Arbitration Law – Jurisdiction of Courts – Civil Appeal challenging the High Court of Calcutta's decision asserting its jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Supreme Court examines definitions and jurisdictional clauses under Sections 2(1)(e) and 42 of the Arbitration Act – Held that only the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction or High Court with original jurisdiction can entertain applications under Part-I of the Arbitration Act – First application made to a Court determines jurisdiction for all subsequent applications under Part-I. [Paras 1-25]

Interpretation of “Court” under Arbitration Act – Definition – Supreme Court affirms that "Court" as defined in Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is exhaustive, including only the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district and the High Court exercising original jurisdiction in a State – Supreme Court itself is not considered a "Court" under Section 2(1)(e) even if it retains seisin over the arbitral proceedings. [Paras 9-20]

Application of Section 42 – Scope – Section 42 applies to all applications made with respect to arbitration agreements, including those made after arbitral proceedings have concluded – Supreme Court clarifies that applications to non-defined courts are outside the scope of Section 42 – Applications under Sections 8 and 11 are also outside the purview of Section 42 since they are not made to "Courts" as defined. [Paras 10-18]

Decision – Affirmation of High Court Jurisdiction – Supreme Court upholds the High Court of Calcutta's jurisdiction over the matter, given the previous application under Section 9 made to it – Appeals dismissed, reinforcing the principle that first application to a proper Court determines jurisdiction for subsequent related applications under the Act. [Paras 26]

Referred Cases:

State of Madhya Pradesh v. Saith and Skelton (P) Ltd., AIR 1972 SC 1507

National Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. Pressteel and Fabrications Pvt. Ltd. (2004) 1 SCC 540

Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Annapurna Construction, AIR 2008 SC 2028

P. Anand Gajapathi Raju and Others v. P.V.G. Raju (Died) and Others, AIR 2000 SC 1886

Swastik Gases P. Ltd. v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., (2014) 2 AD 325

Executive Engineer, Road Development Division No. III, Panvel v. Atlanta Limited, AIR 2014 SC 1093

Land Acquisition - Compensation Determination - Appeals by Union of India challenging the enhanced compensation for land acquisition for military cantonment in Patiala, Punjab - Notifications issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, dated 14th March 1989 and 16th September 1988 - Collector's awards enhanced by the Reference Court and modified by the High Court - Supreme Court dismisses the appeals, upholding the High Court's judgment on compensation. [Paras 1-14]

Methodology of Compensation Calculation - Analysis - Supreme Court emphasizes the principles of determining compensation based on genuine transactions of similar land and potential value - Affirms High Court's reliance on sale instances and methodology of applying deductions for development - Dismisses the appellant's plea for higher cuts on compensation and objections to the sale instances relied upon by the High Court. [Paras 10-12]

Decision - Appeals Dismissed - Supreme Court finds no error in High Court's judgment - Confirms compensation amounts fixed by the High Court for the acquired land in Patiala, rejecting the Union of India's challenge to the enhancement. [Para 13-14]

Referred Cases:

Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Nookala Rajamallu and Others Basant Kumar and Others Vs. Union of India (1996) 11 SCC 542

V. Hanumantha Reddy Vs. The Land Acquisition Officer (2003) 12 SCC 642

Kasturi Vs. State of Haryana (2003) 1 SCC 354

Hasanali Khanbhai and Sons Vs. State of Gujarat (1995) 5 SCC 422

Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Karigowda (2010) 5 SCC 708

Bhagwathula Samanna Vs. Special Tahsildar and Land Acquisition Officer (1991) 4 SCC 506

Viluben Jhalejar Contractor Vs. State of Gujarat (2005) 4 SCC 789

Kiran Tandon Vs. Allahabad Development Authority (2004) 10 SCC 745

Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Smt. L. Kamalamma (1998) 2 SCC 385

Administrator General of West Bengal Vs. Collector, Varanasi (1988) 2 SCC 150

H.P. Housing Board Vs. Bharat S. Negi (2004) 2 SCC 184

Chimanlal Hargovinddas Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona (1988) 3 SCC 751 Tejumal Bhojwani Vs. State of U.P. (2003) 10 SCC 525

K.S. Shivadevamma Vs. Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer (1996) 2 SCC 62

Criminal Law - Conviction and Sentencing - Criminal Appeal - The High Court set aside the conviction and sentence of the respondents by the trial court, which had found them guilty of offences under Sections 302/34 and 452 IPC. The trial court had imposed life imprisonment for the murder charge and three years rigorous imprisonment for the trespass charge. Supreme Court scrutinized the evidence, including eye-witness accounts and medical reports, and found the High Court's interference unjustified. Held, the judgment of the High Court was set aside, and the trial court's conviction and sentence were restored. [Paras 1-30]

Child Witness Testimony - Evaluation - Competency - The testimony of child witnesses was scrutinized under Sections 118 of the Indian Evidence Act and 5 of the Oaths Act. The Supreme Court held that child witnesses were competent as they understood the duty of speaking the truth, and their testimonies were reliable, credible, and corroborated by other evidence. Noted the importance of evaluating the credibility and understanding of child witnesses carefully. [Paras 13-14]

Interested Witnesses - Credibility - The credibility of family members as witnesses was upheld. The Court emphasized that the testimony of interested witnesses should not be discarded solely due to their relationship with the deceased. Their evidence should be evaluated based on its reliability, consistency, and corroboration with other evidence. [Paras 17-18]

Delay in FIR - Explanation - The delay in lodging the FIR was adequately explained by the Supreme Court considering the circumstances of the case. The widow of the deceased, being a village woman with minor children, lodged the FIR the next morning due to practical difficulties and trauma. Held, the delay did not detract from the credibility of the prosecution's case. [Paras 19-20]

Decision - The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the trial court's conviction and sentencing of the respondents for the murder of Surender and criminal trespass. The respondents were directed to surrender and serve the remaining sentence. [Paras 28-30]

Referred Cases:

Dinesh Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2008 SC 3259

State of M.P. Vs. Ramesh and Another, (2011) 4 SCC 786

Raghunath and Ram Kishan and Others Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 2003 SC 165

Surinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (1989) 2 SCC 21 Supp

Yeshwant and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 337

Kansa Behera Vs. State of Orissa, AIR 1987 SC 1507

Mahtab Singh and Another Vs. State of U.P., AIR 2009 SC 2298

Mano Dutt and Another Vs. State of U.P., (2012) 4 SCC 79

Shivasharanappa and Others Vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 2013 SC 2144

Lahu Kamlakar Patil and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 6 SCC 417

Parens Patriae - Doctrine of State Protection – Public Interest Litigation seeking Government action to secure release of Indian seamen held hostage by Somali pirates – Duty of the State as protector of its citizens highlighted – Reference to the concept of parens patriae and the State’s responsibility to protect citizens under disability or in danger, both within and outside the country – Supreme Court acknowledges the efforts made by Government of India and directs periodic review and appointment of a nodal officer to coordinate further efforts and facilitate communication with the families of the victims. [Paras 10-13]

Constitutional Mandate - Welfare State Obligations – Held – The Constitution of India, through the Preamble and Directive Principles, enjoins the State to ensure protection and welfare of its citizens, including in situations where they are held hostage abroad – The Supreme Court emphasizes the State’s duty to safeguard the life and liberty of its citizens as an inherent obligation of a welfare state. [Paras 10-11]

Judicial Review and Executive Functions – Held – While the judiciary can review the actions of the executive to ensure the protection of fundamental rights, it cannot assume the role of the executive in matters requiring coordination with international agencies – The Court acknowledges the ongoing efforts of the Government at various levels to address the issue of piracy and hostage crises and declines to issue specific directives beyond ensuring continued efforts and periodic review. [Paras 11-12]

Decision – Directions to Government of India – Supreme Court directs the Government of India to continue its efforts for the release of hostages, to periodically review the situation, and to appoint a nodal officer to oversee the efforts and facilitate interaction with the families of the hostages. [Paras 13-14]

Referred Cases:

Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1480

Specific Relief - Readiness and Willingness - Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Civil appeals concerning refusal of specific performance of a land sale agreement – Agreement dated 10th May 1980 between Kalli Raja Rao and Telikicherla Sesibhushan – Appellant’s failure to repay a loan as per the agreement – Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit for specific performance filed by the appellant (O.S. No. 37 of 1985) and partially allowed the respondent’s suit for recovery (O.S. No. 28 of 1985) – High Court confirmed trial court’s decision – Supreme Court finds concurrent findings of fact against appellant’s readiness and willingness – Held that appellant failed to perform his contractual obligations, making him ineligible for specific performance – Appeals dismissed with costs. [Paras 1-8]

Requirement of Performance under Contract – Analysis of Readiness and Willingness – Held – Specific performance under Section 16(c) requires continuous readiness and willingness to perform contractual obligations – Appellant’s failure to repay the loan led to decreed suit by the Bank – Appellant’s delayed suit for specific performance and lack of demonstrated readiness led to the refusal of relief. [Para 4-5]

Decision – Denial of Specific Performance – Appeals dismissed – Concurrent findings by lower courts upheld – Appellant's failure to perform contractual obligations and delayed suit precluded the grant of specific performance – No error of law in the lower courts’ decisions – Appeals dismissed with costs. [Para 8]

Referred Cases:

Aniglase Yohannan Vs. Ramlatha and Others, AIR 2005 SC 3503

Civil Law – Validity of Will – Suspicious Circumstances – Appeals against the High Court's judgment upholding the validity of a Will – Alleged undue influence and coercion by the first respondent (daughter) on the testator – High Court reversed the trial court's decision which found the Will to be surrounded by suspicious circumstances – Supreme Court affirms the High Court’s judgment – Held, the Will is valid and properly executed without undue influence. [Paras 1-15]

Evidence – Non-production of Original Will – Use of Certified Copy – Contentions that the non-production of the original Will and reliance on the certified copy was suspicious – Supreme Court finds that the loss of the original Will was adequately explained – Held, secondary evidence was permissible. [Paras 12, 13]

Testamentary Capacity – Knowledge of Contents of Will – Allegations that the testator lacked knowledge of English and thus could not have known the contents of the Will – Supreme Court finds the argument unconvincing, citing standard practices of explaining the Will’s contents before registration – Held, the testator’s lack of English knowledge does not vitiate the Will. [Para 12]

Decision – Dismissal of Appeals – Supreme Court dismisses the appeals, affirming the High Court's judgment validating the Will – No cost order made. [Para 15]

Referred Cases:Apoline D'Souza v. John D'Souza, AIR 2007 SC 2219Pentakota Satyanarayana v. Pentakota Seetharatnam, AIR 2005 SC 4362Ved Mitra Verma v. Dharam Deo Verma, (2014) 9 SCALE 219H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma, AIR 1959 SC 443Mahesh Kumar (Dead) by L.Rs. v. Vinod Kumar, (2012) 4 SCC 387Rani Purnima Devi v. Kumar Khagendra Narayan Dev, AIR 1962 SC 567Bharpur Singh v. Shamsher Singh, AIR 2009 SC 1766

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR based on Compromise – Civil Appeal against High Court Division Bench decision – FIR registered against Appellant company for alleged non-compliance in issuance of numismatic gold coins – Complainant and Appellant settled dispute – Single Judge quashed FIR – Division Bench set aside the quashing, directing investigation – Supreme Court observed that majority of claimants settled disputes, and continuance of proceedings would be an abuse of process – Appeal allowed, FIR quashed. [Paras 1-9]

Role of High Court under Section 482 CrPC – Analysis – Held – High Court possesses inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings where parties have settled disputes, especially in civil and matrimonial cases – Distinction between compounding of offences and quashing of proceedings highlighted – Court emphasized no illegality in quashing when chances of conviction are remote and continuation would result in injustice. [Paras 6-8]

Decision – Quashing of FIR – Appeal allowed – Supreme Court reinstated the order of the Single Judge quashing the FIR, emphasizing the importance of settlement and the improbability of conviction – No order as to costs. [Paras 8-9]

Referred Cases:

State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604

Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, AIR 2009 SC 428

B.S. Joshi and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, AIR 2003 SC 1386

Madhu Limaye Vs. The State of Maharashtra, AIR 1978 SC 47

Surendra Nath Mohanty and Anr Vs. State of Orissa, AIR 1999 SC 2181

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

Criminal Law - Conviction based on Eye-Witness Testimony and Extra-Judicial Confession – Criminal Appeal challenging convictions under Sections 302, 307, 397 read with Section 34 IPC - Supreme Court upheld the convictions relying on the credible testimonies of an injured eye-witness (PW-2) and another eye-witness (PW-3), who identified the appellants despite the passage of 7.5 years – Extra-judicial confession corroborated by direct evidence found reliable – Convictions and sentences, including life imprisonment, confirmed by the Court. [Paras 2-22]

Identification of Accused - Reliability of Eye-Witnesses - Appeal challenging identification of accused by eye-witnesses after 7.5 years – Held, traumatic and significant nature of the incident allowed for reliable memory retention by the witnesses – Argument of unreliable identification dismissed – Appellants’ refusal to participate in Test Identification Parade (TIP) without valid reasons weakened the defense. [Paras 13-20]

Extra-Judicial Confession - Admissibility and Corroboration – Appeal questioning the validity of extra-judicial confession – Court observed that extra-judicial confession, though generally weak evidence, gains reliability when corroborated by credible eye-witness testimonies – Even absent the confession, eye-witness accounts were sufficient to sustain convictions. [Paras 21-22]

Decision - Dismissal of Appeals – Appeals dismissed based on the strength of eye-witness testimonies and corroborated extra-judicial confession – Convictions and sentences upheld by the Supreme Court. [Paras 22]

Referred Cases:

Balwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1996 SC 607

Javier Suarez Medina v. Janie Cockrell (2002), United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, Case No. 01-10763

Service Law – Promotion Eligibility – Distinction between Diploma and Degree Holders – Diploma holders acquiring AMIE qualification are not entitled to count their pre-AMIE service experience towards eligibility for promotion in the degree holders' quota. The three years’ experience required for promotion in the degree holders’ quota must be post-AMIE qualification. The Court emphasizes the qualitative difference in service experience required for promotions between diploma and degree holders. [Paras 20-34]

Regulations Interpretation – Seniority and Promotion Quotas – The Rajasthan Housing Board's regulations create distinct quotas for promotions from diploma holders and degree holders. The seniority list for Project Engineers (Junior) cannot be bifurcated based on educational qualifications alone. Service experience required for promotions must be calculated strictly within the stipulated educational qualifications and respective quotas. The preparation of separate seniority lists for degree and diploma holders, as directed by the Single Judge, was overturned. [Paras 17-19]

Past Practice and Administrative Instructions – The administrative practice of counting pre-AMIE service experience for diploma holders towards the eligibility for degree holders' quota promotions was found inconsistent with the regulations. The High Court’s directive for maintaining a single seniority list, while recognizing separate eligibility lists for promotions, was upheld. [Paras 14-15, 24]

Decision – Appeal Allowed – The appeals were allowed, reversing the High Court’s view regarding the counting of service experience prior to acquiring AMIE qualification. The Rajasthan Housing Board and its authorities were directed to dispose of the related writ petitions and grant reliefs to eligible persons within four months, without disturbing prior regular promotions not challenged in the writ petitions. [Paras 34-35]

Referred Cases:

Indian Airlines and Others v. S. Gopalakrishnan, (2001) 2 SCC 362

Shailendra Dania and Others v. S.P. Dubey and Others, (2007) 5 SCC 535

Vijay Singh Deora and Others v. State of Rajasthan and Another, (1997) 3 SCC 118

Anil Kumar Gupta and Others v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Others, (2000) 1 SCC 128

D. Stephen Joseph v. Union of India and Others, (1997) 4 SCC 753

K. Raghumani Singh and Others v. Gopal Chandra Nath and Others, (2000) 4 SCC 30

Chandravathi P.K. and Others v. C.K. Saji and Others, (2004) 2 SCR 330

N. Suresh Nathan and Another v. Union of India and Others, AIR 1992 SC 564

Roop Chand Adlakha and Others v. Delhi Development Authority and Others, AIR 1989 SC 307

M.B. Joshi and Others v. Satish Kumar Pandey and Others, (1993) 2 SCC 419 Supp

Challa Jaya Bhaskar and Others v. Thungathurthi Surender and Others, (2010) 13 SCC 348