Consumer Law – Dismissal for Non-Prosecution – Restoration – Writ Jurisdiction – Complaint filed before State Consumer Commission dismissed for non-prosecution – Single Judge set aside dismissal relying on Sections 38(2)(c) and 49 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, holding the Commission was bound to decide on merits even in absence of complainant – Held: Single Judge erred in entertaining writ petition under Article 226 – Alternative remedy under Section 58(1)(b) before National Commission was available – Writ appeal allowed, judgment set aside [Paras 3-6, 8.2, 9].

Writ Jurisdiction – Alternative Remedy – Scope – Availability of remedy before National Commission bars writ under Article 226 – Court reiterates that statutory mechanism cannot be bypassed merely because order is erroneous or jurisdictionally flawed – Cites Supreme Court decision in Rikhab Chand Jain v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2510 – Held: Entertaining writ despite statutory remedy violates settled principles of judicial review [Paras 5.2, 8, 8.1].

Consumer Protection – Appeal vs. Revision – Statutory Remedy – Dismissal of complaint not appealable under Section 51 – However, remedy of revision under Section 58(1)(b) remains available – Held: Even if dismissal was for non-prosecution, revision before National Commission could have addressed alleged jurisdictional irregularity [Paras 5.1, 8].

Decision: Writ Appeal allowed – Judgment of learned Single Judge set aside – Respondents granted liberty to approach National Commission within 30 days – Time spent in High Court proceedings to be excluded for limitation purposes [Para 9].

Criminal Law – Prohibitory Order – Section 163 BNSS (erstwhile Section 144 Cr.P.C.) – Legality of ex-parte order restricting a Pontiff's entry into a district – Held: Order quashed for being disproportionate, lacking emergent justification for its ex-parte nature, and violating fundamental rights, especially when based on a prior order clarified by the Apex Court not to be a basis for fresh restrictions [Paras 18-19].

Criminal Procedure – Prohibitory Order – Section 163 BNSS (erstwhile Section 144 Cr.P.C.) – Nature and Scope – Held: The power under Section 163 BNSS (akin to Section 144 Cr.P.C.) is remedial and preventive, intended for urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger requiring immediate prevention or speedy remedy; it is not to be used to suppress legitimate expression or democratic rights, and must be exercised bona fide, reasonably, with application of mind, and employing the least intrusive measures, balancing rights and restrictions. Repetitive orders are an abuse of power. [Paras 12.2, 12.5, 12.6, 12.7, 13.10, 15]

Criminal Procedure – Prohibitory Order – Ex-parte Orders – Justification for – Held: Ex-parte orders under Section 163(2) BNSS (erstwhile Section 144(2) Cr.P.C.) are justified only in genuine emergencies where circumstances do not permit timely service of notice; the Magistrate must record material facts, reasons for urgency, and why notice could not be issued, as a mere statement of necessity is insufficient, and failure to provide a pre-decisional or post-decisional hearing when time permits renders the order illegal. [Paras 12.2, 12.5, 13.3, 13.4, 13.7, 13.8, 14, 17]

Criminal Procedure – Prohibitory Order – Duration and Proportionality – Held: Orders under Section 163 BNSS (erstwhile Section 144 Cr.P.C.) are temporary, not permanent or semi-permanent, with a maximum duration of two months by a Magistrate; the restraint must be minimal, commensurate with the object, and proportionate to the apprehended threat, not exceeding the constraints of the particular situation in nature or duration; a blanket order debarring entry into an entire district for two months when the event was for three days is excessive and disproportionate. [Paras 12.4, 12.5, 12.6, 13.3, 13.11, 14, 16, 17, 19]

Constitutional Law – Judicial Review – Scope of – Held: Orders passed under Section 163 BNSS (erstwhile Section 144 Cr.P.C.), though executive/administrative, are amenable to writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/32 of the Constitution if they violate fundamental rights; judicial review focuses on the decision-making process, interfering only if the order is patently without jurisdiction, vitiated by mala fides, based on no material, or suffers from manifest arbitrariness, and not to substitute the court's opinion for that of the competent authority. [Paras 12.3, 12.5, 12.6, 13.5, 13.8, 14]

Constitutional Law – Fundamental Rights – Freedom of Movement, Speech, and Religion – Restrictions on – Held: The fundamental rights to free movement (Article 19(1)(d)), speech and expression (Article 19(1)(a)), and to profess and propagate religion (Articles 25, 26) are subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(5) in the interest of public order; however, such restrictions must be least intrusive, justified by objective and concrete material facts, and not based on mere subjective impression, surmises, or exaggerated susceptibilities, as the State has a duty to protect these rights. [Paras 8, 9, 12.5, 12.6, 13.7, 13.8, 14, 17]

Precedent – Application of Apex Court Clarification – Held: The Apex Court's clarification that a previous prohibitory order should not form the basis for passing fresh orders must be strictly adhered to; relying solely on a prior dismissed writ petition and the Apex Court's non-interference order as the exclusive foundation for a new restrictive action, especially when the Apex Court explicitly stated it should not be a basis for externment from other districts, constitutes a blatant violation and suggests an absence of other material against the petitioner. [Paras 2.1, 4, 8, 9, 18]

Decision – Writ Petition – Quashing of Prohibitory Order – Held: The writ petition is allowed, and the prohibitory order dated 04.11.2025 is quashed; the order failed the tests of constitutionality and legality, being disproportionate, lacking emergent justification for its ex-parte nature, and violating fundamental rights, particularly as it was based on a prior order clarified by the Apex Court not to be a basis for fresh restrictions; all consequential actions taken or to be taken pursuant to the impugned order also stand obliterated. [Paras 19, 20]

Civil Law - Ex-parte Decree – Order 9 Rule 13 CPC – Non-issuance of Ordinary Summons – Registered Post Service Questioned – Failure of Courts to Consider Mandatory Service Requirements – Presumption under Section 27 General Clauses Act Rebuttable – Limitation & Date of Knowledge Ignored – Orders Set Aside and Matter Remanded for Fresh Decision [Paras 16–22].

Ex-parte Decree – Application under Order 9 Rule 13 – Ground of Non-Service – Defendant asserted she was never served and first learnt of decree on 5.10.2009; application filed promptly thereafter – Alleged manipulation of postal report by postman related to plaintiffs – Plaintiffs denied allegations; claimed refusal of registered letter [Paras 4–6].

Evidence on Service – Postman Examined – Defendant Led Evidence of Postal Complaint – Defendant examined herself and her son-in-law; postal official produced records; postman RW-2 supported refusal entry – Courts below relied heavily on refusal endorsement without considering surrounding circumstances [Paras 10–12].

Mandatory Requirement of Ordinary Service – Order 5 Rule 9(1) CPC – Trial Court never exercised discretion to exempt ordinary service; records show no summons issued through ordinary process – Defendant proceeded ex parte solely on basis of refusal of registered post – Held improper and contrary to Rule 9(1) and pre-repeal Rule 19(a) which mandated simultaneous registered post service along with ordinary process [Paras 16–18].

State Amendment Misapplied – Order 5 Rule 10 (Punjab Rules applicable to H.P.) – District Judge wrongly relied on proviso permitting first-instance registered post service at plaintiff’s request – No such request by plaintiffs on record; no finding that plaintiffs sought this mode – Hence registered post alone insufficient to effect valid service [Para 19].

Presumption of Service under Section 27 General Clauses Act – Rebuttable – Court held that refusal endorsement alone cannot be treated as conclusive when surrounding material casts doubt; possibility of manipulation of postal reports recognized; both Courts failed to consider circumstances warranting closer scrutiny – Constitutes failure to exercise jurisdiction [Paras 20–22].

Limitation – Date of Knowledge – Application Dismissed Without Proper Finding – Courts below treated application as time-barred because defendant withdrew application under Section 5 Limitation Act – However, finding on limitation was influenced by erroneous assumption of valid service; failure to determine actual date of knowledge vitiates finding [Paras 13–15, 21].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Failure to Exercise Jurisdiction by Courts Below – Both Courts ignored material facts regarding service and mandatory procedural requirements; revisional interference warranted under Section 115 CPC [Para 22].

Remand – Orders of District Judge (9.1.2020) and Civil Judge (31.5.2019) set aside – Matter remanded to trial Court for fresh adjudication of application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC in light of observations made [Para 23].

Petition Disposed – Pending applications also disposed; record directed to be sent back immediately [Para 24].

Civil Law – Partition Suit – Oral Partition – Preliminary Decree – Plaintiff and deceased brother entitled to equal half share in property – Defendants claimed oral partition and exclusive right over building – No date, witnesses, mutation, or documentation produced to prove oral partition – Mere construction of house on one side of property not sufficient proof – Held: No valid oral partition established – Plaintiff entitled to half share in land excluding building [Paras 2–9, 17].

Property Law – Ownership of Building on Joint Land – Defendants claimed exclusive ownership of building constructed on northern half of property – Plaintiff claimed joint investment of ₹7 lakhs supported by bank withdrawals – Court found no material linking withdrawals to actual construction cost – Permit and tax documents stood in names of defendants – Held: Building constructed solely by defendants, not partible – Allotment of building to defendants without valuation adjustment upheld [Paras 10–15, 17].

Appellate Review – Scope of Interference – Trial court overlooked key documentary evidence such as bank statements, permit and assessment records – High Court found trial court erred in factual findings – Judgment partially modified – Held: Appeal partly allowed; preliminary decree modified to exclude building from partition and allot it to defendants [Paras 16–17].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Preliminary decree modified – One-half share each of plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4 declared in land excluding building – Building held not partible and to be allotted to defendants in final decree – Trial court directed to proceed with final decree proceedings without waiting for application, in terms of Supreme Court ruling.

Criminal Law – Default Bail – Interpretation of BNSS – Petitioners arrested on 10.05.2025 and remained in custody for 90 days – Application for default bail under Section 187(3) BNSS filed on 12.08.2025 – Charge-sheet not filed within statutory period – Trial court rejected application relying on Odisha amendment to CrPC providing 120-day period – Held: BNSS, 2023 repealed CrPC, 1973 by virtue of Section 531 – No express saving of Odisha amendment under BNSS – Period of 90 days under Section 187(3)(i) applies – Petitioners entitled to statutory bail [Paras 1, 3–5, 7, 9–12, 15].

Criminal Law – Repeal and Savings – Section 531 BNSS – State amendment to CrPC extending charge-sheet period not saved under new law – Notifications dated 16.07.2024 and 27.09.2024 do not alter substantive provision under BNSS – Odisha Rules framed under BNSS also specify 90-day limit – Trial court misdirected in applying repealed provision – Right to default bail accrued upon expiry of 90 days [Paras 6, 10–14].

Remand – Trial Court Order Quashed – Trial court directed to reconsider application for default bail under correct legal framework – Matter remanded for fresh hearing and disposal within two weeks from submission of certified copy of order [Paras 15–16].

Decision: Petition allowed – Impugned order dated 11.08.2025 quashed – Matter remanded to trial court for fresh consideration of default bail under Section 187(3) of BNSS.

Prevention of Corruption Act – Demand and Acceptance – Trap Case – Acquittal Upheld – Accused government servant alleged to have demanded ₹2000 as bribe for effecting mutation entry – Complainant approached ACB, trap laid, and accused caught with tainted money – Trial court acquitted the accused on ground that demand was not proved – Held: Mere inquiry “whether the money is brought” does not constitute demand in law – Initial demand alleged by PW-1 not found in his police statement and proved to be a material omission by PW-5 (Investigating Officer) – Evidence of PW-2 (Panch) and PW-3 (complainant’s son) also suffered from contradictions and omissions – Presence of all three key witnesses at the spot found doubtful – Acquittal justified [Paras 11–14].

Sanction for Prosecution – Application of Mind – Valid Sanction Mandatory – Sanction order (Exh. 56) issued by PW-4 (Sanctioning Authority) found to be based on a pre-drafted proforma sent by ACB – No independent evaluation of documents or service records – Held: Sanction was granted without application of mind – Invalid sanction vitiates prosecution under Section 19 of PC Act – Acquittal cannot be interfered where foundational legal requirement not met [Paras 15–17].

Suppression of Material Evidence – Non-filing of Accused’s Post-Trap Explanation – Adverse Inference – Though accused’s statement was recorded immediately after trap, prosecution did not place it on record or include it in charge-sheet – Held: Suppression of post-trap statement violates fair trial principles – Court entitled to presume that withheld evidence was adverse to prosecution – Material defect fatal to case [Paras 18–19].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Appeal Against Acquittal – Limited Scope – Interference Only if Findings Perverse – Reaffirmation of principles from P. Somaraju v. State of A.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2291 – Appellate court must respect double presumption of innocence in acquittal cases – Reversal only warranted where trial court’s view is manifestly illegal or unjust – Held: Trial court’s view was a possible and plausible one based on evidence and omissions – No interference warranted [Paras 6, 20].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal confirmed – Accused exonerated of all charges under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Landlord and Tenant – Lease to Government – Assessment of Rent – Premises leased by plaintiff to Government for Taluk Office use – Plaintiff claimed rent at Rs. 1,58,890 based on PWD assessment – Defendant contended agreement to pay Rs. 1,00,000 per month subject to Government approval – Held: Plaintiff’s letter (Ex. B1) offering rent of Rs. 1,00,000 forms basis of agreement – PWD later revised rent downward to Rs. 1,00,000 – Trial court rightly fixed rent at Rs. 1,00,000 per month – No evidence of agreement to pay higher amount – No interference warranted [Paras 14–16, 19]

Tenancy – Surrender – Implied Surrender – Whether government tenants vacated and surrendered possession – Defendants produced surrender letter (Ex. B3) and videographic evidence – Plaintiff refused to accept possession – Affixture of notice and evidence of new office functioning established – Held: Implied surrender proved under Section 111(f) of Transfer of Property Act – Tenancy period from 16.03.2015 to 31.03.2017 [Paras 10–13]

Arrears of Rent – Calculation – Lease period fixed at 24.5 months – Rent at Rs. 1,00,000 per month – Part payment of Rs. 4,00,000 – Balance arrears held to be Rs. 20,50,000 – Trial court decree affirmed [Paras 17–18]

Civil Procedure – Appeal under Section 96 CPC – Scope – Where findings of trial court are based on evidence and legally sustainable, appellate court will not interfere – Held: No perversity in findings – Appeal dismissed [Paras 19–20]

Decision: Appeal dismissed with costs – Judgment and decree dated 12.03.2019 in O.S. No. 82 of 2017 by II Additional District Judge, Chidambaram upheld – Arrears of Rs. 20,50,000 confirmed.

Criminal Law – Discharge - Prevention of Corruption Act – Disproportionate Assets – Wife of public servant – Petitioner (A2), wife of Assistant Manager (Finance), BEL, arraigned for abetment – Prosecution alleges petitioner abetted accumulation and concealment of disproportionate assets in her name – Held: Several immovable properties and high-value transactions traced to petitioner – Prima facie materials exist requiring trial – Discharge rightly refused by Trial Court – No merit in revision petition [Paras 2, 6, 8]

Criminal Procedure – Discharge – Stage of Charge – At the stage of framing of charge or considering discharge, court not to conduct a roving enquiry into veracity of prosecution materials – Only prima facie case needs to be established – Petitioner’s explanations including income tax filings, gifts, salary, and investments are disputed facts to be tested during trial – Trial Court rightly held that such explanations cannot be evaluated at discharge stage [Paras 3, 6, 8]

Criminal Law – Abetment – Requirements – Mere ownership of property by spouse of public servant not sufficient – Must show active participation, instigation, or concealment – In present case, ownership of multiple properties and financial transactions in petitioner’s name create prima facie inference of abetment warranting trial [Paras 2, 6, 8]

Evidence – Income Tax Returns – Relevance – Filing of income tax returns does not ipso facto exonerate accused – Source of funds and actual flow of money must be explained – In this case, petitioner did not produce income tax documents before Court – Prosecution entitled to probe financial documents during trial [Para 8]

Decision: Criminal Revision Petition dismissed – Order of IX Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai dated 10.07.2025 in Crl.M.P. No. 1261 of 2024 upheld – Trial Court to proceed independently without being influenced by observations in this order – Connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

Arbitration – Section 8 Referral – Prima Facie Standard – Alleged Forgery of Arbitration Agreement – Commercial Court exceeded jurisdiction by undertaking detailed evidence review – Allegations of fraud/forgery in contracts between parties do not bar arbitration – Formal validity under Section 7 satisfied – Substantive validity to be examined by Arbitral Tribunal under Section 16 – Appeal allowed, suit dismissed, parties referred to arbitration [Paras 56, 60–71, 72–74].

Arbitration Law – Section 8 Referral – Scope of Prima Facie Review – Limits of Judicial Scrutiny – Held that Courts at the referral stage may only examine the prima facie existence and formal validity of an arbitration agreement – The Commercial Court conducted a “mini-trial” and exceeded its jurisdiction by deeply analysing evidence and circumstances, contrary to Vidya Drolia, Cox & Kings, SBP & Co., and Re: Interplay – Referral courts must filter only “deadwood” or ex facie non-arbitrable matters; all other issues must be left to the Arbitral Tribunal [Paras 49–54, 63–66].

Arbitration Agreement – Allegations of Forgery/Fraud – Arbitrability – Allegations of forgery of signatures on the MOU do not, by themselves, render the dispute non-arbitrable – In line with K. Mangayarkarasi, Vidya Drolia, and Pravin Electricals, disputes involving fraud/forgery arising out of commercial relationships remain arbitrable – The necessity of expert evidence strengthens the case for arbitration rather than exclusion of arbitral jurisdiction [Paras 56–58, 60–62, 68–69, 72–73].

Arbitration Agreement – Requirement of Signature – Formal Validity under Section 7 – Section 7 requires only that an arbitration agreement be in writing; signature is not a mandatory requirement – Glencore International v. Shree Ganesh Metals applied – Clear intention to arbitrate can be inferred from written documents and conduct – Therefore, denial of signature could not justify refusal of reference [Paras 58–59, 71].

Competence-Competence – Section 16 – Substantive Validity to be Determined by the Arbitral Tribunal – Determining whether the MOU was forged requires substantive findings, expert evidence and cross-examination – As per Re: Interplay and Cox & Kings, such matters fall squarely within the Arbitral Tribunal’s jurisdiction and cannot be adjudicated at the referral stage [Paras 53, 65–67].

Section 8(2) Compliance – Production of Original Arbitration Agreement – Non-production of the original/certified copy of the MOU is a triable issue and does not defeat arbitration – Objections under Section 8(2) are procedural and fall within the Arbitral Tribunal’s domain under Section 16 – Exemption application filed; issue cannot bar referral [Para 70].

Non-Signatory and Group of Companies Doctrine – Commercial Court erred in holding that the defendant partnership firm was not a party to the MOU and hence could not be referred to arbitration – Cox & Kings clarified that non-signatories may still be bound based on conduct, intention and group of companies doctrine – Hyper-technical objections cannot defeat arbitration [Para 71].

Appeal – Section 37 – Interference Justified – Commercial Court’s refusal was unsustainable as it travelled beyond the permissible prima facie scope under Section 8 – The dispute is not ex facie non-arbitrable; Civil Court’s jurisdiction stood ousted by a valid written arbitration clause requiring deeper inquiry by Arbitral Tribunal [Paras 72–74].

Decision – Impugned order dated 28.08.2024 set aside – Application under Section 8 allowed – Parties referred to arbitration – Civil Suit dismissed as not maintainable – Liberty to initiate appointment of Arbitral Tribunal as per the Act [Para 74–75].