Review Jurisdiction – Order 47 Rule 1 CPC – No Error Apparent – Review Dismissed – Review petition challenging the judgment dated 02.05.2025 in W.P.(C) No.28874 of 2023 on the ground that the Court relied on fabricated documents and failed to consider original records – Held: No error apparent on the face of the record – Petitioners failed to show new evidence or miscarriage of justice – Review not maintainable [Paras 1, 3, 9, 11, 15, 20].

Fabricated Records Allegation – Parallel Record Claim Unsubstantiated – Review Ground Rejected – Petitioners alleged reliance on fabricated records not part of the original sealed file and placed reliance on the dissenting judge’s administrative letter dated 10.05.2021 – Court found no mention of such parallel record in affidavits or inquiry proceedings – Held: No material showed fabrication influenced the outcome – Argument raised for the first time in review cannot be entertained [Paras 6, 12-13].

Judicial vs Administrative Orders – Order Dated 24.02.2021 Judicial – Dissent Came Later – The Court rejected the claim that the order initiating the suo motu proceeding was administrative – The dissent of the puisne judge was admittedly recorded much later on 02.03.2021 or 07.04.2021 – Held: The order dated 24.02.2021 was judicial and acted upon by the Registry without any evidence of mala fide [Paras 7, 12-13, 17].

Master of Roster – No Rule Requiring Chief Justice’s Prior Approval – Affidavit Filed – The petitioners claimed approval of the Hon’ble Chief Justice was mandatory for registering suo motu cases – Held: No such requirement found in High Court Rules – Affidavit by Special Officer confirmed no standing order or practice mandating such approval [Paras 16].

Three-Judge Bench Decision – Not Binding in Disciplinary Proceedings – Review Petitioners relied on decision in Suo Motu W.P.(C) No.7943/2021 by a Three-Judge Bench which held that suo motu writ was wrongly registered – Held: That Bench was not concerned with disciplinary misconduct and did not lay down binding ratio applicable to the present disciplinary proceedings [Paras 14-15].

Review Scope – Re-hearing Not Permissible – Review Not Appeal in Disguise – Held: Review jurisdiction limited to correcting patent error or considering new material despite due diligence – Petitioners seeking to reargue case and reinterpret facts not permissible under Order 47 Rule 1 – Re-evaluation of alternative view not ground for review [Paras 18-19].

Decision – Review Petition Dismissed – Petitioners failed to establish any error apparent on face of record or suppression of material facts – Court upheld the original findings of the writ judgment dated 02.05.2025 [Para 20].

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].

Criminal Law – Bail - Sections 108, 69, 49, 56, 127(2), 115(2)  BNS - Abetment of Suicide – Requirement of Proximate Cause – Bail Granted – Petitioners accused of harassing deceased woman to convert religion for marriage – Suicide note cited as basis of charge – Court held that even repeated harassment must have a proximate connection to suicide – No such proximate act identified – Petitioners in custody since 18.08.2025 – Held: Further detention not warranted, bail granted with conditions [Paras 3–9]

BNS Interpretation – Section 108 (Abetment) – Suicide Note Not Sufficient – Court applies principle from Abhinav Mohan Delkar v. State of Maharashtra (2025) and Radhika Kapahtia v. State of Kerala (2024) – Held: Suicide note must reflect accused’s intention to drive deceased to suicide, not merely deceased’s perception – Accused’s intention is crucial for Section 108 BNS [Paras 7–8].

Decision – Bail Granted – Petitioners released on bail with conditions including bond of ₹50,000, appearance before IO, non-tampering of evidence, no travel abroad without permission – Jurisdictional court empowered to modify conditions [Paras 9].

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR - Abetment of suicide – FIR alleged illicit relationship between police constable (deceased) and applicant – No proximate act, instigation, or mens rea shown – Mere suspicion not enough – Continuation of trial would be abuse of process – FIR, charge sheet and Sessions Case quashed [Paras 18–27].

Abetment of suicide – Section 306 IPC – Essential ingredients – Prosecution must prove instigation, intentional aiding, or active participation by accused – Allegation that deceased lady constable was in illicit relationship with applicant not linked to her suicide note or circumstances of death – No act of provocation or coercion proximate to death – Court held ingredients of Section 306 not satisfied [Paras 13–17, 23–24].

Instigation – Meaning – Requires goading, urging, provoking or pressurizing the victim to commit suicide – Cited Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, AIR 2001 SC 383 and M. Mohan v. State, AIR 2011 SC 1238 – Mere relationship or suspicion of misconduct, without positive acts of harassment or compulsion, cannot amount to instigation [Paras 13–16].

Mens rea – Requirement – Abetment requires culpable mental state – Prosecution evidence did not disclose guilty intention or participation by applicant – Statements of deceased’s relatives only expressed suspicion – Absence of independent corroboration or direct evidence – No proof of applicant’s mental process of aiding or compelling suicide [Paras 15–17, 25].

Evidence – FIR lodged by deceased’s mother based on suspicion of illicit relationship – Mobile phone call recordings did not suggest harassment or pressure – No suicide note recovered – Postmortem confirmed suicide by hanging but no material linking act to applicant – Sole reliance on relatives’ statements insufficient for trial [Paras 5–6, 17–18, 25].

Section 482 CrPC – Quashing – Parameters of R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 and Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 reiterated – Where allegations, even if taken at face value, do not disclose ingredients of offence, continuation of prosecution amounts to abuse of process – Court invoked inherent powers to prevent miscarriage of justice [Para 19].

Illicit relationship allegation – Held: Even if proved, cannot automatically constitute abetment of suicide absent proximity, instigation, or coercion – “Illicit intimacy” per se insufficient unless shown to have compelled victim to take extreme step – Laxmi Das v. State of W.B. (SC, 2025) and Vaibhav v. State of Maharashtra (Bom HC, 2025) followed [Paras 18–23].

Benefit of doubt – Criminal law requires strict proof of mens rea and active instigation – Suspicion, gossip or strained relations cannot sustain conviction – Where two views possible, one favouring accused must prevail – Held: FIR continuation would harass accused without legal foundation [Paras 24–26].

Decision – Application under Section 482 CrPC allowed – FIR No. 315/2021, charge sheet No. 17/2022, and Sessions Case No. 43/2022 quashed – Applicant discharged – No further proceedings maintainable [Paras 26–27].

Service Law – Promotion Post Merger – Seniority Alone Not Sufficient – High Court upheld cadre-based proportional promotion method over seniority-cum-merit in merged cadres [Paras 2–10].

Service Law – Promotion – Proportionate Promotion vs. Seniority-cum-Merit – Writ Petitions Dismissed – Petitioners claimed priority in promotion based on seniority, alleging discriminatory denial of advancement post merger of departments – Held: Petitioners were rightly promoted as per proportionate allocation of posts based on cadre strength – No illegality in denying promotion based solely on seniority in absence of available posts [Paras 2–10].

Cadre Merger – Retention of Promotional Posts – No Right to Promotion Beyond Cadre Quota – Petitioners belonged to NAC with only one promotional post, while CFS had 23 – Held: Allowing petitioners promotion against posts brought by other cadres (CFS) would be unjust – MCC rightly maintained cadre-wise separation of posts post-merger [Paras 4, 5, 8, 9].

Seniority vs. Source of Recruitment – Petitioners Not Entitled to Preferential Promotion – Petitioners argued they were "original" MCC members – Held: All merged cadres retained separate promotional quota based on sanctioned posts – Service benefits could not override structural differences in cadre strength [Paras 3, 5, 9].

Change in Promotion Policy – Retrospective Application Not Permissible – Held: 2015 adoption of seniority-cum-merit principle could not be retrospectively applied to promotions made between 2006–2010 under previous proportionate policy [Paras 5, 9].

Decision – No Interference Warranted – Writ Petitions Dismissed – Court upheld respondent’s decision as rational and legally sustainable – Promotional avenues governed by post-wise distribution retained from respective parent departments [Para 10].

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].

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].

Service Law – Termination of University Employee – Mala fides and Vindictiveness – Fourth termination order challenged – Allegations of forged Ph.D. degree and misuse of salutation “Dr.” – Petitioner denied ever submitting any Ph.D. certificate – Proceedings found to be initiated only after petitioner lodged sexual harassment complaint against Registrar – Held: Proceedings actuated by mala fide intent, bias, and extraneous considerations – Termination unsustainable – Writ Petition Allowed [Paras 52–63].

Disciplinary Proceedings – Proof of Misconduct – Requirement of Cogent Evidence – Mere mention of “pursuing Ph.D.” in CV does not amount to false claim – No material produced to show petitioner gained appointment/promotion using alleged fake degree – Findings based on conjectures cannot constitute misconduct [Paras 53–61].

Bias and Abuse of Power – Initiation of Proceedings after Complaint Against Registrar – Vindictive Approach – Courts have held mala fide and biased disciplinary proceedings void ab initio – Registrar acted with personal enmity; authorities misused process – Proceedings vitiated [Paras 55–59].

Doctrine of Proportionality – Misconduct Must Be Grave, Supported by Evidence – Courts can interfere if punishment shocks conscience – In present case, no misconduct proved; dismissal wholly disproportionate and arbitrary [Paras 47–51].

Decision – Impugned termination order dated 14.12.2024 quashed – Petitioner entitled to reinstatement with consequential benefits – Writ Petition Allowed [Paras 62–63].