Substitution of Plaintiff – Application under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC – Dismissal – The applicant, son of the deceased plaintiff, sought substitution in the pending suit based on an agreement transferring rights to him – The application was filed more than six years after the agreement and after the death of the plaintiff – Held: The application was dismissed due to inordinate delay and lack of sufficient reason for substitution, as the suit had abated [Paras 10-13].

Abatement of Suit – Order XXII Rule 3 CPC – Plaintiff's Death – The plaintiff expired on 24.12.2020, and no application for substitution was filed within the statutory period of three months – The applicant failed to take requisite steps for substitution timely – Held: The suit is abated as there is no surviving right to sue in favor of the applicant [Paras 11, 14].

Reliance on Precedent Cases – Similar Circumstances – The applicant relied on previous judgments for similar relief – Held: The reliance was misplaced given the long delay of over six years and the applicant’s failure to act promptly after the execution of the agreement and the plaintiff’s death [Para 15].

Conduct of Applicant – Inaction and Delay – The applicant was aware of the proceedings and was cross-examined as a witness on behalf of the deceased plaintiff – The delay of more than six years was unexplained and demonstrated lack of diligence – Held: No sufficient reason to allow substitution under the given circumstances [Paras 10, 12-13].

Decision of the Judgement – Application Dismissed – The Court dismissed the application for substitution due to abatement of the suit and non-prosecution, leading to the dismissal of the pending suit against the defendants [Paras 17-18].

NDPS Act – Representative Sampling of Seized Drugs – Compliance with Standing Order No. 1/89 – The court addressed whether the entire seized drug property or only representative samples must be sent to the FSL for analysis – Held: Only representative samples of seized narcotic drugs, after homogeneous mixing of the bulk property, need to be sent to the FSL – The full bulk property need not be sent for testing, provided that proper procedures for drawing samples are followed, and representative samples are sealed and sent for analysis – This approach aligns with Standing Order No. 1/89 of the Department of Revenue, which governs sampling in drug seizure cases under the NDPS Act [Paras 6-8, 28-30].

Homogeneous Mixing Requirement for Bulk Drug Seizures – Representative Sampling – Legal Standard – The court emphasized that bulk seizures must undergo homogeneous mixing before samples are drawn to ensure representativeness – Failure to homogeneously mix the bulk before drawing samples could lead to inaccurate test results and benefit of doubt in favor of the accused – Samples drawn from bulk seizures must be representative and not arbitrarily selected from only a portion of the seized material [Paras 18-25].

Sampling Procedure for Psychotropic Substances in Tablet Form – Batch Numbers and Homogeneous Sampling – For psychotropic substances in tablet form, the court clarified that if batch numbers are present on the packaging, only one tablet per batch needs to be sent for testing – However, if no batch numbers are provided, samples must be drawn from each strip of tablets – This ensures that the samples are representative of the entire seized property and in compliance with prescribed standards [Paras 26-27].

Importance of Compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act – Destruction of Case Property – The court reiterated that under Section 52A of the NDPS Act, the proper preparation of an inventory of seized narcotics and psychotropic substances, along with the certification of samples by a Magistrate, is essential to the evidentiary value of the seizure – The destruction of the bulk property does not impact the admissibility of certified samples if all legal procedures for sampling and certification have been followed – The absence of such procedures, however, could invalidate the prosecution’s case [Paras 11, 17].

Benefit of Doubt in Non-Homogeneous Sampling Cases – Acquittal of Accused – If the prosecution fails to ensure homogeneous mixing of the bulk property before drawing samples, the evidence derived from such samples may be insufficient to convict the accused – The court held that such procedural lapses could lead to the acquittal of the accused due to insufficient or unreliable evidence [Paras 22-23].

Conclusion: The court held that the entire bulk property need not be sent for testing if representative samples are properly drawn and certified – Homogeneous mixing of bulk property is critical to ensure representativeness of the samples – Failure to follow these procedures could result in an acquittal of the accused – The substantial question of law is answered accordingly [Paras 28-30].

Writ Jurisdiction – Tender Process – Preferential Policy – Petitioner, a micro enterprise registered under Udyam, challenged the tender terms for excluding it from the benefits under Assam Procurement Preference Policy, 2021, and the Procurement Preferential Order, 2017 – Court found that the petitioner did not meet the eligibility requirement of 10 years of existence as stipulated in the tender – Held: Tender terms, including requirements for bidder existence, fall within the domain of the tendering authority and are not arbitrary or unreasonable – Writ jurisdiction should not be exercised to interfere with commercial decisions unless malafide, arbitrariness, or irrationality is proven [Paras 22-28].

Micro & Small Enterprise – Benefits Under Tender – Registered Micro Enterprise ("Udyam") – Petitioner's registration as Udyam is not disputed, allowing for certain concessions in the tender process – However, to avail these benefits, the petitioner must first fulfill the technical eligibility criteria as laid out in the tender document – As the petitioner did not fulfill the 10-year existence clause, the preferential benefits were not applicable [Paras 23, 29].

Judicial Review in Tender Matters – Limited Scope – Evaluating tenders and awarding contracts are commercial functions, and the judiciary should not interfere unless there is evidence of arbitrariness, irrationality, or favoritism – The clause requiring 10 years of existence for bidders is not found to be arbitrary or unreasonable in this context [Paras 25-28].

Decision – Writ petition dismissed – The Court held that the petitioner did not meet the eligibility requirement of 10 years of existence as stipulated in the tender document – The conditions laid out in the tender were within the prerogative of the authority and not arbitrary or unreasonable – Interim order vacated [Paras 29-30].

Criminal Procedure Code, Section 439 – Bail – Third Application – Offences under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 326A, 302, and 304-B IPC – Accusation of administering acid to the deceased leading to her death – Second bail applications were dismissed with liberty to file afresh – First bail application dismissed as not pressed – Bail granted due to lack of prima facie evidence in postmortem report [Paras 1-12].

Evidence Act, Section 27 – Recovery of Evidence – Recovery of hydrochloric acid bottle based on information provided by the applicant – Postmortem report does not show external or internal injuries indicative of acid administration – Viscera sent for examination to determine the presence of poison – Bail granted considering lack of direct evidence of acid administration causing death [Paras 5-10].

Postmortem Report – No Indication of Acid Administration – The postmortem report did not reveal injuries consistent with acid administration – No external or internal injuries on face, lips, throat, etc. – Viscera sent to ascertain the presence of poison, suggesting no direct evidence of acid-caused injury or burns [Paras 6-10].

Decision – Bail application allowed – Petitioners granted bail due to the absence of prima facie evidence of acid administration in the postmortem report – Applicants to be released on personal bond and sureties [Paras 12-14].
 

Criminal Law – Prevention of Corruption – Proof of Demand – Demand not Established – The appellant, a Talati cum Mantri, was convicted under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for allegedly demanding ₹500 as illegal gratification for providing a copy of a mutation entry – The prosecution failed to prove the specific demand for gratification beyond reasonable doubt – Held: Mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to convict without proof of demand – The trial court erred in convicting the appellant without sufficient proof of demand or acceptance [Paras 9-10].

Defence of Appellant – Illegal Tax Demand – The appellant contended that the ₹500 was not a bribe but a tax owed by the complainant for the encroachment of a shop, as evidenced by the tax records and resolutions of the Gram Panchayat – The prosecution failed to disprove this defence, and the trial court did not properly consider this plausible explanation – Held: The appellant’s defence that the amount was legitimate tax dues, and not illegal gratification, was plausible and ought to have been considered [Para 10.1].

Prosecution Failure – Lack of Evidence of Prior Demand – The prosecution's case was primarily based on the complainant’s testimony, but no independent witness or documentary evidence supported the claim of prior demand – The complainant's son, who allegedly witnessed the demand, was not examined – Further, no phone call records were produced despite claims that the demand was made via telephone – Held: Prosecution failed to establish prior demand or demand at the time of the trap beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 10-11].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act – Bail bond canceled – Fine to be refunded [Paras 12-14].
 

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].

NEET Counseling – Refund of Security Deposit – Procedural Remedy – The petitioner participated in the NEET (UG) counseling for the academic session 2022-23 and deposited a security amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-. Despite not being allocated any institution, the petitioner did not receive the refund – Held: The respondent authorities are directed to decide on the petitioner's representation for a refund of the security deposit within six weeks of receiving the certified copy of this order – No objection from respondents [Paras 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6].

Decision: Writ petition disposed of – Respondent No. 2 (Director General, Medical Education and Training U.P., Lucknow) directed to decide the petitioner's representation for the refund of the security deposit dated 03.08.2023 within six weeks [Para 6].

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].