Judicial Review – Tender Matters – Disputed Questions of Fact – Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 – Petitioner sought cancellation of tender and award in his favour alleging higher revised bid and violation of tender conditions – Rival parties produced mutually contradictory documents regarding the amount of revised bid submitted – Held: Where adjudication requires examination of disputed and contested facts and authenticity of documents, High Court would not exercise writ jurisdiction – Parties relegated to civil remedies [Paras 11–14].

Tender Process – Financial Bid – Alleged Non-Consideration of Revised Bid – Petitioner claimed submission of revised bid of Rs. 62,22,222/- whereas tendering authority asserted last valid revised bid was Rs. 11,00,000/- – Both sides relied upon separate acknowledgments and bid documents – Court held that determination of which document was genuine required leading of evidence – Such controversy not amenable to adjudication under Article 226 [Paras 12–13].

Tender Conditions – Clause 6.3 of RFP – Mandatory Notice of 7 Days for Opening of Financial Bids – Admitted infraction by tendering authority – Effect of Violation – Held: Mere violation of tender condition does not ipso facto vitiate tender process unless serious prejudice is demonstrated – Petitioner failed to establish prejudice caused due to non-issuance of notice, especially in light of disputed facts regarding presence of petitioner’s representative and bid amount – No ground for annulment of tender or grant of contract [Paras 15–18].

Natural Justice – Prejudice – Requirement of Proof – Even where procedural lapse is admitted, Court must be satisfied that such lapse resulted in real and demonstrable prejudice to the complaining party – In absence of clear proof of prejudice, extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 ought not to be exercised [Paras 16–18].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – No interference with tender process or award in favour of successful bidder – Liberty implicit to petitioner to pursue appropriate civil remedies – No order as to costs – Pending applications disposed of.

Criminal Law – Acquittal Appeal – Kidnapping and Outraging Modesty – Respondents acquitted of offences under Sections 366-A, 342, 344, 368, 354, 420, 379 r/w 109 IPC – Prosecution case based primarily on victim’s testimony that she was enticed by A1 and wrongfully confined across various locations for over ten days, forcibly drugged and threatened to marry – Allegations uncorroborated by any independent witness – Babu Rao, in whose house she was allegedly confined, not examined – No medical evidence or recovery of stolen property – Alleged confinement in populous areas without alerting others raises serious doubts – Held: Victim’s version lacked credibility and was riddled with improbabilities – Findings of acquittal by trial court based on thorough appreciation of evidence and cannot be termed perverse [Paras 13–27, 33–39].

Criminal Procedure – Appeal Against Acquittal – Scope of Interference – High Court reiterates settled principles that acquittal can be reversed only if findings are perverse or manifestly illegal – Held: Trial Court rightly appreciated evidence and exercised caution in light of presumption of innocence – No compelling reasons shown to justify appellate interference – Appeal dismissed [Paras 10–12, 34–37].

Evidence – Delay in FIR – FIR filed 22 days after incident despite alleged abduction and theft – No satisfactory explanation offered by complainants – Trial Court held delay unreasonable and suspicious – Held: Unexplained delay in FIR adversely affects prosecution credibility [Paras 28–32].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Standard of Proof – Burden lies entirely on prosecution to prove case beyond reasonable doubt – In absence of independent corroboration, inconsistencies and delay fatal to prosecution – Reaffirmed that if two views are possible, appellate court must lean in favour of acquittal [Paras 35–38].

Decision: Criminal appeal dismissed – Judgment of acquittal dated 08.01.2002 by Assistant Sessions Judge, Tenali in Sessions Case No. 942 of 2000 upheld – No perversity or illegality found in trial court's findings – Miscellaneous applications also stand disposed of [Paras 39–40].

Public Interest Litigation – Abuse of Process – Forged Petition – Writ petition filed in the name of Adity Shivcharan Rathod found to be unauthorized and based on forged documents – Police investigation revealed petitioner had no knowledge of the case and disowned the documents – Court held filing of such petition amounts to fraud on the court [Paras 2, 10–13, 17].

Legal Ethics – Misconduct by Advocates – Investigation Ordered – Counsel named in the petition traced and found to have accepted cases through a third-party advocate – Court directed Bar Council of India to investigate professional misconduct of involved advocates – Emphasized lawyers’ duty as officers of the court and custodians of justice [Paras 18–22].

Judicial Process – Fraud on Court – Filing of multiple petitions in different names using identical documents and fabricated claims regarding property ownership – Court relied on Supreme Court judgment in Bhagwan Singh v. State of U.P. (2025) 6 SCC 416 – Held: No court can allow itself to be used as an instrument of fraud – Court must protect its process from abuse [Paras 6–8, 18].

Police Investigation – Aadhaar Misuse and Forged Documents – DCP (South-East) filed status report confirming unauthorized use of petitioner’s identity – FIR directed to be lodged – Investigation to continue against all persons involved, including tracing of advocate named as intermediary [Paras 12–16].

Direction to Statutory Authorities – Bar Council of India directed to trace advocate Mr. Suraj Singh and examine involvement of Ms. Awanitika – Liberty granted to coordinate with police – MCD directed to act as per order of Appellate Tribunal (ATMCD) dated 27/10/2025, staying action on impugned construction [Paras 19–24].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Petition found to be filed fraudulently without authorization – Matter referred to police and Bar Council of India for investigation and appropriate legal action – Directions issued for continued investigation, filing of FIR, and professional misconduct inquiry [Paras 16, 19–22, 25].

Criminal Law – Appeal Against Acquittal – Rash and Negligent Driving – Sections 279, 337, 304-A IPC – State challenged acquittal of respondent in a road accident case resulting in death of one person and simple injuries to another – Trial Court acquitted respondent by granting benefit of doubt – Held: Appellate Court must be slow to interfere unless findings are perverse – Double presumption of innocence operates in favour of the accused – No ground made out for interference [Paras 1, 9, 14–15].

Rash or Negligent Act – Ingredients of Section 304-A IPC – Mere accident or hitting from behind not sufficient – Prosecution must prove that act was rash or negligent and was proximate cause of death – Presumption of negligence cannot automatically be drawn against the driver [Paras 5–6].

Evidence – Sole Eyewitness – Injured Witness – PW-1 failed to depose that vehicle was driven rashly or negligently – No statement regarding high speed, exact speed, lane of driving, or manner of driving – Identification of accused alone insufficient to establish culpable rashness or negligence [Paras 10–11].

Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur – Limited Application – Presumption of negligence arises only where nature of accident and surrounding circumstances unequivocally indicate negligence – Not applicable merely because a vehicle hit another from behind [Paras 6–7].

Contradictions in Prosecution Case – Place of Recording Statement – PW-1 stated his statement was recorded at police station, whereas IO claimed it was recorded at the spot – Serious doubt created regarding reliability of prosecution version [Para 12].

Investigation – Deficiencies – No photographs of spot – No evidence of skid marks or dragging marks – Site plan did not show dragging of motorcycle nor bore signature of eyewitness – Exact point of impact not established – Lapses weaken prosecution case [Paras 11–13].

Appellate Scrutiny – Plausible View – Trial Court’s appreciation of evidence found to be reasonable and well-reasoned – Where two views are possible, appellate court should not substitute its own view merely because it prefers another – Acquittal rightly sustained [Paras 14–15].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal of respondent under Sections 279/337/304-A IPC upheld – Personal bond cancelled and surety discharged.

Contract Law – Breach of Contract – Delay in Performance – Responsibility of Employer – Tender for construction of additional parking facility – Defendants invited tender without obtaining prior permission from Forest Department – Delay caused in handing over workable site – Held: Defendants responsible for delay in execution of work – However, contractor having elected to continue contract without repudiation under Section 55, not entitled to damages [Paras 6].

Contract Law – Supplemental Agreements – Economic Duress – Validity – Contractor compelled to execute multiple supplemental agreements for extension of time and extra works on threat of withholding payments – Trial Court finding that agreements were executed under coercion and not voluntarily – Held: Supplemental agreements vitiated by economic duress and unenforceable [Paras 7–8].

Civil Procedure – First Appeal – Duty of Appellate Court – Trial Court granted decree for multiple monetary claims without proper discussion of evidence – Held: Appellate Court entitled to reappreciate evidence and independently assess each head of claim on merits [Paras 9–10].

Works Contract – Extra Items of Work – Proof and Entitlement – Claim for jungle clearance for second time necessitated due to delay attributable to defendants – Measurement book supported execution – Held: Contractor entitled to payment for second jungle clearance [Paras 11–12].

Works Contract – Approach Road – Excluded Item – Tender conditions expressly excluded liability of department for providing access road – No direction proved for execution as extra item – Held: Contractor not entitled to reimbursement for formation of approach road [Para 13].

Works Contract – Felling and Conveyance of Trees – Rate Determination – Extra item of work – Survey of Forest Department rates showed higher applicable rate – Contractor paid at lower rate – Held: Contractor entitled to differential amount based on prevailing departmental rate [Para 14].

Works Contract – Cutting and Stacking of Timber – Lack of Evidence on Rate – Claim based on bald assertion without supporting material – Held: Claim rightly disallowed [Para 15].

Works Contract – Re-conveyance of Timber – Necessitated by Employer’s Directions – Evidence showed logs required to be shifted from river bed – Rate not specifically fixed – Court adopted reasonable rate – Held: Contractor entitled to proportionate payment [Para 16].

Works Contract – Excavation of Soil / Narikkal – Nature of Soil – Evidence insufficient to prove hard narikkal throughout claimed depth – However, probability of hard soil beyond 30 cm accepted – Held: Contractor entitled to differential rate applicable to hard soil, not hard narikkal [Paras 17–18].

Works Contract – Excess Quantity Claims – Measurement Book Prevails – Claim for additional excavation beyond recorded measurements not substantiated – Held: Claim disallowed where contradicted by measurement records [Para 19].

Works Contract – Slipped Earth – Quantity Dispute – Contractor’s contemporaneous correspondence unrefuted – Held: Total quantity accepted at 10,000 m³, but payable only at admitted rate – Contractor entitled to payment for balance quantity at accepted rate [Paras 20–21].

Works Contract – Blasting of Rock – Extra Item – Commissioner’s report relied upon – Quantity and rate proved – Held: Contractor entitled to amount based on expert assessment [Para 22].

Tender Conditions – Tender Deduction – Applicability to Extra Items – Tender quoted 17.6% below estimated rate – Contract clauses provided application of tender deduction to extra and additional items where rates derivable from schedule – Held: Tender deduction applicable to all allowed claims – Net amount recalculated accordingly [Paras 24–25].

Interest – Rate of Interest – Commercial Transactions – Claim for 18.5% interest declined – Held: Interest @ 12% per annum from date of suit till decree and @ 6% per annum thereafter appropriate [Para 26].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Judgment and decree of trial court set aside – Plaintiff held entitled to recover Rs.2,84,110/- after applying tender deduction, with interest @ 12% per annum from date of suit till decree and @ 6% per annum thereafter till realisation, payable by first defendant [Paras 25–26].

Rent Control – Eviction for Non-Payment – Deposit of Arrears – Procedural Compliance Mandatory – Tenant’s application to deposit arrears after eviction order under third proviso to Section 14(2)(i) of H.P. Urban Rent Control Act was rejected – Court held “amount due” includes arrears of rent, interest, and costs – Deposit must be made within 30 days and comply with statutory requirements – Held: Failure to strictly comply disentitles tenant from benefit against eviction [Paras 2–5, 10].

Valid Tender – Requirement to Tender Rent to Landlord – Intimation of Deposit – Following Hans Raj Khimta’s case, Court held that rent must first be tendered to landlord – If refused, then deposited in Court with intimation to landlord within 30 days – In this case, no such valid tender or intimation made – Deposit in Court held invalid [Paras 7, 9].

Strict Compliance under Rent Laws – No Leniency on Procedural Requirements – Relying on Supreme Court precedents including Atma Ram v. Shakuntala Rani, Court held that benefits under rent laws can only be availed through strict compliance – Equitable considerations or minor shortfalls cannot override express statutory mandates [Paras 6, 10].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Rent Controller's rejection of tenant’s application upheld – No valid tender made – Tenant failed to meet statutory requirements – No interference warranted.

Arbitration – Objection to Award – Limitation – Delay in Filing – Section 30 of Arbitration Act, 1940 – Petition for setting aside arbitral award filed beyond 30-day period from deemed date of knowledge – Supreme Court clarified that limitation began from Court's direction to clear arbitrator's fee, not from notice of filing – Trial court rightly rejected application for condonation of delay – Held: Objection was time-barred – Delay not condonable under Section 5 of Limitation Act in context of Section 30 of Arbitration Act, 1940 [Paras 9–10, 35–38].

Arbitration – Maintainability of Claim – Locus Standi – Legal Representative – Claims raised by respondent after death of original contractor – Alleged power of attorney holder failed to furnish succession certificate or prove legal status – Appellants contended arbitration proceedings were invalid for want of standing – Arbitrator failed to consider preliminary objection on maintainability – Matter requires judicial scrutiny on appeal [Paras 13–14].

Arbitration Award – Departmental Delay – Claim of Delay in Payment – Award of ₹5.5 Lakhs challenged by appellants – Department argued delay was due to contractor’s fault and extensions were granted – Award based on out-of-contract claims and not supported by contract terms – Arbitrator awarded ₹1 crore with interest without detailing basis – Held: Grounds raised by appellants require consideration – Appeal admitted for final disposal [Paras 15–23].

Limitation – Condonation of Delay – Section 5 of Limitation Act – Inapplicability – Court reaffirmed that delay in filing objection under Section 30 of Arbitration Act cannot be condoned under Section 5 of Limitation Act – Relying on precedents including Madan Lal v. Sunder Lal, AIR 1967 SC 1233, and Indian Rayon Corpn. Ltd v. Raunaq, AIR 1988 SC 2054 – Held: Procedural bar on filing delayed objections absolute under Arbitration Act, 1940 [Paras 28–33, 38].

Appeal – Admission – Procedural Fairness – Delay Alone Not Sufficient to Defeat Substantive Challenge – Although delay in objection was not condoned, appellants raised substantial legal grounds including jurisdictional error, maintainability, and irregular award – Held: Appeal admitted for final hearing – Delay must not defeat justice [Paras 39–41].

Decision: Appeal admitted for hearing – Delay in filing objection against arbitral award held uncondonable – Application under Section 30 dismissed as time-barred – However, considering merits raised regarding validity and scope of arbitral award, appeal admitted for final adjudication – Matter to be listed on 08.01.2026.

Custodial Violence – Suo Motu PIL on letter alleging illegal arrest and torture – Prima facie inference of custodial beating supported by contemporaneous complaints, photographs and Magistrate’s injury observations – State directed to pay interim compensation of Rs.1,50,000 with recovery from erring officials – Inquiry ordered against medical officer issuing “fit for custody” certificate despite serious injuries – Non-installation of CCTV in police station held as blatant non-compliance of Supreme Court directions [Paras 2-3, 6, 8-9, 26-33].

Public Interest Litigation – Suo Motu Cognizance by High Court – Letter by victim’s wife alleging illegal arrest, torture and threats treated as PIL – Notice issued – SP directed to appear with records and CCTV DVR footage [Paras 2].

Police Accountability – Production of CCTV Footage – Police claim CCTV not installed at concerned police station – Court records the statement and notes systemic human rights concern – DGP interacted and expected to take corrective steps given recurring instances within 48 hours [Paras 3].

Custodial Torture – Prima Facie Assessment – State version that injuries caused in clash with villagers not accepted prima facie – Court relies on detailed complaint addressed to President of India, repeated complaints to authorities, and photographs indicating injuries consistent with custody violence – Held: case prima facie of custodial torture/beating [Paras 6, 8-9].

Arrest/Detention – Medical Treatment Duty – Primary investigation report noted injured accused should have been sent for treatment immediately but were not – Delay/omission treated as gross negligence and unprofessional conduct – Officer-in-charge suspended based on inquiry material [Paras 4-5].

Judicial Scrutiny of Injuries – Magistrate’s Observations Prevail Over Police Certificate – ACGM, Chandil recorded multiple injuries including fracture of both legs and sought explanation from Officer-in-Charge – Court notes mismatch between Magistrate’s observations and hospital certificate describing only bruises and declaring “fit for custody” – Held: certificate appears “managed” – medical officer cannot be exonerated [Paras 26-27].

Medical Negligence/Complicity – Departmental Inquiry Directed – Director, Health Services ordered to hold inquiry into issuance of medical certificate showing minor bruises and fitness for custody despite serious injuries including fractures – Report to be submitted before next hearing [Paras 27, 35-36].

Human Rights – Constitutional Safeguards – Court reiterates Article 21/22 protections and condemns any custodial violence regardless of duration or degree – Relies on Supreme Court jurisprudence including D.K. Basu guidelines and principles against third-degree methods – Emphasizes transparency and accountability in arrests and detention [Paras 14-17, 24-25].

CCTV Cameras in Police Stations – Binding Supreme Court Directions – Failure to install CCTV and inability to produce footage criticized – Court holds State has blatantly violated and flouted Supreme Court directions (Shafhi Mohammad / Paramvir Singh Saini line) and cannot justify absence of footage – Time sought by State till 31.12.2025 noted in other proceedings [Para 30].

Compensation – Public Law Remedy for Article 21 Violation – Interim compensation ordered based on prima facie custodial torture and suspension order acknowledging lapses – State to pay Rs.1,50,000 within one week to victim (Tarun Mahto) – Amount to be recovered from erring officials/officers – Clarified that interim compensation will not affect victim’s right to seek additional civil/criminal compensation [Paras 31-32].

Procedure – Further Pleadings and Listing – Counter affidavit directed within four weeks – Matter listed on 07.01.2026 – Copy of order to be sent to Director, Health Services for compliance [Paras 33-36].

Decision: Interim directions issued – State to pay Rs.1,50,000 as interim compensation within one week and recover from erring officials – Director, Health Services to conduct inquiry against concerned medical officer and file report – Counter affidavit to be filed – Matter listed on 07.01.2026 [Paras 32-36].

Suit for Recovery - Insurance – Bankers Indemnity Policy – Loss Due to Employee Misconduct – Claim Denied for Failure to Prove Actual Loss and Violation of Policy Terms – Suit Dismissed – Plaintiff bank filed suit seeking indemnity under BIPs for losses caused by alleged embezzlement and misappropriation by bank employee between 2003–2008 – Defendant insurer repudiated claims citing breach of "excess clause", failure to report within retroactive period, and non-maintenance of “dual control” – Court held plaintiff failed to prove actual losses during insured period and failed to substantiate audit findings with primary evidence – Mere production of audit summary insufficient to establish loss – Held: Plaintiff not entitled to claim under policy [Paras 28–48].

Contract of Insurance – Burden of Proof – Terms Must Be Proven – Failure to Substantiate Claims with Evidence – Plaintiff’s Reliance on Audit Report Not Enough – Court found no conclusive proof that alleged acts of embezzlement fell within policy coverage – Special audit report relied upon by plaintiff was not supported by underlying documents or primary evidence – Held: Loss not established in accordance with law, claim fails [Paras 46–47].

Insurance Law – Retroactive Period of Cover – Loss Not Discovered Within Permissible Time – Claim Rightly Rejected – Claim for loss under 2003–2004 policy filed after expiry of six-month retroactive discovery period – Court upheld insurer’s repudiation as per policy clause barring claims discovered beyond permissible timeline [Paras 39–41].

Insurance – Excess Clause – Small Claims Below Threshold Not Recoverable – Defendant insurer rightly denied multiple claims on grounds that individual losses were below ₹50,000 threshold under “excess clause” – Such clause held valid and enforceable [Paras 35–37].

Insurance Policy – Alleged Dual Control Breach – No Proven Applicability – Defendant Failed to Prove Clause Formed Part of Contract – Defendant’s claim that loss not indemnifiable due to lack of dual control dismissed – Court held dual control clause not proved to be part of agreed terms – Even if applicable, alleged acts of employee did not fall within scope of clause [Paras 42–44].

Decision: Suit dismissed – Plaintiff failed to prove entitlement to indemnity under the Bankers Indemnity Policies – No order as to costs [Paras 48, 54–55].