Works of Defence Act, 1903 - National Security - Restricted Zones - Construction Permissions - PIL highlighting illegal constructions near vital military installations in Jodhpur - Held, since the matter involves national security and sensitive zones of the Indian Air Force and Indian Army, all permissions granted by local authorities must strictly adhere to the Notifications and guidelines issued by the Ministry of Defence/Central Government from time to time. [Paras 5, 13].

Works of Defence Act, 1903 - Survey and Demolition - Unauthorized Encroachments - Local authorities directed to conduct a detailed survey of Khasra No. 632 and its sub-divisions - Held, if constructions are found to have been raised de hors the mandatory guidelines or without required permissions/NOCs, the local authorities shall take urgent steps to remove or demolish such constructions in accordance with law. [Paras 11, 14-15].

Works of Defence Act, 1903 - No Objection Certificate (NOC) - Mandatory Compliance - Construction permissions in restricted areas - Held, local authorities must obtain an NOC from the concerned defence authorities before granting construction permissions in appropriate cases as per Central Government notifications - Even if a layout plan was previously sanctioned, construction permissions issued in violation of mandatory Ministry of Defence instructions must be cancelled. [Paras 16, 20].

Works of Defence Act, 1903 - Timeline for Compliance - Judicial Oversight - Court directed the entire exercise of survey and removal of unauthorized persons/structures to be completed within three months - Compliance report ordered to be furnished before the Court on or before 03.08.2026. [Paras 17-18].

Decision: Writ petitions disposed of with specific directions for survey and demolition – Contempt petitions and pending applications also stand disposed of.

Public Interest Litigation – Punjab Police SAANJH Portal – Service Charges on FIR/DDR Downloads – Petitioner challenged imposition of Rs. 80/- as service charge for downloading FIRs, Rs. 100/- for DDR and Rs. 30/- for Lost Information Receipt from the Punjab Police SAANJH Portal – Representation dated 24.03.2026 submitted by Petitioner No. 1 to the Government of Punjab, Department of Home Affairs and Justice and the Director General of Police, Punjab, pending consideration – Court disposed of the PIL without expressing opinion on merits – Held: Competent Authority directed to consider and decide the representation dated 24.03.2026 by passing a speaking order in accordance with law within 30 days from receipt of certified copy of this order and to communicate the same to the petitioner [Paras 2–4].

Decision: PIL disposed of – Competent Authority directed to decide representation dated 24.03.2026 by speaking order within 30 days – No opinion expressed on the merits of the case – Liberty granted to petitioner.

Specific Performance – Maintainability of Suit – Unilateral Termination of Agreement to Sale – Declaratory Relief – Where Agreement Contains No Termination Clause – Where a vendor unilaterally cancels an Agreement to Sale (ATS) without any contractual right to do so, such termination amounts to a repudiatory breach, and the vendee is entitled to directly seek specific performance without first obtaining a declaratory relief that the termination was bad in law – The ATS in question contained no clause permitting the vendor to cancel it or forfeit earnest money; Clause 8 expressly conferred upon the vendee the right to sue for specific performance even if the vendor refused to execute the sale deed – Held: In the absence of a termination clause, unilateral cancellation by the vendor is a breach of contract, not a valid termination, and no declaratory relief is a precondition to the suit for specific performance [Paras 7.7 to 7.13].

Time – Essence of Contract – Sale of Immovable Property – Mere Stipulation of Time Period Insufficient – In contracts for sale of immovable property, there is a well-settled presumption that time is not the essence of the contract – A mere six-month time limit in Clause 6 of the ATS does not, by itself, render time the essence of the contract – The intention to make time the essence must be expressed in unequivocal language and must be gathered from the express terms, nature of property, and surrounding circumstances – In the present case, no clause provided for termination or rescission upon non-adherence to the time limit, and Clause 7 required government permissions which themselves could cause delay – Held: Time was not the essence of the contract [Paras 7.22 to 7.24].

Readiness and Willingness – Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Conduct of Plaintiff – Continuous readiness and willingness to perform the contract is a condition precedent to the grant of specific performance and must be proved throughout the period from the date of the contract till the date of the decree – In the present case, the plaintiff paid Rs. 2,000/- as earnest money at execution and thereafter paid a further Rs. 6,000/- as evidenced by an entry in defendant no. 1's own handwriting in the plaintiff's diary (Exh. 108) – The plaintiff consistently asserted readiness to execute the sale-deed and promptly replied to the vendor's cancellation notice – The vendor, on the other hand, made inconsistent statements and changed his version repeatedly – Held: Plaintiff proved continuous readiness and willingness; the defendant failed to establish that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform [Paras 7.14 to 7.21].

Bona Fide Purchaser – Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Sections 41 and 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Constructive Notice – Good Faith – A subsequent purchaser who fails to make reasonable inquiries into the title of the property before purchase cannot claim the protection of a bona fide purchaser for value without notice – Defendant No. 2 admitted that no public notice was published and no title clearance certificate was obtained prior to purchase – The vendor (Defendant No. 1) had sold the property in violation of a subsisting injunction order – The doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act binds subsequent purchasers irrespective of actual notice of the injunction – Held: Defendant No. 2 failed to prove good faith and absence of notice; he is bound by the decree for specific performance [Paras 7.25 to 7.29].

Decision: Both appeals dismissed – Judgment and decree of the City Civil Court in Civil Suit No. 4584 of 1986 confirmed and approved – Decree for specific performance upheld, sale-deed executed by Defendant No. 1 in favour of Defendant No. 2 declared illegal, null and void – Costs awarded in favour of the plaintiff – Operation of the judgment stayed for two weeks on the request of appellants' counsel.

Co-operative Law – Inquiry under Section 51 – Scope – District Bank employees – Fake loans – Primary Agricultural Co-operative Societies affiliated to the Guntur District Co-operative Central Bank found to have admitted fake members, disbursed loans without verification, and ignored circulars – Inquiry conducted under Section 51 of the AP Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 – Inquiry Officer recommended civil, criminal and disciplinary action against employees of both the Primary Societies and the District Bank – Appellants, being District Bank employees deputed to oversee loan disbursement, challenged the inquiry reports and consequential proceedings – Held: Inquiry under Section 51 is a general inquiry into the affairs of the society and there is no restriction on examining the role of outsiders whose actions may have affected the society – Contention that inquiry cannot extend to non-employees rejected [Paras 13, 19].

Surcharge Proceedings – Section 60 – Applicability – Employees of District Bank not amenable – Section 60 permits surcharge proceedings only against past or present officers or servants of the society or persons entrusted with its organisation, affairs or management – Appellants being employees of the District Bank and not employees or members of the Primary Societies subjected to inquiry – No material placed that appellants were entrusted with the organisation or management of the Primary Societies – Held: Surcharge proceedings under Section 60 cannot be initiated against the appellants – Affirmed: K. Satyanarayana and Ors. v. A.P. Co-operative Tribunal, Visakhapatnam [Paras 15, 16, 17].

Disciplinary and Criminal Proceedings – Permissible – While surcharge proceedings under Section 60 are impermissible against District Bank employees, disciplinary and criminal proceedings based on information in the inquiry report remain open – Inquiry report is not a settled finding of fact – Authorities may proceed on the basis of information available in the report – Appellants entitled to rebut allegations in such proceedings [Paras 18, 19, 20].

Decision: Writ Appeals partly allowed – Respondents restrained from taking further steps under Section 60 of the Act against the appellants – Liberty reserved to respondents to initiate disciplinary or criminal proceedings as thought fit – All questions of fact left open – Neither this order nor the Single Judge's judgment to be treated as a finding of fact.

Bail – Gang Rape and Murder of Minor – First Petition – Refused – Petitioner attributed principal role in kidnapping, administering sedatives, gang rape, and murder of an 8-year-old Bakarwal girl – In custody since 19.01.2018 (over 8 years) – Out of 309 witnesses, only 41 examined – Held: Despite prolonged incarceration, bail cannot be granted as a matter of course where gravity and nature of the offence shock the collective and judicial conscience – Prima facie case established; long custody by itself cannot entitle petitioner to bail – Prayer for regular bail declined [Paras 7].

Bail Jurisprudence – Prolonged Incarceration – No Automatic Entitlement – Petitioner contended long custody of 8 years and slow pace of trial warrant release – Held: There is no straight-jacket formula that an accused is automatically entitled to bail on ground of prolonged incarceration – Discretion must be exercised considering intrinsic merits of the case and gravity of charge – In cases involving serious and gruesome crimes, courts must balance rights of the victim, society, and the accused [Paras 4, 6].

Bail – Relevant Considerations – Factors to be Weighed – Nature and gravity of charge, severity of punishment, likelihood of witnesses being tampered, danger of justice being thwarted, prima facie evidence, and the role of the accused are all relevant considerations – Mere period of incarceration or unlikelihood of trial concluding soon is insufficient to enlarge accused on bail when charges carry life imprisonment or death penalty [Paras 4, 5, 6].

Trial Court – Expeditious Trial – Directed – Considering the considerable delay in trial and the long period of custody of the petitioner, the Trial Court is requested to expedite the trial and conclude it preferably within one year from the date of order [Para 7].

Decision: Petition for regular bail dismissed – Trial Court directed to conclude trial preferably within one year.

Section 144 BNSS, 2023 — Maintenance — Husband's Claim — Disentitlement — A husband is not entitled to claim maintenance from his wife under Section 144 BNSS (corresponding to Section 125 Cr.P.C.) — The provision primarily contemplates grant of maintenance to wives, children and parents — Legislature intentionally did not include 'husband' or 'spouse' within the purview of the section — An able-bodied, practicing Advocate projecting himself as wholly dependent on wife's income without full and candid disclosure of financial status is not entitled to invoke the provision — Rajnesh v. Neha applied — B. Clement v. Mcthel Thanga Annam (Madras HC) and Malleshwaramma v. G.S. Srinivasulu (Hyderabad HC) relied upon [Paras 13–17].

Suppression of Material Facts — False Affidavit — Concealment — Petitioner-husband filed maintenance application under Section 144 BNSS before Family Court Etawah stating no maintenance proceedings were pending, while simultaneously receiving Rs. 5,000/- per month under Section 24 HMA pursuant to Family Court Prayagraj's order dated 15.09.2025 — Petitioner also concealed that maintenance proceedings under Section 144 BNSS had been stayed by coordinate bench — Both facts suppressed in affidavit before this Court — Petitioner being a practicing Advocate, conduct held to be grave — Family Court Prayagraj directed to inquire into initiation of perjury proceedings — Affidavit of assets and liabilities filed with incorrect details — ITR for AY 2023-2024 showed income of Rs. 4,70,540/- concealed from Family Court — Multiple bank accounts not disclosed [Paras 7–14, 36].

Economic Abuse in Matrimonial Relationships — Compensatory Costs — Restitutionary Principles — Petitioner-husband induced wife to take personal loans aggregating Rs. 25,06,000/- against her salary account, transferred entire loan amount to his own accounts through UPI without her knowledge and consent, and misused funds on alcohol and luxurious living — No land purchased as promised — Wife continuing to pay monthly EMI of Rs. 26,020/- till October 2028 — Held: Economic abuse within marriage operates through control over income, coercive appropriation of assets and erosion of financial independence — Law cannot remain indifferent — Compensatory cost serves corrective and restitutionary purpose rather than punitive — Doctrine of unjust enrichment and restitutio in integrum applied — Compensatory cost of Rs. 15,00,000/- imposed on petitioner-husband payable to respondent-wife — Ashok Kumar Mittal v. Ram Kumar Gupta, Vinod Seth v. Devinder Bajaj and Sanjeev Kumar Jain v. Raghuvir Saran Charitable Trust relied upon [Paras 18–32].

Article 227 — Supervisory Jurisdiction — Petition Lacking Bona Fides — Infructuous Prayer — Where maintenance proceedings sought to be expedited had already been stayed by a coordinate bench, prayer for expeditious disposal is legally unsustainable and rendered infructuous — High Court is not a window shopping forum — Conduct of petitioner in pursuing parallel remedies while suppressing material facts and filing false affidavits disentitles him from exercise of equitable supervisory jurisdiction — Petition dismissed [Paras 13, 17, 32].

Directions for Expeditious Disposal of Matrimonial Proceedings — Section 21-B HMA — Family Court Prayagraj directed to expedite Matrimonial Case No. 2504 of 2023 under Section 13 HMA in accordance with time frame under Section 21-B — No unnecessary adjournments to be granted — Application for recall/review of order under Section 24 HMA to be decided within four weeks — In-camera proceedings for recording evidence — Adequate security to be provided to wife — Quarterly status report to be submitted to Registrar (Compliance) [Paras 34–38].

Recovery of Compensatory Cost — Directions to District Magistrate — Upon failure by petitioner to deposit cost by demand draft, District Magistrate Etawah directed to recover same as arrears of land revenue within three months — Sub-Registrar directed to ensure no alienation or third-party interest is created in petitioner's properties till recovery — District Magistrate to constitute committee to inquire into movable and immovable assets of petitioner [Paras 37–38].

Decision: Petition dismissed — Compensatory cost of Rs. 15,00,000/- imposed on petitioner-husband to be deposited with Registrar General of this Court by way of demand draft within six weeks and handed over to respondent-wife — Directions issued to Family Courts at Prayagraj and Etawah, District Magistrate Etawah, SSP Prayagraj and Registrar General.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 12(5) — Ineligibility of Arbitrator — Seventh Schedule — Unilateral Appointment — Arbitration clause provided for disputes to be referred to Sole Arbitration of Chairman and Managing Director of HPCL with additional power to appoint any other person as Arbitrator — Post-amendment (w.e.f. 23.10.2015), Chairman and Managing Director of the Corporation fell within categories enumerated in Seventh Schedule and became ineligible by operation of law to act as Arbitrator — Once ineligible, Chairman and Managing Director could not appoint any other person as Arbitrator either — Appointment of Sole Arbitrator by such person was squarely hit by decisions in TRF Ltd. and Core-II — Such Arbitrator lacked inherent jurisdiction — Award made by him rendered invalid — Held: Appointment of Sole Arbitrator was in violation of Section 12(5) and principles of equal treatment — Award set aside [Paras 75–77, 90–91].

Section 12(5) Proviso — Express Waiver in Writing — What Constitutes — Consent vs. Waiver — Distinction — Corporation by letter dated 24.01.2018 sought appellant's written consent for appointment of its serving officer as Sole Arbitrator — Appellant by letter dated 15.02.2018 appointed his own Arbitrator (counter offer) — Corporation turned down counter offer — Appellant by letter dated 07.03.2018 gave consent for Corporation to appoint an Arbitrator — Held: Letter dated 07.03.2018 at best amounts to consent for appointment of an Arbitrator (including a retired officer) and not an express written waiver of right to object under Section 12(5) — No consensus ad idem between parties on waiver — Waiver requires conscious, unequivocal, written expression of intent to relinquish the right — Participation in arbitral proceedings or mere consent to appointment does not constitute valid waiver under Section 12(5) proviso — Bhadra International relied upon [Paras 77–85].

Section 12(5) — De Jure Ineligibility — Nature and Effect — Ineligibility under Section 12(5) read with Seventh Schedule strikes at the root of appointment — Upon incurring such ineligibility, mandate of Arbitrator automatically terminates under Section 14(1)(a) — Party may approach Court directly under Section 14 without first invoking challenge procedure under Section 13 — Award passed by an ineligible Arbitrator is non-est and carries no enforceability in law — Distinction between Fifth Schedule (justifiable doubts — challenge under Sections 13 and 34) and Seventh Schedule (de jure ineligibility — termination under Section 14) explained [Paras 52–59, 86].

Section 37 Appeal — Challenge to Ineligibility of Arbitrator — At Any Stage — Objection to inherent lack of jurisdiction of Arbitrator can be raised at any stage of proceedings including for the first time in appeal under Section 37 — An award passed by an ineligible Arbitrator being non-est, there is no question of the objection being time-barred or precluded — Even where specific ground was not very precisely raised in Section 34 petition, if the ground was dealt with and is raised in memo of appeal, the appellant cannot be non-suited — Bhadra International followed [Paras 86–88].

Equal Treatment of Parties — Section 18 — Unilateral Appointment — Constitutional Validity — Principle of equal treatment of parties applies at all stages of arbitration including the stage of appointment of Arbitrators — Clause allowing one party to unilaterally appoint Sole Arbitrator gives rise to justifiable doubts as to independence and impartiality — In a three-member tribunal, mandating other party to select Arbitrator from panel curated by one party is against principle of equal treatment — Unilateral appointment clauses in public-private contracts violative of Article 14 of the Constitution — Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v. ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV) (Core-II) followed [Paras 65, 90].

Arbitrator's Duty — Disclosure — Section 12(1) read with Sixth Schedule — Sole Arbitrator did not furnish the mandatory declaration as required under Section 12(1) read with the Fifth and Sixth Schedules at the time of appointment — Such non-disclosure assumes additional significance in the absence of a valid express waiver [Para 77].

Second Ground — Natural Justice — Not Adjudicated — Since appointment of Arbitrator was found to be without jurisdiction and the award was set aside on that ground, Court found it unnecessary to examine the second ground of challenge regarding alleged violation of principles of natural justice and procedural infractions during arbitral proceedings [Para 88].

Decision: Appeal allowed — Judgment and order dated 19.04.2023 of Commercial Court-II, Lucknow in Arbitration Case No. 766 of 2019 set aside — Arbitral award dated 26.04.2019 set aside — Parties at liberty to get fresh Arbitrator appointed in accordance with law — No order as to costs.

Education Law – NEET (UG) 2026 – Delayed Fee Payment – Portal Buffering Claim – Petitioner uploaded registration form and documents on 09.02.2026 but did not submit the fee for over a month – On the last extended date of 11.03.2026, successful logins were made but no payment completed – Server logs furnished by NTA showed repeated successful logins; claimed inability to make payment not demonstrated – Oral submissions by Senior Counsel that form was uploaded only on 11.03.2026 found contrary to portal records and not even averred in the petition – Petitioner approached Court nearly one month after the alleged failure – Held: No interference warranted; petition dismissed [Paras 5-6, 8-10, 15-16].

"Portal Cannot Be Opened for One Candidate" – Consistent Judicial Position – Coordinate Bench judgments of this Court and the Supreme Court in Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India affirm that the NEET portal cannot be reopened for a single candidate – Supreme Court orders granting indulgence in isolated cases were based on peculiar facts, including demonstrated earnest and repeated attempts to log in, as in Atul Kumar v. Chairman (2024 SCC Online SC 2684) – Facts of present case do not meet that threshold [Paras 13-14].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – No interference called for [Para 16].

Land Acquisition – National Highways Act, 1956 – Interest on Enhanced Compensation – Applicability of Section 72 of the 2013 Act – Petitioners' land measuring 284.98 Marlas acquired for Delhi-Amritsar-Katra National Highway vide Notifications under Sections 3-A and 3-D of the 1956 Act – CALA Award at Rs. 5,363/- per Marla – Arbitrator enhanced market value to Rs. 15,00,000/- per acre with 100% solatium and 12% additional interest from date of Section 3-A notification to first Award – However, Arbitrator awarded interest at flat 9% on enhanced amount from date of filing of application till deposit under Section 3-H(5) of 1956 Act, instead of 9% for the first year and 15% per annum thereafter from date of possession as mandated by Section 72 of the 2013 Act – Held: Arbitrator manifestly erred in law – Petitioners entitled to interest in terms of Section 72 of the 2013 Act [Paras 1–5, 8, 18].

Applicability of 2013 Act to Acquisitions under the National Highways Act, 1956 – Section 105 of the 2013 Act – Ministry of Rural Development Gazette Notification dated 28.08.2015 – Schedules I, II and III of the 2013 Act made expressly applicable to acquisitions under enactments in the Fourth Schedule including the 1956 Act – Interest being an integral component of just compensation, the beneficial provisions of the 2013 Act including higher interest rates prevail over Section 3-H(5) of the 1956 Act – Restriction of interest to Section 3-H(5) would result in impermissible discrimination between similarly situated landowners in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution – Held: Interest at 9% and 15% under Section 72 of the 2013 Act applies to acquisitions under the 1956 Act [Paras 9, 9.1, 9.2, 9.4].

Interest on Original Compensation – Section 80 of the 2013 Act – Section 3-H(5) of the 1956 Act provides for interest only on excess amount determined by the Arbitrator and contains no provision for interest where compensation is not paid or deposited before taking possession – Section 80 of the 2013 Act, being a more beneficial provision and forming part of compensation, applicable to acquisitions under the 1956 Act – Held: Petitioners entitled to interest on compensation originally determined by CALA also in terms of Section 80 of the 2013 Act [Para 9.3].

Parity Among Similarly Situated Landowners – Article 14 – Arbitrator relied upon earlier awards of the same village Tibber (dated 07.12.2023 and 28.08.2024) which had granted interest at 9% and 15% and had been acted upon by NHAI – Despite taking parity in market value from these awards, Arbitrator denied parity in interest without cogent justification – Such differential treatment of identically situated landowners is arbitrary and strikes at the mandate of Article 14 – Held: Arbitrator's failure to extend identical treatment constitutes a manifest error [Para 10].

Writ Jurisdiction – Maintainability – Alternative Remedy under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Remedy under Section 34 limited to setting aside the award; no power of modification – Relegation to Section 34 would be wholly inefficacious when the controversy is narrow and identically placed landowners have already obtained the same relief – Statutory arbitration under the 1956 Act involves arbitrators appointed by the Central Government, unlike consensual arbitration, warranting broader supervisory scrutiny – Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 being plenary, exercise thereof justified to remedy manifest arbitrariness and ensure just compensation – Rule of exhaustion of alternative remedies is one of convenience and discretion, not of law, and does not oust the Court's jurisdiction – Held: Writ petition maintainable [Paras 11–17].

Decision: Writ petition disposed of – Award dated 27.10.2025 modified to the extent that petitioners are entitled to interest at 9% per annum for the first year and 15% per annum thereafter on the enhanced amount from the date of possession in terms of Section 72 of the 2013 Act – Petitioners also entitled to interest on the amount originally determined by CALA in terms of Section 80 of the 2013 Act [Para 18].