Arbitration – Challenge to Arbitral Award – Vendor Agreement – Petitioner contended it was an assembler, not manufacturer, and that respondent was obligated to pay 100% advance – Arbitrator found petitioner responsible for non-delivery of goods and liable to refund part of advance with interest – Held: Findings based on appreciation of contract and evidence – No perversity or patent illegality – Petition dismissed [Paras 2–3, 10–12, 20–21]

Interpretation of Contract – Payment Terms and Procurement Obligations – Vendor Agreement required petitioner to procure components (five from vendors identified by respondent) and deliver finished switches – No contractual clause requiring 100% advance – Petitioner failed to supply full quantity under Purchase Order – Arbitrator’s interpretation that payment was due post-acceptance of goods found plausible – No interference warranted [Paras 7–9, 11–13]

Scope under Section 34 – Judicial Review of Arbitral Awards – Court reiterated narrow scope of interference under Section 34 – Arbitrator’s view must be respected if plausible and not perverse – Court not to sit in appeal or reappreciate evidence – Relied on Prakash Atlanta v. NHAI, Ramesh Kumar Jain v. BALCO, and Parsa Kente Collieries v. RRUVNL [Paras 19.1–19.3]

Contractual Interpretation – Entire Agreement Clause – Clause 14.10 of Vendor Agreement did not nullify existing purchase orders but governed terms of performance – No merit in contention that PO stood extinguished [Para 15]

Arbitral Remedy – Back-to-Back Refund for Vendor-Identified Components – Arbitrator rightly noted that deficiencies in components from respondent’s identified vendors would attract refund only if vendor issued a back-to-back refund – No absolute liability of respondent for advance payment [Para 8.2, 16]

Decision: Petition under Section 34 dismissed – Arbitral award upheld – No perversity, patent illegality, or conflict with public policy found – Pending application also dismissed.

Criminal Law – Murder – Conviction under Section 302/149 IPC – Unlawful Assembly – Appellant Sanwarey convicted for murder along with other co-accused – Role attributed to appellant was assault with lathi – Knife blows attributed to co-accused – Held: Once common object to commit murder is established, individual role or nature of weapon used by each accused is immaterial – Vicarious liability under Section 149 IPC squarely attracted [Paras 49–55].

Evidence – Eyewitness Testimony – Minor Contradictions – PW-2 (wife of deceased) and PW-3, PW-4 eyewitnesses consistently named accused – Minor discrepancies regarding exact role or manner of assault held natural and inconsequential – Held: Trivial contradictions do not corrode the core of prosecution case – Evidence inspires confidence and has ring of truth [Paras 35–40].

Evidence – Related / Interested Witness – Wife of Deceased – PW-2 being wife of deceased cannot be treated as “interested witness” merely due to relationship – She was natural and most probable eyewitness – No reason to falsely implicate accused while shielding real offenders – Testimony reliable [Paras 37–40].

Criminal Trial – Defective Investigation – Effect – Non-preparation of memo of torch and discrepancies in FSL report regarding bloodstains – Held: Lapses or defects in investigation by themselves do not entitle accused to acquittal – Court required to evaluate evidence dehors such lapses – Prosecution case otherwise proved beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 42–48].

Evidence – Identification of Accused – Night Occurrence – Moonlit Night – Witnesses acquainted with accused who were relatives and co-villagers – Identification possible even in low light from features, voice and familiarity – Held: Plea of insufficient light rejected [Paras 57–60].

Medical Evidence – Corroboration – Post-mortem revealed multiple lacerated, punctured and blunt-force injuries – Doctor opined majority of injuries caused by blunt weapon like lathi – Medical evidence corroborated ocular testimony assigning lathi role to appellant – Strengthened prosecution case [Paras 50–51].

Criminal Law – Section 149 IPC – Scope – Presence in unlawful assembly with common object sufficient to fasten liability – Actual participation or infliction of fatal injury not mandatory – Constructive liability of every member affirmed [Paras 52–56].

Decision: Criminal Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence of life imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and sentence under Sections 147/148 IPC affirmed – Appellant Sanwarey directed to surrender to serve sentence – Bail bond cancelled – Trial Court judgment upheld.

Anticipatory Bail – Prevention of Money Laundering – Organized Cyber Frauds – Petitioners alleged to be key operatives in third and second layers of laundering network – Large-scale layering of proceeds of crime through hundreds of mule accounts, conversion to cryptocurrency, and uploading to UAE-based PYYPL platform – ED investigation revealed deep involvement of petitioners in managing over 30 entities and routing ₹65 crore through fraudulent transactions – Custodial interrogation sought by ED – Held: Petitioners played significant role in laundering – Bail denied [Paras 2–3, 5–9]

Twin Conditions under Section 45 PMLA – Applicability to Anticipatory Bail – Petitioners argued that mere dealing in cryptocurrency is not an offence and relied on parity with co-accused granted bail – Held: Bail cannot be granted unless both twin conditions under Section 45 are satisfied – Plea of parity misplaced as co-accused were granted regular bail post-custody – Section 45 applies fully to anticipatory bail as well – There are no reasonable grounds to believe accused are not guilty or unlikely to commit offences while on bail [Paras 3, 4, 14–15]

Continuing Investigation – Need for Custodial Interrogation – Investigation ongoing with new complaints emerging – Petitioners allegedly wiped digital evidence, assaulted ED officers, and paid bribes to local police – ED requires custody to trace further layering and involvement of banking officials – Held: Court cannot override investigative necessity for effective interrogation and evidence collection – Bail would risk destruction of crucial evidence [Paras 7, 10–13]

Economic Offences – Seriousness – Impact on Public Confidence and National Economy – Money laundering offences viewed as aggravated economic crimes with transnational dimensions – Held: Economic offences constitute a distinct class – Investigation must be allowed full play before grant of bail can be considered [Paras 4.4–4.5, 9.3–9.5]

Constitutional Rights vs. Investigative Interests – Petitioners relied on Article 21 for anticipatory bail – Held: Right to liberty under Article 21 must be balanced against public interest in effective investigation – Article 21 cannot be used to block necessary custodial interrogation [Paras 4.2, 10]

Decision: Both anticipatory bail applications dismissed – Petitioners failed to satisfy the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA – Custodial interrogation found necessary due to serious nature of allegations and risk of evidence tampering – No protection from arrest granted.

Criminal Law – Kidnapping and Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault – Conviction under Section 366 IPC and Section 6(1) POCSO Act – Victim allegedly aged 17 years and 10 months – Trial Court convicted A1 while acquitting A2 – On appeal, High Court found serious infirmities in prosecution case – Held: Conviction unsustainable [Paras 1–2, 13–14].

Evidence – Proof of Age of Victim – Essential Requirement under POCSO Act – Prosecution relied on school certificate issued by Headmaster (PW8) – PW8 admitted that birth certificate and admission register were not verified before issuing certificate – Victim admittedly studying in college at relevant time – No matriculation certificate, birth certificate or college records produced – Held: Prosecution failed to establish age of victim in manner known to law – Benefit of doubt must go to accused [Paras 8–9, 13].

Delay in Lodging FIR – FIR lodged nearly two months after alleged occurrence – Victim claimed she informed her mother on same day – Mother (PW11) gave contradictory version regarding disclosure and complaint – No satisfactory explanation for delay – Delay coupled with contradictions created serious doubt about prosecution story [Paras 10–11].

Consent – Consensual Relationship – Evidence of victim revealed long-standing love affair of about two years – Victim admitted accompanying appellant voluntarily and refusing to return with grandmother – Conduct inconsistent with allegation of forcible kidnapping and sexual assault – Held: Evidence indicates consensual relationship which later turned sour – Prosecution version unreliable [Paras 7, 12].

Benefit of Doubt – Failure to Prove Date of Birth and Date of Occurrence – Serious inconsistencies between testimony of victim and her mother – Possibility of false projection of age and occurrence to attract POCSO provisions – Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Accused entitled to acquittal [Paras 11–13].

Decision: Criminal Appeal allowed – Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 22.02.2023 in Spl.SC.No.37 of 2020 set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges under IPC and POCSO Act – Fine amount, if paid, to be refunded – Bail bond discharged.

Indian Succession Act – Succession Certificate – Christian Intestate – Deceased leaving widow and lineal descendants – Trial Court refused certificate on ground that mother of deceased is also legal heir – Held, erroneous – Under Sections 32 and 33, where intestate is survived by widow and lineal descendants, mother does not inherit – Estate devolves upon widow and children – Refusal of succession certificate unsustainable in law [Paras 6-7].

Indian Succession Act – Distribution of Estate – Section 33 – Intestate leaving widow and lineal descendants – One-third of property to widow and remaining two-thirds to lineal descendants – Mother excluded when direct lineal descendants exist – Trial Court misconstrued statutory scheme – Impugned order liable to be set aside [Paras 6-7].

Succession Certificate – Shares in Company – No nomination – Requirement of certificate by company for transmission – Appellants, being widow and sons of deceased, entitled to seek certificate under Section 372 – Dismissal despite prima facie entitlement improper – Appellate Court directed issuance of certificate within specified time [Paras 3, 8].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order dated 08.11.2019 in P & S.C. No.532/2018 set aside – Trial Court directed to grant succession certificate in favour of appellants forthwith in accordance with law.

Plaint – Rejection of Plaint – Under-valuation – Advanced Stage of Trial – Application filed after examination of defence witness (DW.4) – Defendant sought rejection of plaint alleging that suit property was undervalued based on evidence of Sub-Registrar official regarding sale value of nearby properties – Trial Court dismissed the application holding that under-valuation was not substantiated and application was belated – Held: Evidence of DW.4 only indicated approximate value including land and building and did not conclusively establish market value of land alone – Valuation of construction varies depending on quality and age of building – No definite conclusion of under-valuation possible on such evidence – Disputed question of fact involved, requiring detailed enquiry – Rejection of plaint at such stage not warranted – No illegality or irregularity in impugned order [Paras 2–7].

Civil Procedure – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Scope – Though application for rejection of plaint can be filed at any stage before disposal of suit – When plea involves disputed facts relating to valuation and requires evidence, plaint cannot be rejected summarily – Proper course is framing of issue and trial on valuation, if sought – Liberty granted to defendant to seek framing of issue on valuation before Trial Court [Paras 7–8].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition dismissed – Impugned order dated 11.11.2025 upheld – Liberty granted to petitioner to apply before Trial Court for framing an issue on valuation of plaint – No costs – Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition closed.

Land Acquisition – Determination of Market Value – Uniformity and Parity – Lands acquired for establishment of Government Cement Factory under TANCEM – Reference Court enhanced compensation from Rs.200/- per cent to Rs.1,200/- per cent – Acquiring authority challenged enhancement as excessive – Held: Subsequent common judgment of High Court in appeals arising from same acquisition fixed market value at Rs.1,500/- per cent – Principle of parity requires uniform compensation to all landowners – Lower rate cannot be sustained [Paras 3, 6–9].

Land Acquisition – Effect of Subsequent Judgments – Binding Nature – Common judgment dated 29.01.2024 in A.S. No.916 of 2019 and connected cases enhanced compensation to Rs.1,500/- per cent – Followed by later orders recording TANCEM’s resolution to uniformly pay compensation at said rate – Held: Issues relating to comparability of sales, belt system and valuation stand concluded and cannot be reopened [Paras 6–9].

Land Acquisition – Development Deduction – Industrial / Mining Purpose – Acquisition not for housing layout but for industrial and mining activity – Subsequent batch decisions fixed flat rate without development deduction – Held: No deduction towards development charges warranted – Any deduction would disturb settled uniformity [Para 10].

Land Acquisition – Statutory Benefits – Entitlement on Enhanced Compensation – Claimant entitled to additional amount, solatium and interest under Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act on enhanced market value – Direction to deposit balance compensation within stipulated time [Paras 11–12].

Decision: Appeal dismissed on merits – Award of Reference Court modified by enhancing market value from Rs.1,200/- per cent to Rs.1,500/- per cent – No deduction towards development charges – Claimant entitled to statutory benefits under Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act – Acquiring authority directed to deposit balance compensation within eight weeks – No costs – Connected miscellaneous petition closed.

Trade Union Recognition – Statutory Mechanism – West Bengal Amendment Act, 1983 – Writ Petition Not Maintainable – Petitioner union sought recognition as constituent of joint bargaining council and derecognition of rival union – Held: Recognition of trade unions and disputes regarding legality of registration are exclusively governed by Sections 28A/28B and Section 7 of the Trade Unions Act – Proper authority is Registrar of Trade Unions – Writ petition dismissed for non-availment of statutory remedy [Paras 20–27].

Writ of Mandamus – Absence of Enforceable Legal Right – Recognition of Trade Union Not a Fundamental or Legal Right Enforceable in Writ Jurisdiction – Employer is a private entity not discharging public duty – Relief seeking direction for recognition by private employer impermissible under Article 226 [Paras 11, 18–19, 22].

Alternate Remedy – Doctrine of Exhaustion – Petitioner failed to approach Registrar of Trade Unions (Respondent No.5) for recognition or challenge to alleged illegal registration of rival union – Held: When statute provides complete machinery, writ court should not be invoked in the first instance [Paras 21–26].

Trade Unions Act – Section 7 – Identical or Deceptively Similar Names – Jurisdiction of Registrar – Allegation that two unions registered with identical names – Held: Issue squarely falls within powers of Registrar of Trade Unions – High Court declined to adjudicate in writ jurisdiction [Paras 24–25].

Industrial Relations – Inter-union Rivalry – Not Amenable to Writ Jurisdiction – Disputes relating to membership strength, recognition and bargaining rights between rival unions are matters for statutory authorities and industrial adjudication – Not for determination under Article 226 [Paras 15, 18–19].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed as not maintainable – Liberty implied to petitioner to approach Registrar of Trade Unions for appropriate relief under the Trade Unions Act and the West Bengal Amendment Act – Interim orders vacated – Connected applications disposed of.

Bail – Corruption Case – Advocate Accused of Influencing Judiciary – Rejection of Bail – Petitioner, an Advocate practicing before the High Court, sought regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in FIR registered by CBI for demanding ₹30 lakhs as illegal gratification for securing a favourable judicial order in a matrimonial dispute – Allegation that petitioner claimed personal influence over a judicial officer and accepted part bribe through co-accused – Held: Bail declined in view of gravity of allegations and prima facie material [Paras 1–2, 8–9].

Prevention of Corruption Act – Section 7A – Applicability to Non-Public Servant – Contention that petitioner is not a public servant rejected – Section 7A covers any person who accepts or obtains undue advantage to influence a public servant by corrupt or illegal means – Prima facie applicability of provision established at bail stage [Para 8].

Bail Jurisprudence – Parameters Reiterated – While deciding bail, Court must consider prima facie involvement, nature and gravity of offence, severity of punishment, likelihood of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, antecedents and impact on administration of justice – Corruption offences, particularly those affecting institutional integrity, require a cautious and stringent approach [Paras 7–8].

Corruption Affecting Judicial Process – Seriousness Emphasised – Allegations of bribery by an advocate to influence judicial outcome strike at the core of public confidence in justice delivery system – Such acts treated as grave threat to sanctity of judiciary – Professional standing or age cannot dilute seriousness of offence [Paras 6, 8, 8.1].

Investigation Completed – Custody Period – Not Sole Ground for Bail – Filing of challan and custody of about 5½ months for offence punishable up to seven years considered but held not decisive – These factors cannot outweigh gravity and societal impact of allegations [Para 8.1].

Medical Grounds – Not Established – Medical assessment did not reveal any condition warranting bail on health grounds – Rejection of bail by Special Judge, CBI, found justified in absence of change in circumstances [Para 8].

Antecedents – Relevant Consideration – Pendency of another FIR under NDPS Act and IPC against petitioner taken into account while declining bail [Para 9].

Decision: Bail application dismissed – Liberty granted to petitioner to apply afresh for regular bail after examination of complainant and victim witnesses – Observations confined to bail adjudication and not to affect merits of trial.