as Law – Civil Appeal against the High Court's orders upholding the demolition of hotel and resort constructions in Goa – Appellants argued that the constructions were permitted by competent authorities before the enactment of CRZ notification – Supreme Court examined whether executive guidelines restricting construction within 500 meters of the HTL had the force of law – Held that guidelines were not duly promulgated or authenticated and thus could not be enforced to the appellants' prejudice – Demolition orders set aside. [Paras 1-25]

Implementation of International Environmental Commitments – Analysis – Held – Guidelines based on India's commitments at the Stockholm Conference did not automatically acquire the force of law without proper legislative or executive action under Article 73 – Absence of clear, unambiguous mandate in guidelines – Necessity of publication and proper promulgation for enforceability – Guidelines considered as mere expressions of policy without penal consequences. [Paras 6-14]

Form and Authentication of Executive Orders – Compliance – Held – Executive actions must be expressed in the name of the President and authenticated as per Article 77 – Guidelines in question lacked proper authentication and publication as required – Orders based on these guidelines deemed unenforceable. [Paras 15-20]

Decision – Demolition Orders and High Court Judgments Set Aside – Court allowed appeals, setting aside the impugned orders and judgments of the High Court – Observed that the absence of statutory backing for the guidelines rendered the demolition orders unsustainable. [Paras 21-23]

Referred Cases:

Vineet Narain and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, AIR 1998 SC 889

Vishaka and others Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, AIR 1997 SC 3011

Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum Vs. Union of India and others, AIR 1996 SC 2715

Air India Cabin Crew Association Vs. Yeshawinee Merchant and Others, AIR 2004 SC 187

B.K. Srinivasan and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, AIR 1987 SC 1059

Goan Real Estate and Construction Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India (UOI) through Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Others, (2010) 3 JT 462

Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd. and Another Vs. Minguel Martins and Others, (2009) 1 JT 470

Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur and Others Vs. The State of Punjab, AIR 1955 SC 549

Harla Vs. The State of Rajasthan, AIR 1951 SC 467

Bennett Coleman and Co. and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, AIR 1973 SC 106

The State of Karnataka and Another Vs. Shri Ranganatha Reddy and Another, AIR 1978 SC 215

Gramophone Company of India Ltd. Vs. Birendra Bahadur Pandey and Others, AIR 1984 SC 667

State of Uttaranchal and Another Vs. Sunil Kumar Vaish and Others, (2011) 10 JT 26

Arbitration Law - Setting Aside Arbitral Award – Civil Appeal challenging High Court’s dismissal of petition under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act – Appellant contested award on grounds of error and illegality – High Court found no patent illegality or perversity in award – Supreme Court upheld High Court's decision – Found award and High Court’s decision consistent with terms of NIT and work order – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 1-24]

Interpretation of Contract Terms – Applicability of Taxes – Analysis – Held – Arbitrator and High Court correctly interpreted contract terms – Terms of NIT and work order consistent and binding on parties – Appellant liable for taxes as per contract terms – No grounds for setting aside award under Section 34. [Paras 15-20]

Public Policy – Conflict with Arbitral Award – Analysis – Held – Arbitral award not contrary to public policy – Contract terms and award do not violate fundamental policy of Indian law – No patent illegality found – Appeal dismissed on grounds of no conflict with public policy. [Paras 21-23]

Decision – Dismissal of Appeal – Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment and dismissed the civil appeal – Found no merit in appellant's arguments – Confirmed that arbitral award was binding and consistent with contract terms – No order as to costs. [Paras 24]

Referred Cases:

Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. SAW Pipes Ltd., AIR 2003 SC 2629

SAW Pipes Ltd. v. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., (2003) 5 SCC 705

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

DIVISION BENCH

SWAN GOLD MINING LTD. — AppellantVs.HINDUSTAN COPPER LTD. — Respondent

( Before : Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J; M. Yusuf Eqbal, J )

Civil Appeal No. 9048 of 2014 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 10849 of 2013)

Decided on : 22-09-2014

Arbitration Act, 1940 - Section 30

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 34, Section 34(2)

Contract Act, 1872 - Section 23

Cases Referred

Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. SAW Pipes Ltd., AIR 2003 SC 2629 : (2003) 2 ARBLR 5 : (2003) 3 CompLJ 1 : (2003) 4 JT 171 : (2003) 4 SCALE 92 : (2003) 5 SCC 705 : (2003) 44 SCL 89 : (2003) 3 SCR 691 : (2003) 2 UJ 1035

Final Result : Dismissed

Specific Performance – Readiness and Willingness – Appeal against High Court's reversal of trial court decree – High Court erred in dismissing suit for specific performance filed by appellant – Trial court had rightly found readiness and willingness on part of appellant – Agreement of sale duly executed and admitted by respondent – High Court's findings based on conjectures and surmises – Held, appellant entitled to specific performance, subject to revised payment reflecting current market conditions – Appeal allowed with modification of sale consideration to Rs. 25 lakhs. [Paras 9-23]

Specific Performance – Equity and Discretion – Rise in Property Value – Consideration of equity and hardship – Court to exercise discretion under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act – Increase in property value over time – Court may impose conditions to balance equities – In present case, respondent to receive total consideration of Rs. 25 lakhs in light of increased property value – Direction for execution of sale deed within three months. [Paras 21-23]

Decision – Decree for Specific Performance with Modified Sale Consideration – Appeal allowed – Judgment of High Court set aside – Trial court’s decree restored with modification – Appellant to pay Rs. 25 lakhs (less amount already paid) – Respondent to execute registered sale deed within three months. [Paras 22-23]

Referred Cases:

Nirmala Anand v. Advent Corporation (P) Ltd. and Others, AIR 2002 SC 3396

Rookey’s Case, [77 ER 209 : (1597) 5 Co. Rep. 99]

Attorney General v. Wheat, [(1759) 1 Eden 177 : 28 ER 652]

Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR and Criminal Proceedings - High Court's inherent jurisdiction - Criminal Appeal against High Court's decision to quash FIR and proceedings based on settlement between parties - Involved allegations of fraudulent transactions and financial misappropriation by diverting bank funds through fictitious companies - Supreme Court held that High Court erred in quashing proceedings without considering the gravity of offenses and societal impact - Quashing of proceedings not justified where allegations involve economic fraud affecting public interest and banking integrity - Appeal allowed, and High Court's order set aside, directing trial to proceed. [Paras 1-24]

Inherent Jurisdiction - Scope and Limitations - Exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC and Article 226 of the Constitution - High Court's power to quash criminal proceedings in non-compoundable offenses - Supreme Court reiterated that such power should be exercised with caution, especially in cases involving serious economic offenses and public interest - Quashing appropriate primarily in cases with overwhelmingly civil nature or private disputes - In the present case, involvement of fictitious companies and misappropriation of funds denotes serious criminal conduct - Quashing not justified despite settlement. [Para 16-23]

Decision - Reversal of High Court's Order - Supreme Court reversed the High Court's decision to quash the criminal proceedings against Vikram Anantrai Doshi - Directed that trial shall proceed in accordance with law, ensuring no bearing on merits of the case at trial stage - Emphasized societal impact and need for thorough scrutiny in cases involving financial fraud. [Para 24]

Referred Cases:

Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. A. Ravishankar Prasad and Others, (2009) 6 SCC 351

Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, (2008) 9 SCC 677

Central Bureau of Investigation, SPE, SIU (X), New Delhi Vs. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd., Calcutta, (1996) 5 SCC 591

CBI, ACB, Mumbai Vs. Narendra Lal Jain and Others, (2014) 5 SCC 364

Gopakumar B. Nair Vs. C.B.I. and Another, (2014) 5 SCC 800

Narinder Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Another, (2014) 6 SCC 466

Smt. Rumi Dhar Vs. State of West Bengal and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 364

Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Jagjit Singh, (2013) 10 SCC 686

Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303

Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582

State of Rajasthan Vs. Shambhu Kewat and Another, (2014) 4 SCC 149

Constitutional Law - Public Interest Litigation - Maintainability – Civil Appeal against High Court's order cancelling the allotment of land to an educational institute – Respondent filed writ petition in public interest challenging the allotment – Supreme Court held that the writ petition was maintainable as it aimed to protect public interest – Found that the allotment was arbitrary and lacked transparency, violating Article 14 – Confirmed the High Court's decision to cancel the allotment – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 1-26]

Land Allotment - Violation of Article 14 – Analysis of allotment process – Held – Allotment to the Institute of Law was made without following a transparent and objective process – Discretionary powers were misused, and public property was allotted at a throw-away price – Noted that proper procedure and public auction should have been conducted – Allotment was found to be arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. [Paras 27-34]

Public Property - Use and Disposal – Legal standards – Supreme Court emphasized the need for stringent conditions and transparency in the allotment of public property – Cited previous judgments to support the requirement for fair and reasonable criteria in public land allotments – Held that the allotment process should align with public interest and constitutional mandates. [Paras 27-33]

Decision – Dismissal of Civil Appeal – Court upheld the High Court's order cancelling the allotment of land to the Institute of Law – Found no divergence in the High Court's judgments that warranted interference – Emphasized the need for transparency and fairness in public property allotments – Appeal dismissed, stay order vacated. [Paras 34-38]

Referred Cases:

Union of India (UOI) and Another v. Jain Sabha, New Delhi and Another, (1997) 1 SCC 164

New India Public School and Others v. HUDA and Others, (1996) 5 SCC 510

Akhil Bhartiya Upbhokta Congress v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, (2011) 5 SCC 29

Modern School v. Union of India (UOI) and Others, (2004) 5 SCC 583

Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union (Regd.), Sindri and Others v. Union of India (UOI) and Others, (1981) 1 SCC 568

Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2005) 1 SCC 590

Negotiable Instruments Act - Premature Complaint - Section 138 - Section 142 - Criminal Appeal - Cognizance - Complaint filed before the expiry of 15 days from the service of statutory notice - Legal validity of such complaints - The Supreme Court addressed whether cognizance of an offense under Section 138 of the NI Act could be taken based on a complaint filed before the stipulated 15-day period for payment expired. The Court held that a complaint filed before the expiry of the 15-day period is not a valid complaint and no cognizance can be taken based on such a complaint. The Court clarified that the mere presentation of a complaint within the 15-day period does not constitute an offense. [Paras 1-37]

Filing of Fresh Complaint - Section 142(b) - Condonation of Delay - If a premature complaint is dismissed, the complainant may file a fresh complaint within one month from the date of the decision. The Court further directed that the delay in filing the fresh complaint should be condoned, provided the complainant shows sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the stipulated period. This direction applies to all pending cases affected by this ruling. [Paras 38-42]

Decision - Premature Complaints Not Maintainable - The Supreme Court overruled its previous judgment in Narsingh Das Tapadia v. Goverdhan Das Partani, where it was held that a complaint filed prematurely could be validated if cognizance was taken after the 15-day period had expired. The Court endorsed the view in Sarav Investment and Financial Consultants Pvt. Ltd. v. Llyods Register of Shipping Indian Office Staff Provident Fund, holding that the period for filing a complaint under Section 138 begins only after the lapse of 15 days from the receipt of notice. Complaints filed before this period are not maintainable. [Paras 38-43]

Referred Cases:

Smt. Hem Lata Gupta v. State of U.P. and Another, (2002) CriLJ 1522

Sandip Guha v. Saktipada Ghosh and Another, (2008) 3 CHN 214

K.R. Indira v. Dr. G. Adinarayana, AIR 2003 SC 4689

Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. v. Pennar Peterson Securities Ltd., AIR 2000 SC 955

Narsingh Das Tapadia v. Goverdhan Das Partani, AIR 2000 SC 2946

Sarav Investment and Financial Consultants Pvt. Ltd. v. Llyods Register of Shipping Indian Office Staff Provident Fund, (2008) CriLJ 377

Mahendra Agarwal v. Gopi Ram Mahajan, (2003) 1 RLW 673

Rakesh Nemkumar Porwal v. Narayan Dhondu Joglekar, (1994) 3 BomCR 355

Bapulal v. Krapachand Jain, (2004) 1 BC 73

Harpreet Hosiery Rehari v. Nitu Mahajan, (2000) CriLJ 3625

S. Janak Singh v. Pritpal Singh, (2007) 2 JKJ 91

Rattan Chand v. Kanwar Ram Kripal, (2010) CriLJ 706

Yunus Khan v. Mazhar Khan, (2004) 1 GLT 652

Ganga Ram Singh v. State of U.P., Izharey Qarim, Johray Qarim and Tawarak Hussain, (2005) 4 BC 236

Zenith Fashions Makers (P) Ltd. v. Ultimate Fashion Makers Ltd., (2006) 130 CompCas 526

N. Venkata Sivaram Prasad v. Rajeswari Constructions, (1996) 2 ALD(Cri) 97

Dowry Death - Cruelty - Conviction – Criminal appeal against the High Court's decision which upheld the conviction of the appellants (husband's parents) under Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants were implicated in the death of the deceased, who was subjected to cruelty and harassment for dowry.

Evidence of Guilty State of Mind – Fact that the appellants were found missing from the house at the time of the incident and failed to inform the deceased's parents about her death were significant indicators of their guilty state of mind. The court emphasized the importance of these factors in affirming the conviction. [Para 10]

Rejection of Plea of Alibi – Appellant Sri Chand failed to substantiate his plea of alibi by not producing attendance records from his workplace. This lack of evidence further weakened the defense's case. [Para 11]

Assessment of Independent Evidence – The court found no independent evidence corroborating the appellants' claims of living separately from the deceased and her husband. The rough site plan and testimonies confirmed their presence in the matrimonial home. [Para 12]

Concurrent Findings by Lower Courts – Both the trial court and the High Court's concurrent findings were based on a thorough appreciation of the evidence, justifying the dismissal of the appeal. The appellants' failure to provide credible defense or challenge the prosecution's case effectively led to the affirmation of their conviction. [Paras 8, 13]

Decision: Criminal Appeal dismissed. The appellants were directed to surrender to serve the remaining sentence, with the trial court instructed to take appropriate steps for their imprisonment if they fail to surrender. [Para 13]

Referred Cases:

Ramanarayan Popli v. CBI (2003) SCC (Crl.) 869

P.K. Narayanan v. State of Kerala (1995) 1 SCC 142

Mohd. Naushad v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2023 SCC Online SC 784

Hari and Anr. v. State of UP 2021 SCC Online SC 1131

Koli Lakhmanbhai Chanabhai v. State of Gujarat (1999) 8 SCC 624

State through Superintendent of Police v. Nalini & Ors. (1999) 5 SCC 253

Yakub Abdul Razak Memon v. State of Maharashtra (2013) 13 SCC 1

Arvind Singh v. State of Maharashtra (2021) 11 SCC 1

State of Haryana v. Krishan (2017) 8 SCC 204

Phula Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh AIR 2014 SC 1256

Indrakunwar v. State of Chhattisgarh 2023 SCCOnline 1364

Chandran v. State of Kerala (2011) 5 SCC 161

P.N. Krishna Lal v. Govt. of Kerala 1995 Supp (2) SCC 187

Mekala Sivaiah v. State of A.P. (2022) 8 SCC 253

Ravasaheb and Ors. v. State of Karnataka (2023) 5 SCC 391

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

DIVISION BENCH

SRI CHAND AND ANOTHER — AppellantVs.STATE OF PUNJAB — Respondent

( Before : M. Yusuf Eqbal, J; Abhay Manohar Sapre, J )

Criminal Appeal No. 1816 of 2009

Decided on : 19-09-2014

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 136

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Section 304B, Section 498A

Higher Education - Admission Process - Shifting of Course - Mandamus - Petition for issuance of writ of mandamus directing respondents to permit petitioner to shift from M.D. Pathology to M.D. General Medicine under N.R.I. quota within Christian Medical College, Ludhiana - Appellant claimed she was deprived of the right to shift due to respondent's non-adherence to prospectus stipulations - Supreme Court analyzed provisions in the prospectus and the sequence of events - Held, respondent's conduct was unjustifiable and deprived petitioner of her rightful opportunity - Compensation awarded to petitioner. [Paras 1-29]

Filling Up Vacant Seats - Prospective Regulations - Adherence - Analyzing the stipulations under the prospectus regarding the filling of vacant seats - Court found that the institution failed to follow due procedure in shifting vacant N.R.I. seats to sponsored category 'A' as prescribed - Respondent's actions amounted to a breach of the rules and caused undue hardship to petitioner. [Paras 22-24]

Institutional Conduct - Accountability - Compensation - Institution's failure to adhere to prescribed admission procedures and time schedules resulted in deprivation of petitioner’s right - Supreme Court deemed it fit to compensate petitioner - Ordered payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation and refund of Rs. 13,000/- paid by petitioner for readmission to the same course. [Paras 27-29]

Decision - Relief and Compensation - While the court found respondent's conduct unjustifiable, it denied the specific relief of shifting course post deadline to maintain adherence to admission schedules - Directed respondent to pay compensation and refund admission fee. Writ petition partly allowed with costs. [Paras 29-30]

Referred Cases:

Paritosh Bhupendra Nath Shah v. Medical Council of India (2001) 8 SCC 337

K.D. Gupta v. University of Lucknow AIR 1973 SC 596

Guru Nanak Dev University v. Saumil Garg (2005) 13 SCC 749

Medical Council of India v. Sarang (2011) 1 SCC 577