Arbitration – Substitution of Parties – Order XXII Rule 10 CPC – Assignment and Settlement Agreements – NHAI sought substitution by IL&FS Transportation Networks Ltd. (concessionaire) in ongoing arbitration with CFM Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. (assignee of senior lenders) – Arbitral tribunal rejected application noting claimant was not a party to Settlement Agreement between NHAI and concessionaire – Held: An assignee cannot be substituted for a party unless assignment covers corresponding obligations; claimant not bound by settlement to which it was not a party – Substitution would risk frustration of claims and expand arbitral scope – Tribunal’s decision justified [Paras 6–9].

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 5, 16, 34, and 37 – Limited Judicial Interference – Scope under Article 227 – High Court reiterated that under Section 5, judicial intervention is restricted; orders of arbitral tribunals rejecting applications under Section 16 or procedural claims are not appealable until award is passed – Article 227 can be invoked only in cases of patent lack of jurisdiction, manifest injustice, or bad faith – Liberal interference undermines arbitral autonomy [Paras 4.1–5.5].

Constitutional Law – Article 227 – Maintainability of Petitions against Arbitral Orders – Petition maintainable only where arbitral order is perverse or jurisdictionally flawed – Court cited SBP & Co. v. Patel Engineering (2005) 8 SCC 618, Deep Industries Ltd. v. ONGC (2020) 15 SCC 706, Bhaven Construction v. Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd. (2022) 1 SCC 75 – Held: Courts must exercise restraint; party can challenge adverse orders post-award under Section 34 [Paras 5.1–5.5].

Doctrine of Bad Faith – Non-applicability to Non-Parties – NHAI’s contention that concessionaire’s opposition amounted to “bad faith” rejected – Doctrine applies only to parties to arbitration, not to third parties sought to be substituted [Para 9].

Arbitration – Assignment and Privity of Contract – Settlement between NHAI and concessionaire cannot bind CFM (assignee of lenders) which was not party to conciliation – Assignment of debt does not ipso facto transfer liabilities – Obligations cannot be unilaterally shifted without creditor consent [Paras 6–7].

Decision: Petition dismissed – No exceptional circumstances warranting interference under Article 227 – Tribunal’s order upheld – NHAI directed to continue participation in arbitration – No costs. [Para 10].

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Section 528 BNSS – Scope of Judicial Interference – Petition sought quashing of FIR alleging that the petitioner, as Channel Head of Zee Rajasthan, extorted money and threatened vendors with adverse news coverage – Held: Allegations in FIR prima facie disclose cognizable offences – Court cannot evaluate evidence or conduct a “mini-trial” at FIR stage – Investigation must proceed unhindered – Quashing power to be exercised sparingly and in rare cases [Paras 9–11, 13–18].

Media Ethics – Abuse of Position by Journalist – Extortion and Coercion – FIR alleged that petitioner misused company’s platform to solicit money through threats of defamatory broadcasts – Such acts, if proven, constitute gross abuse of media authority and harm to public trust – Allegations require full investigation and cannot be nullified as employer-employee dispute [Paras 7.1–7.2, 22–23].

Freedom of Press – Limits and Responsibility – Court reiterated that press freedom is integral to democracy but carries duty of fairness, accuracy, and integrity – “Freedom of Press is imperative for a functioning democracy; however, misuse of such freedom through coercion or blackmail cannot be tolerated” [Preface; Paras 7–9].

Bhajan Lal Principles – Applicability – Case does not fall within any of the exceptional categories enumerated in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 – Allegations not absurd, improbable, or mala fide on their face – Investigation must determine truth of allegations [Paras 2.1–2.4, 23].

Judicial Review – Stage of Investigation – Precedents Cited – Reaffirmed principles in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 407; Kaptan Singh v. State of U.P., (2021) 9 SCC 35; Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2018) 3 SCC 104; Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 18 SCC 191 – High Court’s interference limited to cases where FIR does not disclose any cognizable offence [Paras 10–20].

Decision: FIR No. 257/2025 discloses cognizable offences – Investigation to continue uninhibited – Petition for quashing dismissed – Petitioner at liberty to approach Investigating Officer for fair-investigation concerns; IO to act as per law and issue notice under Section 35 BNSS if required [Paras 22–25].

Service Law – Wrongful Pay Fixation – Recovery – Group-D staff performing Group-C duties granted higher pay scale since 2004 – Recovery directed after 10–14 years – Applying Syed Abdul Qadir and Rafiq Masih – Held: Recovery from Group C/D employees, long-delayed and without misrepresentation, is inequitable and arbitrary; impugned memo/order quashed; refunds directed [Paras 23-26].

Service Law – Excess Payment – No Misrepresentation – Petitioners appointed as Rent Collectors (Group-D) but made to discharge Group-C duties due to staff shortages – Municipality granted Group-C scale from 01.08.2004, increments also paid – Held: Excess payment was not a result of any misrepresentation or fraud by petitioners; higher scale was granted by competent authorities and enjoyed for over a decade [Paras 3-8, 13].

Recovery of Excess Salary – Applicability of Supreme Court Precedents – Court relied on Syed Abdul Qadir, Rafiq Masih, and Jogeswar Sahoo – Laid down exceptions where recovery is impermissible: (i) employees in Group C/D; (ii) payments continued over five years; (iii) employees made to work on higher posts; (iv) recovery causing hardship – Held: Present facts squarely covered by all three conditions—recovery impermissible [Paras 15-18, 23-24].

Equity & Hardship – Long-Delayed Recovery – Petitioners received higher scale for 10–14 years; recovery initiated only in 2013/2017 after decades – Such recovery would be iniquitous, harsh, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 – Particularly because many petitioners were near retirement or had retired; hardship outweighs employer’s right to recover [Paras 23-24].

Refund of Amounts Recovered – Court invoked parity principle – Employees who had already refunded excess amounts must be reimbursed, following Syed Abdul Qadir which mandated refund of amounts earlier recovered by mistake – Directed refund within three months [Para 25].

Administrative Action – Legal Validity – Memo dated 27.05.2013 of Director of Local Bodies and Order dated 01.11.2017 of Chairman, Tarakeswar Municipality directing recovery and re-fixation of pay held illegal and set aside – Orders inconsistent with binding Supreme Court law and principles of fairness [Para 26].

Decision – WPA allowed – Impugned memo and order quashed – No recovery to be made; any recovered amounts to be refunded; all connected applications disposed; interim orders vacated [Paras 26-30].

Criminal Law – Bail under UAPA – Section 43D(5) – Prima Facie Case – Held: The proviso to Section 43D(5) of the UAPA creates an embargo on granting bail if the Court, on perusal of the case diary or Section 173 CrPC report, is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing the accusation is prima facie true. In this case, the recovery of explosive material (Potassium Nitrate, Chlorate, etc.) from the appellant, coupled with disclosure statements of co-accused regarding the supply of material for creating terror, established a prima facie case. [Paras 9-11, 15]

Criminal Law – Explosives and Conspiracy – Held: The appellant, running a firecracker business without a license, was found in possession of explosive substances. The FSL report confirmed the nature of the substance. The material was allegedly supplied to co-accused to cause explosions near the Golden Temple to hurt religious harmony and integrity of the country. The absence of a license leads to the conclusion that the material was collected for illegal purposes. [Paras 15-16]

Criminal Law – Delay in Trial vs. Gravity of Offence – Held: While prolonged incarceration can be a ground for bail under Article 21, the gravity of the offence involving a conspiracy to cause bomb blasts in a public/religious place weighs heavily against the accused. The appellant is involved in multiple cases under the Explosives Act. Bail denied. [Paras 14, 17-18]

Decision: Appeals dismissed.

Tenancy Law - Rent Control Act – Co-owner’s Right to Evict Tenant – Ownership Dispute – Tenant’s Purchase of Co-owner’s Share – Tenant claimed ownership by virtue of sale deed dated 15.12.2016 executed by landlord’s sister (co-owner) after eviction petition was filed – Held: Sale pendente lite hit by doctrine of lis pendens – No merger of tenancy under Section 111(d) TPA unless entirety of lessor’s and lessee’s rights vest in one person – Purchase of one co-owner’s undivided share does not extinguish tenancy – Eviction maintainable by any co-owner without consent or NOC from others [Paras 19–23, 25–26].

Delhi Rent Control Act – Section 14(1)(e) – Bona Fide Requirement – Maintainability by One Co-owner – Landlord need not obtain prior consent or affidavit of other co-owners to file eviction – Petition by one co-owner valid unless another co-owner actively opposes – Mere impleadment application under Order I Rule 10 CPC by co-owner does not constitute objection [Paras 25–27].

Transfer of Property – Section 111(d) – Merger Doctrine – Effect of Partial Transfer – Tenant acquiring interest from one co-owner does not result in merger of lease and ownership – Ownership remains joint until partition by metes and bounds – Tenant continues to be bound by original tenancy [Paras 20–22].

Lis Pendens – Sale During Pendency of Eviction Proceedings – Sale deed executed by co-owner in favour of tenant during subsistence of eviction petition voidable and subject to outcome of pending proceedings – Transaction lacks bona fides where tenant aware of litigation and proceeds without disclosure to court [Paras 28–29].

Landlord–Tenant Relationship – Estoppel Against Denial of Title – Tenant, having admitted tenancy in written statement and deposition, estopped from disputing landlord’s title – ARC not competent to adjudicate ownership title disputes in eviction proceedings [Paras 24–25].

Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction – Section 25B(8), Delhi Rent Control Act – High Court’s interference confined to exceptional cases of jurisdictional or procedural error – Findings of ARC based on proper appreciation of law and evidence upheld – No ground for interference made out [Paras 30–31].

Decision: Revision dismissed – Eviction order dated 13.08.2024 upheld – Stay on execution vacated – Tenant directed to hand over possession of two shops (6’4” x 10’6” and 6’10” x 14’5”) at property No. 6165/1, Basti Regar, Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi – Benefit of six months under Section 14(7) of DRC Act held to have lapsed [Paras 31–33].

Civil Law - Ex-parte Decree – Order 9 Rule 13 CPC – Non-issuance of Ordinary Summons – Registered Post Service Questioned – Failure of Courts to Consider Mandatory Service Requirements – Presumption under Section 27 General Clauses Act Rebuttable – Limitation & Date of Knowledge Ignored – Orders Set Aside and Matter Remanded for Fresh Decision [Paras 16–22].

Ex-parte Decree – Application under Order 9 Rule 13 – Ground of Non-Service – Defendant asserted she was never served and first learnt of decree on 5.10.2009; application filed promptly thereafter – Alleged manipulation of postal report by postman related to plaintiffs – Plaintiffs denied allegations; claimed refusal of registered letter [Paras 4–6].

Evidence on Service – Postman Examined – Defendant Led Evidence of Postal Complaint – Defendant examined herself and her son-in-law; postal official produced records; postman RW-2 supported refusal entry – Courts below relied heavily on refusal endorsement without considering surrounding circumstances [Paras 10–12].

Mandatory Requirement of Ordinary Service – Order 5 Rule 9(1) CPC – Trial Court never exercised discretion to exempt ordinary service; records show no summons issued through ordinary process – Defendant proceeded ex parte solely on basis of refusal of registered post – Held improper and contrary to Rule 9(1) and pre-repeal Rule 19(a) which mandated simultaneous registered post service along with ordinary process [Paras 16–18].

State Amendment Misapplied – Order 5 Rule 10 (Punjab Rules applicable to H.P.) – District Judge wrongly relied on proviso permitting first-instance registered post service at plaintiff’s request – No such request by plaintiffs on record; no finding that plaintiffs sought this mode – Hence registered post alone insufficient to effect valid service [Para 19].

Presumption of Service under Section 27 General Clauses Act – Rebuttable – Court held that refusal endorsement alone cannot be treated as conclusive when surrounding material casts doubt; possibility of manipulation of postal reports recognized; both Courts failed to consider circumstances warranting closer scrutiny – Constitutes failure to exercise jurisdiction [Paras 20–22].

Limitation – Date of Knowledge – Application Dismissed Without Proper Finding – Courts below treated application as time-barred because defendant withdrew application under Section 5 Limitation Act – However, finding on limitation was influenced by erroneous assumption of valid service; failure to determine actual date of knowledge vitiates finding [Paras 13–15, 21].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Failure to Exercise Jurisdiction by Courts Below – Both Courts ignored material facts regarding service and mandatory procedural requirements; revisional interference warranted under Section 115 CPC [Para 22].

Remand – Orders of District Judge (9.1.2020) and Civil Judge (31.5.2019) set aside – Matter remanded to trial Court for fresh adjudication of application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC in light of observations made [Para 23].

Petition Disposed – Pending applications also disposed; record directed to be sent back immediately [Para 24].

Negotiable Instruments – Dishonour of Cheque – Presumption under Section 139 NI Act – Complainant claimed accused borrowed Rs.5,40,000/- and issued cheque for Rs.2,50,000/- in partial discharge – Cheque dishonoured with remark “payment stopped by drawer” – Complainant relied on promissory note and supporting witness – Held: Initial presumption under Section 139 arises, but accused successfully rebutted it by establishing preponderance of probability that the cheque was not issued in discharge of alleged debt – Acquittal by trial court upheld [Paras 3–14].

Cheque Dishonour – Defence Evidence – Accused claimed cheque was issued for earlier loan of Rs.2,50,000/- and was later repaid – Accused relied on variations in handwriting/ink on cheque and promissory note, and testimony of his brother – Court found the defence plausible – Letter stopping payment on cheques predates dishonour – Held: Defence raised sufficient doubt about complainant’s version – Rebuttal of presumption under NI Act proved by defence evidence [Paras 12–14].

Criminal Appeal – Scope of Interference with Acquittal – Appeal against concurrent findings of acquittal by trial and sessions court – High Court found no perversity in appreciation of evidence – Held: View taken by trial court is reasonable and supported by evidence – No ground to interfere in acquittal under Section 378 CrPC [Paras 14–15].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal of respondent/accused confirmed – Trial court’s finding that presumption under NI Act was rebutted and complainant failed to prove legally enforceable debt upheld.

Motor Accident Claim – Composite Negligence – Liability Apportionment – Tribunal held both taxi and lorry drivers equally negligent in causing the fatal accident – Based on testimony of co-passenger widow (P.W.1), vehicle damage reports (Ex.P6, Ex.R5), and site sketch (Ex.P5) – Court found no perversity in Tribunal's apportionment of 50:50 liability [Paras 12–19].

Motor Vehicles Act – Quantum of Compensation – Deceased was 44 years old and employed as Assistant Vice President in Axis Bank – Income of Rs.1,24,350 per month proved by salary slips (Ex.X2, Ex.P13) and ITRs (Ex.P16) – Tribunal awarded Rs.1.63 crore with interest – Court upheld award as reasonable and based on correct dependency assessment [Paras 20–21].

Insurance Law – Cancellation of Policy – Bounced Cheque – Taxi's insurance premium cheque dishonoured – Insurer had cancelled policy and duly intimated both vehicle owner and RTO before the accident – Held: Valid cancellation meant no insurance contract subsisted on date of accident – Insurer not liable [Paras 22–23, 30].

“Pay and Recover” – Not Applicable – Court held “pay and recover” principle cannot be invoked where insurance contract was rescinded before accident due to non-payment of premium – No exceptional circumstances to invoke powers under Article 142 – Tribunal rightly held taxi owner liable for 50% of compensation, insurer of lorry liable for remaining 50% [Paras 23–31].

Decision: Both appeals dismissed – Tribunal's findings on negligence and quantum upheld – No liability imposed on insurer of taxi – No direction to “pay and recover” – Costs imposed – Miscellaneous Petition closed.

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Maintainability despite pending proclamation proceedings – Applicant not declared proclaimed offender at time of bail application – Held: Application maintainable – Proclamation under Section 84 BNSS initiated post-filing of bail application does not bar its consideration [Paras 95-100].

Prevention of Money Laundering – Bail under Section 45 PMLA – Twin conditions – Applicant alleged to have generated proceeds of crime through forged scholarship claims – ED failed to justify custodial interrogation – No material produced to show non-cooperation – Held: Twin conditions under Section 45 satisfied – Applicant deemed not guilty at this stage and unlikely to commit offence while on bail [Paras 145-156].

Investigation Conduct – Mala fide Action – ED officer arrested in CBI trap for demanding bribe from applicant – ED became hyperactive thereafter – Summons issued in haste, NBWs sought without fair hearing – Held: Conduct of ED raises suspicion of vendetta and lacks fair play – Application of arrest powers under Section 19 PMLA must be fair, reasoned, and based on material – Custody not required merely for further interrogation [Paras 101-117, 124-128, 139-140].

Criminal Law – Presumption of Innocence – Delay in invoking coercive action – ED took no steps to arrest applicant between 2019 and 2025 – No complaint of non-cooperation until after arrest of IO – Held: Prolonged inaction supports inference of lack of necessity for custodial interrogation – Right to liberty prevails unless arrest justified by compelling necessity [Paras 111-115, 123].

Constitutional Law – Right Against Self-Incrimination – Non-confession cannot be deemed non-cooperation – Mere failure to admit guilt or provide ‘non-evasive’ replies not ground for arrest – Held: Accused cannot be compelled to self-incriminate under Article 20(3) – Arrest not to be used as tool to extract confession [Paras 132-138].

Criminal Procedure – Proper Summons – Electronic service of summons – Validity under PMLA – Guidelines in *Satender Kumar Antil* relied upon – Held: Service through email not invalid, but issuance of repeated summons in haste, without proper opportunity, found unjustified in facts [Paras 19, 29, 70, 108-110].

Decision: Bail application allowed – Applicant granted anticipatory bail in ECIR No. SHSZO/04/2019 – Personal bond of ₹2,00,000/- with two sureties – Conditions imposed to secure appearance and non-interference with investigation – ED at liberty to seek cancellation if conditions violated [Paras 157-160].