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].

Criminal Law - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Inherent Powers under Section 482 CrPC – Alternative Remedy Available – The applicant sought quashing of proceedings under Section 406 IPC – Held: In view of recent Supreme Court decisions, inherent jurisdiction should not be exercised when efficacious statutory remedy exists – Application under Section 482 CrPC not maintainable when revision remedy available – Dismissed with liberty to approach revisional court [Paras 1-6].

Principle of Law – Inherent Jurisdiction Should Not Circumvent Statutory Remedy – Referring to judgments in Vipin Sahni v. CBI and Mohit alias Sonu v. State of U.P., the Court reiterated that Section 482 jurisdiction must be invoked sparingly and only in exceptional cases – Present case showed no extreme or unavoidable circumstance warranting intervention [Paras 3-6].

Relief to Applicant – Age and Warrant Consideration – Applicant aged 92 years – Non-bailable warrant issued – Court directed that if revision is filed within 10 days, no coercive action be taken and bail application be considered promptly in accordance with law [Para 8].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Revision Permitted – Application under Section 482 CrPC dismissed as not maintainable – Liberty granted to file revision within ten days – Revisional court directed to decide the matter on merits within six weeks of filing [Paras 7-9].

Criminal Law - Sexual Assault on Minor – Sections 6 read with 5(j)(ii), 5(l), and 12 & 11(v) of the POCSO, Sections 376(2)(n), 313, 498A, 506(i) of the IPC and Section 10 of the Child Marriage Act – Quashing Denied Despite Compromise – Petitioners, accused of repeated sexual assault on a minor girl leading to forced marriage and abortion, sought quashing of charges citing amicable settlement – Held: Nature and gravity of offences under POCSO Act and Child Marriage Act bar quashing of proceedings on grounds of compromise – Such offences impact public interest and cannot be treated as private disputes [Paras 2–5, 11–13].

Heinous Offences – Public Interest Paramount – No Ground for Interference under Section 482 CrPC – The Court reaffirmed that in offences involving rape, aggravated sexual assault, and mental depravity, courts must not permit quashment even if victim expresses disinterest in prosecution – Held: Quashing not permissible in serious crimes that affect society at large and undermine dignity of women and children [Paras 6–10, 12].

Compromise with Victim – No Effect in Serious Offences – Reliance on Victim’s Affidavit Rejected – Petitioners relied on affidavit from victim indicating no grievance – Held: Affidavit does not justify quashing – Allegations involve coercion, abuse, and offences of public concern – Compromise obtained through inducement or threat cannot be recognised [Paras 3, 12].

Judicial Precedents – Settled Law Against Quashing in Serious Sexual Offences – Citing Gian Singh, Parbatbhai Aahir, Madanlal, and Ramji Lal Bairwa – Court held that heinous offences like rape and POCSO violations are not compoundable and cannot be quashed on the basis of settlement between parties – Public interest in prosecution prevails over private arrangements [Paras 6–9].

Decision – Criminal M.C. Dismissed – Prosecution to Proceed – High Court found no merit in plea for quashing and directed that trial in S.C. No. 709 of 2020 before Additional Sessions Court (POCSO), Koyilandy, shall continue in accordance with law – Petition dismissed [Paras 11–13].

Arbitration Appeal – Improper Constitution of Arbitral Tribunal – Arbitrator Lacked Jurisdiction – Fresh Commencement Required – After the initial award was set aside, appellants re-approached the same arbitrator without issuing notice under Section 21 or mutual agreement of parties – Held: Arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to recommence proceedings; Single Judge rightly held the award invalid due to defective constitution of the tribunal [Paras 13-29].

Commencement of Arbitration – Section 21 of the Arbitration Act – Notice Requirement Mandatory – No Request Served – Despite Court permitting fresh arbitration, appellants failed to serve Section 21 notice – Held: Substantial compliance absent; failure vitiated the entire arbitral proceedings – Award correctly set aside [Paras 22-28].

Contract Law – Memorandum of Understanding – Not a Concluded Contract – Directions Not Capable of Execution – The MoU lacked clarity on redevelopment terms and depended on uncertain tenant consents – Held: Absence of definitive agreement on demolition vs additional floors and tenant consent obligations meant the MoU was not enforceable – Arbitrator’s award directing specific performance was based on incomplete reading of the agreement [Paras 30-33].

Judicial Review under Section 34 – Arbitrator Ignored Vital Evidence – Perversity of Award – Arbitrator excluded critical clauses and proceeded as if MoU was a binding sale deed – Held: Such exclusion rendered the award perverse; Single Judge acted within Section 34 jurisdiction to set it aside [Paras 32-35].

Final Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Award Held Invalid – No Interference Warranted – The Division Bench confirmed Single Judge’s order setting aside arbitral award; appellants failed to establish jurisdictional or substantive error in findings – Held: No perversity or jurisdictional overreach found in Single Judge’s decision [Paras 35-36].

Taxation Law - Capital Gains – Exemption under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act – Investment in Multiple Units – Exemption Allowed – The appellant sold a flat in Mumbai and invested ₹1.08 crore in seven residential units in Pune – Tribunal restricted exemption to one unit – Held: Under the unamended Section 54, the phrase “a residential house” can include multiple units – Exemption granted for full investment – ITAT and Assessing Officer’s orders set aside [Paras 2, 9, 13-15, 19-21, 23-24].

Interpretation – Beneficial Provision – Liberal Interpretation Favoured – Section 54(1) being a beneficial provision must be liberally construed – Held: If two interpretations are possible, the one favourable to the assessee must be adopted – Encouraging reinvestment in housing justified broader reading of “a residential house” [Paras 5, 21].

Statutory Amendment – Prospective Effect – Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 – Court held that the amendment replacing “a residential house” with “one residential house” is prospective from 01.04.2015 – Hence, for AY 1995-96, unamended provision applied, which did not restrict exemption to a single unit [Paras 11-13, 17].

Judicial Precedent – Consistent High Court View – Karnataka and Madras High Courts in similar cases have upheld exemption for multiple units under Section 54 – Bombay High Court agreed with these views and distinguished contrary Special Bench ruling in Sushila Jhaveri – Tribunal erred in ignoring binding precedent [Paras 14-16, 18, 20].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Exemption on Entire Capital Gains – Question of law answered in favour of assessee – Full exemption under Section 54 allowed on capital gains of ₹1,08,30,625/- from investment in seven row houses – Tribunal’s order modified accordingly [Para 24].

Writ Petition – Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Section 230 Rajasthan Tenancy Act – Section 2(2) Hindu Succession Act – Maintainability of ST daughter’s suit for declaration of khatedari rights – Board’s revisional order quashed – Petitioner (sole daughter of a Meena ST father) filed revenue suit for declaration after civil court directed her to seek khatedari declaration – Board allowed O7 R11 relying on Section 2(2) HSA to hold daughters of ST have no succession – Held: In view of Supreme Court in Tirth Kumar and Ram Charan, discrimination against ST daughters is impermissible and rejection at threshold was illegal – SDO’s rejection of O7 R11 restored and suit to be tried on merits with expeditious timeline – Writ allowed [Paras 2, 5-8].

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Section 2(2) – Applicability to Scheduled Tribes vis-à-vis equality – Supreme Court’s rulings in Tirth Kumar (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3810) and Ram Charan (CA No. 9537/2025) – Court reiterates that while HSA is inapplicable to STs per S.2(2), exclusionary customs must be proved and in their absence denial of a daughter’s share violates Articles 14 & 15 – Reliance on S.2(2) to non-suit an ST daughter at the threshold is unsustainable – Board’s order set aside [Paras 6-7, 16-18].

Customary Law – Burden of proof – Where Hindu law is inapplicable by virtue of Section 2(2) HSA, succession among tribals turns on proved custom – Courts cannot presume an exclusionary (patriarchal) custom – In absence of proof of custom excluding female succession, equality principle controls – Outcome: Plaintiff’s claim is maintainable and must be adjudicated on evidence [Para 6].

Procedure – Prior civil suit for cancellation of gift and liberty to seek revenue declaration – Petitioner correctly approached SDO for declaration of khatedari rights – Order 7 Rule 11 cannot be invoked to decide disputed rights or to foreclose claims on a debatable legal position – Direction issued to decide the pending 2018 suit expeditiously, preferably within two years, uninfluenced by observations – O7 R11 application rejected [Paras 2, 5, 8].

Constitutional Law – Articles 14, 15(1), 15(3), 16, 21 & 51-A – Equality and non-discrimination for tribal women – Court echoes and builds on Supreme Court’s recommendation in Kamla Neti urging Union of India to revisit Section 2(2) HSA to secure parity in intestate succession for female tribals – Observation made as a way forward and not as a binding direction on merits of the suit [Paras 10-18].

Criminal Law - Speedy Trial – Senior Citizen Complainant – Section 528 BNSS – Trial Court’s Leniency Towards Accused Decried – Petition Allowed – FIR registered on 31.03.2021 for offences under IPC and IT Act—challan filed 30.09.2021—trial delayed with only two witnesses examined in four years—accused repeatedly absent, granted numerous exemptions (30 to one accused, 10 to another), only bailable warrants issued—High Court held such leniency impermissible in serious crimes—reaffirmed Article 21 right to speedy trial citing Kartar Singh and Abdul Rehman Antulay—Directed trial court to conclude proceedings within eight months—District & Sessions Judge to convene meeting advising judicial officers against casual approach, especially in senior citizens’ cases [Paras 5–12].

Criminal Revision – Conviction under Arms Act – Acquittal Ordered – Petitioner was convicted under Sections 25(1-B)(a) and 26 of the Arms Act for alleged illegal possession of a country-made pistol and cartridges – Trial Court and Appellate Court upheld the conviction – High Court on revision found discrepancies in recovery location and nature of ammunition – Held: Prosecution failed to prove conscious or exclusive possession beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction set aside [Paras 1-5, 11, 13-18].

Contradictions in Seizure – Place of Recovery and Type of Cartridge – Seizure list stated recovery near a cabin on petitioner’s land; however, prosecution witnesses claimed recovery from petitioner’s waist – Cartridge bore also differed between seizure list (8mm KF) and oral evidence (.315 bore) – Court held such material discrepancies go to the root of the prosecution case [Paras 7-10, 16].

Appreciation of Evidence – Revisional Scope Invoked – Though normally limited, Court held revisional interference justified due to perverse findings by lower courts – Misreading of evidence and failure to address contradictions necessitated intervention [Paras 15-17].

Final Order – Conviction Reversed – Accused Acquitted – Revision allowed – Petitioner acquitted and released from bail bond – Trial Court directed to comply and destroy seized material after limitation period for SLP [Paras 18-23].

Bail – Section 20(b)(ii)(A) read with Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act – Small Quantity of Contraband – Bail Granted – Petitioner found in possession of 4 kg of ganja, not a commercial quantity – Detained for 48 days – Material part of investigation completed, charge sheet pending – Court held that no apprehension of absconding or tampering with evidence exists – Bail granted with stringent conditions [Paras 2, 6-8].

Judicial Discretion – Factors for Grant of Bail – Quantity of contraband and duration of custody considered relevant – Court exercised discretion in favour of bail as petitioner was cooperating, and offence did not involve commercial quantity – Conditions imposed to ensure appearance and prevent reoffending [Paras 6-8].

Conditions of Bail – Compliance Directed – Bail granted on execution of personal bond of ₹10,000 with two sureties – Weekly appearance before police mandated – Movement restricted to local district limits without trial court permission – Cooperation with investigation made mandatory [Para 8].

Final Order – Criminal Petition Allowed – Petitioner released on bail under specific conditions – Trial court directed to ensure compliance and monitor conduct [Para 8].