Issues: Whether the Court's powers under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 include the power to modify an arbitral award; whether such power, if available, is confined to severable parts of the award; whether the power to set aside an award includes the power to modify it; and whether the leading precedent on this question states the correct law.

Analysis: The order does not finally decide the merits of these questions. It records that the issue of modification of arbitral awards under Sections 34 and 37 has arisen repeatedly and that conflicting decisions exist, making authoritative clarification necessary. The questions are therefore referred to a larger Bench for answers.

Conclusion: No final ruling is rendered on the substantive questions referred for larger-Bench consideration.

Final Conclusion: The order is procedural in nature and leaves the merits of the controversy open for determination by a larger Bench, while also disposing of the interlocutory request and extending the time for compliance.

Issues: (i) Whether the quashing petition had become infructuous merely because the chargesheet was filed after the petition was instituted; (ii) Whether interim protection against arrest could be granted pending reconsideration of the quashing petition on merits.

Issue (i): Whether the quashing petition had become infructuous merely because the chargesheet was filed after the petition was instituted.

Analysis: The filing of a chargesheet after institution of a quashing petition does not, by itself, render the proceeding infructuous. The merits of the challenge can still be examined on the basis of the FIR, the chargesheet, and other relevant materials to see whether the alleged offences are prima facie made out. The earlier dismissal on the ground of infructuousness was therefore unsustainable.

Conclusion: The petition did not become infructuous merely because the chargesheet was filed later, and the matter had to be heard on merits.

Issue (ii): Whether interim protection against arrest could be granted pending reconsideration of the quashing petition on merits.

Analysis: Since the matter was being sent back for merits consideration, and the materials disclosed did not justify immediate arrest, interim protection was warranted to preserve the efficacy of the pending proceedings. The protection was made operative until the High Court decided the petition on merits, subject to any later development necessitating detention.

Conclusion: Interim protection against arrest was granted pending the High Court's fresh decision on merits.

Final Conclusion: The dismissal of the quashing petition was set aside, the matter was remitted for merits adjudication, and the appellant obtained interim protection in the meantime.

Ratio Decidendi: Filing of a chargesheet after institution of a quashing petition does not automatically render the petition infructuous; the court may still examine whether the alleged offences are prima facie made out on the available materials.

Issues: Whether a writ petition styled as a public interest petition was maintainable when it was in substance directed to the petitioner's own grievance concerning insolvency proceedings against his establishment.

Analysis: The petition was examined in the light of the reliefs sought and the background facts disclosed in the synopsis. The material showed that the grievance arose from proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 concerning the petitioner's own establishment, and that the petition was therefore not a genuine public interest action. The Court treated the petition as one essentially advancing a private dispute under the guise of public interest.

Conclusion: The petition was not entertained and was dismissed.

Issues: Whether bail was liable to be granted in a case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 having regard to the restriction in Section 43D(5) and the materials collected by the prosecution.

Analysis: The Court applied the settled standard under the proviso to Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, as explained in Watali and later reiterated in Vernon, namely that bail cannot be granted unless the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the accused is prima facie not true. On the materials placed before it, including the chargesheet and the petitioner's criminal antecedents in a similar case, the Court found that the threshold for bail was not met.

Conclusion: Bail was refused and the Special Leave Petition was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the proviso to Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, bail cannot be granted unless there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accusation is prima facie not true.

Issues: Whether interference was warranted under Article 136 of the Constitution of India in view of the admitted ineligibility of the arbitrator under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Outcome: The Special Leave Petition was dismissed and the pending application stood disposed of.

ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether the operation of a State enactment impugned on constitutional grounds should be stayed pending consideration by the apex court when the High Court has upheld the vires of the enactment but petitioners obtained an earlier ex parte interim protection during High Court proceedings.

2. What principles govern interim relief when the constitutional validity of a statute is challenged, in particular the applicability of the presumption of constitutionality and the relevance of compliance by similarly situated entities.

3. Whether and on what terms an interim arrangement (short of a complete stay) is appropriate to balance competing equities between the State/exchequer and petitioners pending final adjudication.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - Whether to stay operation of the State enactment pending appeal when the High Court has upheld its validity despite an earlier ex parte interim order

Legal framework: The general constitutional presumption of validity of legislation requires petitioners challenging vires to establish invalidity before a court will ordinarily stay operation of the enactment. Interim relief suspending operation of a statute is exceptional and not automatic upon filing of a challenge.

Precedent treatment: The Court relied on and applied the principle articulated in R. K. Dalmia v. Tendolkar, holding that the presumption of constitutionality is a determinative consideration when interim suspension of legislation is sought.

Interpretation and reasoning: Where the High Court, after adjudication, has upheld the vires of the enactment, the balance disfavors a blanket stay of the judgment or of the statute's operation in favour of the challenger. An ex parte interim protection granted during High Court proceedings that continued until final disposal does not convert into entitlement to suspend operation post-adverse judgment. The fact that other assessees have been complying with the statute since its enactment strengthens the presumption in favour of continued operation and weighs against a stay.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - It is not appropriate to stay the operation of an enactment simply because a challenge is pending before the apex court where the High Court has upheld the statute and the presumption of constitutionality remains intact. Obiter - Observations on comparative interim orders in other States (e.g., another State's pending appeal) are contextual but not determinative of the core principle.

Conclusions: A complete stay of the impugned High Court judgment or operation of the statute in favour of the petitioners was declined. The Court reaffirmed that the presumption of constitutionality and compliance by other entities counsel against automatic suspension.

Issue 2 - Principles governing interim relief when statutory vires is challenged; role of presumption of constitutionality and compliance by similarly situated entities

Legal framework: Interim relief must account for (a) presumption of constitutionality, (b) the petitioner's burden to demonstrate prima facie invalidity, and (c) equities between parties including the public/exchequer interest and uniformity of compliance by others.

Precedent treatment: The Court expressly followed established authority emphasizing the constitutional presumption and burden on challengers to show likely success to justify suspension of statute's operation.

Interpretation and reasoning: The existence of an earlier ex parte interim order does not displace these principles where the final High Court decision is adverse. The State's interest, particularly revenue/ exchequer considerations, and the fact that other assessees have been complying with the statute since inception, are material factors in assessing whether extraordinary interim relief is warranted.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Interim relief should not undermine State revenue and uniform regulatory compliance absent compelling demonstration of invalidity; earlier ex parte protection does not automatically entitle a party to continued non-compliance after an adverse adjudication. Obiter - The Court's reference to interim orders in other but factually distinct proceedings is illustrative only.

Conclusions: Petitioners bear the onus of showing extraordinary circumstances to displace the statute's operation; absent such showing and given general compliance by others, interim suspension is inappropriate.

Issue 3 - Appropriateness and terms of a provisional arrangement to balance competing equities pending final determination

Legal framework: Where neither party's prospects are clear and the public interest/State revenue must be protected, courts may fashion interim measures that preserve the status quo while safeguarding parties' rights pending final adjudication.

Precedent treatment: The Court applied established equitable principles to devise a tailored interim arrangement rather than an absolute stay, consistent with judicial practice of balancing hardship and preserving ultimate remedies.

Interpretation and reasoning: To balance interests, the Court directed that the State proceed with assessment and issue a formal demand; the petitioner must pay 50% of the assessed demand while payment of the remaining 50% is stayed pending final determination. This approach protects State revenue to an extent, avoids prejudice to compliant assessees, and preserves the petitioner's ability to recover sums if ultimately successful. The order contemplates appropriate interest adjustments determined in accordance with law at final disposal, both for refund (with reasonable interest) if petitioner prevails and for recovery (with reasonable interest) if petitioner fails.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Interim arrangements that require partial payment into the State treasury while staying balance are an appropriate, proportionate mechanism to protect public interest and parties' rights where the validity of a tax/statutory levy is contested and outcomes are uncertain. Obiter - Specific percentages or procedural steps may be case-specific and not mandatory precedents for all challenges.

Conclusions: The Court fashioned an interim regime: assessment and formal demand by State; petitioner to pay 50% of demand; stay on payment of remaining 50% pending final decision; directions that refunds or further recoveries will carry reasonable interest to be fixed in accordance with law. The arrangement is explicit to be without prejudice to rights and contentions of either side and is interim in nature.

Cross-references and General Observations

1. The Court's refusal to stay the statute flows from the presumption of constitutionality and the adverse High Court finding; see Issue 1 and Issue 2 above.

2. The interim mechanism ordered (Issue 3) is expressly temporary and subject to final adjudication; any financial adjustments will be made in accordance with law at the final stage.

3. Observations regarding other proceedings involving different State enactments are treated as contextual comparators and do not override the application of constitutional presumptions and equitable balancing in the instant challenges.

Issues: Whether the deceased's older married brothers could be treated as dependants entitled to compensation under the motor accident award.

Analysis: The evidence showed that the deceased lived separately, while the claimants were older, married siblings with their own families. In the absence of material showing dependency on the deceased's earnings, brothers and sisters are not ordinarily treated as dependants, particularly where they are independent, married, or otherwise not financially dependent on the deceased.

Conclusion: The three married siblings were not dependants of the deceased, and the compensation awarded in their favour was unjustified. The award as affirmed by the High Court was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: In a motor accident claim, adult married siblings are not to be treated as dependants unless evidence establishes actual financial dependency on the deceased.

Outcome: Notice was directed to be issued to the standing/nominated counsel for the State, rejoinder and service steps were permitted within specified timelines, interim directions were issued regarding enforcement of the impugned judgment in the event of non-deposit, and the matter was directed to be listed again in February 2024.

Issues: Whether the appellant's request for waiver of pre-deposit under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act required reconsideration in light of the governing principles on deposit conditions and exceptions thereto.

Analysis: The Court noted that Section 148 ordinarily justifies imposition of a deposit condition at the appellate stage, but recognised that an exception may be made where insisting on deposit would be unjust or would effectively deprive the appellant of the right of appeal, provided reasons are recorded. In view of the cited precedent, the appellant was permitted to advance arguments on the waiver application that had been rejected by the Appellate Court and affirmed by the High Court.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the Sessions Court was directed to reconsider the waiver application in accordance with the observations made and in accordance with law.

Issues: Whether an appeal can be dismissed on merits when the appellant is absent, or only for non-prosecution under Order XLI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: Order XLI Rule 17 permits the Court to dismiss an appeal when the appellant does not appear, but the Explanation expressly bars dismissal on merits in such a situation. A dismissal on merits in the absence of representation is contrary to the statutory scheme and cannot be sustained.

Conclusion: The dismissal on merits was unsustainable. The order was set aside and the appeal was restored to the High Court for consideration afresh.

Final Conclusion: The matter was remitted to the High Court for decision on merits after affording the parties an opportunity to be heard.

Ratio Decidendi: When an appellant is absent, the appeal may be dismissed for default, but not on merits, because the Explanation to Order XLI Rule 17 expressly excludes a merits-based dismissal in such circumstances.

The Court considered several core issues in this judgment:

• The effectiveness of measures taken by the State of Punjab and Haryana to control stubble burning and the associated environmental impact.
• The implementation of financial and machinery support for farmers to prevent stubble burning.
• The issue of e-waste burning in Delhi/NCR and the actions required by the states to address it.
• The non-implementation of the Colour Coded Stickers scheme for vehicles and the need for compliance.
• The financial obligations of the Delhi Government towards the Regional Rapid Transport System project and the reallocation of funds from advertisement budgets to this project.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

1. Control of Stubble Burning in Punjab and Haryana

• Legal Framework and Precedents: The Court examined the enforcement of environmental regulations and the imposition of Environmental Compensation (EC) for stubble burning.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court noted the inadequacy in the enforcement measures, highlighting that only a small percentage of inspected fields had EC imposed.
• Key Evidence and Findings: The Court reviewed data showing the number of fire incidents, fields inspected, and cases where EC was imposed, along with financial allocations for machinery and incentives.
• Application of Law to Facts: The Court emphasized the need for effective implementation of existing measures and suggested additional financial incentives and machinery support.
• Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Court considered arguments regarding the financial burden on farmers and the potential for using byproducts to offset costs.
• Conclusions: The Court urged the State of Punjab to adopt successful strategies from Haryana and explore alternative crops to reduce environmental impact.

2. Burning of E-Waste in Delhi/NCR

• Legal Framework and Precedents: The Court referred to existing environmental regulations prohibiting open burning of waste.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court noted ongoing violations despite existing curbs and directed the states to take action.
• Key Evidence and Findings: The Court acknowledged the persistence of e-waste burning in open areas.
• Application of Law to Facts: The Court called for reports from the states to ensure compliance with environmental laws.
• Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Court focused on the need for enforcement rather than addressing competing arguments.
• Conclusions: The Court expected action from the State of Delhi and Uttar Pradesh and required a follow-up report.

3. Implementation of Colour Coded Stickers for Vehicles

• Legal Framework and Precedents: The Court referred to the legislative mandate for Colour Coded Stickers, effective from April 2019.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court observed poor implementation for existing vehicles and called for improved compliance.
• Key Evidence and Findings: The Court noted that the scheme was implemented for new cars but lagged for existing ones.
• Application of Law to Facts: The Court directed the Cabinet Secretary's Committee to issue further directions for compliance.
• Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Court did not delve into competing arguments, focusing on compliance.
• Conclusions: The Court sought better implementation of the scheme by the states.

4. Financial Obligations for Regional Rapid Transport System Project

• Legal Framework and Precedents: The Court reviewed previous orders and assurances regarding the funding of the project.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court expressed concern over the diversion of funds to advertisements instead of the project.
• Key Evidence and Findings: The Court examined budget allocations and assurances made by the Delhi Government.
• Application of Law to Facts: The Court directed the reallocation of advertisement funds to the transport project.
• Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Court considered the importance of the project over other expenditures.
• Conclusions: The Court ordered the transfer of funds from advertisement budgets to the project, with a compliance deadline.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

• Core Principles Established: The Court reinforced the importance of effective implementation of environmental measures and compliance with legislative mandates.
• Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Court directed specific actions and compliance measures for each issue, with follow-up reports and deadlines.
• Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: The Court emphasized the need for states to "put their head together to see how to encourage the switch over to alternative crops" and highlighted the importance of reallocating funds "for purposes of funding to the extent that the subsidy has been given."

Issues: Whether the petitioner should be released on bail in CBI Case No.RC0172022A0009 of 2022 (Original FIR No.229 of 2022).

Analysis: The Court noted that the petitioner has been in custody for over one year and charges have not been framed. A majority of co-accused (7 out of 10) have already been released on bail. The prosecution's apprehension about tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses was acknowledged but held to be manageable by imposing stringent conditions. Taking these factors together, the Court exercised its discretion to grant bail while prescribing specific conditions including personal bonds with sureties, regular reporting to the investigating officer, prohibition on influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence, and allowance for any additional conditions by the trial court.

Conclusion: Bail granted to the petitioner in the specified CBI case subject to conditions: personal bond of Rs.50,000 with one or more sureties of the like amount, reporting to the Investigating Officer every Monday at 11:00 a.m., prohibition on influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence, and compliance with any additional conditions that the trial court may impose.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an accused has been in pre-trial custody for an extended period and charges are not framed, and where risks of tampering can be addressed by imposing specific stringent conditions, bail may be granted subject to appropriate conditions.

Issues: Whether the petitioner, who had been in custody for more than one year and against whom charge sheets had been filed but cognizance had not yet been taken, was entitled to be released on bail in both cases.

Analysis: The Court noted that charge sheets had already been filed in both matters, that investigation could be treated as continuing against the co-accused, and that cognizance had not yet been taken on the filed charge sheets. It also took into account the nature of the alleged offences and the period of incarceration already undergone.

Conclusion: The petitioner was held entitled to bail in both cases, subject to strict terms and conditions to be imposed by the Trial Court.

Issues: Whether immediate directions were warranted to address the crop-burning driven air pollution crisis and related remedial measures, including release of source-apportionment data, operation of the smog tower, prevention of open burning of municipal solid waste, and coordinated inter-governmental action.

Analysis: The matter involved a recurring winter pollution emergency affecting public health, with crop burning, delayed sowing practices, inadequate adoption of alternatives, and other contributing factors flagged for urgent intervention. The Court directed prompt stakeholder action, required compliance with the prayers concerning release and publication of real-time source-apportionment data, and ordered reopening and operationalisation of the smog tower. It also directed monitoring against open burning of municipal solid waste, called for a high-level meeting for immediate coordination, and sought further compliance reports on vehicular pollution measures and other related steps.

Conclusion: Immediate regulatory and administrative directions were issued in aid of pollution control and public health protection, and the requested reliefs were substantially granted.

Final Conclusion: The order granted operative environmental directions to curb pollution and to secure coordinated action by the concerned authorities, while keeping the matter pending for further monitoring.

Ratio Decidendi: In a continuing environmental public health crisis, the Court may direct immediate coordinated administrative action and enforce operational compliance to prevent recurring pollution harm.

Issues: Whether interference was warranted with the acquittal in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, when the complainant failed to establish financial capacity to advance the loan and the accused raised a probable defence.

Analysis: The complainant's asserted source of funds was a loan allegedly taken from his mother, but she was not examined as a witness. The alleged supporting sale transaction had also been cancelled, leaving the asserted availability of funds unsubstantiated. The record further indicated another proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in which the complainant had failed to produce income documents. In light of the settled rule that the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 can be rebutted on a preponderance of probabilities by relying on the complainant's own materials, the concurrent findings that the complainant failed to prove financial capacity were not shown to be infirm.

Conclusion: No interference with the acquittal was called for, and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 stands rebuttable on a preponderance of probabilities, including by reliance on the complainant's own materials, and an acquittal under Section 138 will not be disturbed absent infirmity in the concurrent findings.