Arbitration Law - Arbitral Award – Hearsay Evidence – Rejection of Admitted Documents – Award Set Aside – Arbitral award allowed Respondent’s claim for refund due to allegedly defective packaging – Petitioner contended that the arbitrator relied on hearsay evidence from an expert witness (CW-2), and disregarded two SGS India lab reports that showed no odour or defect in the packaging – Held: Arbitrator wrongly disregarded admitted contemporaneous evidence in the form of SGS India reports and instead relied on CW-2’s report, based on hearsay statements from Respondent's staff in 2016 about goods received in 2013 – Such reliance constitutes a gross procedural error and offends basic notions of justice – Award shocks the conscience of the Court and is liable to be set aside under Section 34(2)(b)(ii) of the Arbitration Act [Paras 34–40, 47].

Public Policy – Section 34(2)(b)(ii) Arbitration Act – Violation of Basic Notions of Justice – The rejection of reliable and admitted laboratory evidence, coupled with acceptance of uncorroborated hearsay testimony, amounted to a breach of public policy and justice – The Award conflicts with Explanation 1(iii) to Section 34(2)(b)(ii) as it offends the most basic notions of fairness, reliability, and adjudicative reasoning – Held: The conduct of the arbitrator fell foul of judicial standards and vitiated the award [Paras 44–47].

Admissibility and Evidentiary Value – Marking of Documents and Cross-examination – Arbitrator erred in holding that SGS India reports had no evidentiary value for lack of author testimony, despite both parties having marked and admitted the documents – Court held that contemporaneous lab reports should have been preferred over retrospective hearsay-based expert opinion – No obligation on Petitioner to cross-examine when burden of proof not met by Respondent [Paras 36–43].

Decision – Commercial Arbitration Petition allowed – Arbitral Award dated 02/12/2019 set aside – Deposit of USD 165,000 made pursuant to earlier court order permitted to be withdrawn by Petitioner after 4 weeks [Paras 48–52].

Tax Settlement Scheme – Appeal dismissed as non-maintainable after specified date – Assessee held eligible under DTVSV Scheme, 2024 as appeal was pending on 22.07.2024 – Rejection of declaration quashed.

Income Tax – Eligibility under DTVSV Scheme – Appeal pending on specified date but later held non-maintainable – Declaration rejection quashed – Appeal was pending as on 22.07.2024 and hence taxpayer was eligible under Scheme despite subsequent dismissal as non-maintainable – Rejection of declaration on ground of invalidity of appeal not justified [Paras 6–25].

Scheme Interpretation – Applicability of CBDT FAQ No.36 – Circulars binding – Clarifies eligibility even if appeal disposed on merits or dismissed as withdrawn after specified date – Held: FAQ No.36 clarifies scheme covers such cases – Appeal treated as pending on 22.07.2024 [Paras 10–14, 23].

Binding Precedents – Prior decisions on similar schemes applicable – Tushar Agro Chemicals and Atul Roshanlal Gupta relied – Appeals, even if incompetent or irregular, held to be pending for purpose of benefit under tax settlement schemes [Paras 21–22].

Administrative Law – Rejection of benefit on hyper-technical ground – Not permissible when scheme intends to resolve disputes – Reiterated that interpretation should align with object of the scheme to reduce litigation and promote compliance [Paras 21, 23–24].

Decision – Impugned rejection communication dated 11.04.2025 quashed – Respondent directed to process declaration in accordance with DTVSV Scheme, 2024 – Petition allowed [Paras 24–25].

Criminal Revision – Revisional Jurisdiction – Sections 397 & 401 CrPC – Scope of interference is extremely limited – Revisional Court cannot act as appellate forum or reappreciate evidence – Interference only if order of trial court is grossly erroneous, perverse, or without material – Framing of charge is an interlocutory/intermediate order not to be quashed except in rare cases [Paras 7–11, 15].

Framing of Charge – Prima facie case – Sections 227 & 228 CrPC – At discharge stage, court assumes prosecution material to be true – If grave suspicion arises, charges to be framed – Defence contentions and contradictions in witness statements cannot be considered at this stage – No mini trial permissible [Paras 7–12, 17].

Municipal and Fire Officers – Liability for Illegal Omission – Sections 33, 36, 304, 308, 337, 338 IPC – Town Planning and Fire Officers aware of unauthorized TRP Game Zone construction without Fire NOC – Despite notices under Section 260 GPMC Act and earlier fire incident, failed to act – Their omissions and dereliction facilitated circumstances leading to fire causing 27 deaths – Prima facie case for culpable homicide not amounting to murder and allied offences made out [Paras 4.2–4.4, 12–16].

Forgery & Conspiracy – Sections 464, 465, 466, 471, 474, 201, 120B IPC – Allegations of backdating, falsifying, and destroying official registers in Town Planning Office to cover up illegal construction – Witness statements under Section 161 CrPC indicate connivance of officials – Sufficient prima facie material to frame charges for forgery, fabrication of records, destruction of evidence and criminal conspiracy [Paras 1.9–1.11, 13–15].

Contentions of Applicants – Innocence and lack of nexus – Applicants (Assistant Engineer, Town Planning and Fire Station Officer) contended that duties were limited, higher officials responsible, no direct nexus with deaths, and at most Section 304A attracted – Held: At charge stage, defence and probative value of evidence cannot be assessed; material discloses grave suspicion sufficient for trial [Paras 1.2–1.8, 1.12–1.13, 16–17].

Decision – Both Criminal Revision Applications (Nos.1216 & 1365 of 2025) dismissed – Orders framing charges in Sessions Case No.169 of 2024 upheld – No interference warranted in revisional jurisdiction – Trial to proceed [Para 18–19].

Civil Writ - Paddy Land – Classification Error – Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 – Rejection of Form 5 application without inspection/satellite images – Order Quashed – Petitioner’s land wrongly included in data bank as “paddy land”—Authorised officer dismissed exclusion application mechanically based only on Agricultural Officer’s report—Held: Officer failed to comply with statutory mandate of Rule 4(4f); non-application of mind—Impugned order quashed and matter remitted for fresh consideration with mandatory inspection/satellite verification – Writ petition allowed [Paras 3–5].

Administrative Law – Duty to Record Findings – Failure amounts to arbitrariness – Authorised officer must independently determine nature and character of land as on 12.08.2008 and whether exclusion prejudices surrounding fields – Absence of such findings renders order unsustainable [Para 5].

Decision – Ext.P5 order dated 21.06.2024 quashed – RDO directed to reconsider petitioner’s application under Rule 4(4d), with personal inspection or satellite images—Fresh decision within two months (inspection) or three months (satellite images) – Writ petition allowed [Operative Part].

Service Law – Regularization of Long-serving Employees – Denial on Ground of No Sanctioned Posts – Arbitrary and Unconstitutional – Petitioners appointed in 1995 onwards, repeatedly litigated; co-worker Vir Bahadur regularized – Respondents denied petitioners’ regularization citing absence of sanctioned posts – Court held plea unsustainable; reliance on Umadevi misplaced – Continuous exploitation through ad hocism violates Articles 14, 16, 21 – Services directed to be regularized within six weeks; failing which deemed regularization with full benefits – Writ allowed [Paras 5–10, 18].

Constitutional Mandate – State as Model Employer – Court condemned “perennial ad hocism” in public employment; financial constraints or lack of sanctioned posts cannot justify decades-long denial of regularization where work is perennial – State duty-bound to create posts and budgetary provisions; exploitation under guise of outsourcing or casualization unconstitutional [Paras 6–9, 11–12].

Judicial Directives – Enforcement of Court Orders – Administrative Indifference – Court expressed concern over habitual delays and bureaucratic non-compliance with judicial mandates – Laid down parameters: accountability of officers, statutory timelines, monitoring cells, digital transparency, grievance redressal, training, and appraisal linkage – Warning of contempt under Article 215 if directions flouted [Paras 13–17, 19].

Decision – Petition allowed – Respondent-Corporation directed to regularize services of petitioners within six weeks, else deemed regularized with arrears, seniority, and parity benefits as granted to Vir Bahadur – Copy sent to Chief Secretaries of Punjab, Haryana and U.T. Chandigarh for litigation policy reforms [Paras 18–21].

Murder  – Section 302/149 IPC – Eyewitness Testimony and Medical Evidence – Benefit of Doubt – Prosecution alleged deceased Charan Singh was shot dead while ploughing a field; FIR lodged promptly—Trial Court convicted appellants—On appeal, contradictions noted: direction of gunshot injuries inconsistent with claim that deceased was seated on tractor, unexplained incised injuries, absence of upward trajectory wounds, no empty cartridges recovered, no marks of firing on tractor—Conduct of eyewitnesses (all close relatives) in not touching body found unnatural—Held: Presence of eyewitnesses doubtful, corroboration lacking, and possibility of alternative assailants (enmity with one Mohan Lal earlier convicted for father’s murder) cannot be ruled out—Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt—Conviction set aside; appellant acquitted [Paras 31-46].

Eyewitness Testimony – Related/Interested Witness – Judicial Approach – Court reiterated that evidence of related witnesses cannot be discarded merely for being partisan; requires cautious scrutiny—However, in present case, inconsistencies between ocular and medical evidence, doubtful presence at scene, and unnatural conduct of witnesses made their testimony unreliable—Outcome: Evidence insufficient to sustain conviction [Paras 30-35].

Recovery of Weapon – Absence of Forensic Support – No firearms recovered from accused, no empty cartridges from scene, no blood trail corroborating prosecution version—These omissions further weakened prosecution case—Benefit of doubt extended to appellant [Paras 36, 40].

Defence Version – Alternative Hypothesis of Guilt – Evidence showed deceased had old enmity with family of Mohan Lal (convicted for father’s murder, later released)—Court held possibility that offence committed by others could not be ruled out—Strengthened appellant’s defence [Paras 45-46].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Conviction and sentence of surviving appellant Suresh under Sections 302/149 and 148 IPC set aside—Acquitted giving benefit of doubt—If on bail, need not surrender; bail bonds cancelled, sureties discharged [Paras 47-49].

Murder – Conviction under Section 302/34 IPC based on credible eyewitness testimony of related witnesses – Conviction upheld; appeal dismissed [Paras 2–4, 27–33].

Criminal Appeal – Murder in Furtherance of Common Intention – Conviction Upheld – High Court affirmed conviction under Section 302/34 IPC where appellant fired on deceased during marriage function – Eyewitness account of father and brother found reliable – Delay in trial due to absconding not fatal – Appeal dismissed [Paras 2–4, 27–33].

Identification of Accused – Kaushal @ Alok Chauhan – Identity Dispute Rejected – Appellant’s claim that he was misidentified as “Kaushal” refuted based on consistent reference to both names in investigation and local familiarity – Dock identification and corroborating testimony confirmed involvement [Paras 7, 25, 28–30].

Evidence – Related Witness – Trustworthiness Affirmed – Father and brother of deceased found to be natural and probable witnesses – Prompt FIR, consistent testimony, and their presence at the event established – Held: Related witness evidence cannot be discarded if trustworthy [Paras 18, 26, 30].

Medical and Documentary Evidence – Post-Mortem, FIR, and Site Plan Corroborated Ocular Testimony – Timely FIR and inquest, wound characteristics consistent with close-range firearm use – Trial court’s factual findings based on coherent chain of evidence upheld [Paras 20–24].

Plea for Reduction of Offence – Section 302 vs. Section 304 IPC – Rejected – Argument that death was unintentional or accidental found baseless – Court held accused fired intentionally knowing consequences – No grounds to convert conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder [Paras 31–32].

Appellate Interference – Scope of Section 386 CrPC – No Perverse Finding – Where trial court’s view is plausible and supported by evidence, appellate court must refrain from interference – Conviction legally sustainable [Paras 11–13].

Decision – Conviction Under Section 302/34 IPC Affirmed – Appeal Dismissed – Appellant directed to surrender and serve remaining sentence – Bail bonds forfeited [Para 33].

Criminal Law - Bail Cancellation – Section 528 BNSS – Order Cancelling Bail and Issuing NBWs Quashed – Petitioner’s bail was cancelled and NBWs issued for non-appearance – On the date in question, case was adjourned for reply to Sec. 239 Cr.P.C. application and no substantial proceedings were fixed – Held: mere absence on such date without intent to hamper trial does not justify punitive cancellation – Impugned order set aside – Bail restored [Paras 4, 7-8].

Exemption from Appearance – Judicial Discretion – Out of six hearings, petitioner absent on three – Held: occasional exemptions do not establish wilful attempt to evade trial – Trial Court ought to have granted exemption instead of imposing drastic measure of bail cancellation [Paras 4, 7].

Object of Bail – Ensuring Presence vs. Punishment – Court reiterates that bail is to secure appearance during trial and not punitive – Cancellation permissible only on recording cogent satisfaction of wilful evasion – Absence in procedural hearing not sufficient ground [Paras 6-7].

Judicial Approach – NBWs and Bail Cancellation – Caution Against Mechanical Orders – Following Sahib Singh @ Saab Singh v. State of Punjab (2025), Courts must adopt non-bailable warrants sparingly and only upon recording necessity – Punitive approach inconsistent with bail jurisprudence [Paras 6-7].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Bail cancellation and NBWs quashed – Petitioner directed to appear before trial Court within 15 days and furnish bail bonds – On failure, benefit of bail to lapse automatically [Para 8].

Real Estate Regulation – Interest for Delay – Section 18(1)(a) RERA – Interest is Automatic – Tribunal justified in awarding interest for delay in possession without inquiry – Delay in possession admitted by promoter – Interest for period 01.01.2020 to 13.10.2022 rightly granted at MCLR + 1% – Held: Section 18(1)(a) is mandatory in nature and operates without need for further adjudication where delay is established – Interpretation of phrase “as the case may be” limited to eventualities within Section 18 itself [Paras 25–32].

Appellate Tribunal Powers – Jurisdiction under Sections 44(6) and 53 – Tribunal Not Bound by CPC – Tribunal has power to grant appropriate relief including awarding interest – Held: Tribunal rightly exercised powers to modify Adjudicating Officer’s order and award interest instead of compensation – Exercise of power in conformity with object of Act and guided by principles of natural justice [Paras 26–32].

Statutory Pre-Deposit – Section 43(5) RERA – Appropriation Valid – Pre-deposit can be appropriated toward interest payable to allottee – Held: Pre-deposit is not merely procedural but represents part payment of liability – Tribunal rightly directed release of amount to allottee after verification – Refund permissible only if amount exceeds liability [Paras 33–38].

Maintainability of Appeal – Challenge to Interest on Admitted Delay – Appeal Not Maintainable – No substantial question of law involved – Held: Where facts such as date of agreement, delay, and possession are undisputed, Tribunal’s award of interest cannot be challenged under Section 58 read with Section 100 CPC – Appeal lies only on substantial question of law – Admission of delay precludes challenge [Paras 39–43].

Final Decision – All Appeals Dismissed – Promoter’s appeals dismissed for lack of merit – Allottee’s appeal also dismissed due to absence of arguments for compensation – Held: Tribunal's orders justified in law and fact – No substantial question of law arises [Para 43].