Civil Law – Amendment of Pleadings – Order 6 Rule 17 CPC – Suit filed in 1995 based on major settlement RoR – Amendment sought in 2025 to introduce consolidation plot number for plaintiffs’ land alone – High Court held that such amendment at argument stage without including defendants’ corresponding plot from consolidation records would cause prejudice – Held: Amendment not essential for adjudication and likely to complicate proceedings – Impugned order allowing amendment set aside [Paras 2–9]

Pleadings – Principles Governing Amendment – Reference to Chakreshwari Construction case – Court reiterated that amendments must not fundamentally alter the nature of the case or prejudice the opposite party – Amendment must be necessary, bona fide, and non-prejudicial – Proposed amendment failed on these counts – Suit can be adjudicated on basis of original settlement records alone [Paras 6–9]

Delay and Procedural Fairness – Suit delayed due to remand after decree – No explanation for belated amendment – Consolidation RoR came into effect during pendency but was not relied on earlier – Selective reference to new land records without matching updates for both parties held unfair – Amendment termed unnecessary and likely to trigger further procedural complexity [Paras 5–9]

Decision: Civil Miscellaneous Petition allowed – Order dated 09.10.2025 passed by Gram Nyayalaya allowing amendment set aside – Amendment application rejected

Civil Law – Specific Performance – Proof of Agreement – Plaintiff claimed agreement for sale dated 14/12/1990 and power of attorney dated 04/12/1990 executed by defendant – Court held that agreement for sale not required to be attested under Section 68 of Evidence Act – However, execution not proved as per Section 67 – Admitted absence of signatures of executant and attorney holder – Held: Plaintiff failed to prove execution of agreement; First Appellate Court right in holding trial court erred in accepting unproven document [Paras 10.3–10.10].

Remand – Power under Order XLI Rule 23A CPC – First Appellate Court remanded suit for de novo trial framing additional issues of fraud and sham transaction – Plaintiff argued no plea of fraud or prayer for additional evidence existed – Held: Defendant had specifically pleaded forgery and fabrication; trial court failed to frame necessary issues or decide counterclaim and key issues – Twin conditions for remand under Order XLI Rule 23A satisfied – No infirmity in remand [Paras 11.3–11.14].

Counterclaim – Non-Filing of Written Statement – Defendant sought declaration of forgery and eviction of plaintiff through counterclaim – Plaintiff failed to file written statement against counterclaim – Trial Court failed to decide counterclaim issues properly – First Appellate Court held remand justified – Held: Pleadings of fraud were not vague; trial court’s failure to adjudicate essential issues warranted open remand [Paras 13.1–13.6, 14.5–14.6].

Evidence – Admissibility – Power of attorney holder of defendant gave evidence (DW1) – Objection raised that she had no authority to depose on behalf of original defendant – Court held issue not examined as remand justified – Observed that admissibility to be considered by trial court afresh [Para 11.17].

Limitation – Article 54, Limitation Act – Plaintiff failed to show continuous cause of action or legal notice in 1990 – Held: Court refrained from expressing views, as First Appellate Court did not conclusively decide maintainability on this ground [Para 12.2].

Fraud – Order VI Rule 4 CPC – Whether counterclaim pleadings on fraud lacked particulars – Held: Defendant’s counterclaim specifically alleged forgery and fabrication – Adequate to put plaintiff on notice – Pleading not defective in law [Para 14.4–14.6].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 29/02/2024 of First Appellate Court affirmed – Suit remanded to Trial Court for fresh consideration on all framed and additional issues – No order as to costs – Interim orders vacated.

Land Acquisition – LDP Act – Application of LA Act and 2013 Act – Proceedings under the West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act, 1948 are not governed by the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or the 2013 Act – Held: Acquisition under the LDP Act is a self-contained code – Section 11-A of the LA Act and Section 24 of the 2013 Act not applicable – Repeal of LA Act by 2013 Act does not affect incorporated provisions in LDP Act [Paras 45–50, 62–68, 96].

Possession and Vesting – Validity of Acquisition – Possession of land taken in 1950 under urgency clause of Section 8 of LDP Act – Held: Once possession is taken, land vests absolutely in the State – Subsequent declarations or delays in compensation do not vitiate vesting – Subsequent acts by the State cannot divest land once vested – Acquisition process deemed complete [Paras 70–82].

Waiver – Estoppel against Challenge to Acquisition – Predecessor-in-interest accepted 80% ad hoc compensation in 1956 and consistently sought balance compensation – Held: Such conduct amounts to waiver of right to challenge acquisition – Petitioners cannot now seek to invalidate the process or claim lapse [Paras 83–88].

Compensation – Modality of Determination – Compensation to be determined under Section 8 of the LDP Act by applying Section 23(1) of LA Act – Date of valuation fixed as the date of notification (May 19, 1950) – Additional compensation at 15% under Section 23(2) of LA Act applicable as per LDP Act amendment of 1978 – Interest at 6% per annum awarded from December 1950 till date of award for equity – Section 23(1A) or amended Section 23(2) (30%) of LA Act not applicable [Paras 93–101].

Relief – Fresh acquisition denied – Only relief granted is declaration of award under LDP Act and payment of balance compensation with interest – High Court cannot notionally shift notification date to apply current market value – Article 142 invoked in Bernard Vaz not available to High Court [Paras 92–104].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of Single Judge set aside – Writ petition partly allowed – Fresh acquisition denied – Collector directed to compute compensation and declare award under Section 8 of LDP Act read with Sections 11 and 23 of LA Act (as incorporated) – Interest at 6% p.a. granted from December 1950 till award date – To be completed preferably by April 30, 2026 [Paras 93–105].

Criminal Law – Compromise after Conviction – Non-Compoundable Offences – Sections 324, 148, 149 IPC – Accused convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment up to two years – During pendency of appeal parties entered into voluntary compromise – Trial Court verified compromise and reported it to be genuine and without coercion – Held: High Court can quash proceedings and set aside conviction in exercise of inherent powers to secure ends of justice even in non-compoundable offences [Paras 4–8, 14–17].

Criminal Procedure – Section 482 CrPC – Scope – Distinction between Compounding and Quashing – Though offences are not compoundable under Section 320 CrPC, inherent jurisdiction of High Court not barred – Power under Section 482 can be exercised to prevent abuse of process and to promote peace and harmony where dispute is predominantly private in nature [Paras 8–12].

Offences against Society – Test of Public Interest – FIR involved offences under Sections 307 and 326 IPC but appellants already acquitted of those charges – Remaining offences under Sections 324/148/149 IPC arose from village dispute – Held: Incident did not affect public peace, moral turpitude or public policy – Continuation of proceedings would serve no fruitful purpose [Paras 7–8, 16].

Settlement – Post-Conviction Stage – Pendency of Appeals – Compromise permissible even after conviction where offence is non-heinous and private in nature – Object of criminal jurisprudence is reformatory and to restore peace – Rejection of compromise may perpetuate hostility [Paras 7, 14–16].

Effect of Death of Accused – Abatement – One appellant (Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi) expired during pendency of appeals – Appeal abated qua deceased accused – Remaining appellants entitled to benefit of compromise [Para 5, 18].

Decision: Appeals by accused allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant-convicts acquitted – Appeal filed by State dismissed in view of compromise – Proceedings abated qua deceased accused – Bail bonds discharged – All pending applications closed [Paras 17–18].

Real Estate – RERA Registration – Ongoing vs. Completed Project – Completion Certificate Issued Pre-RERA – Appellant’s project had received a valid completion certificate on 17 March 2015 – Tribunal wrongly held project as ongoing due to absence of fire safety certificate – Held: Under Regulation 67 of BDA Regulations, fire NOC suffices at completion stage – Completion certificate valid – Project not registrable under RERA [Paras 10–19]

Statutory Interpretation – Completion Certificate vs. Occupancy Certificate – Occupancy certificate (Sec. 2(zf)) and completion certificate (Sec. 2(q)) have distinct legal purposes – RERA registration depends on completion certificate – Absence of occupancy certificate does not render a project ongoing under the Act [Paras 12–13]

Fire Safety – Compliance Requirements – Regulation 67 of BDA Regulations requires fire NOC, not fire safety certificate, for completion – Fire safety certificate required only at occupancy stage – Tribunal’s reliance on fire safety certificate to invalidate completion certificate is legally incorrect – Project completed before Fire Safety Rules came into force [Paras 14–19]

Binding Effect of BDA Determination – BDA’s 2022 order confirming no need for fresh completion certificate after revised plan was final – Not challenged – Tribunal erred in disregarding binding decision of competent authority under Section 2(p) RERA – Project to be treated as complete [Paras 18–19]

Applicability of RERA – Retroactivity – Supreme Court in Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. clarified that RERA applies only to ongoing and future projects – Project completed before 1 May 2017 falls outside the purview of the Act – Tribunal misapplied settled law [Paras 10, 14, 20]

Decision: Appeals allowed – Orders of the OREAT dated 27 September 2024 in Appeal Nos. 96 and 97 of 2023 and review orders dated 13 November 2024 in Review Petition Nos. 15 and 16 of 2024 are set aside – Project held to be completed prior to commencement of RERA – Complaints held non-maintainable – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law – Bail – Cancellation – Anticipatory bail granted by Sessions Judge and confirmed by ACJM in serious offence of abduction and murder – Opposite party, a WBCS officer, allegedly masterminded the act using official vehicle and position – High Court held that anticipatory bail was granted without considering gravity of offence and role of accused – Bail cancelled [Paras 12-17]

Criminal Procedure – Section 438 CrPC and Section 483 BNSS – Jurisdiction of Court – Objection raised by accused that the matter was not listed before the correct Bench – Held: Issue of cancellation of bail rightly referred to Court exercising powers under Section 439 CrPC, as anticipatory bail stands exhausted once the accused surrenders and is granted bail – Court competent to adjudicate [Paras 15-16]

Evidentiary Material – Ocular and Electronic Evidence – Case diary revealed multiple eyewitnesses identifying accused in act of abduction, assault, and concealment of body – CCTV footage and post-mortem report corroborate – Affidavit by injured eyewitness recorded under Section 164 CrPC – Role of accused held to be principal and premeditated [Paras 11-13]

Judicial Discretion – Exercise of Bail Jurisdiction – Sessions Court granted anticipatory bail solely on the ground that accused is a government officer – ACJM mechanically followed Sessions order without independent reasoning – Held: Bail orders passed without application of mind and in ignorance of relevant facts are perverse and liable to be set aside [Paras 14, 17]

Court Procedure – Affidavit Irregularity – Affidavit submitted by State was blank in material parts and still affirmed by Commissioner – Court imposed cost of ₹10,000 on Oath Commissioner for gross negligence – Registrar directed to recover the same [Para 18]

Decision: Impugned orders dated 26.11.2025 (Sessions Court) and 29.11.2025 (ACJM) set aside – Bail cancelled – Accused directed to surrender within 72 hours – Cost imposed on Oath Commissioner.

Territorial Jurisdiction – Writ Petition under Article 226 – Challenge to Final Findings by Designated Authority recommending anti-dumping duty – Petitioner, a Kuwaiti exporter, claimed apprehended loss of business in Kolkata as part of cause of action – Held: Mere apprehension of injury to business or presence of customers in Kolkata is not sufficient to establish part of cause of action – The bundle of facts forming cause of action must have nexus to the lis involved, i.e., violation of procedural rights by Designated Authority – Petitioner’s claim of harm within West Bengal irrelevant to challenge based on procedural lapses – No integral or essential part of cause of action shown to arise in West Bengal – Writ not maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction [Paras 54–74]

Anti-Dumping Investigation – Principles of Natural Justice – Allegation of non-disclosure of essential facts and methodology by Designated Authority under Rule 16 of Anti-Dumping Rules – Petitioner claimed denial of right to fair hearing – Court refrained from examining due to lack of territorial jurisdiction – Observed that such questions may be appropriately addressed by CESTAT under statutory remedy [Paras 25–33, 73]

Alternative Remedy – Maintainability of Writ – Though questions of natural justice and procedural fairness raised, Court declined to adjudicate due to lack of territorial jurisdiction – Availability of statutory appeal under Section 9C also noted – Issue of maintainability on grounds of alternative remedy left open [Paras 25, 73]

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Court held it lacked territorial jurisdiction as no part of cause of action arose within West Bengal – No costs.

Arbitration – Jurisdiction – Statutory Arbitration – National Highways Act – Section 3-G(5), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 42 – Petitioner NHAI contended that Section 34 petition filed by landowners challenging award of arbitrator should lie before District Judge, Mandi, as arbitrator was Divisional Commissioner, Mandi – Held: Notification under Section 3-G(5) merely specifies territorial jurisdiction of arbitrator and does not designate “seat” of arbitration – Office location or venue of hearings at Mandi does not ipso facto constitute seat of arbitration – Neither parties nor arbitrator fixed seat – In absence of designated seat, court where first application under Part I was filed (Bilaspur) would have exclusive jurisdiction under Section 42 – District Judge Bilaspur rightly retained jurisdiction [Paras 11–16, 22–23].

Arbitration – Seat vs Venue – Interpretation of “Place” under Section 20 – Juridical Seat – Mandi not fixed as seat – Mere fact that arbitrator holds office or conducts hearings in Mandi does not confer status of “seat” – Reference made to Bharat Aluminium Co. v. Kaiser Aluminium and BGS SGS SOMA JV v. NHPC – Held: Seat of arbitration is the legal anchor of arbitration, and once chosen, confers exclusive jurisdiction – In present case, no agreement or determination regarding seat made – Thus, “Mandi” was only the venue and not the seat of arbitration [Paras 12–16].

Arbitration – Section 42 – First Application Rule – Exclusive Jurisdiction – Where Section 34 petition filed first – Respondents (landowners) filed Section 34 petitions before District Judge, Bilaspur prior in time to petitions filed by NHAI before District Judge, Mandi – As per Section 42, once an application is made in a “court” under Part I of the Act, that court alone has jurisdiction for all subsequent applications – Held: Bilaspur court has exclusive jurisdiction – Petitions by NHAI seeking transfer to Mandi court are devoid of merit [Paras 17–23].

Arbitration – Court under Section 2(1)(e) – Principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction – Applicability of Section 42 – District Judge, Bilaspur is a “court” under Section 2(1)(e) – Once Section 34 application was validly filed there, no subsequent application could be filed before Mandi court – Petitioner’s Section 34 application before Mandi filed after respondents’ application in Bilaspur – Held: District Judge Bilaspur had valid and exclusive jurisdiction [Paras 21–23].

National Highways Act – Section 3-G Arbitration – Applicability of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 3-G(6) expressly applies Arbitration Act, 1996 to arbitrations under National Highways Act – Section 2(4) of Arbitration Act also deems statutory arbitrations under any enactment, including National Highways Act, to be governed by Part I of the Arbitration Act – Hence, Section 34 and Section 42 apply in full to such statutory arbitrations [Paras 2–7].

Decision: All petitions dismissed – Impugned order dated 28.06.2025 passed by District Judge, Bilaspur upheld – District Judge, Bilaspur has exclusive jurisdiction to entertain and decide all applications arising out of the arbitral proceedings – Mandi court has no jurisdiction in view of first application rule under Section 42 – Miscellaneous applications also dismissed. [Para 24]

Election Law – Panchayat Elections – Corrupt Practice – Disqualification – Declaration of Returned Candidate as Void – Declaration of Another Candidate as Elected – Non-disclosure of criminal antecedents by returned candidate amounts to corrupt practice and election liable to be declared void – However, declaration of an unelected candidate as elected can be made only if statutory conditions are fulfilled – In absence of allegation or finding that but for corrupt votes the election petitioner would have secured majority of valid votes, declaration of another candidate as elected is impermissible – Tribunal erred in law in declaring respondent No.4 as elected [Paras 11–13].

Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 – Sections 89 and 90 – Distinction Between Disqualification and Corrupt Practice – Section 89(1)(a) relates to disqualification existing on date of election – Section 89(1)(b) concerns corrupt practices affecting election – In cases of disqualification, votes polled by disqualified candidate cannot automatically be treated as “thrown away” – Law does not permit presumption as to voting pattern had the disqualified candidate not contested – Ratio reiterated from Supreme Court precedents [Paras 10–12].

Election Tribunal – Procedural Lapses – Mandatory Duty to Follow CPC Procedure – Election petition decided without framing issues, without calling for written response and without recording evidence – Tribunal devised its own procedure ignoring mandatory statutory framework – Election petitions are akin to civil trials and strict adherence to procedure under CPC is mandatory – Failure to frame issues and conduct trial vitiates entire proceedings [Paras 14–15].

Framing of Issues – Importance – Democratic Rights at Stake – Settlement of issues is foundational stage of election trial – Issues determine scope of evidence and adjudication – Tribunal’s casual approach in deciding election petition without issues reflects non-application of mind – Election disputes affect fate of constituency and democratic process, hence require strict procedural compliance [Paras 14–15].

Supervisory and Appellate Interference – Election Matters – High Court justified in setting aside Tribunal’s order where it suffers from patent illegality and procedural impropriety – Tribunal’s order held unsustainable both in law and procedure – Matter remanded for fresh adjudication in accordance with law [Paras 15–16].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned order dated 06.03.2025 passed by Election Tribunal, Sri Muktsar Sahib set aside – Matter remanded to Tribunal for fresh decision after framing issues and recording evidence – Tribunal directed to decide election petition expeditiously, preferably on or before 30.06.2026.