Arbitration – MSMED Act – Commercial Dispute – Supply of Goods – Dispute over unpaid dues under three purchase orders raised by micro enterprise Ranjana Industries against Mahindra – Mahindra raised objections of late delivery and quality defects – Held: Objections not raised within statutory 15-day window under Section 2(e) of MSMED Act – Arbitral Tribunal rightly treated delivery as deemed accepted – No proof of return or rejection of goods shown – Finding upheld [Paras 2–16, 27–38, 44–48].

Arbitration – Scope of Judicial Review under Sections 34 & 37 – Concurrent findings of Arbitral Tribunal and District Court held not perverse or contrary to fundamental policy – Appellate court cannot reappreciate evidence – Mahindra’s claims of defects, rejection and counter-claim for damages not substantiated with proof – No ground to interfere under Section 37 – Appeal dismissed [Paras 39–41, 49–50].

Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSME) – Protection of Small Suppliers – MSMED Act provides statutory framework to ensure timely payments – 15-day deadline for objections mandatory, not directory – Mahindra’s conduct amounted to unfair delay and frustration of statutory entitlements of micro supplier – Held: Deadline under Section 2(e) has substantive legal consequences including accrual of interest under Section 16 [Paras 45–46].

Evidence – Onus of Proof – Rejection of Goods – Onus on Mahindra to prove that goods were defective and returned – No debit notes, return challans, or payment proof for alternate vendor produced – Tribunal’s inference that goods were accepted and used is reasonable and based on preponderance of probability [Paras 19, 33–36, 38–39].

Corporate Litigation – Abuse of Process – Cost and Conduct – Court criticises Mahindra’s continued litigation despite two concurrent findings – Notes power asymmetry between large corporates and micro enterprises – Cost of litigation treated as “miscellaneous expense” by Mahindra – Interest and deposit provisions under MSMED Act meant to deter such conduct – Mahindra directed to pay Rs. 1.5 lakh as costs and release deposit [Paras 51–54].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Arbitral Award and District Court order upheld – Mahindra directed to pay Rs. 16,16,950 with interest under Sections 15 & 16 of MSMED Act within one month – Costs of Rs. 1.5 lakh to be paid to Respondent within four weeks – Deposit to be released to Respondent [Paras 50–52].

Criminal Procedure – Direction to File Challan – Trial Court’s Power – Section 193 and 319 Cr.P.C. – Trial Court while convicting co-accused in FIR No. 381 of 2010 directed the Home Secretary and D.G., CID Vigilance to file challan against DSP Veer Singh and three constables within two months – Held: Such directions could not be issued post-trial without recourse to statutory procedure under Section 193 or 319 Cr.P.C. – Power to summon or proceed against additional accused exists only at cognizance or evidence stage, not after conviction of others – Procedure adopted by trial court is “unknown to law” [Paras 11, 18–19].

Audi Alteram Partem – Adverse Remarks Against Officer – Necessity of Prior Hearing – Directions to prosecute petitioner issued without affording him opportunity to explain or defend himself – Violative of principles of natural justice – Reliance placed on State of Punjab v. M/s Shikha Trading Co., (2023) 136 CutLT 739; State (NCT of Delhi) v. Pankaj Chaudhary, (2019) 5 RCR (Criminal) 133; Astha Modi v. State of Haryana, CRM-M-38422-2019 (P&H); and Dr. Naresh Saini v. State of Haryana, CRM-M-22310-2014 (P&H) [Paras 15–17].

Judicial Discipline – Remarks Against Police Officers – Compliance with High Court Rules – Chapter I Part H Rule 6 of the High Court Rules requires that any criticism or adverse remark against a police officer be accompanied by transmission of judgment to the District Magistrate and Registrar of the High Court following Home Secretary’s circular of 1936 – Trial Court failed to adhere to this mandatory procedure before directing prosecution – Directions set aside [Paras 14, 16].

Adverse Judicial Directions – Requirement of Relevance and Necessity – Court reiterated that adverse judicial remarks must (i) be relevant to case outcome, (ii) be supported by evidence on record, and (iii) follow fair opportunity of hearing – Trial court’s directions failed all three tests laid down in State of U.P. v. Mohammad Naim, AIR 1964 SC 703 and reaffirmed in R.K. Lakshmanan v. A.K. Srinivasan, (1975) 2 SCC 466 and K.G. Shanti v. United India Insurance Co., (2021) 5 SCC 511 [Para 15].

Decision:Directions contained in Para 28 of judgment dated 23.02.2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram, ordering filing of challan against DSP Veer Singh and others quashed – Consequential proceedings set aside – Held that trial court exceeded jurisdiction and violated procedural safeguards – Both petitions allowed and disposed of in above terms [Paras 19–20].

Taxation Law - Goods and Services Tax – Cross-Empowerment – Jurisdiction of CGST Officers – Petitioners assigned to State Tax Authorities challenged issuance of show cause notices by Joint Commissioner, CGST – Held: Section 6(1) of CGST Act provides inherent and automatic cross-empowerment to officers of Centre and States – Notification required only when conditions are imposed – No notification necessary for activation of jurisdiction – Clarified by CBIC circular dated 22.06.2020 and upheld in Armour Security India Ltd. – Objection on jurisdiction rejected [Paras 14–32, 38].

GST – Intelligence-Based Enforcement – Petitioners alleged to have availed fraudulent ITC through paper transactions among 12 firms in a single textile park – Searches conducted and evidence revealed paper turnover without actual supply – Held: Intelligence-based action is valid ground for CGST initiation irrespective of administrative allocation – Central authority not barred from initiating action – Show cause notice upheld [Paras 4–6, 37–42].

CGST – Competence of Joint Commissioner – Petitioners argued that Joint Commissioner could not issue show cause notice for demand < Rs.1 crore – Held: Section 5(2) of CGST Act authorises senior officers to exercise powers of subordinate officers – Circular dated 09.02.2018 merely administrative – Joint Commissioner is competent to issue notice regardless of amount involved [Paras 34–36].

GST – Bunching of Multiple Financial Years – Petitioners challenged issuance of a single show cause notice for five assessment years – Held: No express bar under Section 74 against such bunching – Issue left open for adjudication by authority concerned – No interference at notice stage [Para 33].

GST – Enforcement vs Audit – Distinction clarified – Enforcement actions based on intelligence not restricted by administrative allocation – Dual proceedings not permitted on same subject matter – Intelligence-based proceedings may be initiated by either authority – Reaffirmed through Supreme Court’s ruling in M/S Armour Security India Ltd. v. Commissioner CGST Delhi East, 2025 INSC 982 [Paras 38–41].

Decision: Petitions dismissed – Section 6(1) of CGST Act provides for automatic cross-empowerment – Show cause notices valid and within jurisdiction of CGST authorities – Petitioners free to raise other defences before adjudicating authority – Interpretation of Section 6 conclusively decided; other issues left open [Para 42].

Civil Law - Property Dispute – Real Brothers – Terrace and Toilet Usage – Injunction Upheld – Parties are real brothers who separately purchased different floors of the same house – Plaintiff/respondent purchased second floor with terrace rights – Petitioners/defendants purchased first floor – Dispute arose over usage of second-floor terrace and toilet – Appellate court restrained petitioners from interfering with respondent’s possession – High Court upheld appellate order, relying on sale deed recitals explicitly granting terrace rights to second-floor owner – Observed: Until final adjudication, possession of terrace shall remain undisturbed [Paras 1–20].

Civil Procedure – Interim Injunction – Possession Rights Pending Suit – Valid Restraint – Though both parties claimed usage of disputed area, the court held that interim protection was warranted in favour of the party having express terrace rights – Held: Prima facie title and peaceful possession are sufficient for ad interim injunction – Construction during pendency disallowed – Status quo ante to be restored [Paras 17–20].

Sale Deed Interpretation – Express Clause – Terrace Rights Recognised – Sale deed of second floor explicitly included “entire second floor with terrace rights” – No such clause in sale deed of first floor – Court held that express recital must be given effect unless rebutted through trial – Injunction granted accordingly [Para 18–19].

Equity – Family Dispute – Direction for Expeditious Trial – Court noted the dispute between siblings and potential escalation – Directed trial court to expedite proceedings and ensure no change to property status meanwhile – Emphasised restraint on both parties from altering structure or denying access for essential needs (e.g., water tank maintenance) [Para 20].

Decision: Revision petitions dismissed – Injunction order of Additional District Judge upheld – Petitioners restrained from interfering with respondent’s possession of second-floor terrace and toilet – Any construction raised post-injunction to be removed – Trial court directed to decide suit expeditiously without being influenced by present observations

Civil Law – Arrest and Detention in Execution – Mandatory Procedure Not Followed – Order Set Aside – Executing Court allowed decree-holder’s application under Section 51 CPC and Order 21 Rules 37 and 39 CPC directing arrest of judgment-debtor after deposit of subsistence allowance – Held: Executing Court failed to comply with mandatory requirements of issuing show cause notice, conducting enquiry into means, and recording reasons – Judgment-debtor’s liberty cannot be curtailed without strict adherence to procedural safeguards – Impugned order dated 18.03.2025 set aside and matter remanded [Paras 1–8].

Review Jurisdiction – Limited Scope – Dismissal Upheld – Review petition filed by judgment-debtor under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC challenging arrest order on grounds of procedural illegality – Held: Grounds raised went to merits and legality of order, not error apparent on face of record – Executing Court rightly dismissed review petition on 09.09.2025 – Dismissal upheld [Paras 7–8].

Constitution of India – Article 227 – Supervisory Jurisdiction Invoked to Prevent Miscarriage of Justice – High Court exercised jurisdiction under Article 227 to correct jurisdictional error and material irregularity in execution proceedings – Emphasised that compliance with CPC safeguards is non-negotiable before depriving liberty of a citizen [Para 8–9].

Decision: Civil revision partly allowed – Impugned order dated 18.03.2025 set aside – Matter remanded to Executing Court for fresh consideration of decree-holder’s applications strictly in accordance with Section 51 CPC and Order 21 Rules 37–40 CPC – Review order dated 09.09.2025 upheld – No opinion on merits of applications – Pending miscellaneous applications also disposed of.

Civil Law – Local Commissioner – Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC – Improper Rejection – Appointment Directed – Trial court dismissed plaintiff's application seeking appointment of Technical Engineer as Local Commissioner to demarcate disputed wall and report physical condition – Held: Though appointment of Commissioner is discretionary, such discretion must advance cause of justice – Where real controversy relates to physical features or encroachment, court must allow factual verification – Refusal to appoint Local Commissioner stifles adjudication of real issue – Impugned order set aside – Trial court directed to appoint Commissioner for inspection and report [Paras 1–10].

Constitution of India – Article 227 – Superintendence Over Subordinate Courts – Interference Justified – High Court invoked supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to correct error committed by trial court in refusing crucial procedural aid for just determination – Held: Interference under Article 227 warranted to prevent failure of justice and facilitate effective adjudication [Paras 6–10].

Commissioner Report – Scope – Not to Determine Possession or Title – Court clarified that Commissioner is to report physical condition only and not express opinion on possession or rights – Appreciation of report lies with the court – Purpose is to aid adjudication, not to substitute judicial evaluation [Para 6].

Decision: Civil Revision allowed – Impugned order dated 04.07.2024 set aside – Trial court directed to appoint Local Commissioner to inspect site and report existing physical condition – Pending miscellaneous applications also disposed of.

Criminal Law – Murder – Kidnapping for Ransom – Conviction upheld – Deceased (Devang) was kidnapped and murdered by the accused-appellants – Trial court convicted accused under Sections 302, 364A, 363, 201, and 506(2) IPC – On appeal, High Court found the chain of circumstantial evidence to be complete and consistent with the hypothesis of guilt – Theory of “last seen together”, discovery of body and incriminating articles at the instance of accused, forensic report and CDRs established guilt – No explanation offered by accused under Section 313 CrPC – Held: Prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction upheld [Paras 1 to 37].

Circumstantial Evidence – Last Seen Theory – Deceased last seen with both accused at 8:00 AM at Bindu Sarovar pick-up stand (PW-9, PW-10) – Accused identified as Nirav @ Ravi Shah and Dhaval @ Jato Darji – PW-9 saw Devang enter the accused's car – PW-10 corroborated same – Defence failed to establish inconsistency or enmity – Delay in recording witness statements held not fatal – Presence of accused with deceased established [Paras 8 to 12].

Criminal Law – Kidnapping and Ransom Call – PW-1 (father of deceased) received ransom calls from deceased's phone demanding ₹40 lakhs and threatening murder if police were informed – Phone number used belonged to complainant and was used by deceased – Deposition corroborated by documentary evidence (Exh.138, Exh.145) – Factum of kidnapping, ransom demand and subsequent murder of Devang proved beyond reasonable doubt – Non-examination of relatives Deviprasad and Avinash Thakar not fatal [Paras 13, 14, 32].

Evidence Act – Extra-Judicial Confession – PW-11 (Suraj Rami) deposed that accused Dhaval confessed to murder in conversation – Accused allegedly discussed use of spray/medicine to render someone unconscious – Witness informed police only on 24.08.2015 – Court held confession not used as foundation of conviction but to lend assurance to other established evidence – Delay and nature of relationship did not erode credibility significantly – Held: Extra judicial confession supports prosecution case [Paras 15 to 15.1].

Discovery and Recovery – Section 27 Evidence Act – Dead body exhumed at instance of accused Nirav Shah (PW-4) – Clothes of deceased, blood-stained clothes of accused, knife and car used in crime recovered at instance of Nirav and Dhaval (PWs 5, 8) – Serological report (Exh.126) confirmed blood group of deceased found on clothes of accused – Court held recoveries proved in accordance with law – Minor discrepancies in keys and house entry not material [Paras 18 to 26, 28].

Criminal Procedure – Section 313 CrPC – Accused offered no explanation to incriminating evidence put to them – Repeatedly denied knowledge or truth without rebuttal – Absence of any credible defence or alternate hypothesis – Held: Adverse inference against accused is justified [Paras 34, 35].

Indian Evidence Act – Sections 8, 106, 114 – Conduct of accused in leading police to recovery sites held admissible under Section 8 – Accused last seen with deceased but gave no explanation under Section 106 – Presumption under Section 114 drawn from natural conduct and silence of accused – Held: Entire chain of evidence consistent with guilt – No other hypothesis possible [Paras 35, 36].

Motive – Prosecution failed to prove specific motive regarding debt or desire for luxury – Court held motive not essential when chain of circumstantial evidence is complete and points only to guilt – Absence of motive does not create reasonable doubt when other evidence is cogent and convincing – [Para 27].

Appeal – Dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302, 364A, 363, 201 and 506(2) IPC upheld – Accused to surrender within 4 weeks if on bail [Para 37].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Conviction upheld – Accused to surrender before jail authorities within four weeks if on bail.

Anticipatory Bail – Forged Judicial Summons – Circulation via WhatsApp – Petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in FIR alleging conspiracy with co-accused to create and circulate forged summons purporting to be issued by Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, demanding ₹10 lakh as “maintenance” – Co-accused’s disclosure and recovered WhatsApp screenshots indicated petitioner’s active role – Held: Allegations strike at sanctity of justice system and public confidence in judiciary – Grant of anticipatory bail would impede investigation – Petition dismissed [Paras 2, 8–13].

Criminal Law – Custodial Interrogation – Necessity and Scope – Court relied on State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 – Held: Custodial interrogation is qualitatively distinct and necessary to trace digital origin of forged summons, devices used, and wider conspiracy – Mere argument of “no need for custodial interrogation” not by itself a ground to grant pre-arrest bail [Paras 11–12].

Forgery of Judicial Process – Public Interest and Judicial Sanctity – Forging and circulating fake court summons undermines public trust in judicial institutions – Even compromise between parties cannot dilute gravity of such offence – Judicial institutions must respond firmly to preserve public faith in administration of justice [Paras 9–10].

Compromise Between Parties – Irrelevance in Offences Against Justice System – Settlement between complainant and accused held immaterial – Such offences transcend individual disputes and affect institutional credibility – Compromise cannot justify pre-arrest protection in cases of judicial impersonation [Para 9].

Prima Facie Case – Material Evidence – Disclosure statement of co-accused, recovery of screenshots showing petitioner’s number and chats, and corroborative material established prima facie involvement – False implication plea rejected as defence issue to be tested at trial [Paras 11–12].

Decision:
Anticipatory bail denied – FIR discloses grave offence involving forgery of judicial summons and impersonation of court authority – Custodial interrogation required to trace conspiracy and digital evidence – Petition dismissed – Observations confined to bail stage only [Paras 13–14].

Service Law – Adverse Remarks in ACR – Judicial Review – Appellant, a police officer, challenged adverse remarks in his ACR for 2019–2020 describing him as “Not Reliable” and “Doubtful Honesty” – Trial court decreed suit for expungement, but first appellate court reversed decree – High Court upheld appellate judgment – Held: Adverse remarks were supported by material including findings in departmental inquiry and viral video evidence – Appellant was given full opportunity to represent and explain – No evidence of mala fides or procedural violation – Judicial interference in ACR not warranted [Paras 6–11]

Departmental Proceedings – Principles of Natural Justice – Challenge to Adverse Entries – Appellant received multiple punishments including stoppage of increments and censure – Contention that principles of natural justice were not followed was rejected – Representation against ACR was duly considered and dismissed via reasoned order – Held: Due process was followed, and bias not established – ACR remarks justified [Paras 6–10]

Reliability and Honesty – Discretion of Reporting Officer – Use of descriptors such as “Doubtful Honesty” and “Not Reliable” in ACR – Justified based on material evidence and conduct history – FIR quashed on compromise does not negate administrative findings or misconduct – Held: Reporting officer’s evaluation falls within domain of administrative discretion unless shown to be arbitrary or malafide, which was not the case here [Paras 9–10]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of District Judge, Kurukshetra dated 12.07.2024 upheld – No interference warranted with adverse ACR remarks.