A. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996—Sections 33 and 34(3)—Limitation for Filing Application to Set Aside Arbitral Award—Commencement of Limitation—Held: Where a request under Section 33 of the Act has been formally made and entertained by the Arbitral Tribunal, the limitation prescribed under Section 34(3) for filing an application to set aside the arbitral award commences only from the date on which such request is disposed of by the Tribunal. The provision does not distinguish between applications that are ultimately allowed, dismissed, or found to be untenable. Once the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 33 is invoked, parties are entitled to compute limitation from the date of disposal of such proceedings. (Paras 13–15, 18). B. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996—Section...

A. Hindu Succession Act, 1956—Sections 8, 10 and 19—Succession to Separate Property of Male Hindu Dying Intestate—Tenants-in-Common and Not Joint Tenants—Held: On the death of a male Hindu intestate, his separate property devolves upon the Class I heirs in accordance with Sections 8 and 10 of the Hindu Succession Act. By virtue of Section 19, such heirs take the property as tenants-in-common and not as joint tenants, each acquiring a definite and identifiable share. The doctrine of survivorship has no application to such succession, and each heir’s share devolves upon his or her own heirs. Property inherited under Section 8 is held in an individual capacity and does not assume the character of joint family or coparcenary property. (Paras 6–8). B. Hindu Law—Karta—Legal Necessity—Powe...

A. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Sections 437 and 439—Bail in Murder and Criminal Conspiracy Cases—Principles Governing Grant of Bail—Held: Though “bail is the rule and jail is the exception” remains a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence, it is not an absolute rule. In cases involving grave offences such as murder and criminal conspiracy punishable with death or imprisonment for life, the Court must balance the liberty of the accused against factors such as the existence of a prima facie case, gravity of the offence, nature of evidence, possibility of witness intimidation, likelihood of tampering with evidence, antecedents, age, health and the progress of trial. Where prima facie material indicates overt acts, conspiracy and shared intention, bail may justifiably be refused. (Paras 31–33)...

A. Service Law—Pensionary Benefits—Temporary Status Casual Labourers—Entitlement to Pension—Held: Casual labourers who were conferred temporary status under the applicable Scheme and completed the prescribed period of continuous service are entitled to the benefits available to temporary Group ‘D’ employees, including pensionary benefits, notwithstanding the absence of formal regularisation. Pension is a continuing right and a recurring cause of action, and its denial cannot be justified merely on the ground of delay in approaching the Court or on account of administrative inaction in regularising the employee. (Paras 34, 35, 41, 76–79). B. Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965—Rule 10(1-B)—Temporary Government Servants—Superannuation Pension and Family Pensio...

A. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023—Sections 109(1), 127(2), 191(2), 308(5), 351(3) and 352—Quashing of FIR—Delay in Lodging FIR—Held: Mere delay in lodging a First Information Report, without any other attendant circumstances rendering the prosecution case inherently improbable or absurd, cannot by itself constitute a valid ground for quashing the FIR. Delay is only one of the factors to be considered during appreciation of evidence at trial and not a standalone basis for terminating criminal proceedings at the threshold. The High Court erred in quashing the FIR solely on the ground of a delay of 24 days in its registration. (Paras 9, 11, 12, 13). B. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023—Quashing of FIR—Duty of High Court to Examine Nature of Allegations—Held: While exercising jurisdiction to ...

A. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023—Sections 65, 74, 115, 351 and 352 and Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012—Sections 3 and 4—Rape and Sexual Abuse Allegations—Quashing of Proceedings—Held: Allegations against the father and uncle of the prosecutrix alleging rape and sexual assault were vague, omnibus and unsupported by specific factual particulars, dates, circumstances or corroborative material. In the backdrop of prolonged matrimonial discord and multiple litigations between the parties, the complaint appeared to be a counterblast to ongoing disputes. Mere bald allegations, without prima facie material satisfying the ingredients of the offences, cannot justify continuation of criminal prosecution. Proceedings quashed. (Paras 7.1 to 7.7, 8.2). B. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023—Section...

A. Indian Evidence Act, 1872—Sections 133 and 114 Illustration (b)—Approver's Testimony—Evidentiary Value and Corroboration—Held: Testimony of an approver is admissible and conviction is not illegal merely because it is based on uncorroborated approver evidence. Corroboration is a rule of prudence and not an inflexible rule of law. Where the approver's testimony is credible, inculpatory, inspires confidence, and stands corroborated by surrounding circumstances in material particulars, it can safely form the basis of conviction. Mere fact that the approver did not inflict the fatal blows does not render his testimony self-exculpatory or unreliable. (Paras 23–39). B. Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 120A, 120B and 302—Criminal Conspiracy to Commit Murder—Liability of Co-conspirator&...

A. Constitution of India, 1950—Article 21—Personal Liberty—Illegal Detention after Judicial Order of Release—Compensation—Held: Continued detention of a convict after a competent Court has directed his release on parole, despite compliance with conditions and furnishing of sureties, constitutes illegal detention and violation of the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21. The State cannot justify non-release on the ground of internal administrative deliberations regarding filing of an appeal. For unlawful deprivation of liberty for twenty-four days, compensation awarded as a public law remedy. (Paras 7, 9–12). B. Constitution of India, 1950—Articles 32 and 226—Writ of Habeas Corpus—Scope and Maintainability—Held: Habeas corpus is a constitutional remedy availab...

A. Constitution of India, 1950—Articles 21, 48A and 51A(g)—Environmental protection and conservation of forests and wildlife—Agasthyamalai landscape, Tiger Reserves and Wildlife Sanctuaries—Held: Protection of forests, wildlife habitats and ecologically sensitive regions is not merely a statutory obligation but a constitutional imperative flowing from Articles 21, 48A and 51A(g)—Continued encroachments in Kalakad-Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve (KMTR), Srivilliputhur-Megamalai Tiger Reserve (SMTR) and Kanyakumari Wildlife Sanctuary (KWS) seriously threaten biodiversity, water security and ecological balance—State authorities directed to undertake time-bound eviction, restoration and conservation measures under continuous monitoring of the Central Empowered Committee (CEC). (Paras 46–66) B. Forest (C...

A. Contempt of Courts Act, 1971—Civil Contempt—Wilful disobedience of orders of Supreme Court—De-sealing and restoration of possession of property—Held: Persistent failure of public authorities to comply with the Supreme Court’s direction to de-seal the petitioner’s property and restore possession, despite repeated representations and legal notice, constituted a serious matter warranting contempt proceedings—Judicial orders must be complied with promptly and cannot be ignored at the convenience of administrative authorities—However, since compliance was ultimately effected and unconditional apologies were tendered, contempt notice was discharged. (Paras 15–21) B. Contempt of Courts Act, 1971—Public officials—Duty to obey judicial orders—Rule of law—Held: Cont...