Anticipatory Bail – Financial Scam – Co-operative Society – Pre-arrest bail granted with stringent conditions – Sneha MACS allegedly collected ₹6.32 crore from depositors, failed to repay – Accused No. 3, aged 71, retired bank officer, served as Director/CEO only from April 2022 to October 2024 – Majority of deposits mobilised before his tenure – Petitioner claimed to have invested ₹2 crore from own and family’s funds, making him also a victim – Investigation revealed no evidence of siphoning deposits for personal benefit – Petitioner cooperated with Investigation and Inquiry Officers; seizure of documents and material completed – Fixed residence and landed property; no risk of absconding – Health issues noted (kidney, thyroid, diabetes) – Court held custodial interrogation unwarranted; anticipatory bail granted subject to compliance with strict conditions [Paras 19–21].

Conditions Imposed – Personal bond of ₹50,000 with two sureties; weekly appearance before Station House Officer every Saturday 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. till charge sheet; no threats or inducement to witnesses; no travel outside district without SHO’s permission; surrender of passport or affidavit if none [Para 21].

Decision – Criminal petition allowed; pre-arrest bail granted subject to conditions [Para 21].

Civil Procedure – Amendment of Pleadings – Order 6 Rule 17 CPC – Liberal approach reiterated – Amendment sought to add challenge to 1997 sale deed in suit for declaration of title and injunction – Petitioner contended amendment introduced time-barred claim, created new cause of action, and was moved only to delay proceedings after High Court’s direction for expeditious disposal – Held: Plaintiffs sought to base amendment on facts disclosed in written statement; amendment necessary for effective adjudication of real dispute; does not change basic nature and character of suit – Technical objections, including limitation, not a bar at amendment stage when facts on knowledge require trial – Trial court’s discretion to allow amendment upheld [Paras 7–11].

Limitation – Article 58, Limitation Act – Suit for declaration – Limitation of three years applies from date of knowledge – Court declined to presume prior knowledge of deed in absence of evidence – Whether claim barred to be determined at trial, not at amendment stage [Para 10].

Principles – Reiterated tests in Revajeetu Builders & Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons, (2009) 10 SCC 84, and Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd., 2022 (4) ICC 645 (SC) – Amendments necessary for real controversy to be allowed unless causing irremediable prejudice, withdrawing admissions, or raising ex facie time-barred claims – Courts to adopt liberal approach [Paras 7–8, 11].

Decision – Civil revision dismissed; order of Civil Judge (Jr. Division), 5th Court, Howrah, allowing amendment affirmed; no order as to costs [Paras 12–14].

Criminal Appeal – Conviction under Section 302/149 and 147 IPC – Sentence Modified for Juvenility – Appeal filed against conviction and sentence of life imprisonment for murder committed by unlawful assembly – Appellants Chhedi and Madan claimed to be below 16 years of age at the time of offence – Court accepted school leaving certificate and municipal birth records – Trial court failed to apply provisions of U.P. Children Act, 1951 despite recording ages below 16 – Held: Conviction upheld but sentence modified to period already undergone in accordance with Section 27 and 33 of the 1951 Act [Paras 1-3, 7-11, 16-18, 37-41].

Juvenility – Determination of Age – Sections 2(4), 73 of U.P. Children Act – Age Certificates Accepted – Appellants produced uncontroverted age certificates – Their ages were 13 and 15 at the time of incident – Trial court failed to make necessary inquiry under Section 73 or apply correct legal test for sentencing juveniles – Held: Appellants to be treated as ‘child’ and ‘youthful offender’ under the Act [Paras 7-11, 15-18].

Sentencing of Juvenile – Section 27 and 33 of U.P. Children Act – Non-Compliance by Trial Court – Trial judge did not certify that children were unruly or of depraved character before sentencing to imprisonment – Court held that in absence of such certification and in light of law, appellants could not have been sentenced like adults – Held: Sentences set aside and reduced to period already undergone [Paras 12-14, 38-40].

Unlawful Assembly – Participation by Juveniles – Conviction Upheld – Evidence of PW-1, PW-3 and partly of PW-2 supported the prosecution story – Appellants were active participants – Madan gave brick blow on head; Chhedi inflicted lathi blows – Presence and specific role proved beyond doubt – Held: Conviction valid under Sections 302/149 and 147 IPC [Paras 19-36].

Hostile Witness – Partial Reliability – PW-2 Declared Hostile – Trial court relied on portions of his testimony confirming presence of accused and specific act of Madan – Court reaffirmed that hostile witnesses may still provide credible corroboration – Held: Statement partly reliable and properly appreciated [Paras 24-28].

Identification – Village Setting – Source of Light Acceptable – Defence raised doubts about identification due to night-time incident – Court accepted testimony of PW-1 and PW-3 supported by moonlight and lantern – Held: Identity of accused established – No requirement to seize lantern in rural setting where assailants were known neighbours [Paras 25-27].

Appeal – Partly Allowed – Conviction Maintained – Sentence Modified – Court affirmed conviction of juvenile appellants but modified sentence in accordance with U.P. Children Act – Held: Conviction sustained, sentence reduced to period already undergone [Paras 41].

Arbitration Law - Arbitral Interim Relief – Remand of Section 17 Decision – Impugned Order Set Aside - The Arbitral Tribunal rejected interim relief to protect Atul’s rights under a development MoU citing termination, lack of clarity, and change in land use to NDZ – Held: Tribunal failed to consider material documents including the Oberoi MoU in full; findings were summary and not adequately reasoned – Order set aside and matter remanded for reconsideration with full disclosure [Paras 1-4, 62-66].

Title to Land – Revived Show Cause Notice as Fetter – No Absolute Title Established – Clear Title Not Achieved - The DB Judgement revived a 2002 SCN that restricted alienation without Government consent – Held: This revival precluded establishment of “absolute and clear title,” a precondition for Atul’s payment obligations under the MoU – Termination on ground of non-payment was premature [Paras 45-55].

Termination of Agreement – Letters Dated 28 July and 7 September 2020 – Not Effective Termination – Effective Termination Held to be 18 December 2023 - Tribunal treated 2020 letters as conclusive termination – Held: Language of subsequent letters indicated continued engagement – Only the 2023 letter with refund cheque amounted to final termination [Paras 30-34].

Existence of Earmarked Land – Layout Plan and Identification of 12.5 Acres – Dispute is Triable – No Basis for Summary Rejection - Tribunal found no identifiable land for performance – Held: Confirmation Deed referenced layout plan and fencing obligations implying identification – Whether plan existed is a factual issue requiring evidence [Paras 23-27].

NDZ Classification – Development for IT and Residential Use Possible – Inaccurate Assumption by Tribunal - Tribunal concluded that residential development was impossible due to NDZ classification – Held: DCPR 2034 allows for residential units as part of IT/ITES parks – Oberoi MoU itself contemplated residential development – Tribunal’s analysis flawed [Paras 13-16].

Oberoi MoU – Redacted Disclosure to Tribunal – Critical Evidence Withheld – Tribunal Misled - The Oberoi MoU, central to dispute, was submitted in highly redacted form, depriving Tribunal of material facts – Held: Full document must be disclosed (with limited redactions) to ensure fair adjudication – Tribunal to reconsider matter with full MoU [Paras 35-44].

Ready and Willingness to Perform – WhatsApp Chats as Prima Facie Evidence – Tribunal’s Reliance Not Perverse - Tribunal relied on October 2019 chats to infer unwillingness to perform – Held: Tribunal’s reliance was reasonable; however, readiness must be assessed in full factual context including absence of clear title at the time [Paras 17-22].

Impleadment of Non-Signatory – Oberoi Realty’s Participation Allowed – Interests Affected - Oberoi voluntarily sought impleadment, and their agreement (Oberoi MoU) materially impacted Atul’s rights – Held: As per recent Supreme Court precedent, Tribunal can consider impleadment of non-signatories – Application remanded for consideration [Paras 68-73].

Remand Ordered – Tribunal to Reconsider Section 17 Relief – Full Disclosure of Oberoi MoU Directed - Impugned Order set aside due to summary findings and withheld material – Directed: Oberoi MoU to be shared with Tribunal and Atul with redactions only on commercial terms – Fresh hearing on interim relief directed [Paras 62-64, 74-76].

Civil Law - Land Dispute – RDO Order Set Aside for Violation of Natural Justice – Remand Directed – In a batch of writ appeals and petitions concerning land in Survey Nos. 212/8 and 212/15 of Damineedu Village, the Court examined the legality of the Revenue Divisional Officer’s (RDO) order dated 09.06.2023, which was passed without notice to persons affected by an earlier Tahsildar order dated 24.05.2014 – The Court held that the RDO’s order suffered from a clear violation of natural justice and could not stand – However, the Tahsildar’s order was not held to be illegal or void and could be revived – Held: The RDO’s order is set aside and the matter remanded for fresh hearing after due notice to all affected parties – Revenue authority’s decision to remain subject to outcome of civil court and tribunal proceedings [Paras 14–22].

Violation of Natural Justice – RDO Order Passed Without Hearing Affected Parties – Illegal – The RDO failed to issue notice to several individuals who were found to be in possession of the land and whose rights were recorded by the Tahsildar in 2014 – Held: Order passed without hearing necessary parties is in breach of natural justice and liable to be set aside [Paras 14–16, 20].

Validity of Tahsildar’s 2014 Order – Not Void or Illegal – Capable of Revival – The Tahsildar had acted pursuant to earlier RDO directions dated 04.11.2013, issued notices, conducted enquiry, and passed orders recognising possession and making necessary entries – Held: The order cannot be considered illegal per se and may be revived – Court declined to interfere on merits at this stage [Paras 16–19].

Jurisdiction – Civil Courts and Tribunal to Determine Title – Revenue Authorities Limited to Mutation – The Court reiterated that title and ownership disputes must be adjudicated by civil courts or the Land Grabbing Tribunal – Revenue authorities' decisions are interim and subject to judicial determination – Held: Orders of Tahsildar and RDO do not confer or take away title [Paras 18, 21–22].

Pending Proceedings – Civil Suit Dismissed, Tribunal Case Pending – Earlier civil suit for declaration and injunction was dismissed for default – Land Grabbing Case No. 200 of 2022 pending – Held: RDO’s final decision will be subject to outcome of tribunal/civil court proceedings, which have overriding effect [Para 21].

Sub-Division and Mutation – 1981 Sub-Division Final – To Be Restored – The original sub-division entries made in 1981 were never challenged and must be restored as baseline – RDO directed to examine flow of title and possession afresh – Held: Fresh mutation and sub-division to be made per law after hearing all affected parties [Paras 18–22].

Decision – RDO’s Order Dated 09.06.2023 Set Aside – Appeal Remanded – Court held that impugned RDO order violated principles of natural justice and could not survive – Matter remanded for fresh decision with liberty to parties to approach appropriate forum for title adjudication – Writ appeals rendered infructuous and disposed of accordingly [Paras 20–22].

Criminal Contempt of Court – Sections 2(b), 2(c), 12, 15, 17, and 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act  - Scandalous and Reckless Allegations Against Judiciary – Obstruction of Justice – Advocate Found Guilty of Civil and Criminal Contempt – Sentenced to Imprisonment and Fine – The High Court initiated suo motu contempt proceedings against Advocate Devesh Bhatt, practicing at Gujarat High Court, due to his repeated and persistent acts of making scandalous, libelous, reckless, and unfounded allegations against various Judicial Officers, Hon’ble Judges, and the Hon’ble Chief Justice. Despite explicit orders, the contemnor continuously failed to remain present in proceedings, ignored warrants issued by the Court, and breached the undertaking and conditions laid down for bail. The contemnor engaged in sending malicious legal notices to sitting Judges and Judicial Officers, issuing defamatory public notices in newspapers, filing frivolous criminal complaints against Judges and even against the Amicus Curiae appointed to assist the Court, thereby obstructing justice and severely undermining the judicial institution's dignity. Such persistent acts amounted to civil contempt under Section 2(b) and criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Held: Advocate Devesh Bhatt is guilty of civil and criminal contempt, sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months, with the forfeiture of Rs. 5 lakhs deposited as security and further imposition of exemplary costs of Rs. 1 lakh [Paras 1-60].

Constitutional Powers – Contempt of Courts Act – Limitation Period Not Applicable Strictly in Suo Motu Proceedings – Scope and Application – The inherent jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 215 of the Constitution of India to initiate suo motu contempt proceedings is a constitutional power that cannot be limited by procedural restrictions under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The statutory limitation period prescribed under Section 20 of the Act does not strictly apply to such inherent powers vested in the High Courts. This inherent power allows the Court to take cognizance of contempt irrespective of the time frame when acts of contempt come to judicial notice – Held: Limitation under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 does not strictly bind the Court in the exercise of its constitutional powers [Paras 37-47].

Misuse of Judicial Process – Advocate Seeking Permission for Prosecution of Sitting Judges – Malicious Legal Proceedings – Contemptuous Behavior – The contemnor, Advocate Devesh Bhatt, had persistently misused judicial and administrative processes by seeking permission under Section 197 CrPC and under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, to prosecute sitting Judges of the Gujarat High Court on frivolous charges. He also attempted to prosecute the Amicus Curiae appointed by the Court, impeding the latter’s duties and thereby obstructing administration of justice – Held: Such conduct constitutes criminal contempt as it directly obstructs the course of judicial administration [Paras 25-26, 30-31, 54-57].

Sentence and Punishment – Exemplary Costs – Justification for Strong Action – Advocate Devesh Bhatt, despite repeated warnings and opportunities to reform his conduct, demonstrated continued disregard for the dignity and authority of the judiciary, failing to tender any apology or explanation. Such conduct warranted exemplary punishment to deter similar attempts to scandalize and obstruct justice. Accordingly, the contemnor sentenced to simple imprisonment of three months, the security deposit of Rs. 5 lakhs forfeited, and additional exemplary cost of Rs. 1 lakh imposed. Directions issued to the Registry to inform judicial authorities and Bar Council to ensure enforcement – Held: Exemplary sentence justified and warranted to uphold the rule of law and protect judicial dignity [Paras 60-66].

Decision – Advocate Convicted for Civil and Criminal Contempt – Imprisonment and Costs Imposed – Advocate Devesh Bhatt convicted for contempt, sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months without set-off for previous incarceration, forfeiture of security deposit of Rs. 5 lakhs with accrued interest, and additional exemplary cost of Rs. 1 lakh. The criminal complaint filed by the contemnor against the Amicus Curiae is quashed, being obstructive to administration of justice. Registry directed to convey the order to the Bar Council of Gujarat, High Court Bar Association, and all judicial forums of the State for compliance and implementation [Paras 60-67].

Civil Writ – PIL - Lonavala-Khandala – Ecological Preservation – Urban Planning – PIL for Infrastructure and Regulation of Construction – Continuation of Expert Committee till New Development Plan – Petition partly allowed – Petitioners sought directions to regulate uncontrolled development, demolish illegal structures, and provide infrastructure – Court noted substantial improvement due to interim orders since 2007, including demolition drives, partial implementation of Solid Waste Management Rules, sewerage plans, and regulation of new constructions via Court-appointed Expert Committee – Held: Expert Committee mechanism to continue only until new Development Plan and Development Control Regulations (DCRs) are finalised; thereafter, statutory Planning Authority to function independently – Directions issued for prompt infrastructure augmentation, action against illegal structures, publicity to grievance redressal system, preparation of new DCRs, and liberty to State to consider inclusion of Lonavala-Khandala in list of hill stations [Paras 16, 20-22, 24-29, 31-34].

Statutory Duties – Section 49 of the Municipal Councils Act – Municipal Council bound to provide basic infrastructure – Court reiterated statutory obligation to ensure facilities like water supply, sewerage, drainage, solid waste management, and roads – Directed compliance and coordination with State Government – Observed that dated 1996 Development Plan and DCRs allow excessive construction beyond infrastructure capacity [Paras 23-24, 31-33].

Urban Development – MRTP Act – Regulation of New Constructions – Role of Expert Committee – Extraordinary judicial measure justified due to past Planning Authority failures – Time-bound continuation till statutory reforms – Municipal Council to consider available infrastructure before granting permissions – New DCRs to embed safeguards achieved by Committee oversight [Paras 26-28, 33-34].

Policy – Inclusion in Hill Station List – Special Regulations for Tourist Resorts – Court declined to mandate inclusion of Lonavala-Khandala as hill station; held it is a policy matter for State – Liberty to petitioners to make representation – State may consider applying Special Regulations to safeguard ecology [Para 30].

Decision – PIL disposed with directions – Infrastructure improvement, action against illegal constructions, continuation of Expert Committee till finalisation of new Development Plan/DCRs, and liberty to seek inclusion in hill station list – Connected petitions and applications also disposed [Para 34-36].

Arbitration Law - Arbitral Award – Challenge under Section 34 – Patent Illegality – Award Set Aside – The petitioner challenged the arbitral award passed under MSMED Act by the Council at Punjab, which directed the petitioner to pay Rs.1,99,29,166/- including interest – Grounds included that the award was non-speaking, ignored vital evidence, and rejected the counter-claim without reasons – Held: The award suffered from patent illegality and violated public policy by ignoring inspection reports, failing to address delay in furnishing performance bank guarantee, and relying on interest calculations provided post-hearing without opportunity to rebut – Award set aside [Paras 3, 5, 16-27].

Jurisdiction – Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause – Chennai Court Held Competent – Despite the award being passed in Punjab, the original contract and purchase orders contained a jurisdiction clause conferring exclusive jurisdiction to Chennai Courts – Held: Petition under Section 34 maintainable before Madras High Court – Venue of arbitration under MSMED Act is only a matter of convenience for the supplier and does not override contractual jurisdiction clause [Paras 10-13, 16].

Pre-deposit under Section 19 of MSMED Act – Compliance Sufficient – Clarificatory Power of Court – Objection raised by respondent that 75% of post-award interest was not deposited – Held: Registry had accepted the deposit, and Court exercised its power under Section 19 to allow supplementation if necessary – Petition held maintainable [Paras 6, 31-33].

Counter-claim and Evidence – Rejection without Reason – Violation of Natural Justice – Petitioner's counter-claim based on delay, defective supplies, and documents including inspection reports was summarily rejected without reasons – Held: The Council failed to consider vital evidence or provide reasoning, making the award vulnerable under Section 34(2)(b)(ii) and 34(2A) as in conflict with public policy and patently illegal [Paras 5, 18-24].

Decision – Award Set Aside – Liberty to Initiate Fresh Arbitration – The impugned arbitral award dated 02.07.2024 was quashed – Both parties granted liberty to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings – Time spent before Council and Court excluded for limitation purposes under Section 14 of the Limitation Act [Para 35].

Civil Law - Specific Performance – Oral Agreement to Reconvey – Specific Performance Denied – Suit Dismissed – The plaintiffs sought enforcement of an alleged oral agreement to reconvey property allegedly transferred to the defendant to secure a business loan – The trial court disbelieved the oral agreement and upheld the sale deed as valid – Held: Oral agreement not proved and plea of reconveyance not substantiated – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1–4, 7–8, 17, 28].

Inconsistent Pleadings – Reliefs Mutually Contradictory – Suit Improperly Framed – Plaintiff simultaneously sought specific performance, cancellation of sale deed, declaration that it is void, and that it is sham – Held: Reliefs are inconsistent and mutually exclusive – Suit not maintainable as framed [Para 10].

Registered Sale Deed – Consideration Proven – Payments Established – Defendant produced bank records, fixed deposits and documents showing financial capacity and payments made to plaintiff and Preethy – Plaintiff’s alternate claim that payments were for charity was found to be false – Sale deed held valid and supported by consideration [Paras 14, 22–24].

Adverse Inference – Key Witness Withheld – Preethy Not Examined – Despite being central to transaction and added as co-plaintiff, Preethy failed to appear or testify – Held: Adverse inference to be drawn against plaintiffs for withholding material witness [Para 25].

Possession and Title – Defendant Shown in Possession – Mutation Completed – Defendant proved possession and mutation of title through documentary evidence and reliable witness – Plaintiff did not refute mutation or tax payment by defendant – Trial court's finding affirmed [Para 26].

Sham Transaction Allegation – Not Substantiated – Plaintiff's plea that sale deed was sham and without intent to transfer ownership rejected due to lack of proof and inconsistencies in case theory – Defendant’s version supported by surrounding circumstances and payments made [Paras 17–24].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Trial Court Judgment Affirmed – High Court upheld validity of sale deed, rejected plea of reconveyance, and dismissed appeal – Held: No grounds to interfere with findings of trial court – Appeal lacks merit [Paras 27–28].