Arbitration – Interim Measures – Invocation of Bank Guarantees – Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – The appellant sought to invoke several bank guarantees provided by the respondent, while the respondent sought a restraint on this action – The Arbitral Tribunal granted an injunction restraining the appellant from invoking the bank guarantees on the grounds of special equities and non-compliance with the terms of the guarantees – The appellant challenged the Tribunal’s decision under Section 37(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Held: The Tribunal's decision was upheld as it found that the letters of invocation were not in compliance with the terms of the guarantees, and special equities existed in favor of the respondent, justifying the injunction [Paras 1, 4, 61-112].

Bank Guarantee – Conditional and Unconditional Bank Guarantees – Invocation Requirements – Appellant contended that a bank guarantee (BG) must be invoked according to its terms – If conditional, the invocation must meet specific conditions set out in the BG – If unconditional, injunction against invocation is permissible only under egregious fraud, irretrievable injustice, or special equities – Tribunal justified injunction against invocation on grounds that the letter of invocation did not conform to the BG and special equities existed – Held: BGs were unconditional and letters of invocation were in conformity with BGs, no egregious fraud or irretrievable injustice was shown – Injunction against invocation was not justified [Paras 89-91, 92, 106, 113-114, 128-130, 132].

Principles Governing Bank Guarantees – Precedents Cited – Court referred to Supreme Court judgments including Himadri Chemicals and Vinitec Electronics establishing principles for bank guarantee invocation – Unconditional bank guarantees must be honored by banks irrespective of disputes between parties – Injunction against invocation can be granted only in cases of egregious fraud, irretrievable injustice, or special equities – Fraud must vitiate the entire underlying transaction – Irretrievable injustice must be exceptional, overriding the terms of the guarantee [Paras 94, 24-28, 29-32, 36, 43, 49, 51].

Letters of Invocation – Compliance with Bank Guarantees – Letters of invocation must substantially meet the requirements of the BGs – Tribunal erred by limiting its consideration to specific paragraphs of the letters – Letters included references to termination notices detailing respondent's breaches – The invocation was in accordance with BGs’ stipulations – Subsequent addendum or curative notice can supplement initial defective invocation [Paras 96-110, 112, 113].

Special Equities – Justifying Injunction – Tribunal's decision based on alleged financial distress resulting from invocation lacked empirical evidence – Special equities must be overwhelming and predominate over bank's obligation to honor the BG – In absence of cogent evidence showing irretrievable injustice, special equities cannot justify injunction against invocation – Invocation does not result in irreparable harm to the respondent as restitution remains possible through arbitration [Paras 115-121, 122-124, 130, 131].

Conclusion – Tribunal’s Order Set Aside – Tribunal's findings were unsustainable on facts or in law – No case for injuncting invocation of BGs existed – Requirements of BGs were satisfied in the letters of invocation – No irretrievable injustice or special equities shown – Appeal allowed – Stay on invocation of BGs vacated [Paras 128-130, 132, 142-143].

Negotiable Instruments Act, Section 138 – Joint Account Holder Liability – Quashing of Complaint – Accused was arraigned merely as a joint account holder, not as the drawer or signatory of the dishonored cheque – The cheque was issued by the petitioner's husband in his personal capacity – The petitioner is not liable under Section 138 of the Act in the absence of compliance with Section 141 – Complaint against the petitioner is quashed [Paras 3-7].

Criminal Procedure Code, Section 482 – Abuse of Process of Law – Quashing Proceedings – High Court’s inherent power under Section 482 can be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of the court – The continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would cause unnecessary harassment – Complaint against the petitioner is set aside to prevent abuse of legal process [Paras 7-9].

Decision – Petition allowed – The impugned proceedings being Criminal Case No. 49143 of 2018 pending in the Court of learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Surat, quashed and set aside qua the present petitioner (Accused No. 2) only [Para 9].

Leasehold Property – Division and Partition – The Gupta and Jain families acquired a leasehold property on a perpetual lease from the Military Estate Officer – The property was sold to them in two equal undivided shares through two separate Agreements to Sell (ATS) – Held: The perpetual lease did not restrict division or partition of the property, allowing each family to have separate and independent possession – The court ruled that the property could be divided, and the respective portions were always intended to be separate, specific, independent, and exclusive since the purchase in 1983 [Paras 134-142].

Perpetual Lease Deed – Interpretation and Restrictions – Clause 8 of the perpetual lease allowed for assignment, transfer, or sub-lease of the property or any part thereof with mere intimation to the Military Estate Officer – Held: The clause did not prohibit subdivision of the property, and thus, the families were not restricted from dividing the property into distinct portions – The suit property was capable of being sub-divided as per the terms of the lease [Paras 136-140].

Sale Deeds and Supplementary Agreements – Division and Independent Portions – The families executed separate sale deeds and supplementary agreements defining specific portions of the property – The court observed that the ATS, supplementary agreements, and sale deeds indicated the intention for separate sales of independent and distinct areas – Held: The sale deeds executed in 2000 reflected the reality of the division, confirming separate ownership of the North-Eastern and South-Western portions by the Jain and Gupta families, respectively [Paras 150-156].

Construction and Alteration – Unauthorized Construction – The Gupta family was found to have constructed a new outhouse without obtaining requisite sanctions from authorities – The court noted that while the families had independent possession, any construction must comply with the terms of the perpetual lease and obtain necessary permissions – However, this did not affect the ownership of the separate portions [Paras 180-185].

Property Dispute – Partition and Ownership – Dispute between Gupta family and Jain family over the property located at 4 Cavalry Lines, Delhi – Disagreement on whether the property was divided or undivided and the validity of the construction and erection of a partition wall – Held: The suit property was divided into two equal shares, with the Gupta family owning the South West portion and the Jain family owning the North East portion – Agreement to Sell (ATS) executed on 16.09.1983 indicated the division – The purdah wall erected by the Jain family was a physical demarcation of the partitioned areas – Jain family entitled to an injunction against interference by the Gupta family [Paras 158-239].

Construction by Gupta Family – Unauthorized Additions – Evidence showed that the Gupta family expanded their outhouse from 900 sq. ft. to 3010 sq. ft. – Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) declared the construction unauthorized and issued a demolition notice – Additional construction indicated that the Gupta family treated their portion of the property as distinct and separate – Plaintiff witness PW1 testified to the changes in the outhouse but could not confirm specific details due to renovations [Paras 158-159].

Mutation Letters and Lease Rent – Separate Records Indicating Division – Mutation letters from 1985 indicate that the property was mutated in favor of both families, but did not specify distinct areas – The Hon'ble Supreme Court has established that mutation entries do not confer title and are meant for revenue records only – Evidence showed both families were paying lease rent separately from 1985 to 1992, indicating they treated the property as divided – Defense Estates Office records supported the separate payment of lease rents by both families [Paras 160-167].

Purdah Wall and Physical Partition – Erection and Purpose – The Jain family constructed a purdah wall in 1991, claiming it was within their portion of the property – Gupta family argued the wall was for preventing soil erosion and siltage, but could not provide substantive evidence – Court found that the wall, along with a black line running through the verandahs, served as a partition between the properties as per the ATS – No complaints from the Gupta family regarding the wall were recorded, suggesting acceptance of the division [Paras 185-199].

Registered Sale Deeds – Reconfirmation of Partition – Sale deeds executed in favor of the Jain family reconfirmed the division indicated in the ATS – These deeds described the North East half portion in detail, consistent with the area occupied by the Jain family – The court held that these documents were valid and not barred by the doctrine of "Post Litem Motam," which applies to statements or declarations rather than registered sale deeds [Paras 200-214].

Court’s Findings and Relief Granted – Partition Affirmed – The court held that the suit property was divided at the time of the execution of the ATS and that the Jain family occupied the North East portion, while the Gupta family occupied the South West portion – Jain family's suit for a declaration of ownership of the North East portion and for an injunction was granted – The Gupta family was restrained from creating obstacles and interfering in the Jain family's possession and completion of the purdah wall – Gupta family’s suit claiming the property was incapable of partition was dismissed [Paras 221-234].

Decision – Final Orders – The court decreed in favor of the Jain family and dismissed the suit by the Gupta family – No orders as to costs – The court appreciated the assistance provided by the legal teams in disposing of the long-standing dispute [Paras 239].

Maintainability of Writ Petition – Arbitration Clause in Contract – Article 226 of the Constitution – The petitioner challenged the termination of his LPG distributorship license by IOCL, raising issues of arbitrariness and violation of fundamental rights – The respondent argued that the presence of an arbitration clause in the contract barred the petitioner from seeking remedy under Article 226 – Held: The court ruled that the writ petition was maintainable as the petitioner alleged arbitrary and unreasonable action by a state instrumentality, and the presence of an arbitration clause did not constitute an absolute bar to judicial review in cases involving violation of constitutional mandates [Paras 6-12].

Termination of License – Misrepresentation and Ownership of Land – The petitioner was accused of misrepresenting ownership of land when applying for the LPG distributorship – He purchased the land in question based on a sale deed but later discovered that the vendor did not have full ownership – Held: The court found that the petitioner acted in good faith based on the information provided by the vendor and complied with IOCL’s instructions to cure the defect in the land title – IOCL conducted field verification before granting the license, and thus shared responsibility in ensuring due diligence – The termination of the license was deemed unsustainable as the alleged misrepresentation did not meet the criteria outlined under Section 18 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Paras 13-20].

Misrepresentation under Section 18 of the Indian Contract Act – The court analyzed the definition of misrepresentation under Section 18 of the Indian Contract Act, concluding that the petitioner’s actions did not amount to misrepresentation – The court emphasized that the misrepresentation must induce the other party to gain an advantage and that the party alleging misrepresentation had the means to discover the truth with ordinary diligence – In this case, both parties were mistaken, and IOCL had a duty to verify the information before entering into the contract [Paras 18-22].

Decision – Termination Quashed – License to be Continued – The court held that the termination order was unsustainable and quashed it – IOCL was directed to allow the petitioner to continue with the distributorship license, making a specific order within eight weeks – The court emphasized the petitioner’s right to livelihood and the absence of legal tenability in the misrepresentation claim [Paras 23-26].

Criminal Law - Acquittal - Conviction under Sections 323 and 436 IPC - Sufficiency of Evidence – The appellants were convicted for voluntarily causing hurt and committing mischief by fire – The prosecution case was that the appellants demanded money from the complainant and, upon refusal, assaulted him and set his house on fire – Held: The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt – The key prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and his wife, were not supported by independent witnesses, and there were inconsistencies in the evidence – The benefit of doubt was extended to the appellants, leading to their acquittal [Paras 12-20].

Role of Independent Witnesses – Credibility of Evidence – The court emphasized the lack of support from independent witnesses for the prosecution’s version – Testimonies from neighbors indicated a dispute over money between the complainant and the appellants – The court noted that the prosecution's case rested on unreliable evidence, and the failure to seize key items such as the stick and kerosene can further weakened the case [Paras 15-18].

Medical Evidence – Absence of Injuries – The medical examination of the complainant and the village Kotwar showed no external injuries, casting further doubt on the prosecution’s claim of assault – The complainant’s wife had minor scratch marks, which could have been caused by broken bangles – Held: The absence of injuries and the lack of seizure of weapons indicated the prosecution’s failure to establish the occurrence of the alleged assault [Paras 19-20].

Decision – Acquittal on Benefit of Doubt – The court held that the prosecution failed to establish the charges against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt – Given the inconsistencies and lack of credible evidence, the benefit of doubt was extended to the appellants – The conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted of the charges against them [Paras 20-22].

Maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Enhancement of Maintenance – The petitioner, an elderly mother, sought enhancement of the maintenance amount awarded by the Family Court – She argued that the current maintenance of ₹2000/- was insufficient for her needs, including medical expenses – Held: The court found that the petitioner was receiving a family pension and interest from bank deposits totaling approximately ₹13,457/- per month – Considering the maintenance awarded and her total income, the court ruled that the maintenance amount of ₹2000/- was adequate, taking into account the potential liability of her younger son as well – The revision petition was dismissed, and the request for enhancement was not accepted [Paras 12-20].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope and Limitations – The court emphasized that revisional jurisdiction cannot be used to reappreciate evidence unless there is a clear case of perversity or a significant error – Citing Manju Ram Kalita v. State of Assam and Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, the court held that it is not within the court’s power to sit as an appellate body over findings of fact unless they are found to be completely unreasonable or unsupported by evidence [Paras 12-13].

Duty to Maintain Parents – Section 125 Cr.P.C. – The court reiterated that both sons have an equal legal and moral obligation to maintain their mother – The petitioner cannot single out one son for maintenance while disregarding the other's responsibility – This factor was considered in assessing the sufficiency of the maintenance awarded [Paras 18-20].

Decision – Dismissal of Revision Petition – Maintenance Held Adequate – The criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed – The court found that the maintenance amount of ₹2000/- awarded by the Family Court was sufficient when considering the petitioner's overall income and the obligation of her other son to contribute – No justifiable ground was found to interfere with the Family Court's order [Paras 20-22].

Criminal Law – Transit Anticipatory Bail – Sought for offences under Sections 498A, 323, and 504 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act – The petitioners filed for anticipatory bail in Karnataka while the case was registered in Uttar Pradesh – Held: Granted transit anticipatory bail for three weeks to enable petitioners to seek anticipatory bail from the jurisdictional court in Uttar Pradesh. Interim protection was necessary to allow the petitioners to apply for regular bail and to appear in the Habeas Corpus proceedings before the Allahabad High Court [Paras 5-8].

Decision: Petition allowed – Petitioners granted transit anticipatory bail for a period of three weeks – Directed to execute a personal bond for ₹100,000 each with one surety of the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer – Petitioners ordered not to tamper with the prosecution witnesses [Paras 9-11].

Criminal Law – Culpable Homicide – Section 304 Part II IPC – Defense of Private Defense – The appellant was convicted under Section 304 Part II IPC for pelting stones at the deceased, resulting in fatal injuries. The incident occurred during a scuffle over a monetary dispute where the deceased was under the influence of alcohol and attempted to snatch money from the appellant – Held: The appellant had the right to private defense as he was protecting himself and his property when the deceased, under the influence of alcohol, initiated an attack – The appellant did not exceed the right of private defense by pelting stones, as he had initially tried to avoid confrontation by running away from the scene – Consequently, the appellant's conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC was set aside, and he was acquitted of all charges [Paras 21-25]​.

Decision:

Appeal allowed – The judgment and sentence dated 20.01.2001 by the ASJ Kukshi District Dhar in S.T. No.89/2000 is set aside – The appellant is acquitted of all charges under Section 304 Part II IPC – His bail bonds are discharged, and he is no longer required in the present case [Paras 29-30]​.

Criminal Procedure – Approver – Bail Granted – The petitioner, an approver in a case involving offenses under Section 302 IPC, sought bail after testifying in both the trial of the co-accused and a Court Martial – The trial court rejected the bail application based on Section 306(4)(b) of Cr.P.C., which mandates the detention of an approver until the termination of the trial – Held: The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has the jurisdiction to grant bail to an approver even before the culmination of the trial in exceptional cases – The petitioner had complied with the conditions of pardon by making full and true disclosure, and exceptional circumstances existed, including the petitioner’s health condition and the nearing completion of the trial – [Paras 17-25].

Natural Justice – Right to Fair Treatment – Release of Approver – An approver who fulfills the conditions of pardon should not be kept in custody if it would result in a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution – The detention of the petitioner after making a complete disclosure was found to be unnecessary, especially given his health issues and the lack of any role beyond accompanying the main accused to the crime scene – Held: Detaining the petitioner further would be unjust, and therefore, he was granted bail – [Paras 21-25].

Decision: Petition allowed – The petitioner is admitted to bail on the condition of furnishing a bail bond with one surety in the amount of ₹1,00,000 – He must not leave the limits of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir without prior permission of the trial court and must not influence the prosecution witnesses – [Para 25].