licence could not be granted unless the distiller has participated in the tender process.= no one can claim as against the State the right to carry on trade or business in liquor and the State cannot be compelled to part with its exclusive right or privilege of manufacturing and selling liquor. But when the State decides to grant such right or privilege to others the State cannot escape the rigour of Article 14. It cannot act arbitrarily or at its sweet will. It must comply with the equality clause while granting the exclusive right or privilege of manufacturing or selling liquor. The Appellant’s request for grant of a CS-1 license requires to be considered strictly in accordance with law.The Respondents are directed to consider the application of the Appellant for issuance of CS-1 licence in accordance with the Act and the Rules made thereunder. It is needless to mention that the Respondents should not insist on the condition that the Appellant should have participated in a tender and should have been allotted an area of operation.

Non -Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No. 1701 of 2019 [ Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 30428 of 2018 ] GWALIOR DISTILLERIES PVT. LTD. …. Appellant Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. ….Respondents J U D G M E N T L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.… Read More licence could not be granted unless the distiller has participated in the tender process.= no one can claim as against the State the right to carry on trade or business in liquor and the State cannot be compelled to part with its exclusive right or privilege of manufacturing and selling liquor. But when the State decides to grant such right or privilege to others the State cannot escape the rigour of Article 14. It cannot act arbitrarily or at its sweet will. It must comply with the equality clause while granting the exclusive right or privilege of manufacturing or selling liquor. The Appellant’s request for grant of a CS-1 license requires to be considered strictly in accordance with law.The Respondents are directed to consider the application of the Appellant for issuance of CS-1 licence in accordance with the Act and the Rules made thereunder. It is needless to mention that the Respondents should not insist on the condition that the Appellant should have participated in a tender and should have been allotted an area of operation.

when the prosecution has been successful in proving the conspiracy between the accused as well as the accused committed the murder of the deceased, motive may not have that much relevance.

1 NON­REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 971 OF 2012 VIDYALAKSHMI @ VIDYA ..APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF KERALA ..RESPONDENT WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 852­853 OF 2014 ANAND SABARIRAJ @ AND ETC. ..APPELLANTS VERSUS STATE OF KERALA ..RESPONDENT J U D G M E N T M.R.SHAH, J. As… Read More when the prosecution has been successful in proving the conspiracy between the accused as well as the accused committed the murder of the deceased, motive may not have that much relevance.

Sections 406, 468, 120­B IPC.= It was further alleged that, subsequently, on careful perusal of the policies, the complainant surprisingly noticed that neither she nor her husband nor her son ever signed any proposal form or any other documents which were required at the time of taking the life insurance policies, as per the rules and regulations of IRDA, nor even appeared for any medical examination before any 8 doctor or hospital authority, but the policies were issued in the name of the complainant, moreover the booklet of policy containing the First Premium Receipt, policy schedule, proposal form, medical report are all Xerox copy and all the documents, even the First Premium Receipt and policy schedule do not bear any original signature of signatory i.e. Accused nos. 2 and 3 – Appellants herein. 4.12 It was further alleged that, the proposal forms were shown to be signed by the complainant, but the complainant never signed over the said policies and it is abundantly clear that her signatures are forged for the wrongful gain by the accused persons. It has been further revealed that the accused persons in conspiracy with each other forged the signatures of the complainant, her husband and her son Sri Samir Bajaj with an intention to deceive them for the wrongful gain. The said policies were issued through Accused no. 4 and all the accused persons are related to each other and interested persons who are getting monetary benefits for the issuance of these life insurance policies and all the accused persons are involved in committing the crime of cheating, forgery, criminal misappropriation of money and 9 criminal conspiracy. It is crystal clear that at the very inception of conversation with the complainant through her husband, the accused persons have been in conspiracy with each other and induced the complainant to deliver the cheques with an intention to deceive the complainant for the wrongful gain.= we allow the parties to compound the offences , even though the offences alleged are non­compoundable, as the dispute between the parties predominantly or overwhelming seems to be of a civil nature and that the dispute is a private one and between the two private parties. Accordingly, it is ordered that on payment of a sum of Rs.10,00,000/­ by the Appellants to the original Complainant to be deposited in the bank account of the original Complainant within a period of two weeks, the criminal proceedings being C.R. Case No. 40C of 2014 pending in the Court of learned CJM, Tinsukia, stand quashed. On furnishing proof of deposit of Rs.10,00,000/­, the Registry to return the amount of Rs.3,75,000/­ along with interest, if any, to the Appellants herein, which the Appellants have deposited pursuant to the earlier order of this Court.

1 NON­REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 277 of 2019 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2986 of 2015] Srinivasan Iyenger and Anr. .. Appellants Versus Bimla Devi Agarwal & Ors. .. Respondents (WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 278 OF 2019 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 2990 of 2015) J… Read More Sections 406, 468, 120­B IPC.= It was further alleged that, subsequently, on careful perusal of the policies, the complainant surprisingly noticed that neither she nor her husband nor her son ever signed any proposal form or any other documents which were required at the time of taking the life insurance policies, as per the rules and regulations of IRDA, nor even appeared for any medical examination before any 8 doctor or hospital authority, but the policies were issued in the name of the complainant, moreover the booklet of policy containing the First Premium Receipt, policy schedule, proposal form, medical report are all Xerox copy and all the documents, even the First Premium Receipt and policy schedule do not bear any original signature of signatory i.e. Accused nos. 2 and 3 – Appellants herein. 4.12 It was further alleged that, the proposal forms were shown to be signed by the complainant, but the complainant never signed over the said policies and it is abundantly clear that her signatures are forged for the wrongful gain by the accused persons. It has been further revealed that the accused persons in conspiracy with each other forged the signatures of the complainant, her husband and her son Sri Samir Bajaj with an intention to deceive them for the wrongful gain. The said policies were issued through Accused no. 4 and all the accused persons are related to each other and interested persons who are getting monetary benefits for the issuance of these life insurance policies and all the accused persons are involved in committing the crime of cheating, forgery, criminal misappropriation of money and 9 criminal conspiracy. It is crystal clear that at the very inception of conversation with the complainant through her husband, the accused persons have been in conspiracy with each other and induced the complainant to deliver the cheques with an intention to deceive the complainant for the wrongful gain.= we allow the parties to compound the offences , even though the offences alleged are non­compoundable, as the dispute between the parties predominantly or overwhelming seems to be of a civil nature and that the dispute is a private one and between the two private parties. Accordingly, it is ordered that on payment of a sum of Rs.10,00,000/­ by the Appellants to the original Complainant to be deposited in the bank account of the original Complainant within a period of two weeks, the criminal proceedings being C.R. Case No. 40C of 2014 pending in the Court of learned CJM, Tinsukia, stand quashed. On furnishing proof of deposit of Rs.10,00,000/­, the Registry to return the amount of Rs.3,75,000/­ along with interest, if any, to the Appellants herein, which the Appellants have deposited pursuant to the earlier order of this Court.

The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2001, Rule 22 sub-sub-Rule (5) which is relevant for the present case is as follows: – “22(5). In every case concerning a juvenile or a child, the Board shall either obtain, – (i) a birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority; (ii)a date of birth certificate from the school first attended; or (iii) matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available; and (iv) in the absence of (i) to (iii) above, the medical 15 opinion by a duly constituted Medical Board, subject to a margin of one year, in deserving cases for the reasons to be recorded by such Medical Board, regarding his age; and, when passing orders in such case shall, after taking into consideration such evidence as may be available or the medical opinion, as the case may be, record a finding in respect of his age.”= We are of the view that the relevant Rules which were required to be looked into are the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2001.The High Court had no occasion to consider the issue since the appellant has not pressed the issue before the High Court, we are of the view that it shall be appropriate that the High Court be requested to consider the question of juvenility of the appellant afresh before proceeding to decide the appeal.= remit the question of juvenility to the High Court for consideration. The High Court before deciding the appeal on merit may consider the question of juvenility on the basis of the relevant materials on record. The documents which were sought to be submitted before the High Court by the appellant be also taken on record and the High Court may reconsider the issue on the basis of materials on record as well as the report of the Sessions Judge which was sought by the High Court. The order dated 30.01.2015 passed by the High Court is set aside. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.283-285 OF 2019 (arising out of SLP(CRL.) No.2366-2368 of 2015) GAURAV KUMAR @ MONU ….APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF HARYANA ….RESPONDENT(S) J U D G M E N T ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. Leave Granted. These appeals have been filed by the appellant challenging… Read More The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2001, Rule 22 sub-sub-Rule (5) which is relevant for the present case is as follows: – “22(5). In every case concerning a juvenile or a child, the Board shall either obtain, – (i) a birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority; (ii)a date of birth certificate from the school first attended; or (iii) matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available; and (iv) in the absence of (i) to (iii) above, the medical 15 opinion by a duly constituted Medical Board, subject to a margin of one year, in deserving cases for the reasons to be recorded by such Medical Board, regarding his age; and, when passing orders in such case shall, after taking into consideration such evidence as may be available or the medical opinion, as the case may be, record a finding in respect of his age.”= We are of the view that the relevant Rules which were required to be looked into are the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2001.The High Court had no occasion to consider the issue since the appellant has not pressed the issue before the High Court, we are of the view that it shall be appropriate that the High Court be requested to consider the question of juvenility of the appellant afresh before proceeding to decide the appeal.= remit the question of juvenility to the High Court for consideration. The High Court before deciding the appeal on merit may consider the question of juvenility on the basis of the relevant materials on record. The documents which were sought to be submitted before the High Court by the appellant be also taken on record and the High Court may reconsider the issue on the basis of materials on record as well as the report of the Sessions Judge which was sought by the High Court. The order dated 30.01.2015 passed by the High Court is set aside. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.

Application u/S. 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the “1996 Act”) for appointment of an independent arbitrator to adjudicate 1 the disputes that had arisen between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2. =The arbitration clause in the 2007 Scheme clearly states that : “All disputes arising out of this scheme or in relation thereto in any form whatsoever shall be dealt exclusively by way of arbitration in terms of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.” (emphasis supplied) Russell in his commentary on arbitration11 has interpreted these words as follows : “Disputes “in connection with”, “in relation to”, or “regarding” a contract. These words, which are frequently encountered and are to be given the same meaning, were at one time given a restricted interpretation, but are now well established as having a broad meaning…..They may also be sufficient to catch disputes arising under another contract related to the contract containing the arbitration clause.” this Court observed that expressions such as – “pertaining to”, “in relation to” and “arising out of”, are used in the expansive sense, and must be construed accordingly.The words “in relation thereto” used in Clause 11.12 of the 2007 Scheme indicate that the clause would apply to all transactions which took place under the 2007 Scheme. This would include the sale transactions in the present case. In view of the above discussion, the view taken by the learned Single Judge is erroneous, and is hereby set­aside. The appeal is allowed. At the conclusion of the hearing, the parties consensually agreed to appoint Mr. Justice Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay (Retired Judge of the Calcutta High Court; Address: P­29/3, Jotish Roy Road, Kolkata – 700053) as Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes which have arisen between the Appellant and Respondent No. 2, under the 2007 Scheme. The appointment of Mr. Justice Chattopadhyay will be subject to the disclosure and declaration made, as per the Sixth Schedule to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (as amended by the 2015 Amendment Act). The proceedings will be conducted in Kolkata. Ordered accordingly.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1695 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 28693 of 2018) Giriraj Garg …Appellant Versus Coal India Ltd. & Ors. …Respondents J U D G M E N T INDU MALHOTRA, J. Leave granted. The present Civil Appeal arises out of… Read More Application u/S. 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the “1996 Act”) for appointment of an independent arbitrator to adjudicate 1 the disputes that had arisen between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2. =The arbitration clause in the 2007 Scheme clearly states that : “All disputes arising out of this scheme or in relation thereto in any form whatsoever shall be dealt exclusively by way of arbitration in terms of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.” (emphasis supplied) Russell in his commentary on arbitration11 has interpreted these words as follows : “Disputes “in connection with”, “in relation to”, or “regarding” a contract. These words, which are frequently encountered and are to be given the same meaning, were at one time given a restricted interpretation, but are now well established as having a broad meaning…..They may also be sufficient to catch disputes arising under another contract related to the contract containing the arbitration clause.” this Court observed that expressions such as – “pertaining to”, “in relation to” and “arising out of”, are used in the expansive sense, and must be construed accordingly.The words “in relation thereto” used in Clause 11.12 of the 2007 Scheme indicate that the clause would apply to all transactions which took place under the 2007 Scheme. This would include the sale transactions in the present case. In view of the above discussion, the view taken by the learned Single Judge is erroneous, and is hereby set­aside. The appeal is allowed. At the conclusion of the hearing, the parties consensually agreed to appoint Mr. Justice Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay (Retired Judge of the Calcutta High Court; Address: P­29/3, Jotish Roy Road, Kolkata – 700053) as Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes which have arisen between the Appellant and Respondent No. 2, under the 2007 Scheme. The appointment of Mr. Justice Chattopadhyay will be subject to the disclosure and declaration made, as per the Sixth Schedule to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (as amended by the 2015 Amendment Act). The proceedings will be conducted in Kolkata. Ordered accordingly.

Custody of Child = while determining the question as to which parent the care and control of a child should be given, the paramount consideration remains the welfare and interest of the child and not the rights of the parents under the statute.= Statements made by the parents during the course of mediation may not be relied upon on the ground of confidentiality but natural responses and statements made by the minor to the Counsellor would certainly afford a chance to decide what is in the best interest of the child. A child may respond naturally and spontaneously in its interactions with the Counsellor, who is professionally trained to make the child feel comfortable. Record of such interaction may afford valuable inputs to the Court in discharge of its duties in parens patriae jurisdiction. If during such interaction issues or aspects concerning welfare of a child are noticed, there is no reason why the Court be deprived of access to such aspects. As held by this Court in various judgments, the paramount consideration ought to be to see what is in the best interest of the child. In terms of Sub Rule (viii) of Rule 8, the Counsellor is obliged to give report, inter alia, relating to home environment of the parties concerned, their personalities and their relationship with the child and/or children in order to assist the Judge in deciding the question of guardianship of any child or children. The intention is clear that the normal principle of confidentiality will not apply in matters concerning custody or guardianship issues and the Court, in the best interest of the child, must be equipped with all the material touching upon relevant issues in order to render complete justice. This departure from confidentially is consistent with the underlined theme of the Act in general and Section 12 in particular. Once there is a clear exception in favour of categories stated therein, principles in any other forms of mediation/conciliation or other modes of Alternative Dispute Resolution regarding confidentiality cannot be imported. The effect of such exception cannot be diluted or nullified. In our view, the High Court considered the matter in correct perspective in paragraphs 17 to 20 of its judgment dated 07.02.2017.;who is the “Counsellor” within the meaning of Rule 8; whether the Counsellor who assisted the court in the present matter comes within the four corners of said provision. It is true that under Section 6 the Counsellors are appointed by the State Government in consultation with the High Court. It is also true that the Counsellor in the present case was not the one who was appointed in terms of Section 6 but was appointed by a committee of the High Court and her assistance had been requested for in connection with many matters. The order passed on 06.05.2016 had indicated that the Mediator could join “any other person” as may be deemed necessary for a holistic and effective mediation. The next order dated 11.05.2016 did mention the name of the Counsellor and the fact that the Counsellor had a fruitful meeting with Aditya. The Counsellor, thereafter, interacted with him on 08.07.2016 and 11.07.2016, based on which interaction, a report was submitted on 21.07.2016. The engagement of the Counsellor was thus in complete knowledge of the parties as well as with express acceptance of the High Court. It may be that said Counsellor was not appointed under Section 6 of the Act but if the paramount consideration is the welfare of the child, there cannot be undue reliance on a technicality. As a matter of fact, the width of Section 12 of the Act would admit no such restriction. The report given by the Counsellor in the present case cannot, therefore, be eschewed from consideration. It is noteworthy that there was absolutely nothing against the Counsellor and in the judgment under appeal, the High Court went on to observe in para No.30 that the Counsellor was well experienced and known for her commitment and sincerity to secure a settlement which would be satisfactory to all. We do not, therefore, see any reason why the reports in the present case, be kept out of consideration. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the judgment dated 11.12.2017 passed by the High Court and restore the earlier judgment dated 17.02.2017 passed by the High Court of Delhi.

SLP(C)No.9267 of 2018 Perry Kansagra vs. Smriti Madan Kansagra 1 Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1694 OF 2019 (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.9267 OF 2018) PERRY KANSAGRA ……Appellant VERSUS SMRITI MADAN KANSAGRA ..…. Respondent J U D G M E N T Uday Umesh Lalit, J.… Read More Custody of Child = while determining the question as to which parent the care and control of a child should be given, the paramount consideration remains the welfare and interest of the child and not the rights of the parents under the statute.= Statements made by the parents during the course of mediation may not be relied upon on the ground of confidentiality but natural responses and statements made by the minor to the Counsellor would certainly afford a chance to decide what is in the best interest of the child. A child may respond naturally and spontaneously in its interactions with the Counsellor, who is professionally trained to make the child feel comfortable. Record of such interaction may afford valuable inputs to the Court in discharge of its duties in parens patriae jurisdiction. If during such interaction issues or aspects concerning welfare of a child are noticed, there is no reason why the Court be deprived of access to such aspects. As held by this Court in various judgments, the paramount consideration ought to be to see what is in the best interest of the child. In terms of Sub Rule (viii) of Rule 8, the Counsellor is obliged to give report, inter alia, relating to home environment of the parties concerned, their personalities and their relationship with the child and/or children in order to assist the Judge in deciding the question of guardianship of any child or children. The intention is clear that the normal principle of confidentiality will not apply in matters concerning custody or guardianship issues and the Court, in the best interest of the child, must be equipped with all the material touching upon relevant issues in order to render complete justice. This departure from confidentially is consistent with the underlined theme of the Act in general and Section 12 in particular. Once there is a clear exception in favour of categories stated therein, principles in any other forms of mediation/conciliation or other modes of Alternative Dispute Resolution regarding confidentiality cannot be imported. The effect of such exception cannot be diluted or nullified. In our view, the High Court considered the matter in correct perspective in paragraphs 17 to 20 of its judgment dated 07.02.2017.;who is the “Counsellor” within the meaning of Rule 8; whether the Counsellor who assisted the court in the present matter comes within the four corners of said provision. It is true that under Section 6 the Counsellors are appointed by the State Government in consultation with the High Court. It is also true that the Counsellor in the present case was not the one who was appointed in terms of Section 6 but was appointed by a committee of the High Court and her assistance had been requested for in connection with many matters. The order passed on 06.05.2016 had indicated that the Mediator could join “any other person” as may be deemed necessary for a holistic and effective mediation. The next order dated 11.05.2016 did mention the name of the Counsellor and the fact that the Counsellor had a fruitful meeting with Aditya. The Counsellor, thereafter, interacted with him on 08.07.2016 and 11.07.2016, based on which interaction, a report was submitted on 21.07.2016. The engagement of the Counsellor was thus in complete knowledge of the parties as well as with express acceptance of the High Court. It may be that said Counsellor was not appointed under Section 6 of the Act but if the paramount consideration is the welfare of the child, there cannot be undue reliance on a technicality. As a matter of fact, the width of Section 12 of the Act would admit no such restriction. The report given by the Counsellor in the present case cannot, therefore, be eschewed from consideration. It is noteworthy that there was absolutely nothing against the Counsellor and in the judgment under appeal, the High Court went on to observe in para No.30 that the Counsellor was well experienced and known for her commitment and sincerity to secure a settlement which would be satisfactory to all. We do not, therefore, see any reason why the reports in the present case, be kept out of consideration. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the judgment dated 11.12.2017 passed by the High Court and restore the earlier judgment dated 17.02.2017 passed by the High Court of Delhi.

whether a matter which is essentially of a civil nature has been given a cloak of a criminal offence. Where the ingredients required to constitute a criminal offence are not made out from a bare reading of the complaint, the continuation of the criminal proceeding will constitute an abuse of the process of the court. 24 In the present case, the son of the appellants has instituted a civil suit for the recovery of money against the first respondent. The suit is pending. The first respondent has filed the complaint against the appellants six years after the date of the alleged transaction and nearly three years from the filing of the suit. The averments in the complaint, read on its face, do not disclose the ingredients 13 necessary to constitute offences under the Penal Code. An attempt has been made by the first respondent to cloak a civil dispute with a criminal nature despite the absence of the ingredients necessary to constitute a criminal offence. The complaint filed by the first respondent against the appellants constitutes an abuse of process of court and is liable to be quashed.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 238 OF 2019 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) No. 1434 OF 2018 PROF R K VIJAYASARATHY & ANR …. APPELLANTS Versus SUDHA SEETHARAM & ANR ….RESPONDENTS J U D G M E N T Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J 1 Delay condoned. 2… Read More whether a matter which is essentially of a civil nature has been given a cloak of a criminal offence. Where the ingredients required to constitute a criminal offence are not made out from a bare reading of the complaint, the continuation of the criminal proceeding will constitute an abuse of the process of the court. 24 In the present case, the son of the appellants has instituted a civil suit for the recovery of money against the first respondent. The suit is pending. The first respondent has filed the complaint against the appellants six years after the date of the alleged transaction and nearly three years from the filing of the suit. The averments in the complaint, read on its face, do not disclose the ingredients 13 necessary to constitute offences under the Penal Code. An attempt has been made by the first respondent to cloak a civil dispute with a criminal nature despite the absence of the ingredients necessary to constitute a criminal offence. The complaint filed by the first respondent against the appellants constitutes an abuse of process of court and is liable to be quashed.