(A) Land Acquisition Act (1 of 1894), S.28A - Re-determination of compensation - Application for - Maintainability - Entertaining earlier application filed under S.28A on basis of award of Reference Court followed by receipt of money, shall not act as bar for same applicant to seek further re-determination of compensation on basis of award passed by High Court or Supreme Court - Even second application made under S.28A after award passed by High Court was maintainable. (Para 25)

(B) Land Acquisition Act (1 of 1894), S.28A - Re-determination of compensation - Rejection of - On ground that landowners had already accepted earlier compensation enhanced by Reference Court - Landowners had earlier sought re-determination of compensation on basis of award of Reference Court and now sought further re-determination on parity with similarly placed landowners, in whose favor High Court was pleased to pass enhanced award - There was no bar for landowners to sought re-determination of compensation on basis of award of High Court, even if they had previously filed application after award of Reference Court - Fact that landowners had received compensation, pursuant to order passed on earlier occasion, was irrelevant - Order of rejection to re-determine compensation was set aside - Direction issued to respondents to re-determine compensation in favour of landowners in light of judgment of High Court. (Para 27, 28)

(A) Arbitration Act (10 of 1940), S. 30, S. 2(a), S. 4 - Arbitral award - Setting aside of - There was no written agreement between parties to submit differences to arbitration as required by S.2(a) of Act of 1940 - Cl.20 prescribed a measure that parties would maintain pending resolution, but that by itself cannot be an arbitration clause - State Govt. had no authority under S.143A(3) of Maharashtra Act of 1965 to appoint an arbitrator for agent and Municipal Council - Exercise of such power by Govt. cannot be equated to S.4 of Act of 1940, or there was no such agreement - Requirement of consensus ad idem for creation of arbitration agreement as contemplated under S.2(a) was absent - Since Arbitrator lacked inherent jurisdiction due to absence of arbitration agreement, entire proceedings were a nullity (coram non judice) and resulting award was non-est - There was no estoppel against Municipal Council for reason that it had initially participated in arbitral proceedings - This was for reason that they were forced into arbitration without consent and contract - Also, they challenged award on jurisdictional grounds before Civil Court and High Court - Arbitral proceedings were perfunctory and started and concluded in a short period - Order of High Court setting aside arbitral award was proper. (Para 26, 27)

(A) Pension Regulations for the Army (1961), Para 9, Para 125 - Pension Regulations for the Army Part II (2008), Para 18, Para 44, Para 47, Para 175 - Army Act (46 of 1950), S. 192 - Pension - Qualifying service - Personnel serving in Defence Security Corps (DSC) - Union of India through Ministry of Defence shall determine length of qualifying services in accordance with Paras 9 and 18 of Pension Regulations of 1961 and 2008 respectively, as well as Note 5 appended to letter dated 30.10.1987 - If, upon determination of length of qualifying service, there remains a shortfall of one year or less, DSC personnel shall be entitled to seek condonation of such deficiency for purpose of pension eligibility, in accordance with Para 125 of Pension Regulations of 1961 or Para 44 of Pension Regulations of 2008.

(B) Pension Regulations for the Army (1961), Para 125 - Pension Regulations for the Army Part II (2008), Para 44 - Army Act (46 of 1950), S. 192 - Pension - Qualifying service - Personnel serving in Defence Security Corps (DSC) - Once Pension Regulations specifically provide for condonation of shortfall in minimum DSC service, it is not open to Government of India, Ministry of Defence, Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare (MoD/DESW), to stipulate an exception by way of executive letters - While Government may issue beneficial circulars/letters or clarifications where ambiguity exists, it cannot, by administrative fiat, amend or override clear and categorical provisions of Regulations. (Para 42)

(C) Pension Regulations for the Army Part II (2008), Para 6, Para 174(1)(b) - Army Act (46 of 1950), S. 192 - Pension - Qualifying service - Personnel serving in Defence Security Corps (DSC) - Conjoint reading of Para 6 with Para 174(1)(b) of Pension Regulations of 2008, reveals no bar on DSC personnel earning a second service pension - Such entitlement does not arise from same service, post, or continuous spell of employment, but from a distinct and independent engagement - Consequently, second spell of service in DSC is separate and distinct from first spell in Regular Army - Condonation of shortfall in DSC service is therefore entirely consistent with scheme of Army Regulations and does not create any inconsistency - Plea that provision for condonation of shortfall was intended only to ensure grant of a single defence pension was contrary to express language of Regulations. (Para 44, 45, 46)

(A) Contract Act (9 of 1872), S.28 - Arbitration and Conciliation Act (26 of 1996), S.34 - Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), S.5 - Arbitral award - Setting aside of - On ground of lack of jurisdiction - Agreement between parties for manning of vessels - Penalty sought towards damaged vessel - Manning agent disputing liability - Contractual clause restricting dispute resolution - Clause 3.20 of agreement limiting challenges to loss quantification while Clause 3.22 was arbitration clause which was widely worded- When clause 3.20 speaks of administration's decision being final it can only be in those cases where the wilful action or negligence is not disputed - Principles of the Rule of Law are fundamental to contract interpretation, especially where the State is a party - Although Clause 3.20 sought to make the administration's decision final and exclude courts and arbitration, such an interpretation would violate fairness, natural justice, and strike at very heart of the fundamental legal maxim " ubi jus ibi remedium " - Under that clause "finality" applies only to quantification when liability is admitted, not when it is disputed, as no party can be judge in its own cause - Since Clause 3.22 broadly covers all disputes, issues of liability fall within arbitration - Thus, the High Court erred in denying arbitrator's jurisdiction and setting aside arbitral award - Arbitral award was restored. (Para 28,29,30,31,34,40,41,44)

(A) Karnataka State Civil Services Act (14 of 1990), S. 3(1), S. 8 - Karnataka Recruitment of Gazetted Probationers (Appointment by Competitive Examinations) Rules (1997), R. 4, R. 11 - Appointment - Posts of Gazetted Probationers in Group A and Group B Services - No provision in 1997 Rules under which candidate placed below a selected candidate acquires right to be appointed to a post left unfilled on account of non-completion of pre-appointment formalities or non-joining - In absence of such a provision, mere fact that selected candidate did not join cannot, by itself, create an enforceable right in favour of respondent candidate - Order of High Court holding that since selected candidate did not undergo mandatory medical examination, post continued to remain unfilled and, therefore, respondent, being candidate immediately next below, ought to have been considered against that post was erroneous.