NDPS Act – Quashing of Proceedings – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Accused implicated only on basis of voluntary/confessional statements recorded under Section 67 NDPS Act – No independent corroborative material linking petitioner to offence – Continuation of prosecution held to be abuse of process of law [Paras 8, 11].

Section 67 NDPS Act – Evidentiary Value – Confessional statements recorded by NCB officers inadmissible – Officers under Section 53 NDPS Act deemed “police officers” – Bar under Section 25 Evidence Act attracted – Reliance placed on Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu and followed consistently – Confession of accused or co-accused cannot form sole basis for prosecution [Paras 9–11].

Co-accused Confession – Limited Evidentiary Worth – Confession of co-accused cannot, by itself, justify prosecution or framing of charge – Strong suspicion must be founded on admissible material capable of being translated into evidence at trial – Mere statements under Section 67 insufficient [Paras 9–11].

Controlled Delivery – Section 50A NDPS Act – Mandatory Compliance – Controlled delivery undertaken without authorisation by Director General or authorised officer – Non-compliance vitiates identification of accused through controlled delivery – Proceedings against similarly placed co-accused already quashed – Parity applicable [Paras 7–8].

Parity – Earlier Quashing of Proceedings – Proceedings against Accused No.2 quashed on identical facts in Abhay Kumar v. Union of India – Petitioner stands on equal or better footing – No distinguishing incriminating material against petitioner [Paras 4, 7–8].

NDPS Prosecution – Foundational Facts – Prosecution failed to establish conscious possession, knowledge, or role of petitioner – No recovery from petitioner – Burden under Sections 35 and 54 NDPS Act never shifted to accused [Paras 8–11].

Decision – Criminal Petition Allowed – Proceedings in Special C.C. No.2932/2023 quashed qua petitioner – Clarification that observations confined to petitioner and shall not affect trial of other accused [Paras 11–12].

Criminal Law – Sexual Offences Against Child – Conviction Based on Sole Testimony of Victim – Sufficiency of Evidence – Appellant convicted for wrongful restraint, outraging modesty and rape of a minor girl – Victim gave a clear, cogent and consistent account of sexual assault involving digital penetration and sexual acts – Cross-examination failed to discredit her testimony – Held: Conviction can be safely based on sole testimony of prosecutrix when it inspires confidence [Paras 14–17, 22].

Evidence – Minor Contradictions and Omissions – Effect – Defence highlighted omissions in statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC and discrepancies regarding disclosure of incident – Held: Minor omissions which do not affect the core of prosecution case are inconsequential and do not undermine credibility of victim’s testimony [Paras 16, 23–24].

Medical Evidence – Absence of Injuries – Not Fatal – Medical examination conducted after lapse of time showed no genital injuries – Doctor opined that injuries could heal within 7–10 days – Held: Absence of medical corroboration does not discredit otherwise trustworthy testimony of victim – Medical evidence not sine qua non for conviction in sexual offence cases [Paras 20–22].

Delay in Lodging FIR – Sexual Offences – Explained – FIR lodged after victim disclosed incident to friend and family – Delay satisfactorily explained due to fear, trauma and social stigma – Held: Delay in sexual offence cases cannot be equated with other crimes and does not vitiate prosecution case [Paras 22].

Non-Examination of Certain Witnesses – Adverse Inference – When Not Warranted – Defence argued non-examination of daughter of appellant and other relatives – Held: When evidence on record is overwhelming and unimpeachable, non-examination of some witnesses is not fatal and does not warrant adverse inference [Paras 36].

Rape – Section 375(b) IPC – Digital Penetration – Act of inserting finger into private part of minor squarely falls within Section 375(b) IPC – Consent irrelevant as victim was a minor – Offence of rape clearly made out [Paras 41–42].

Goa Children’s Act – Grave Sexual Assault – Acts proved constituted “grave sexual assault” under Sections 2(y)(i) & (ii) punishable under Section 8(2) – Conviction under special statute justified [Paras 43–44].

Sentence – Age of Accused – No Mitigation in Child Sexual Offence – Appellant aged above 80 years sought leniency – Held: Advanced age of accused not a mitigating factor in offences involving sexual assault on a child – Protection of child and societal conscience paramount [Paras 50–52].

Decision: Criminal Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentences imposed by Children’s Court affirmed – Appellant directed to surrender forthwith – Prayer for stay rejected.

Criminal Law - Quashing - Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Dishonour of Cheque – Not Negotiable Endorsement – Applicability – Petitioner sought quashing of complaint under Section 138 NI Act on ground that cheque bore "Not Negotiable" marking – Held: Endorsement “Not Negotiable” merely restricts transferee from acquiring better title under Section 130 NI Act – It does not nullify drawer’s liability or exclude application of Section 138 – Drawer remains liable if cheque issued in discharge of debt and dishonoured due to insufficient funds – Complaint maintainable – No ground to quash proceedings at preliminary stage [Paras 6–7]

Criminal Procedure – Section 482 CrPC – Inherent Powers – Scope – Petitioner challenged concurrent orders of trial and revisional court rejecting application to drop proceedings under NI Act – Held: Courts below rightly held that legality of cheque and existence of enforceable debt are triable issues requiring evidence – No jurisdictional error or abuse of process shown – Petition under Section 482 CrPC dismissed [Paras 6–7]

Interpretation of NI Act – “Not Negotiable” Endorsement – Legal Effect – Cited case Durga Shah Mohal Lal Bankers v. Governor General in Council, AIR 1952 All 590 explained – Endorsement does not destroy negotiability or legality of cheque – Trial to proceed to determine liability [Para 6]

Decision: Petition dismissed – Courts below rightly held that issue of whether cheque was issued in discharge of legally enforceable debt and applicability of Section 138 are matters of trial – “Not Negotiable” endorsement does not render Section 138 inapplicable – No interference warranted under Section 482 CrPC.

Arbitration Award – Execution – Jurisdiction of Seat Court – Objection raised that executing court lacks territorial jurisdiction as judgment debtor’s assets situated outside Mumbai – Held: Seat Court under Section 2(1)(e) of Arbitration Act retains jurisdiction to entertain execution and grant interim reliefs in aid of execution – Award creditor has option to execute either before seat court or court where assets are located – Sundaram Finance and Gemini Bay confer additional choice and do not divest seat court of jurisdiction [Paras 62–69].

Execution Proceedings – Sections 38 & 39 CPC – No Ouster of Seat Court – Argument that award becomes decree under CPC and execution governed solely by Sections 38 and 39 CPC rejected – Held: CPC provisions operate in addition to and not in derogation of jurisdiction of seat court – Transfer of decree is optional, not mandatory [Paras 63–67].

Post-Award Reliefs – Disclosure and Injunction as Matter of Course – In post-award scenario, interim reliefs such as disclosure of assets and restraint against alienation are necessary to prevent frustration of decree – Execution court empowered to secure decretal amount to ensure award creditor is not left with paper decree [Paras 68–69, 92].

Hindu Undivided Family – Karta’s Liability – Personal and Unlimited – Decree passed against HUF sought to be executed against Karta’s personal assets – Held: Karta has personal and unlimited liability for unsatisfied debts of HUF – Liability flows from special status of Karta under Hindu law and does not require separate personal decree – Distinction between Karta and ordinary coparceners reiterated [Paras 71–76, 83–85].

Trading HUF – Execution against Karta – Respondent HUF admittedly carrying on construction business – Held: Even otherwise, where HUF carries on business, Karta’s personal liability is well recognised – Attempt to distinguish “HUF firm” rejected as misconceived [Paras 71, 77–79].

Res Judicata – Inapplicability at Execution Stage – Contention that arbitral tribunal did not pass money award against Karta and hence execution barred by res judicata rejected – Held: Issue of Karta’s personal liability arises only at execution stage by operation of Hindu law and could not have been adjudicated in arbitration [Paras 74, 86].

Executing Court – Cannot Go Behind Decree – But Can Determine Mode of Satisfaction – While executing court cannot vary decree, it can decide questions relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction under Section 47 CPC – Determination of Karta’s liability is permissible as it concerns satisfaction of decree [Paras 87–88].

Court Receiver – Custodia Legis – Sale of Secured Properties – Title deeds deposited pursuant to Section 17 order constitute security lying custodia legis – Held: Court empowered under Section 51(d) CPC to appoint Court Receiver – Receiver appointed with powers to take possession and sell properties to satisfy award [Paras 90–91].

Disclosure of Assets – Injunction against Alienation – Respondents directed to file comprehensive affidavits disclosing movable and immovable assets, income tax returns and bank statements – Injunction granted restraining respondents from dealing with or alienating assets pending execution [Paras 92–95].

Decision – Interim Application allowed – Jurisdictional objections rejected – Court Receiver appointed – Disclosure and injunction granted – Prayer for further coercive steps kept open – Stay refused [Paras 89–98].

Arbitration and Conciliation Act – Section 11(6) – Institutional Arbitration – Exhaustion of Agreed Procedure Mandatory – Employment agreements contained arbitration clause providing for appointment of sole arbitrator in accordance with MCIA Rules – Respondent accepted invocation of arbitration and did not default in agreed procedure – Held: Where parties have consciously agreed to an institutional mechanism for appointment of arbitrator, Court cannot appoint arbitrator under Section 11 without first requiring parties to exhaust agreed procedure – Section 11 jurisdiction arises only upon failure of agreed mechanism [Paras 13–16].

Arbitration Clause – MCIA Rules – Seat and Venue at Indore – No Inconsistency – Contention that MCIA Rules can operate only if seat is Mumbai rejected – Rule 30 of MCIA Rules permits parties to agree on seat of arbitration – Fixing Indore as seat and venue does not render MCIA Rules inapplicable – Arbitration clause held coherent and workable [Paras 11–12].

Section 11 Jurisdiction – Prematurity of Petition – Applicants invoked arbitration and respondent consented to invocation – Applicants failed to take further steps under MCIA Rules for appointment of arbitrator – Direct approach to High Court held premature and impermissible – Court cannot bypass institutional framework agreed by parties [Paras 13–16].

Party Autonomy – Binding Nature of Arbitration Agreement – Parties bound by dispute resolution clause consciously agreed in employment contracts – Applicants cannot resile from agreed procedure merely because arbitration is institutional – Party autonomy is cornerstone of arbitration law and must be respected [Paras 14–16].

Reliance on Supreme Court Precedent – Parmar Construction Case – Reiterated that default procedure under Section 11 can be invoked only when agreed appointment mechanism fails or becomes inoperative – High Court must first give effect to contractual mechanism before appointing independent arbitrator [Paras 14–15].

Multiple Applications – Common Arbitration Clause – Common Outcome – All three employment agreements contained identical arbitration clause – Common order passed dismissing all three applications – Liberty granted to applicants to invoke MCIA mechanism in accordance with rules [Paras 1, 17].

Decision – Arbitration Case Nos. 105, 106 and 107 of 2025 dismissed – Liberty granted to applicants to approach Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration for appointment of sole arbitrator as per MCIA Rules and employment agreements – No appointment made by Court under Section 11 [Para 17].

Civil Law – Framing of Issues – Will Propounded by Defendant – Mandatory Duty of Court – Plaintiff filed suit claiming ownership by natural inheritance – Defendants pleaded Will dated 16.08.1978 to defeat plaintiff’s claim – Trial Court framed general issue on entitlement to declaration but failed to frame specific issue on validity and effect of Will – Application by plaintiff for framing additional issue dismissed on ground that only defendants could seek such issue – Held: Plea of Will constitutes a distinct and material proposition of fact and law and Court is statutorily bound to frame a specific issue thereon [Paras 2, 5].

Order XIV Rules 1 and 5 CPC – Scope and Application – Issues are to be framed by Court on basis of pleadings and not at discretion of parties – Any party affected by a plea raised is entitled to seek framing of an issue – Court empowered to frame or amend issues at any stage before passing of decree if necessary for determining real controversy – Stage of rebuttal evidence no bar to framing additional issue [Paras 7].

Will – Proof – Burden of Proof – Procedural Safeguards – Proof of Will governed by special statutory requirements under Indian Succession Act and Evidence Act – Burden lies on propounder of Will – Absence of specific issue on Will renders trial procedurally deficient and final adjudication vulnerable to challenge – General issue cannot substitute a specific issue on Will [Paras 6].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 – Failure to Exercise Jurisdiction – Trial Court declined to frame necessary issue on erroneous understanding of law – Such refusal amounts to material error of jurisdiction – Interference by High Court warranted to ensure proper adjudication of lis [Paras 8].

Decision: Civil Revision allowed – Impugned order dated 26.11.2025 set aside – Trial Court directed to frame additional issue regarding validity, execution and binding effect of Will dated 16.08.1978 and proceed with suit in accordance with law [Paras 9–10].

Criminal Law – Section 482 – Inherent Powers – Quashing of FIR and Charge-sheet – Scope – FIR registered under Section 188 IPC read with Section 14(i) of Arunachal Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupant) Act, 2003 – Held: High Court can quash FIR even after filing of charge-sheet if continuation of proceedings amounts to abuse of process of Court [Paras 12–18, 26].

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 188 – Cognizance – Bar under Section 195 CrPC – Mandatory Compliance – FIR lodged by public servant before police instead of written complaint to Magistrate – Police registered case and filed charge-sheet – Held: Prosecution for offence under Section 188 IPC can be initiated only on complaint in writing of public servant before Magistrate – FIR and charge-sheet to that extent void ab initio – Proceedings liable to be quashed [Paras 29–32].

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 195 – Nature and Effect – Object – Protection against frivolous prosecution – Held: Any violation of mandatory procedure under Section 195 CrPC vitiates entire proceedings relating to offence under Sections 172 to 188 IPC – Cognizance taken contrary to statute unsustainable in law [Paras 30–31].

Arunachal Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupant) Act, 2003 – Section 14(i) – Penal Consequences – Cognizable Offence – Section 15 – Applicability of CrPC – FIR Maintainable – Held: Act provides both civil and penal consequences – Section 14 creates offence of unauthorized occupation – Section 15 expressly applies CrPC treating offence as cognizable – No statutory bar against lodging FIR for offence under Section 14 – Criminal proceedings to that extent valid [Paras 33–37].

Public Premises – Unauthorized Occupation – Eviction Proceedings and Criminal Liability – Distinction – Held: Civil remedies such as eviction, demolition and appeal under the Act are independent of penal prosecution under Section 14 – Availability of civil remedies does not bar criminal action where statute so permits [Paras 33–35].

Section 482 CrPC – Exercise of Power – Partial Quashing – Severability – Held: Where FIR discloses multiple offences and statutory bar applies only to one, proceedings can be quashed partially – FIR and charge-sheet quashed only to extent of offence under Section 188 IPC while allowed to continue for offence under Section 14 of 2003 Act [Paras 38–39].

Decision: Criminal petition partly allowed – FIR dated 14.08.2019 and Charge-sheet No. 02/2020 quashed to extent of offence under Section 188 IPC – Criminal proceedings under Section 14(i) of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupant) Act, 2003 upheld – Trial to proceed in accordance with law – Petition disposed of [Paras 38–40].

NDPS Act – Bail – Commercial Quantity – Rigours of Section 37 – Applicants sought bail under Section 483 BNSS in FIR registered under Sections 21 and 29 NDPS Act – Recovery of 468.380 grams of Chitta (Heroin) effected from co-accused – Quantity admittedly commercial – Held: Once offence involves commercial quantity, mandatory twin conditions under Section 37 NDPS Act must be satisfied – Bail is exception and refusal is rule [Paras 14–17].

Bail – Reasonable Grounds – Standard of Satisfaction – Court must record satisfaction that accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit offence while on bail – “Reasonable grounds” means something more than prima facie case – Applicants failed to demonstrate substantial probable cause to believe they were not guilty – Held: Statutory threshold under Section 37 not met [Paras 18–19].

Criminal Conspiracy – Section 29 NDPS Act – Financial Transactions as Linking Evidence – Prosecution relied upon disclosure statements, bank account transactions running into lakhs and crores, CDRs, mobile phone data and WhatsApp chats – Applicants alleged to be part of organised interstate drug syndicate – Held: Financial trail and electronic evidence prima facie establish nexus attracting Section 29 NDPS Act [Paras 11.12–11.46].

Parity – Bail Granted to Co-Accused – No Automatic Right – Applicants sought parity with co-accused earlier enlarged on bail by Special Judge – Held: Bail orders passed without recording mandatory findings under Section 37 NDPS Act are per incuriam – Parity cannot be claimed on basis of illegal or flawed bail orders [Paras 20–23].

Judicial Discipline – Binding Nature of Supreme Court Precedent – Special Judge granted bail to co-accused without considering Section 37 NDPS Act – High Court deprecated approach as contrary to binding law laid down in Mohit Aggarwal and Kashif – Held: Courts are duty bound to strictly comply with Section 37 before granting bail [Paras 21–23].

Investigation Completed – Filing of Charge-Sheet – No Ground for Bail – Though charge-sheet filed, seriousness of offence, societal impact and statutory bar under Section 37 override usual considerations for bail – Held: Completion of investigation does not dilute rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act [Paras 11.47–11.48, 24].

Societal Impact – Drug Menace – Youth at Risk – Alleged drug racket capable of affecting thousands of persons – Organised trade exceeding ₹5 crores alleged – Held: Gravity of offence and societal repercussions are relevant considerations against grant of bail [Paras 11.45–11.46].

Decision: Bail applications dismissed – No case made out for grant of bail under Section 483 BNSS – Observations confined to bail stage and not to affect merits of trial.

Company Law – Winding Up – Creditor’s Claim – Interest on Deposits – Company under liquidation since 1981 – Appellants creditors and shareholders claiming interest @12% p.a. on deposits – Official Liquidator adjudicating claims under Rule 163 of Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 and allowing interest only @1.5% p.a. based on Board Resolution dated 28.04.1972 – Held: In absence of any document evidencing agreed or reserved rate of interest at 12% p.a., appellants not entitled to claim higher interest – Adjudication by Official Liquidator upheld [Paras 3–4, 7–8, 10].

Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 – Rules 156 and 179 – Interest on Debt – Scope – Rules provide that where no interest is reserved or agreed, creditor may prove interest not exceeding 4% p.a. – Board Resolution fixing interest @1.5% p.a. binding and operative – No infirmity in restricting interest accordingly [Paras 8–9].

Company Law – Equality of Creditors – Pari Passu Distribution – Post Winding Up Rights – Reliance on J.K. (Bombay) (P) Ltd. v. New Kaiser-I-Hind Spg. & Wvg. Co. Ltd. – Held: After winding up order, no new rights can be created nor uncompleted rights perfected to prejudice pari passu distribution among creditors – Claim for enhanced interest not maintainable [Para 9].

Company Law – Allegation of Mismanagement – Relevance – Appellant alleging siphoning of assets and discriminatory treatment by majority shareholders – Held: No challenge to Board Resolution or acts of alleged mismanagement raised at relevant stage – Such allegations irrelevant for adjudication of interest claim in liquidation proceedings [Para 10].

Proof of Debt – Additional Claims – Director’s Remuneration and Reimbursements – Failure to Produce Proof – Claims towards remuneration and payments to statutory bodies rejected by Official Liquidator for want of documentary evidence – Held: In absence of proof before Official Liquidator and appellate court, rejection justified [Para 12].

Decision: All Miscellaneous Company Appeals dismissed – Adjudication of claims by Official Liquidator accepting interest @1.5% p.a. affirmed – No entitlement to interest @12% p.a. – Additional claims in MCOMA No. 6 of 2024 also rejected – Appeals dismissed.