MCOCA Ss.3, 4 & 21(4) – bail plea citing 6+ yrs custody, family hardship, and trial delay – petitioner convicted in witness murder & linked to Tillu gang organised crimes – statutory twin test not met – Art.21 delay plea rejected – bail dismissed

Bail under MCOCA – Section 21(4) – Twin Conditions – Bail Denied – Applicant in custody since 2020 sought bail citing 6+ years incarceration and family hardship – Held: Twin statutory conditions not satisfied; sufficient material of involvement in organised crime syndicate, including conviction in witness murder case (FIR 466/2015), pending trials in multiple murders, threats to witnesses, and active gang rivalry – Risk of re-offending and tampering with evidence – Bail refused [Paras 30-40, 55-57].

Constitutional Law – Article 21 – Speedy Trial – Delay Not Sole Ground – Though right to speedy trial is part of Article 21, delay alone cannot justify bail in grave offences under special statutes – Trial progressing with charges framed (24.08.2024) and 10 witnesses examined – No undue stagnation – Balance of societal interest outweighs plea of delay [Paras 41-47, 53-55].

Organised Crime – Definition & Scope – ‘Continuing unlawful activity’ and ‘organised crime syndicate’ – Requirement of more than one charge-sheet within 10 years with cognizance – Satisfied in present case; acquittals immaterial where cognizance was taken – Petitioner squarely falls within statutory definitions [Paras 34-39].

Decision – Bail Application Dismissed – Court held applicant failed to establish grounds under Section 21(4) MCOCA; long custody and medical hardship insufficient against gravity of offences and threat perception – Bail denied, pending applications disposed of [Paras 57-58].

Tenancy Law - Landlord-Tenant – Subletting – Eviction – Tenant settled abroad and premises found in exclusive possession of sub-tenant – Sub-tenant failed to prove direct tenancy with previous or current landlord – Rent Controller and Appellate Authority held subletting proved – High Court found no perversity or illegality in findings – Held: Concurrent findings of subletting justified – Eviction order affirmed [Paras 1-5, 13-14, 32]

Sub-tenant – Right to File Revision – Maintainability – Objection raised that sub-tenant, not being tenant, cannot file revision under Section 24(5) of the Act – Rejected – Held: Since sub-tenant was impleaded by landlord and decree was joint, sub-tenant had right to challenge it independently – Reliance placed on Supreme Court ruling in Karam Singh Sobti v. Pratap Chand, AIR 1964 SC 1305 – [Paras 16-19]

Civil Procedure – Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope – Revisional court not to re-appreciate evidence unless findings are perverse or illegal – Where concurrent findings of fact are possible and supported by evidence, revisional interference unwarranted – [Paras 20-22, 32]

Evidence – Proof of Subletting – Alleged rent receipts produced by sub-tenant disbelieved due to absence of originals, suspicious similarity in dates, and lack of proof of contents – Held: Findings of Rent Controller and Appellate Authority not perverse – [Para 23]

Pleadings – Sufficiency in Eviction Petitions – Objection raised that landlord failed to plead subletting occurred after commencement of Act and without written consent – Held: Though pleadings were not in precise statutory language, subletting was clearly averred and contested – No prejudice caused – Insufficiency of pleadings not fatal – Reliance on Virendra Kashinath Ravat v. Vinayak Joshi, AIR 1999 SC 162 – [Paras 24-29, 31]

Sub-tenant – Claim of Independent Tenancy – Sub-tenant claimed to be inducted by previous landlord – Found unproved by both courts below – Held: Sub-tenant failed to establish independent right – Eviction order binding on him as well – [Paras 12-14, 30]

Decision: Revision petition dismissed – Eviction order based on subletting affirmed – No costs – [Para 32]

Sexual Assault by BSF Personnel – Conviction by GSFC under POCSO – Challenge to disciplinary proceedings and sentence of dismissal with imprisonment – Held: No procedural violation warranting interference – Petition dismissed – Sections 46 BSF Act, 10 & 29 POCSO Act applied [Paras 12-42].

Court-Martial Proceedings – Scope of Judicial Review – Article 226 of the Constitution – Interference with findings of GSFC can only occur in cases of perversity, illegality or gross violation of natural justice – Court does not sit in appeal over factual findings of GSFC – Findings of guilt and sentence of rigorous imprisonment and dismissal upheld as legally sustainable – No exceptional circumstances found to invoke constitutional jurisdiction – Petition rightly dismissed [Paras 33-34, 41].

Preliminary Inquiry – Rule 45B(1)(c) BSF Rules – Non-compliance with opportunity to cross-examine witnesses during Recording of Evidence (RoE) not fatal – Petitioner was afforded full opportunity to cross-examine witnesses at trial stage before GSFC – Relying on SC judgment in Union of India v Dev Singh – Irregularities at pre-trial stage do not vitiate proceedings if trial itself is fair and compliant with procedural law [Paras 12-15, 35].

POSH Act – Inapplicability in BSF Disciplinary Proceedings – Complaint mechanism under POSH Act not invoked by child victim or her guardians – Victim was minor girl under training and not an employee at workplace – BSF’s decision to proceed under its internal disciplinary mechanism under BSF Act not found to be improper – No prejudice shown by petitioner due to non-referral to Internal Committee – Rights under POSH Act not enforceable at the instance of accused [Paras 16-18, 26-27, 36].

Punishment – Combined Sentence of Dismissal and Imprisonment – Validity under BSF Act – No statutory bar to combining dismissal from service under Section 48(1)(c) with imprisonment – Section 50 permits such combination and Section 51 reinforces this position – Petitioner’s plea of illegality in sentencing rejected – GSFC acted within its authority under law [Paras 23, 37].

Evidence – Testimony of Minor Victim – Reliable and sufficient – Victim’s version remained consistent and credible – Direct testimony of victim not hearsay and not contradicted in cross-examination – Non-examination of hostel roommate and mother not fatal – No adverse inference warranted under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act – Conviction supported by direct and corroborative evidence – Minor inconsistencies do not affect core credibility – Presumption under Section 29 of POCSO applies once foundational facts established – Victim’s statement sufficient for sustaining conviction [Paras 21-22, 38-40].

Procedural Compliance – No FIR or Medical Examination – Not mandatory under BSF disciplinary framework – Proceedings under BSF Act can commence without registration of FIR – Medical examination not essential where victim’s testimony is credible and offence does not involve penetrative sexual assault – Defence’s reliance on procedural lapses misplaced – GSFC proceedings in conformity with statutory provisions [Paras 19-20, 30].

Reliefs Sought – Reinstatement and Quashing of Sentence – Dismissed – Petitioner failed to establish violation of mandatory rules or miscarriage of justice – GSFC trial conducted lawfully – Direct evidence established guilt – No ground for interference in conviction or sentence – Plea of leniency also rejected considering seriousness of offence and minor age of victim [Paras 24-25, 41-42].

Specific Performance – Readiness and Willingness – Section 16(c), Specific Relief Act – Specific Performance Denied – Plaintiff failed to demonstrate financial capacity or readiness to perform obligations under agreement – Held: Plaintiff did not have funds or financing to pay remaining ₹1.75 Cr – Failure to establish readiness and willingness bars specific performance [Paras 22–25].

Proof of Payment – Receipt Dated 23.06.2016 (Ex.A3) Disbelieved – Specific Performance Denied – Plaintiff claimed additional payment of ₹2 lakhs to defendant after contract deadline to argue waiver of time clause – Court found contradictions in witness depositions and date on receipt was self-inserted – Held: Payment of ₹2 lakhs on 23.06.2016 not proved – No implied waiver of time clause [Paras 13, 17–21, 27].

Time as Essence – Clause in Sale Agreement Mandated Strict Compliance – Agreement Stands Cancelled – Ex.A1 stated forfeiture of advance and termination if balance was unpaid by due date – Held: Plaintiff failed to comply; time was indeed the essence – Non-performance warranted dismissal [Paras 16, 27].

Unregistered Partnership – Alleged Agreement (Ex.A2) Found Fabricated – Partnership Argument Rejected – Plaintiff claimed purchase was on behalf of 6 persons, formalised in Ex.A2 – Court disbelieved execution of Ex.A2 and found inconsistencies in testimonies of P.W.1 and P.W.3 – Held: Alleged agreement fabricated to bolster financial capacity argument [Paras 26–27].

Refund of Advance – Forfeiture Unjustified – Refund of ₹30 Lakhs Ordered with 12% Interest – Court noted no loss pleaded by defendant and land value had increased – Additional ₹2 lakhs disbelieved – Held: Plaintiff entitled to refund of ₹30 lakhs advanced under contract with interest @12% p.a. from 29.01.2025 [Paras 30–32].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Decree for specific performance upheld – Plaintiff entitled only to refund of ₹30 lakhs advanced with 12% p.a. interest from 29.01.2025 – No costs awarded [Para 33].

Criminal Proceedings Against Doctors – Summoning Order for Medical Negligence Quashed – Magistrate failed to conduct mandatory enquiry or obtain expert opinion before issuing process under Section 304A IPC [Paras 15, 21–23, 29–30].

Medical Negligence – Section 304A IPC – Preliminary Enquiry Mandatory – Summoning Order Set Aside – Magistrate issued process against doctors without conducting enquiry under Section 202 CrPC despite petitioners residing outside jurisdiction – Held: Magistrate failed to examine supporting documents, did not apply mind or follow procedural safeguards before summoning – Order cryptic and non-speaking – Matter remitted for fresh consideration [Paras 15, 21–23, 29–30].

Medical Professional – Jacob Mathew Guidelines – No Prior Medical Board Opinion – Proceedings Vitiated – Complaint lacked credible medical board report from Government hospital applying Bolam test – Held: For prosecuting a doctor under Section 304A IPC, court must seek independent expert opinion before issuing process – Magistrate erred in ignoring this requirement under Jacob Mathew precedent [Paras 6, 19–20, 29–30].

Territorial Jurisdiction – Accused Residing Beyond Local Area – Section 202 CrPC Inquiry Mandatory – Summoning Invalid – Petitioners Nos. 2 & 3 not residing within jurisdiction of Magistrate – Held: Inquiry under Section 202 CrPC was mandatory before issuance of process – Magistrate's failure to comply renders process illegal [Paras 22–23, 29].

Summoning Process – Application of Mind – Requirement of Reasoned Satisfaction – Summoning Order Invalid – Held: Even if a detailed speaking order is not required, the order must reflect judicial satisfaction that complaint discloses prima facie offence – Absence of reasons or reference to documents renders order mechanical and unsustainable [Paras 21, 23–24].

Role of Magistrate – Not a Post Office – Active Scrutiny Required – Held: Duty of Magistrate to examine complaint intelligently, filter frivolous claims, and elicit supporting material – Complaint citing complex medical negligence required deeper scrutiny before setting criminal law into motion [Paras 23–27].

Remand – Direction for Medical Board – Fresh Order to be Passed – Held: Magistrate to constitute Medical Board of at least 3 Government Doctors including one Orthopaedician to opine on medical negligence – Opposite party to furnish documents within 8 weeks – Magistrate to proceed afresh thereafter [Paras 30–31].

Decision – Summoning Order Dated 04.03.2017 and Subsequent Orders Set Aside – Matter Remitted – Magistrate directed to seek medical board opinion and reconsider issuance of process in accordance with law [Para 30].

Service Law – Regularization of Quasi Employees – No Employer-Employee Relationship – Writ Dismissed – Petitioners claimed employment under a non-statutory recognized canteen and sought regularization – Court held no valid agreement existed under Para 2833 of IREM, no supervision or control by Railway – Tribunal rightly held that no employer-employee relationship existed – Claim for absorption rightly rejected [Paras 5–14].

Industrial Dispute – Legality of Lock-Out – No Employer-Employee Link – Tribunal’s Finding Affirmed – Petitioners alleged illegal lock-out under Industrial Disputes Act – Court held lock-out provisions inapplicable as canteen not recognized and there was no employment relationship – Action taken under Public Premises Act justified [Para 12, Issue 2].

Canteen Classification – Non-Statutory Recognized vs Private Canteen – Conditions under Para 2833 IREM Not Fulfilled – Petitioners' cooperative lacked amended bye-laws, no executed agreement, no managerial control by Railway – Tribunal rightly held it was not a recognized non-statutory canteen [Para 12, Issue 1 & 13].

Discrimination in Absorption – No Right from Screening Committee Inclusion – Absorption of some workers did not create right in others – Eligibility and sanctioned vacancy required – Umadevi judgment applied – No automatic right to regularization [Paras 5(iii), 12(iii)].

Decision – Tribunal Award Upheld – No interference warranted – Writ Petition Dismissed – No entitlement to regularization or compensation [Paras 14–15].

Rent Control – Eviction on bona fide requirement – Leave to defend – Revisional scope – Landlord–tenant relationship proved on better title – Tenant’s pleas of ownership and alternate accommodation found bald – No triable issue – ARC order upheld – Tenant directed to hand over premises by 21.09.2025 – Sections 14(1)(e), 25B & 25B(8) DRC Act [Paras 15–16, 17–27, 28–29].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope under Section 25B(8) DRC Act – High Court cannot act as a first appellate court or re-appreciate facts – Tenant merely sought to re-agitate contentions negated by the ARC – Held: Interference unwarranted in absence of perversity or jurisdictional error [Paras 15–16].

Landlord–Tenant Relationship – Better title suffices – Registered Will dated 10.01.1949, Rent Agreement dated 03.09.1963 and rent receipts, and partition decree dated 25.07.2023 established landlords’ superior title – Tenant’s reliance on an MCD notice only showed status as “occupier”, not owner – Held: Relationship established and no triable issue arose [Paras 2, 5, 17–20].

Bona Fide Requirement – Landlord is best judge of need – No obligation to furnish minute particulars or area measurements – Challenge that “one room” would not suffice is immaterial – Held: Assertion of genuine residential need unrebutted by any substantive material – No triable issue [Paras 21–24].

Alternative Accommodation – Mere bald allegations – No documents showing self-owned alternative flats by landlords – Landlords shown to be living in rented premises – Held: No material to dislodge plea of lack of suitable alternate accommodation – No triable issue [Paras 25–27].

Decision – Revision petition dismissed – ARC order of eviction affirmed – Tenant to hand over the tenanted room marked E and F in the site plan at Plot No. 536, Mukim Pura, Sabzi Mandi, Delhi to the landlords on or before 21.09.2025 in terms of Section 14(7) DRC Act – Parties to bear their own costs [Paras 28–29].

Anticipatory Bail – Cheating/Criminal Breach – Intraday trading with assured 10–15% monthly returns – Civil dispute plea rejected – Multiple victims and electronic admissions considered – Professional misconduct (liaisoning) noticed – Custodial interrogation necessary – Anticipatory bail and continuation of interim relief refused [Paras 8–16, 19–27, 29–30].

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Rejection – Applicants apprehending arrest under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 for alleged inducement to invest in intraday share trading with false assurance of 10%-15% monthly profit – FIR alleged Rs.30 lakh was collected from complainant under false pretext – Applicants later failed to repay the amount – Additional victims reported similar fraud – Held: Prima facie dishonest intention existed from inception – Civil dispute plea not sustainable – Application for anticipatory bail rejected [Paras 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 25, 27, 28, 29]

Cheating – False Assurances of High Profit – Applicants lured complainant into investing in share trading with unrealistic returns – Promise of 10%-15% profit per month considered inherently false and impossible to fulfil – Inducement coupled with such assurance held sufficient to attract offence of cheating – Defence that the transaction was civil in nature rejected [Paras 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 18]

Evidence – WhatsApp Messages and Transcripts – Applicants’ admissions regarding receipt of money and promises made reflected in WhatsApp chats and draft MoU – Transcripts certified under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act – These documents prima facie supported prosecution version and were inconsistent with defence of civil liability [Paras 12, 16, 17]

Professional Misconduct – Advocates Engaged in Liaisoning Work – Applicant No.2, a practicing advocate, admitted to paying Rs.26.32 lakhs for ‘liaisoning’ with revenue officials – Court observed such activity as unethical and prima facie misconduct under Section 35 of the Advocates Act – Strengthened inference of criminal conduct beyond civil dispute [Paras 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24]

Pattern of Offence – Multiple Complaints – Investigation revealed four other victims with similar complaints of inducement and financial loss – Court held this pattern indicated a larger fraudulent scheme and not isolated incident – Rejected argument that complainant knowingly invested despite risks [Paras 8, 25, 26]

Decision: Anticipatory bail application rejected – Interim protection also refused – Custodial interrogation held necessary for effective investigation [Paras 27, 28, 29, 30]

Arbitration Law - Foreign Award – GAFTA Appeal Award 4618A (London) – Enforcement in India under Part II – Public Policy Objection – Enforcement Allowed – The petitioner, an Austrian company, sought enforcement of a GAFTA Appeal Award dated 28.09.2021 directing payment by the respondent, an Indian importer – The respondent resisted on grounds that the award violated Indian public policy and contained errors in interpretation of contract – Held: Section 48 does not permit a review on merits – Enforcement court cannot sit in appeal over contractual interpretation or factual findings – GAFTA Appeal Board’s award declared enforceable as decree under Section 49 – Execution permitted [Paras 23-29].

Public Policy – Narrow scope under Section 48 – No review on merits – The Court reiterated that post-2015 amendment, “public policy” in Section 48 is restricted to (i) fraud or corruption in making of award, (ii) contravention of fundamental policy of Indian law, or (iii) conflict with most basic notions of morality or justice – Mere misapplication of law or erroneous finding is not a ground – Respondent’s attempt to reopen the merits of GAFTA Appeal decision rejected [Paras 23-26].

Foreign Seat/Curial Law – English Arbitration Act remedies not availed – Estoppel at enforcement stage – Arbitration seated in London with English law as curial law – Under ss. 67–73 of English Arbitration Act, challenges to jurisdiction, serious irregularity, or errors of law must be made within 28 days – Respondent failed to take timely recourse – Citing POL India Projects, Court held that enforcement objections cannot substitute for missed challenge before seat court – Respondent estopped from raising new objections in India [Paras 11-14].

Scope under Part II – No “second look” at award – Enforcement court cannot revisit factual or legal merits of foreign award – Supreme Court in Shri Lal Mahal overruled Phulchand Exports, holding that Section 48 does not permit expanded “public policy” review – Court applied Renusagar test: only if contrary to (i) fundamental policy of Indian law, (ii) interests of India, or (iii) justice or morality, enforcement can be refused – Here none attracted [Paras 10, 15-16].

Seat/Law and Challenge Forum – London seat with English law as governing arbitration law – Following Eitzen Bulk, once parties choose foreign seat, Part I of Indian Arbitration Act is excluded – Any objections to fairness, procedure, or findings had to be raised before English courts under curial law – Respondent’s reliance on Indian domestic arbitration standards (Saw Pipes) misplaced [Paras 12-13].

NY Convention – Public Policy Defence – Application of Article V(2) – Enforcement to be refused only if contrary to fundamental policy of Indian law or most basic notions of morality and justice – Court cited Avitel and Vedanta to emphasise India’s pro-enforcement bias – Narrow defence cannot be stretched to cover mere contractual disagreement – Allegations of unjust enrichment or commercial unfairness do not amount to public policy violation [Paras 16-18].

Execution Proceedings – Section 46–49 of Arbitration Act – Section 46 makes foreign award binding; Section 48 sets limited defences; Section 49 provides that once enforceable, foreign award is deemed to be decree of Indian court – Court clarified that after recognition, petitioner may pursue attachment and sale of respondent’s assets, interest, and costs under CPC like any decree-holder [Paras 27-29].

Decision – Objections rejected; GAFTA Appeal Award No. 4618A (28.09.2021) treated as decree under Section 49; binding under Section 46; enforceable under Section 48 – Respondent’s resistance on public policy and merits grounds rejected – Petitioner entitled to execute award in India with all consequential reliefs – Application allowed [Paras 27-29].