Arbitration Proceedings - Non-filing of Written Statement of Defence - Dismissal of Application under Section 151 CPC for Placing Documents on Record - High Court dismisses application under Section 151 CPC for placing documents on record, as the appellant failed to file a written statement of defence before the Arbitrator during arbitration proceedings. No cogent reason provided for the belated submission of documents. Application dismissed. [Paras 1-2]

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 34 Petition - Challenge to Arbitral Award - Failure to Contest Claim - Dismissal of Petition - Appellants fail to submit a written statement of defence during arbitration proceedings, only making verbal submissions. Arbitral award passed in favor of respondent. High Court dismisses petition under Section 34 of the 1996 Act, stating no fault could be found with the award due to appellants' failure to participate effectively. [Paras 2(ii)-11]

Grounds for Interference with Arbitral Award - Limited Scope - Court's Role - Court does not sit in appeal over arbitral award but may interfere on limited grounds, including violation of public policy or patent illegality. No independent assessment of merits of the award permitted. [Paras 7-13]

Decision: Dismissal of Application under Section 151 CPC - High Court dismisses the application for placing documents on record, citing failure to file a written statement of defence during arbitration proceedings. [Para 2]

Dismissal of Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - High Court upholds the dismissal of the petition challenging the arbitral award, noting appellants' failure to effectively contest the claim during arbitration proceedings. No violation of principles of natural justice found. Appeal deemed devoid of merit and dismissed. [Paras 10-11]

Compensation for Property Damage - Compensation for Land Diminution due to Power Lines – Civil Revision Petition – Landowner's Claim for Enhanced Compensation – 400 KV Lines Drawn by Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd Across Claimant's Property – Original Compensation Deemed Insufficient – Analysis of Land Value and Loss – Court Modifies Compensation. [Paras 1-9]

Claim for Enhanced Compensation – Justification – Landowner's Property Affected by High Tension Power Lines – Initial Compensation for Trees Cut but not for Land Value Diminution – Court Finds Justified Enhancement after Careful Scrutiny – 40% Land Value for Central Corridor, 20% for Outer Corridors, 5% for Remaining Property – Factors Considered Include Land's Nature, Cultivation, Commercial Importance, and Effect of Power Lines. [Paras 5, 7-8]

Revision Petition by Power Grid Corporation – Contention of Exorbitant Compensation – Court Dismisses Corporation's Petition – Upholds Enhanced Compensation as Just and Proper – Court Corrects Order to Exclude Deduction of Initially Paid Compensation from Enhanced Amount. [Paras 6, 9]

Decision – Enhanced Compensation for Landowner – Directions for Payment – Correction of Initial Order Misinterpretation – Immediate Release of Deposited Amount to Claimant – Dismissal of Corporation's Revision Petition. [Para 9]

Appointment of Vice-Chancellors – Challenge through writ petitions seeking quo warranto – Allegation of violation of UGC Regulations 2018 – Interim orders restraining removal pending Chancellor’s decision – Chancellor subsequently declared appointments void ab initio – Vice Chancellor of Calicut University filed WP challenging Chancellor’s decision – Interim stay granted – Vice Chancellor of Sree Sankaracharya University not granted stay – Subsequent developments render WP challenging appointment of Vice Chancellor of Sree Sankaracharya University infructuous – Maintainability of writ petition – Writ of quo warranto not considered in light of Chancellor’s decision – Issue regarding public interest litigation and applicability of High Court Rules left open – Writ petitions closed.

Regular Bail - Section 306 IPC - Suicide - Allegations against the petitioners of abetment to suicide - Prayer for regular bail - Compromise between petitioners and complainant - Suicide note recovered but veracity yet to be established by handwriting expert - Petitioners behind bars since February 7, 2024 - Trial yet to commence - Likelihood of complainant not supporting prosecution due to compromise - Court's discretion to grant bail balancing presumption of innocence and gravity of offense - Bail not to be withheld as punishment - Precedents emphasizing liberty, justice, and public safety - Court deems it fit and appropriate to grant bail to petitioners - Bail granted on furnishing bail and surety bond to satisfaction of concerned magistrate - Future indulgence in similar offenses may lead to cancellation of bail - Observations for deciding present petition only, without affecting trial merits.

NDPS Act Conviction – Appellants charged under Sections 21(c) and 27A of NDPS Act for possession and financing illegal narcotics trade – Recovery of phensedyl cough syrup from Narayan Yadav upheld - Conviction and sentencing of Narayan Yadav under Section 21(c) maintained but under Section 27A set aside due to lack of evidence of financing illegal trade [Paras 21-26, 55-57].

Evidence and Compliance – Compliance with Section 42(2) of NDPS Act not required due to presence of gazetted officers during the raid - Compliance with Section 52A observed for certification of seized narcotics by Judicial Magistrate - Conviction based on corroborated testimony of raiding police officers and documentary evidence [Paras 27-29, 30-41].

Absence of Direct Evidence against Login Das – Prosecution failed to prove Login Das's complicity due to lack of direct evidence linking him to the crime - Reliance on seizure list from another case insufficient to establish guilt - Conviction and sentence of Login Das set aside [Paras 45-53, 58].

Appeal Outcomes – CRA 236 of 2020 partly allowed, convicting Narayan Yadav under Section 21(c) and acquitting him under Section 27A - CRA 97 of 2020 allowed, acquitting Login Das [Paras 57-58].

Quashing of FIR and Charge-sheet – Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction – Petition for quashing proceedings under Sections 420/120B/34 of the IPC – Allegations of cheating and fraudulent inducement in vehicle purchase transaction – Company and its directors accused – Petitioner a director of the company – Alleged cancellation of agreement and non-refund of advance amount – Consumer complaint also filed – Supreme Court judgments cited establishing distinction between civil wrongs and criminal offences, emphasizing need for fraudulent or dishonest inducement for cheating under Section 420 IPC – Requirement of active role and criminal intent for vicarious liability of directors – Complaint not imputing liability to company or its responsible individuals – Prosecution of petitioner alone held as abuse of process of law – Proceedings quashed for all accused. [Paras 1-25]

Role of Directors in Corporate Criminal Liability – Analysis – Court cites Supreme Court precedents regarding conditions for prosecution of directors in corporate criminal liability cases – Emphasizes need for sufficient evidence of active role and criminal intent – Clarifies that without statutory provision or specific act attributing liability, prosecution of directors alone is impermissible – Complaint lacks imputation of liability to company or responsible individuals – Prosecution of petitioner as director held unsustainable. [Paras 15-18]

Decision – Quashing of FIR and Charge-Sheet against Petitioner – Court allows the petition, quashing proceedings against all accused including the petitioner – Finds prosecution of petitioner alone without imputation of liability to company or responsible individuals as abuse of process of law – Orders quashing of proceedings and disposal of connected applications – No costs imposed – Interim order vacated – Copy of judgment to be sent to trial court for compliance. [Paras 19-25]

Arbitration Award Challenge – Appellants did not file written statement of defence or lead evidence in arbitration proceedings initiated by respondent-HAFED for recovery of Rs. 26.01 lakhs – Arbitration award passed in favour of respondent, accepting the claim in toto – Appellant’s challenge to award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 dismissed by Additional District Judge, Kaithal – Present appeal filed against said dismissal. [Para 1-2(iii)]

Non-Participation in Arbitration Proceedings – Appellants’ failure to submit written response or evidence during arbitration – Respondent proved claim through evidence – Arbitrator’s decision to award claim to respondent on this basis – No written defence or evidence led by appellants in support of their case. [Para 9]

Legal Principles for Interference with Arbitral Award – Court’s interference with arbitral award limited to grounds under Section 34(2)(b)(ii) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Interference only if award is against public policy of India, includes violation of fundamental policy of Indian law, interest of India, conflict with justice or morality, patent illegality – No review of merits of dispute in interference, limited to cases where findings are arbitrary, perverse, or where illegality goes to the root of the matter. [Para 7]

Rejection of Application under Section 151 CPC – Appellants' application for placing additional documents on record as Annexures A-2 to A-6 under Section 151 CPC rejected – No cogent reason given for non-production of documents during arbitration proceedings – Appellants did not file written statement of defence before Arbitrator.

Decision – High Court finds no merit in appeal – Appeal dismissed, upholding decision of Additional District Judge and the arbitral award. [Para 11]

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34 – Petition challenging the Arbitration Award – Arbitration case regarding possession and construction on disputed land and damages – Award in favor of respondent directing petitioner to return land with constructions as per 1991 or pay compensation – Held: No interference under Section 34 warranted – Arbitrator's findings on possession, construction, damages, and limitation are reasonable and based on evidence – Petitioner's contentions on natural justice, Section 14 of the Limitation Act, damages, interest, costs, and counter-claim not sustainable – Arbitration Award upheld. [Paras 53-76]

Damages and Compensation – Assessment in Arbitration – Arbitrator's role in assessing damages in the absence of direct evidence – Discretion to estimate damages based on reasonable guesswork upheld – Tribunal's assessment of compensation for dismantled constructions deemed reasonable and justified. [Paras 65-67]

Limitation – Application of Section 14 of the Limitation Act in Arbitration – Applicability of Section 14 upheld – Tribunal's decision to exclude time spent in prosecuting a civil proceeding which was ultimately found non-maintainable justified – Respondents' pursuit of execution proceedings from 1999 to 2019 in good faith and due diligence found valid for exclusion under Section 14. [Paras 54-59]

Principles of Natural Justice – Arbitration Proceedings – No violation found – Adequate opportunity given to parties – Issues including Section 14 of the Limitation Act adequately addressed in pleadings and hearings. [Paras 39-52]

Enforcement of Arbitration Award – In light of the upheld arbitration award, execution petition allowed – Judgment-debtors directed to hand over possession of the disputed land along with awarded amount and interest within specified time. [Paras 80-81]

Decision: Petition challenging arbitration award dismissed; execution petition allowed. [Paras 77-81]

Land Transaction & Dispute – Appellant’s acquisition of land through unregistered sale deed followed by regularization under Section 5-A of ROR Act – Subsequent cancellation of pattadar passbook and title deed by RDO and Joint Collector on appeal by the 5^th respondent claiming forgery and fraud. [Para 3]

Jurisdictional Error in Appeal – Revenue Divisional Officer and Joint Collector’s orders challenged – Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad held no appeal against issuance of pattadar passbook and title deed under Section 6-A of ROR Act – Appeal before the 3^rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer against issuance of pattadar passbook under Section 6-A found not maintainable. [Paras 6-7]

Decision – Writ Appeal allowed – Orders of Revenue Divisional Officer and Joint Collector set aside due to lack of jurisdiction – Parties left to seek appropriate remedies before the appropriate forum in accordance with law – No order as to costs. [Para 8]