Criminal Law – Procedural Violations – Appellant, a police inspector, conducted a raid on the respondent’s spa suspecting illegal activities – Raid led to the detention of an Indonesian citizen working as a massage therapist – FIR registered was later quashed due to procedural non-compliance – Court emphasized mandatory compliance with Section 15 of the ITP Act [Paras 4-10].

Compensation for Illegal Detention – Violation of Article 21 of the Constitution – Respondent’s detention found to be unlawful due to non-compliance with mandatory procedures – Court directed compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- to the respondent for loss of liberty, reputation, and mental trauma – Compensation to be recovered from the appellant, not from public funds [Paras 11-18].

Jurisdiction – Maintainability of Intra-Court Appeal – Appeal against the Single Judge’s order quashing the FIR and directing compensation deemed not maintainable under Section 15 of the Letters Patent Act – Matter arose from criminal proceedings, thus falling under criminal jurisdiction [Paras 19-20].

Decision: Writ Appeal dismissed – Compensation order upheld – Appeal deemed not maintainable under Letters Patent Act – Connected CMP closed [Paras 20-21].

Commercial Suit – Right to File Written Statement – Application for Review – The appellant's right to file a written statement was closed by the Single Bench due to a delay beyond 120 days as mandated under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC (as amended by the Commercial Courts Act). The appellant argued that the suit was not initially treated as a commercial suit, and the 120-day period should not apply. The court held that until the suit was converted into a commercial suit, the mandatory time limit did not apply, and the right to file a written statement should be preserved [Paras 1-35].

Appeal Maintainability – Section 13 of Commercial Courts Act – The court examined the maintainability of the appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act. It found that Section 13 did not bar the appeal because the impugned order was passed before the suit was converted into a commercial suit. The court relied on the judgments in Brahmos Aerospace Pvt. Ltd. v. FIIT JEE Ltd & Anr. and Nirman Consultants Pvt. Ltd v. NNE Ltd. to support its conclusion that orders passed before conversion are appealable under the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 [Paras 20-24].

Judgment – Criteria for Determining Appealability – The court applied the criteria from Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D. Kania to determine if the impugned order qualifies as a "judgment" and is therefore appealable. The court concluded that the order affects vital rights of the appellant to defend the suit, qualifying it as a "judgment" under Section 10(1) of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 [Paras 25-28].

Discretion Under Section 15(4) of Commercial Courts Act – The court noted that upon the conversion of a suit into a commercial suit, the court has the discretion under Section 15(4) of the Commercial Courts Act to prescribe new timelines for filing the written statement. The appellant's right to file a written statement should have been preserved until such discretion was exercised [Paras 29-34].

Decision: The appeal was allowed. The impugned order closing the appellant's right to file a written statement was set aside. The written statement filed by the appellant on April 21, 2016, was directed to be taken on record. The suit was to proceed from that stage [Paras 35-37].

Criminal Law – Double Jeopardy – Section 300 Cr.P.C. – Petitioner was previously tried and acquitted by a Special Court in Delhi for charges under UAPA, IPC, and the Passport Act. Subsequently, he faced trial in Bengaluru for similar charges. The petitioner filed for discharge under Section 300 of Cr.P.C. to avoid being tried again on the same facts. The Special Court dismissed the application, leading to the present writ petition.

Scope of Section 300 Cr.P.C. – Acquittal and Subsequent Trials – The court examined the applicability of Section 300 of Cr.P.C. and found that the facts of the cases tried in Delhi and Bengaluru, though similar, were not identical. The petitioner’s involvement in separate incidents constituted different offences. The court concluded that Section 300 did not apply because the charges stemmed from distinct events, despite some overlapping witnesses [Paras 2-21].

Interpretation of Legal Provisions – The judgment analyzed Section 300 Cr.P.C. alongside Section 221 Cr.P.C., clarifying the conditions under which a person acquitted or convicted cannot be retried. The court reiterated that Section 300(1) protects against double jeopardy only when the subsequent charges are based on the same facts and not merely similar or overlapping evidence [Paras 7-16].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – The court upheld the Special Court’s decision, finding no merit in the petitioner’s claim under Section 300 of Cr.P.C. The petitioner's discharge was denied, allowing the trial in Bengaluru to proceed [Paras 18-21].

Criminal Bail Application – Abetment of Suicide – Sections 306, 504, and 506 IPC – Applicant involved in a love affair with the deceased – Allegations of threats, abduction, and rape leading to the victim’s suicide – Bail application filed during the pendency of trial.

Elements of Abetment of Suicide – Proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement required – Mere allegations of harassment insufficient for conviction – Mens rea (intention) and active/direct acts leading to suicide must be established. (Para 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 of the judgment)

Influence of Western Culture on Youth – Increasing trend of complicated relationships influenced by media – Impacts on mental health and emotional stability – Need for societal awareness and parental guidance. (Para 15 of the judgment)

Expediting Trials – Applicant’s right to a speedy trial – Overcrowding in jails and implications on under-trial prisoners – Directions to conclude the trial within two years. (Para 19 of the judgment)

Bail Granted – Conditions imposed on the applicant – Monitoring of his conduct during the trial – Cancellation of bail in case of breach of conditions. (Para 16, 17, 18 of the judgment)

Jurisdiction – Execution of Decrees – The executing court in Bhubaneswar rightly upheld the execution of the decree transferred from the Nagpur Court – Section 39 of CPC empowers the court to transfer decrees for execution – No irregularity found in the transfer process – The application under Section 47 CPC questioning the decree’s enforceability dismissed as non-maintainable [Paras 4, 9].

Execution of Decrees – Jurisdiction – The Court emphasized that under Sections 37, 38, and 39 of the CPC, the decree from Nagpur was rightly transferred to Bhubaneswar for execution. The provisions allow a decree to be executed by a court to which it is sent for execution if the property or the judgment debtor is within its jurisdiction. The transfer was deemed valid and the challenge by the appellant was found without basis [Paras 7-8, 9.3].

Section 47 CPC – Limitations of Executing Court – The executing court is limited to executing the decree as it stands and cannot delve into questions of its validity or correctness unless it is a nullity. The Court found that issues regarding fraud or irregularities in obtaining the decree should have been raised in the original suit, not during execution [Paras 8, 9.1-9.3].

Condonation of Delay – Insufficient Grounds – The Court found no satisfactory explanation for the 346 days delay in filing the civil revision petition. The reasons provided by the petitioner were vague and lacked substantial proof, leading to the dismissal of the application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act [Paras 10, 10.1-10.2].

Principles of Execution – The judgment referenced several key rulings emphasizing the principle that an executing court cannot question the validity of the decree. The Supreme Court’s stance in Rahul S Shah v. Jitendra Kumar Gandhi was reiterated, underlining that the process of execution should not be turned into a protracted re-trial [Paras 8.2, 8.6].

Fraud Allegation – Not Proved – Allegations of fraud in obtaining the decree were deemed unsubstantiated. The Court stressed that claims of fraud must be supported by clear evidence and cannot be entertained in the execution stage unless already proven [Paras 9.1-9.3].

Enforcement of Decrees – Practical Challenges – The Court acknowledged the difficulties decree-holders face in executing decrees, as highlighted by the Supreme Court in multiple rulings. It stressed the need for efficient and timely execution to uphold the integrity of the judicial process [Paras 8, 8.2].

Decision – Civil Revision Petition and Interlocutory Application dismissed – The order by the executing court stands affirmed – No costs imposed [Para 11].

Service Law – Age of Superannuation – The respondent, holding the post of Research Assistant, claimed to fall under the category of "Teachers" and sought retirement age of 65 years. The appellant-University contended that the respondent does not qualify as a "Teacher" and should retire at 60 years. The court upheld the respondent's claim, emphasizing his duties akin to teaching, and defined "Teachers" under Section 2(n) of the Jamia Millia Islamia Act, 1988 to include such roles [Paras 1-28].

Judicial Scrutiny – Review of Designation and Duties – The court reviewed the duties performed by the respondent, which included classroom teaching, course designing, setting question papers, and other academic responsibilities typically assigned to teachers. The court relied on internal communications, recommendations, and previous court judgments to conclude that the respondent’s role fell under the definition of "Teacher" [Paras 29-34].

Decision – Reinstatement with Back Wages – The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Single Judge’s decision to quash the Office Order dated 04.09.2018, which fixed the respondent’s retirement age at 60 years. The respondent was ordered to be reinstated at the age of 65 years with 50% back wages from 31.12.2019 until reinstatement, along with other consequential benefits [Paras 35].

Commercial Recovery – Application for Leave to Defend – Defendant sought leave to defend in a summary suit under Order XXXVII CPC – Condonation of delay in refiling application also requested – Leave to defend application dismissed due to unexplained delay and lack of substantial defence – Defendant’s defence deemed frivolous and vexatious – Court emphasized strict adherence to timelines under Order XXXVII [Paras 1-26].

Leave to Defend – Principles for Grant – Court reiterated principles for granting leave to defend: substantial defence entitles unconditional leave, whereas sham or illusory defence results in dismissal – Reference to Supreme Court judgments on conditional leave when triable issues exist with doubts on good faith [Paras 35-37].

Interest Claim in Summary Suit – Reiterated that interest can be claimed in summary suits even if not specified in the agreement – Court allowed interest but reduced the rate from 15% to 9% per annum to secure justice [Paras 47-48].

Decision: Application for leave to defend dismissed – Suit decreed in favor of plaintiffs – Defendant directed to pay the principal amounts with interest at 9% per annum from the date of payment till the date of institution of the suit – Plaintiffs also entitled to pendent lite and future interest at the same rate [Paras 49-56].

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of Proceedings – Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of final report and proceedings in case of extortion and intimidation – Allegation that accused took illicit photographs of complainant and used them to extort money and gold – Accused contends innocence and challenges sufficiency of evidence – Prosecution relies on statements and material evidence suggesting prima facie case – High Court holds that evidence warrants trial, and innocence claims to be tested during trial – Petition dismissed [Paras 1-10].

Extortion and Intimidation – Prima Facie Case – Accused allegedly took illicit photographs and used them to blackmail complainant for money and gold – High Court finds sufficient material to support charges and justify trial – Highlights that detailed examination of evidence required at trial stage, not in quashment proceedings [Paras 5-9].

Decision – Criminal Miscellaneous Case dismissed – High Court emphasizes need for trial to properly assess evidence and allegations – Registry directed to forward copy of order to jurisdictional court for further steps [Para 10].
 

Arbitration – Extension of Arbitrator’s Mandate – Application Filed Post-Termination – Consideration of Section 29-A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Court holds that it retains the power to extend the mandate even if the application is filed after the statutory timeline for expiry of the mandate – Rohan Builders (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Berger Paints India Limited distinguished – Mandate extended by six months with direction to avoid unnecessary adjournments [Paras 1-88].

Precedent – Binding Nature – Rohan Builders (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Berger Paints India Limited not binding due to Supreme Court stay – Court emphasizes independence in adjudication when Supreme Court stay is in place – Decisions from Delhi and Bombay High Courts on similar issues considered persuasive [Paras 3-16].

Court’s Discretion – Section 29-A(4) and (5) – Language allows for extension of mandate before or after termination – No statutory prohibition against post-termination application – Judicial discretion and sufficient cause paramount in extension decisions [Paras 18-38].

Legislative Intent – Comparison with Other Statutes – Absence of negative provisions in Section 29-A indicates flexibility – Legislative intent to facilitate arbitration, not to curtail it – Statutes with strict timelines highlighted for contrast [Paras 51-58].

Law Commission’s Recommendations – 176^th Report – Comparison with 2016 Amendment – Suspension versus termination and revival – Emphasis on court’s power to extend mandate reflecting legislative intent to avoid arbitral deadlocks [Paras 39-49].

Purpose of Section 29-A – Encourage Arbitration – Facilitate speedy dispute resolution without excessive court intervention – Flexibility provided to ensure justice and avoid arbitral proceedings becoming cul-de-sacs due to procedural delays [Paras 59-77].

Decision:

Petition allowed. Mandate of the arbitrator extended for six months from the date of judgment. Arbitral proceedings to conclude within the extended period without unnecessary adjournments. No order as to costs. Urgent certified server copies, if applied for, to be issued upon compliance with due formalities [Paras 87-88].