Arbitration – Jurisdiction Challenge – Section 16 A&C Act – Arbitrator appointed with party consent under Section 11 – Petitioner raised preliminary objection claiming dispute was non-arbitrable as it involved dissolution and asset distribution of a firm "at will" – Held: The existence of an arbitration clause and disputed dissolution status made arbitral jurisdiction tenable – Application rightly rejected by Arbitral Tribunal [Paras 6, 9–10]

Non-Arbitrable Subject – Winding Up of Partnership Firm – Petitioner argued that post-dissolution, dispute involved rights in rem, requiring court-supervised winding up – Held: In absence of a concluded dissolution or involvement of third-party claims, dispute over distribution of assets remains inter se between partners – It is an action in personam and thus arbitrable [Paras 5.2, 9.1]

Maintainability – Writ Petition Against Arbitral Order – Court held petition under Article 226/227 challenging rejection of jurisdictional plea is not maintainable except in exceptional rarity – Interference permitted only when order is perverse or passed in bad faith – Mere disagreement with arbitral ruling does not suffice [Paras 7.1, 8, 12–13]

Partnership Deed – Interpretation of Arbitration Clause – Clauses 12 and 13 considered – Clause 12 provided for arbitration of disputes relating to business or deed – Court found dispute within ambit of Clause 12 and not falling under exclusionary Clause 13, as the existence and dissolution of the firm were still contested [Paras 9–9.1]

Judicial Interference – Arbitration Framework – Strong reaffirmation of minimal interference principle under Section 5 A&C Act – Citing recent and binding SC precedents including Serosoft Solutions, Bhaven Construction, and SBI General Insurance – Court emphasized the legislative mandate of autonomy and efficiency in arbitral proceedings [Paras 5.4, 7.1, 8]

Decision: Petition dismissed – Held not maintainable under Articles 226/227 – No interference warranted with order of Arbitral Tribunal rejecting Section 16 application – All contentions on merits including jurisdictional objections left open for consideration under Section 34 A&C Act post award [Paras 13–14]

Criminal Law – Section 94 BNSS – Right to Fair Trial – Electronic Evidence – Application under Section 94 BNSS seeking preservation of mobile tower location and CDR of SHO’s mobile number for specified duration prior to and after alleged contraband recovery – Trial Court rejected application – Held: Accused entitled to summon relevant electronic records necessary for defence – Denial would amount to miscarriage of justice – Preservation of CDR and tower location directed with safeguards for privacy – Petition partly allowed [Paras 1–13]

Electronic Evidence – Admissibility and Relevance – Sections 65A and 65B of Evidence Act – CDR and tower location data admissible subject to statutory conditions – Accused has right to seek such records to establish presence or absence of police at alleged location – Denial without considering necessity undermines fairness of trial [Paras 7–9]

Right to Privacy vs. Fair Trial – Balancing Competing Rights – Production of CDR may breach police officials’ privacy, but right of accused under Article 21 to fair trial outweighs – Censoring incoming/outgoing numbers directed to mitigate privacy concerns – Legislative intent of Section 94 BNSS supports access to such records when relevant to truth-finding [Paras 8–10]

Judicial Direction – Section 94 BNSS – Accused must demonstrate relevance and necessity of documents sought – Court directed service provider to preserve and produce tower location data for SHO’s mobile number during relevant time period – Trial Court to receive censored CDR details [Paras 11–12]

Decision: Petition partly allowed – Trial Court directed to summon mobile tower location and CDR (with redacted call details) of SHO’s mobile number for the specified period – Service provider to preserve data – Petition and pending applications disposed of [Para 13]

Criminal Appeal – Acquittal – Interference in Appeal Against Acquittal – Land Dispute – Credibility of Witnesses – Site Plan Contradictions – Improvements & Omissions – Reasonable View of Trial Court Not to be Disturbed – Appeal Dismissed [Paras 12–25].

Appeal Against Acquittal – Parameters for Interference – Supreme Court precedents reiterated – High Court may interfere only if the acquittal is perverse, based on material misreading or where only one conclusion pointing to guilt is possible – Trial court’s reasonable view must be respected [Paras 12–13].

Site Plan – Contradiction With Prosecution Theory – Site plan (Ext.PW7/C) showing existence of a 5-ft wide public footpath directly adjacent to complainant’s field – Presence of “Kuhal” before accused’s field – Improbability of prosecution story regarding need for creating passage through accused’s field – Site plan undermines prosecution’s genesis of incident [Paras 14–16].

Witness Testimony – Improvements, Omissions & Contradictions – Informant (PW1) contradictory regarding uprooting of bamboo pole – injured witness (PW6) improved version regarding threats and omitted material facts – strained relationship and pending litigations require cautious scrutiny – prosecution evidence unreliable [Paras 17–23].

Eye-witness Credibility – PW2’s presence doubtful as his name absent in FIR and in other witness versions – Trial court justified in discarding his testimony [Para 19].

Decision – Reasonable view taken by Trial Court – No perversity or misreading of evidence – Appeal dismissed – Respondents directed to furnish bonds under Section 437-A CrPC/Section 481 BNSS [Paras 24–27].

Tenancy Law – Eviction – Alternate Suitable Residence – Decree of eviction passed against tenant under Section 13(1)(l) of Bombay Rent Act – Tenant during pendency of suit acquired 2 BHK flat jointly with son – Held: Despite being joint ownership, tenant was financial contributor, helped in loan repayment, and suppressed fact during trial – Decree upheld as alternate suitable residence was indeed acquired [Paras 24–27]

Will and Testament – Bequest of Premises – Suit premises claimed to be not needed due to bequest of rooms in Kelkar Museum to tenant and wife under a Will – Will imposed strict conditions including prohibition on altering furniture and requirement to display rooms to public – Held: Rooms were not freely usable or private, hence not “suitable alternate residence” under Rent Act [Paras 22–23]

Tenancy Inheritance – Right to Sue – Legal heirs brought on record after tenant’s death – Landlord argued tenancy rights extinguished with eviction decree – Held: Right to sue survives for legal heirs already brought on record and paying mesne profits – But such entry does not confer tenancy rights under Section 5(11)(c) of Bombay Rent Act in absence of evidence of co-residency at time of death [Paras 17–18]

CPC – Order XXII and Legal Representation – Legal heirs brought on record without objection – No automatic conferment of tenant status – Determination under Section 5(11)(c) requires evidence, cannot be assumed in writ proceedings [Paras 17–18]

Maharashtra Rent Control Act – No Eviction Ground – Petitioners argued decree not sustainable under new Act as Section 16 lacks alternate residence ground – Rejected – Decree based on cause of action and trial under Bombay Rent Act remains valid and enforceable [Para 19]

Writ Jurisdiction – Concurrent Findings – Trial and appellate courts found acquisition of alternate suitable residence by tenant – High Court upheld findings as probable and based on evidence – No jurisdictional error or perversity warranting interference under Article 227 [Paras 21, 27–29]

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Decree of eviction upheld – Petitioners directed to hand over vacant possession within six weeks – Respondent permitted to withdraw deposited compensation [Paras 29–31]

GST – Fake ITC fraud – Writ jurisdiction declined – Petitioner mastermind behind 100+ bogus firms – Cross-examination not an absolute right – Proper officer competent – Alternate remedy under Section 107 available – Petition dismissed [Paras 16–33].

GST – Fake Firms and Fraudulent ITC – Petitioner a Mastermind – Extensive evidence in SCN and impugned order established petitioner’s role in creating and operating more than 100 fake/non-existent firms, manipulating GST registrations, bank accounts, IP addresses, export documentation, and circular transactions solely to claim fraudulent ITC/refunds—statements of multiple accomplices (Tinku Yadav, Govind Sharma, Rinku Sharma, Rakesh Dogra, Satish Jain) corroborated petitioner’s direct involvement; petitioner controlled documents, devices, and backend operations [Paras 15–17].

‘Taxable Person’ – Interpretation – Liability of Operator of Fake Entities – Court rejected contention that only firms (not petitioner) were “taxable persons”—held that where firms are bogus or non-existent, the individual who creates/controls them is the real “taxable person”; accepting petitioner’s argument would allow masterminds of fake firms to escape liability despite massive fraud on exchequer [Paras 18–19].

Cross-Examination – Not an Absolute Right – Petitioner’s request for cross-examination rejected—Court held CGST Act does not confer automatic right similar to Section 138B of Customs Act; cross-examination required only where prejudice shown—SCN already contained all statements; petitioner had opportunity in first round but did not seek it—Adjudicating Authority rightly denied request, relying on Vallabh Textiles (2025 DHC 2559-DB), Telestar Travels (2013) 9 SCC 549, Malik Traders (2023), Annai Poly Packs (2024) [Paras 22–23].

Alternate Remedy – Writ Not Maintainable – Impugned Order-in-Original is appealable under Section 107 CGST Act—Court reiterated that in cases of fraudulent ITC involving complex factual analysis, writ jurisdiction should not be exercised—no violation of fundamental rights or natural justice—relied on Commercial Steel Ltd., (2021) SC; Mukesh Kumar Garg (2025 DHC 4057-DB); MHJ Metal Techs (2025 DHC) affirmed by SC (SLP 27411/2025) [Paras 24–29].

Proper Officer – Competence Upheld – Petitioner’s challenge based on Circular 254/11/2025 rejected—Additional Commissioner who issued SCN was already a “proper officer” under CGST Act; circular merely clarified designation; proceedings not vitiated [Para 30].

Conduct of Petitioner – No Relief in Writ – Petitioner admitted inability to pay pre-deposit for appeal—Court held that inability to comply with statutory appeal requirements cannot be ground to invoke writ jurisdiction; fraudulent conduct disentitles discretionary relief [Paras 31–33].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Petitioner relegated to statutory remedy under Section 107 CGST Act – Pending applications disposed of.

Civil Law – Rejection of Plaint – Jurisdiction Barred by Special Statute – Suit involving investor’s grievance against registered stockbroker for alleged non-delivery of shares and wrongful debit – Held: SEBI Act, 1992 provides a complete adjudicatory mechanism, including appointment of adjudicating officer under Section 15-I – Civil Court jurisdiction expressly barred under Section 15-Y – Plaintiff’s remedy lies under the special statute – Trial court erred in dismissing application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Impugned order set aside and plaint rejected [Paras 2, 10–15, 19]

Securities Law – SEBI Act – Investor Grievance – Default by Stockbroker – Suit filed for mandatory injunction directing stockbroker to deliver specific shares and reverse debited amount – Held: Matters relating to stockbroker default fall squarely within scope of Sections 15-F and 15-C of SEBI Act – Adjudication must be done by SEBI-appointed officer, not civil court – Civil court lacks jurisdiction in view of statutory bar under Section 15-Y [Paras 14–15]

Specific Relief – Suit for Mandatory Injunction – Not Maintainable Where Alternative Remedy Exists – Plaintiff filed suit for mandatory injunction instead of recovery – Held: When efficacious statutory and legal remedies are available under SEBI Act or by filing suit for recovery with ad valorem court fee, mandatory injunction cannot be granted – Suit hit by Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act – Apparent attempt to evade court fee liability [Paras 16–17]

Res Judicata and Abuse of Process – Second Application under Order 7 Rule 11 – Earlier rejection by trial court set aside by High Court with direction to decide afresh – Trial court failed to appreciate binding nature of earlier order – Repetition of error renders impugned order unsustainable [Paras 4, 18]

Decision: Revision petition allowed – Impugned order dated 18.02.2017 set aside – Suit of the plaintiff/respondent rejected as barred by law – Pending applications, if any, also disposed of [Para 19–20]

SARFAESI Act – Civil Court Jurisdiction – Fraud Pleaded Without Details – Bar Under Section 34 Ignored – Trial Court Order Set Aside – Respondent-plaintiff filed civil suit challenging SARFAESI possession proceedings by alleging fraud in relinquishment deed – Trial court granted ex parte stay against possession without considering bar of jurisdiction under Section 34 of SARFAESI Act – Held: Mere pleading of fraud without detailed particulars does not automatically confer jurisdiction on Civil Court – Trial court erred in failing to examine statutory bar or precedent – Order unsustainable [Paras 15, 22–24, 28]

Article 227 – Scope – Trial Court Failed to Examine Legal Bar – High Court Intervention Justified – Parties Relegated to Trial Court – Petitioner invoked Article 227 against ex parte proceedings and interim stay – Though High Court noted that petitioner could have sought remedy before trial court, intervention deemed appropriate as trial court’s order ignored jurisdictional bar and prior inconsistent pleadings – Matter remanded for fresh adjudication on jurisdiction and injunction after hearing both parties [Paras 25–28]

Civil Procedure – Ex Parte Order – Service Valid but Pleadings Withheld – No Illegality in Ex Parte Proceedings – Petitioner Free to Move Trial Court for Relief – Trial court proceeded ex parte after service was effected on petitioner – High Court held there was no illegality in procedural aspect – However, petitioner allowed to move appropriate application before trial court for recall or stay variation – Trial court to decide expeditiously [Paras 21, 25, 28–29]

Pleadings – Contradictory Stand – Civil Suit Alleging Fraud after Prior Writ Petition Affirming Voluntariness of Relinquishment – Relevant for Trial Court Consideration – Respondent earlier admitted in writ petition that relinquishment deed was voluntary – Subsequently challenged the same as fraudulent in civil suit – Held: Contradictory stand must be evaluated by trial court while deciding injunction and maintainability [Paras 16–17, 27]

Decision: Impugned order dated 03.03.2025 set aside – Petitioner permitted to move application before trial court – Trial court directed to decide on maintainability and injunction in view of Section 34 of SARFAESI Act and relevant precedents – Hearing to be completed expeditiously and decision on or before 24.12.2025 [Paras 28–30]

Civil Law – Rejection of Plaint – Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Limitation – Partition Suit – Petitioners sought rejection of plaint as hopelessly time-barred, citing mutation entry of 1976 which allegedly recorded partition of ancestral property – Plaintiffs claimed they had no knowledge or consent to such partition and alleged fraudulent mutation – Held: Determination of limitation involves mixed questions of law and fact requiring evidence – Rejection of plaint at threshold unwarranted.

Limitation – Date of Knowledge – Triable Issue – Court observed that limitation in such partition and inheritance disputes depends on when plaintiffs gained knowledge of the impugned acts – Referred to Supreme Court rulings affirming that such questions cannot be decided at preliminary stage – Held: Plaint must be read as a whole, and date of knowledge pleaded must be accepted at face value for Order 7 Rule 11 application.

Partition – Continuous Cause of Action – Plaint disclosed a valid cause of action arising out of disputed entry No. 5376 – Claim for lawful partition and declaration of ancestral property rights not barred on face of plaint – Mutation entry alone cannot conclusively determine title – Held: Partition suits are governed by continuous cause of action doctrine, suit maintainable.

Decision:

Civil Revision Application dismissed – Trial court order refusing to reject plaint upheld – Interim relief vacated – Notice discharged.

Criminal Law – Rape – Hostile Witness – Acquittal – Prosecutrix (PW.1) turned hostile and denied the rape allegation – Admitted Ex.P1 (complaint) was written under police dictation – No injuries found – Medical report confirmed intercourse but not linked to the accused – No direct or circumstantial evidence – Held: Rape not proved beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction under Section 376 IPC set aside [Paras 13–18, 33–36].

Criminal Law – Kidnapping/Abduction – Conviction – PWs 1, 3, 4 and 5 consistently deposed that accused forcibly took PW.1 on motorcycle – Victim identified the accused – Held: Offence under Section 366 IPC proved – Conviction upheld [Paras 25–28, 37].

Criminal Trial – Emotional Response – Victim cried during testimony when asked about the room incident but gave no details – Sessions Court erred in relying on emotional state as evidence of rape – Held: Court must seek cogent testimony and corroboration, not infer from demeanor alone [Paras 32, 34].

Medical Jurisprudence – Semen presence not enough – Doctor (PW.9) found spermatozoa but no injuries or signs of force – Victim denied being raped – Held: Medical evidence alone insufficient to convict under Section 376 IPC [Paras 33–35].

Appeal – Partial Allowance – Reappreciation of entire trial record – High Court affirmed conviction under Section 366 IPC but reversed rape conviction – Sentence of 5 years RI and ₹1,000 fine for abduction confirmed – ₹2,000 fine under Section 376 to be refunded – Period in custody to be set off under Section 428 CrPC [Paras 38].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Section 376 IPC set aside – Conviction under Section 366 IPC confirmed – Sentence of 5 years’ RI and ₹1,000 fine upheld – If fine under Section 376 already paid, to be refunded – Directions issued to Superintendent, Central Prison, Visakhapatnam [Para 38].