Competition Law - Impleadment - Competition Act 2002 - Section 26(1) - Competition Commission of India (General) Regulations 2009 - Regulation 25(1) - Appellant challenged the order of the CCI allowing the impleadment of the Builders Association of India in a suo moto investigation into cement manufacturers - Trial Court dismissed the writ petition holding that impleadment was a procedural step to aid the commission in its inquiry - Appellant contended the order was unreasoned and violated principles of natural justice - Division Bench held that the Commission is not a trial court and the principles of dominus litis under CPC do not apply to anti-competition proceedings - Held - The Commission's decision to permit a consumer body with substantial interest to participate is in furtherance of public interest and does not violate any statutory right of the appellant - Appeal dismissed - [Paras 30-43].

Competition Law - Natural Justice - Competition Act 2002 - Section 18 - Right to hearing - Appellant argued that no notice was given prior to the impleadment order - Court noted that the Commission had previously directed that the non-confidential version of the DG report be shared with the parties - Held - Mere impleadment for the purpose of submitting an opinion on the investigation report does not constitute an adverse order affecting the legal rights of the appellant and participation was sufficiently signaled to the appellant - [Paras 36-39].

Competition Law - Procedure - Competition Act 2002 - Section 26(1) - Confidentiality of records - Appellant apprehended that the intervener would access confidential business information - Court noted that in a related matter the Hon'ble Supreme Court recorded a statement on behalf of the intervenor that it would not seek access to confidential documents - Held - The apprehension of prejudice stands allayed by the protective conditions regarding confidential records - [Paras 27-28].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – The order of the Commission and the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge are upheld – No order as to costs.

Tenancy Law - Eviction - Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 - Section 25-B(8) - Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction - High Court's power is supervisory and not appellate - High Court cannot substitute its own view for that of the Rent Controller unless the order suffers from manifest illegality-perversity or material irregularity-Petitioner challenged eviction order alleging concealment of alternative residential premises by landlord-Court found that Rent Controller had correctly analyzed the material on record and that no triable issue was raised-Held-Revisional court will not interfere with factual findings where the Rent Controller has performed an objective adjudication-Petition dismissed- [Paras 9-14-17-22].

Rent Control Law - Eviction - Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 - Section 25-B - Bona fide Requirement - Landlord's Prerogative - Tenant cannot dictate where a landlord should conduct his business-Landlord proved the requirement for commercial space to expand photography business-Contention that residential premises occupied by the landlord constitute suitable alternative accommodation rejected-Held-Landlord is the best judge of his own requirement and the tenant failed to prove the existence of any reasonably suitable alternative accommodation- [Paras 16-20].

Evidence Law - Civil Procedure - Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 - Section 25-B - Leave to Defend - Prohibition on New Grounds in Rejoinder - Tenant attempted to introduce new facts regarding other properties in the rejoinder without seeking leave-Held-Statutory time period for filing leave to defend is inflexible and new facts cannot be introduced by way of subsequent affidavits or rejoinders to defeat the object of the summary procedure- [Paras 16-25-27].

Decision: Petition dismissed – The eviction order passed by the Rent Controller is upheld – Petitioner directed to vacate the premises upon the expiry of the statutory period of six months as per Section 14(7) of the DRC Act.

Writ Law - Customs - Customs Act 1962 - Sections 110 and 124 - Petitioner sought release of gold seized at IGI Airport claiming non-issuance of written show-cause notice within statutory period - Respondent asserted that an oral show-cause notice was issued on the date of seizure and relied upon a statement recorded under Section 108 wherein Petitioner waived requirement of written notice - Petitioner challenged voluntariness of statement alleging coercion and production of pre-typed/blank documents - Court held that disputed questions of fact regarding the veracity of the statement and the nature of the proceedings cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction - Held - Writ Court declined to order unconditional release but directed the adjudicating authority to decide the validity of the oral notice and the voluntariness of the statement within a timebound period - [Paras 1-38].

Customs Law - Show-cause notice - Customs Act 1962 - Section 124 - Requirement of notice - Whether oral notice satisfies statutory mandate - Proviso to Section 124 permits notice to be oral at the request of the person concerned - Respondent produced records indicating date of oral notice as 20.01.2024 - Held - Mere absence of a formal written show-cause notice does not automatically trigger the consequences of Section 110(2) if the Revenue establishes that an oral show-cause notice was validly issued and the person was afforded opportunity of hearing - [Paras 22-29].

Writ Law - Practice and Procedure - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Disputed questions of fact - Allegation of coercion in signing incriminating statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act - Petitioner alleged reliance on CCTV footage and coercion to prove involuntariness - Held - Such evidentiary disputes require appreciation of material beyond the scope of extraordinary writ jurisdiction and must be determined by the competent adjudicating authority during proceedings - [Paras 19-26].

Decision: Writ Petition disposed of - Respondent directed to afford Petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing and to conclude adjudication proceedings within four weeks of Petitioner's appearance.

Arbitration Law - Arbitrability of Disputes - Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 - Section 8 - Execution of compromise decree - Appellant sought referral to arbitration regarding liability for mesne profits under a compromise decree containing an arbitration clause - Executing court rejected application - High Court held that the existence of an arbitration clause in a compromise decree mandates referral of disputes regarding performance or breach to arbitration - Held - Impugned order set aside and parties referred to arbitration - [Paras 1-15].

Arbitration Law - Peremptory nature of Section 8 - Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 - Section 8 - Obligation of Court - Dispute regarding non-completion of construction and liability for compensatory amount held to be a matter for arbitration - Mere execution proceedings do not bar the statutory right to seek arbitration when the underlying decree contains an arbitration agreement - Held - Executing court is bound to refer the dispute to an arbitrator - [Paras 10-14].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned order dated 11/08/2025 set aside – Executing Court directed to appoint an independent arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute within a stipulated timeframe before proceeding with the execution.

Civil Law - Divorce - Hindu Marriage Act 1955 - Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) - Appellant-husband filed for divorce alleging cruelty and desertion by respondent-wife - Trial Court dismissed the petition finding the appellant failed to prove allegations while simultaneously observing that the appellant had himself committed cruelty against the respondent - Appellant contended desertion by wife since 2005 - High Court noted that the appellant admitted in cross-examination to the respondent providing care during his illness and that he failed to pay maintenance until ordered by the court - Evidence established that the respondent was driven out of the matrimonial home by the appellant - Held - Burden of proof lies on the petitioner to establish cruelty and desertion which the appellant failed to discharge - Appeal dismissed - [Paras 3-31].

Civil Law - Desertion - Hindu Marriage Act 1955 - Section 13(1)(ib) - Constructive desertion - Appellant claimed respondent left matrimonial home voluntarily - Respondent pleaded she was forced out of the house by the appellant - Evidence showed the appellant lacked interest in the welfare of the child and failed to support the respondent - Held - Where the spouse is forced to leave the matrimonial home due to the conduct of the other party the element of desertion by the leaving spouse is not established - [Paras 26-30].

Evidence Law - Burden of Proof - Hindu Marriage Act 1955 - Section 13 - Standard of proof in matrimonial disputes - Appellant examined only himself and produced no cogent evidence to rebut respondent's testimonies - Respondent supported her defense through credible testimony of herself and independent witnesses - Held - Appellant failed to satisfy the court on the grounds of cruelty and desertion - [Paras 28-30].

Decision: Appeal dismissed - Order of the Family Court affirmed - No order as to costs.

Writ Law - Surrogacy Regulation - Surrogacy (Regulation) Act 2021 - Section 4(iii)(c)(I) - Age eligibility - Appellants initiated surrogacy and cryopreserved embryos on 30.08.2022 after the Act came into force on 25.01.2022 without obtaining mandatory eligibility certification - Authorities denied certificate as the second appellant crossed the prescribed age limit - Single Judge dismissed challenge citing precedent regarding constitutional validity of age bars - Division Bench held that since the procedure commenced post-enactment without valid certification the exemption regarding retrospective operation of the Act does not apply - Held - Age restrictions are constitutionally valid as they represent a measured regulatory mechanism based on reasonable classification to prevent unethical practices and ensure medical safety - Appeal dismissed - [Paras 13-23].

Civil Law - Statutory Interpretation - Surrogacy (Regulation) Act 2021 - Retrospective operation - Applicability of age bar - Appellants contended that age should be determined as on the date of embryo creation - Court observed that the Surrogacy Act prohibits conducting procedures without obtaining an eligibility certificate first - Held - Unlike cases where procedures were crystallized prior to 25.01.2022 the appellants here initiated the process after the Act's commencement without requisite certification hence they are bound by the statutory age limit on the date of application for certification - [Paras 15-19].

Constitutional Law - Article 14 - Right to Equality - Reasonable Classification - Age limits in surrogacy legislation - Appellants challenged age restrictions as arbitrary and violative of equality - Court held that the classification based on age is scientifically grounded in medical safety and reproductive ethics and satisfies the doctrine of proportionality - State can impose reasonable restrictions in the larger societal interest to prohibit commercial surrogacy and prevent exploitation - Held - The provision does not suffer from constitutional infirmity - [Paras 14-23].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – The challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 4(iii)(c)(I) of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 rejected – Statutory age limit applicable as of the date of certification sustained.

Criminal Law - Kidnapping/Abduction - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 366A - Conviction based on extra-judicial confession - Prosecution alleged appellant abducted minor girl for marriage - Trial court convicted appellant based on oral testimonies of family members and alleged extra-judicial confession made before villagers - High Court found that despite the victim remaining untraced and witnesses being hearsay the consistent thread of extra-judicial confession provided sufficient basis to affirm conviction - Held - Conviction upheld - [Paras 2-23].

Criminal Law - Sentencing - Proportionality - Appellant aged 83 years - Case 20 years old - Appellant had already undergone two years of imprisonment out of five - No prior criminal antecedents - Held - Further custodial sentence would serve no useful purpose - Sentence modified to the period already undergone - [Paras 24-26].

Evidence Law - Extra-judicial confession - Admissibility - Prosecution witnesses testified that appellant confessed to village elders regarding his involvement and promised to return the girl - Investigating Officer corroborated the version of the occurrence at the village - Held - Absence of direct evidence of abduction is mitigated by the reliability of the extra-judicial confession in the context of the factual matrix - [Paras 15-22].

Decision: Appeal dismissed on merits with modification in sentence – Conviction under Section 366A IPC affirmed – Sentence reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone – Appellant discharged from bail bonds.

Arbitration Law - Arbitrability of Disputes - Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 - Section 11(6) - Petitioner sought appointment of Arbitrator for specific performance of sale agreement - Agreement involved lands owned by third parties who were not signatories to the arbitration clause - Respondents raised objections regarding non-arbitrability of title disputes and absence of signatures of one respondent on the agreement - High Court held that while specific performance is generally an action in personam and arbitrable, the present dispute involves complex title issues and rights of third-party owners who are not privy to the arbitration agreement - Such matters require centralized adjudication that cannot be circumvented through arbitration - Application dismissed with liberty to approach competent civil court - [Paras 1-29].

Arbitration Law - Scope of Reference - Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 - Section 11 - Arbitrability test - Referring court must evaluate whether the dispute affects third-party rights or has erga omnes effect - Where subject matter requires crystallization of title against non-parties, the dispute is non-arbitrable - Held - Appointment of Arbitrator would be a futile exercise if the core dispute involves the title of persons not bound by the arbitration agreement - [Paras 18-21].

Evidence Law - Procedural Integrity - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Applicability - Arbitration proceedings - Arbitrator cannot circumvent substantive statutes like Specific Relief Act and Transfer of Property Act or procedural safeguards - Where the nature of the dispute requires application of substantive law to determine title and validity of transfer, the civil court is the appropriate forum - [Paras 24-25].

Civil Law - Specific Performance - Specific Relief Act 1963 - Section 20 - Discretionary relief - While specific performance is a contractual right, the exercise of judicial discretion in granting such relief and determining title in the absence of a registered conveyance deed is better suited for civil courts when it involves third-party interests - [Paras 22-24].

Decision: Application dismissed – Petitioner granted liberty to take recourse to law for adjudication of the dispute before the competent civil court.

Criminal Law - Condonation of Delay - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015 - Section 101 - Limitation - Sufficient Cause - Appellant school challenged appellate court order condoning 125-day delay in appeal filing - Alleged that respondents had prior knowledge of order disposal based on grievance status remarks - Appellate court held that mere knowledge of disposal does not equal knowledge of order contents - High Court held that limitation commences from date of communication or knowledge of the order - Mere awareness of disposal without copy of order does not satisfy requirement for constructive knowledge - No merit in appellant contention regarding unexplained 23-day delay as filing occurred via e-portal on 14.08.2024 - Appeal dismissed - [Paras 1-16].

Evidence Law - Limitation - Construction of Statute - Date of Order - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015 - Section 101 - Interpretation of date of order - Relying on D. Saibaba v. Bar Council of India, Court held that date of order must be construed as date of communication or knowledge - Aggrieved party cannot exercise right of appeal unless order is known either actually or constructively - Grievance status remarks by parents failed to prove receipt of order copy - Held - Limitation period commences only upon receipt of order - [Paras 12-13].

Criminal Law - Procedure - Condonation of Delay - Limitation Act 1963 - Section 5 - Sufficient Cause - Test for condonation - Following Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corpn. of Brihan Mumbai - Court must assess bona fide nature of explanation - If no negligence is shown and cause is not concocted, delay should be condoned - Appellate court correctly exercised discretion as appellant failed to prove service of order on respondents prior to 02.08.2024 - Held - No infirmity in impugned judgment - [Paras 9-15].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Impugned order of the appellate court condoning the delay affirmed – All pending applications closed.