Arbitration Law - Section 9 Arbitration Act – Maintainability Post Final Award – Petition Maintainable – Final Award Passed After Hearing Closed - Court held that merely because the final award was passed after the Section 9 petition was argued and reserved, the reliefs sought did not become infructuous – Reliefs under Section 9 may extend until enforcement of the award, especially where enforcement was pending – Petition under Section 9 upheld as maintainable [Paras 8(e)(iii)-(iv), 36].

Emergency Arbitrator Award – Not Directly Enforceable – But Can Be Considered for Section 9 Relief – Court Clarifies Scope - While Emergency Award under SIAC Rules is not directly enforceable under the Act, it can be relied upon to support a Section 9 interim relief application – Reliance placed on Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC – Held: Respondents rightly relied on Emergency Arbitrator’s award as a factor, not for enforcement [Paras 7(c), 8(b), 23-24].

Interim Measures – Order 38 Rule 5 CPC Compliance – Not Mandatory in Arbitration Proceedings – Discretionary Relief Justified - Court held that though technical compliance with Order 38 Rule 5 CPC is not mandatory, interim relief can be granted if a strong prima facie case and balance of convenience are shown – Respondents had established urgency and likelihood of asset dissipation – Decision in Essar House and Sepco Electric Power followed [Paras 8(c)(ii)-(iv), 26-28].

Obstructionist Conduct – Relevant but Not Sole Basis for Relief – Conduct Evaluated Holistically - The appellants’ delays in complying with Cost Award, valuation challenges, and failure to furnish bank guarantee were held as part of obstructive conduct – However, Court clarified that “obstructionist conduct” was not the sole basis for relief; it was one of several relevant considerations [Paras 8(d)(iii)-(iv), 31-33].

Scope of Appellate Interference – Section 37 Arbitration Act – Limited Jurisdiction – No Interference Warranted - Appellate Court reiterated limited scope under Section 37—interference only when findings are arbitrary, capricious, or perverse – Since the learned Single Judge’s order was based on valid reasoning and discretion, appeals dismissed [Paras 8(a), 9].

*Decision – Commercial Arbitration Appeals Dismissed – Interim Relief Upheld – No Interference under Section 37 – High Court affirmed the interim order requiring appellants to furnish ₹145 crore security and disclose assets – Relief granted under Section 9 based on multiple factors including Emergency Award, obstructive conduct, and risk of defeating award – Final Award’s passage during pendency did not affect maintainability [Paras 9-10].
 

Civil Law – Declaration, Joint Possession, and Permanent Injunction – Plaintiffs (respondents) filed a suit against petitioners (defendants) challenging sale deeds and claiming joint possession and injunction over ancestral property – Plaintiffs, daughters of Paramvir Singh, alleged that the property was joint Hindu family property and the sale deeds executed by their brother Sukhjinder Singh were illegal – Trial Court dismissed the defendants’ application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint, holding that plaintiffs need not pay ad valorem court fee as they were not executants of the sale deeds and claimed to be in possession [Paras 2-3].

Court Fees – Applicability of Ad Valorem and Fixed Court Fee – Defendants contended that since plaintiffs sought joint possession, court fee on market value under Section 7(iv)(c) and 7(v) of the Court Fees Act was payable – Trial Court held plaintiffs were in possession and no such court fee was needed – High Court noted that plaintiffs had cleverly drafted the plaint to appear in possession while also seeking joint possession relief – Held: Court fee under Section 7(iv)(c) and 7(v) is indeed payable, dominant relief being joint possession and not mere declaration or cancellation of sale deeds [Paras 9-11].

Maintainability of Revision Petition – Plaintiffs argued that the question of court fee was between plaintiffs and the State and not maintainable under revision by defendants – High Court clarified that the revision was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and not under Section 115 CPC – Held: Revision is maintainable, defendants have the right to challenge the order passed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC [Para 8].

Decision: Revision petition allowed – Impugned order dated 03.12.2024 set aside – Plaintiffs directed to pay court fee as per Section 7(iv)(c) and 7(v) of the Court Fees Act within six weeks if not already paid – Pending applications disposed of [Para 11].
 

Industrial Dispute – Reference by Appropriate Government – Reference Held Defective – The court held that while referring the industrial dispute, the Appropriate Government worded the reference in a manner suggesting a pre-declared conclusion that the contract system is “sham and bogus” – This prejudiced the adjudication and restricted the Industrial Tribunal from independently deciding the existence and validity of the contract – Held: Reference suffers from a material infirmity and is liable to be set aside [Paras 15-20].

Binding Settlements – Effect of Existing Long-Term Settlements – Validity Unaffected – The existence of prior settlements under Sections 12(3) and 2(p) of the I.D. Act between the contractors and the unions, which were not challenged earlier, cannot operate as an absolute bar to raising a fresh dispute – However, the factual existence of such settlements is relevant for the tribunal in deciding the sham contract issue and entitlement to benefits – Held: Previous settlements alone cannot preclude adjudication if a dispute exists [Paras 9.3-10.4].

Scope of Tribunal’s Jurisdiction – Limited by Order of Reference – Tribunal Cannot Go Beyond the Reference – The Court reiterated that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is confined to the points specifically referred and matters incidental thereto – A reference which pre-supposes the outcome of disputed facts like the existence of sham contracts is legally unsustainable – Such determination must be left open for full adjudication by the Tribunal based on evidence [Paras 18-20].

Employer-Employee Relationship – To Be Determined by Tribunal – The Court clarified that whether the contract system is genuine or sham and whether the workers are employees of the petitioner or the contractors is a pure question of fact and cannot be predetermined by the Appropriate Government – The Tribunal is the competent authority to decide this issue after trial [Paras 17-18].

Final Decision – Reference Order Set Aside – The Court quashed the impugned reference orders passed on 18.05.2024 and 24.05.2024 – Directed the Appropriate Government to re-frame the reference terms properly without pre-judging the issue within 45 days – Writ Petitions disposed accordingly [Paras 20-22].

Custom Law - Export Consignment Detention – Delay in Seizure Memo – Customs Act – Violation of Procedural Safeguards - Petitioner’s export goods detained since 13.01.2025 without seizure memo or panchanama – Court held that such detention without formal seizure for over two months was unjustified – Detention in violation of CBEC Circulars mandating action within three days and timely provisional release [Paras 2-10].

Circular Compliance – CBIC Instructions Ignored – Provisional Release Required – Court referred to Circular No. 30/2013 reaffirming obligation to expedite export clearance and avoid prolonged detention unless prohibited goods – Court found that CBEC instructions were disregarded by Customs authorities despite multiple letters from exporter [Paras 6, 13, 16].

Customs Investigation – Initiation Only After Filing Writ – Unjustified Delay – Held that the Customs Department took action such as issuance of seizure memo and summons only after writ petition was filed – Delay termed impermissible and prejudicial to exporter’s rights – Summons dated 25.03.2025 indicated belated inquiry [Paras 10, 14-15].

Duty Drawback Fraud Allegation – Grounds for Detention Must Be Substantiated – Customs claimed suspicion of overvaluation to claim unlawful duty drawback – Court held that proper procedural steps must be taken if such suspicion exists, but detention cannot be indefinite or without formal orders [Paras 11-12].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Customs Directed to Provisionally Release Goods – Court ordered Customs to decide and provisionally release goods within 7 days, subject to appropriate conditions – Petitioner directed to appear on 27.03.2025 with documents sought in summons – Writ petition disposed of accordingly [Paras 17-19].

Land Acquisition – Apportionment Dispute – Collector’s Refusal to Refer Case – Quashed – Petitioner Claimed Share in Ancestral Property - The petitioner, asserting a claim through lineage from a common ancestor, challenged the Sub-Divisional Officer’s order disbursing ₹34 crore compensation without referring the apportionment dispute to the authority under Section 35 MIDC Act – Held: Petitioner’s interest could not be dismissed as frivolous merely due to lack of interim relief or absence in revenue records [Paras 5, 20-22, 41-44].

Section 35 MIDC Act – Discretionary Power to Refer Disputes – Not Absolute – Collector Must Refer Disputes in Case of Competing Claims – The High Court held that while Section 35 uses the term “may,” discretion must be exercised judiciously—if a genuine apportionment dispute exists, Collector is obliged to refer – Decision of SDO in refusing reference without proper consideration of rival claims held to be perverse [Paras 38-40, 44-45].

Judicial Function of Apportionment – SDO Not Competent to Decide Complex Ownership Issues – Reference Mandatory - Referring to Vinod Kumar v. District Magistrate and Rukminibai v. Krishnath, the Court reiterated that apportionment involves valuation of extinguished interests and must be decided by a judicial authority, not by revenue officers or the Collector/SDO [Paras 30-35, 37-39].

Revenue Records – Not Determinative of Title – Premature Disbursal Based on Survey Entries Invalid – SDO Erred - Court held SDO placed undue emphasis on names in revenue records and absence of injunction from civil suit—this approach ignored the genealogical linkage and pending partition suit, which established at least a prima facie claim [Paras 43, 44].

Direction to Refer – Writ of Mandamus Issued – Authority to Decide Apportionment – SDO Directed to Transfer Funds - Court directed the SDO to refer the apportionment dispute to the designated authority under Section 35 of MIDC Act within one month and deposit the compensation amount along with accrued interest—authority to decide entitlement of each party in accordance with law [Paras 55-57].

Decision – Writ Petitions Allowed – SDO’s Order Set Aside – Apportionment Dispute to Be Referred to Competent Authority – High Court held refusal to refer dispute was based on irrelevant considerations—directed SDO to forward compensation amount to authority for adjudication and equitable apportionment—Rule made absolute [Paras 55-60].

Civil Law - Review Jurisdiction – Error Apparent on Record – Not Made Out – Review Rejected – Applicant (Assessee) sought review of earlier judgment alleging failure to consider seizure of documents and resultant delay in filing return under Section 139 – Court held: No error apparent on face of record; ITR being “non-est” was merely an obiter, not a conclusive finding – Review dismissed [Paras 6–14, 17–18].
Block Assessment vs. Regular Assessment – Allegation of Double Taxation – Issue to be Examined in Appeal – Court clarified that interplay between block and regular assessment proceedings and alleged double taxation may be examined in statutory appeal but not a ground for review – Held: Review cannot be used to revisit findings already rendered [Paras 13, 16–17].
Substantial Question of Law – Left Open for Tribunal Post-Remand – Not Ground for Review – Review applicant argued that Court failed to answer the admitted substantial question of law – Held: Since matter was remanded, Tribunal had jurisdiction to reconsider factual and legal issues – Non-answering does not vitiate original judgment [Para 16].
Scope of Review – Cannot Substitute or Rehear Merits – Principles Reiterated – Detailed discussion of precedent including Lily Thomas, Shanti Conductors, Parison Devi, and Murali Sundaram – Held: Review is not an appeal in disguise – Only a patent error justifies intervention; none found here [Paras 6–12].
Decision: Review application dismissed – No error apparent on record found in judgment dated 16.05.2014 – Observations regarding ITR being “non-est” clarified as obiter – Connected statutory appeal to proceed independently – No costs [Paras 17–18].
 

Civil Law – Mortgage by Conditional Sale – Redemption – Appellant filed a suit for redemption of mortgage and possession of land mortgaged by his father – Trial court and First Appellate Court dismissed the suit treating the document (Ex.P/1) as an absolute sale deed – High Court held that Ex.P/1 is a "Shartiya Farokhtnama" i.e., mortgage by conditional sale – Substantial question of limitation resolved in favor of appellant as redemption period is 30 years under Article 61(a) of Limitation Act – Suit filed within limitation – Appellant being Karta of Hindu Undivided Family is competent to file suit alone without impleading other heirs – Estoppel under Section 115 of Evidence Act not applicable [Paras 1-40].

Mortgage Deed – Nature of Document – Courts below erred in construing Ex.P/1 as an absolute sale ignoring clear recital of condition of redemption within five years – Comparison with contemporaneous transactions showed Ex.P/1 was not an outright sale but a mortgage – Consideration amount disproportionate to area compared to other sale deeds suggesting mortgage nature – Courts failed to apply Section 58(c) of Transfer of Property Act defining mortgage by conditional sale [Paras 17-19].

Limitation – Period for Redemption – Suit for redemption governed by Article 61(a) of Limitation Act – Period of limitation is 30 years from the date of right to redeem accrued – Right accrued on 17.03.1974, suit filed in 2002 well within limitation – Courts below erred in applying 3 years limitation treating transaction as sale [Paras 29-33].

Locus Standi – Right of Karta – Appellant as Karta of Joint Hindu Family entitled to sue alone – Non-joinder of brothers does not affect maintainability – No objection raised by other heirs – Courts below wrongly held suit defective for non-joinder [Paras 34].

Estoppel – Applicability – Doctrine of estoppel under Section 115 of Evidence Act not applicable where transaction adjudged as mortgage and suit within limitation – Redemption right cannot be estopped [Paras 35].

Decision: Second Appeal allowed – Judgments and decrees of Trial Court and First Appellate Court set aside – Suit decreed for redemption and possession – Respondent directed to execute redemption deed on payment of Rs. 11,000/- within stipulated period – Parties to bear their own costs [Paras 40-41].

Circumstantial Evidence – Last Seen Theory – Standard of Proof – Appeal Dismissed - The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence including last-seen theory, police dog trail, accused’s conduct, and past misconduct – The minor witness (P.W.2) who initially supported the last-seen theory turned hostile and admitted inability to identify accused due to darkness – The Court held that the last-seen theory is a weak piece of evidence unless corroborated with additional material which was lacking in the present case – Absence of proximity in time between the alleged last-seen incident and the recovery of the dead body breaks the necessary chain of circumstances [Paras 13-14].

Police Dog Evidence – Unreliable Without Corroboration – Not Sufficient for Conviction - The Court noted that no evidence was led regarding the training, credibility, or procedural safeguards followed in using the police dog – Without forensic corroboration or supporting evidence, the police dog’s tracking trail was held to be insufficient and speculative to link the accused to the crime [Paras 17-18].

Past Conduct and Bad Character – Cannot Substitute Proof of Present Offence – The prosecution sought to rely on prior allegations of misconduct against Respondent No.1, including unproven past instances of rape within the village – The Court held that prior bad character, in the absence of a clear nexus to the current offence, cannot substitute for direct or circumstantial proof linking the accused to the charged crime [Para 15].

Suspicious Behaviour – Insufficient to Establish Guilt – Requires Conclusive Chain – The accused’s non-participation in the search, distracted demeanor, and remarks made during the search were deemed inadequate in the absence of other incriminating evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Such behaviour may be inappropriate but does not constitute legal proof [Para 16].

Forensic Evidence – Absence of Blood, Semen, or Biological Link – Failure of Prosecution – The Court noted that the chemical examination report (Ext.13) did not reveal any incriminating material on the seized articles or clothing of the accused – The lack of scientific evidence further weakened the prosecution's case [Para 19].

Acquittal Upheld – Chain of Circumstances Incomplete – The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a cogent, credible, and continuous chain of circumstances against Respondents – Acquittal recorded by the trial court was upheld and the leave to appeal was refused [Paras 20-22].
 

Civil - Excise License – Fraudulent Transfer of FL-II License – License Restored – Collector’s Cancellation Upheld – Petitioners alleged impersonation and forgery in the transfer of their liquor license to Respondents 4 & 5 – Court found forged Aadhaar Card, mismatched signatures, and impersonation established by Excise Department’s inquiry – Transfer held void ab initio and Collector’s cancellation order restored [Paras 1–10, 16–24, 30–31].

Impersonation and Forgery – Excise Inquiry Confirmed Fabricated Documents – Petitioners established that affidavits, power of attorney, and ID proofs were falsified to impersonate original license holder – Excise Inspector admitted error in identity verification – Findings of Deputy Superintendent Inquiry accepted by Court [Paras 17–23].

Fraud Vitiates All – Authority Has Inherent Power to Recall Fraudulent Orders – Court invoked principles from Indian Bank v. Satyam Fibres and A.V. Papayya Sastry – Held: Even in absence of express review power, fraud permits recall – Fraudulently secured license cannot be legitimized by administrative oversight [Paras 24–26, 28–29].

Revisional Authority’s Failure – Non-Application of Mind – Decision Set Aside – Revisional Authority relied on vague police report, ignoring documentary proof of impersonation and Excise findings – Court held this to be a perverse and legally unsustainable approach [Paras 27, 30].

Relief – Restoration to Status Quo Ante – License Returned to Genuine Holder – Impugned orders quashed – License to be reinstated in petitioner’s name – Stay refused considering fraud proved on record [Paras 30–33].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) – Orders passed by the Appellate and Revisional Authorities quashed – License to be restored to the petitioners – Request for stay rejected [Paras 30–33].