Arbitration Law – Enforcement of Foreign Award – Objections under Section 48 – Respondent challenged enforcement on grounds of limitation, absence of concluded contract and arbitration clause, and non-confirmation of award under Texas law – Held: Petition filed on 16.05.2024 not barred by limitation as period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 excluded due to COVID-19 – Limitation to be counted from 16.09.2020 (date of Vedanta judgment) – Application within time [Paras 13–15.2]

Foreign Award – Binding Nature – Section 48(2)(a) – Commercial Court decree declaring arbitration award null and void not binding on foreign award enforcement – Held: Foreign award can only be set aside by court of the country where or under whose law it was made – Indian court lacks jurisdiction to annul a foreign award – Decree passed by Indian Commercial Court cannot override enforceability under Section 48 [Paras 16–17.5]

Arbitration Law – Confirmation Requirement under Foreign Law – Respondent argued that award unenforceable without confirmation under Texas Civil Code – Held: Section 171.087 of Texas Code mandates confirmation unless objection grounds exist – No requirement of confirmation in absence of objection – Award enforceable as it became binding under arbitration clause and SMA Rules – Absence of confirmation does not defeat enforcement under Indian law [Paras 18–19.4]

Foreign Award – Public Policy and Judicial Review – Scope of Objections – Court reaffirms narrow grounds under Section 48 and principle of minimal judicial interference – Foreign award passed under SMA Rules in New York cannot be invalidated by an Indian court unless objections under Section 48 are strictly satisfied – Enforcement bias and comity of courts to be respected [Paras 17.3–17.5, 19.3]

Judicial Discipline – Risk of Conflicting Decisions – Court noted pendency of first appeal (FA No. 604/2024) before Division Bench challenging Commercial Court decree – To avoid conflict, registry directed to place both matters before Chief Justice for allocation to one Bench [Paras 21–22]

Decision: I.A. Nos. 7505/2024 and 8151/2024 rejected – Objections to enforcement under Section 48 overruled – Order dated 15.07.2024 made final – Registry directed to place AC No. 60/2024 and FA No. 604/2024 before Chief Justice for assignment to same Bench to avoid conflicting decisions.

Criminal Law – Rape/POCSO – Appreciation of Evidence – Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix – Grandfather accused of raping minor granddaughter – FIR lodged after 21 days delay – Victim claimed she was threatened but did not disclose this in Section 164 statement – Incident allegedly occurred in daylight in a populated area, yet no alarm raised – Held: While conviction can be based on sole testimony, it must be of sterling quality – Here, the conduct of the victim (silence for 19 days, delay in FIR) was unnatural and improbable – Testimony failed to inspire confidence – Acquitted.[Paras 22, 28, 29, 35].

Criminal Law – Delay in FIR – Sexual Offences – 21 days delay in lodging FIR – Explanation of threat not consistent across statements – Held: While delay is not always fatal in rape cases, unexplained delay coupled with lack of immediate complaint to parents or friends creates serious doubt on the prosecution case – [Paras 32, 34].

Criminal Law – Medical Evidence – Corroboration – Victim alleged multiple incidents of rape – Medical examination showed no external or internal injuries – Held: Medical evidence did not corroborate the prosecution story, further weakening the case – [Para 30].

Juvenile Justice – Age Determination – Section 94 JJ Act – Discrepancies in birth date between oral testimony (11.11.2006) and school records (28.02.2006/29.02.2006) – School record entries found manipulated after case registration – Held: Prosecution failed to prove the age of the victim conclusively as less than 18 years due to manipulated and contradictory documents – [Paras 20, 21].

Decision: Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted.

Land Laws – Validity of Housing Site Allotment (Patta) – Requirement of Prior Approval – Section 122-C of U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act – Petitioner claimed title over land based on a Patta allegedly granted by the Gram Pradhan in 1973/1981 without producing the actual lease deed or Form 49-F – Held: Section 122-C(2), introduced by the 1971 Amendment, mandates prior approval of the Assistant Collector for any allotment of housing sites – This requirement is mandatory and jurisdictional, not directory – The contention that prior approval was introduced only in 1975 via Rule amendment is incorrect as the substantive statutory provision existed since 1971 – Any Patta issued without such approval is void ab initio and unenforceable – Paras [76-78], [86-87], [89(ii)].

Land Laws – Eligibility for Allotment – Order of Preference – Petitioner’s father was an Ex-Army personnel belonging to the General Category – Held: Under Section 122-C(3), preference is given to SC/ST, OBC, and General Category persons living below the poverty line – The Petitioner’s father did not fall within any eligible category for preferential allotment of housing sites – No legal allotment could have been made in his favor – Paras [89(vi)].

Administrative Law – Procedure for Allotment – Adherence to Statutory Mode – Petitioner relied on receipts issued by Gram Pradhan and entries in Parivar Register made by the Pradhan – Held: When a statute prescribes a particular act to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner alone (Rule in Taylor v. Taylor) – Entries in the Parivar Register can only be made by the Secretary under the relevant Rules, not the Pradhan – Receipts issued without following the procedure of Rules 115-L to 115-O (public announcement, LMC meeting, drawing of lots) hold no evidentiary value – Paras [75], [89(iii)-(v)].

Civil Law – Fraud and Misrepresentation – Suppression of Material Facts – Petitioner concealed details of prior civil suits and the fact that the land was acquired by LDA and compensation paid to recorded tenure holders – Held: Jurisdiction under Article 226 is equitable and discretionary – A litigant who suppresses material facts or approaches the Court with unclean hands plays fraud on the Court – Such petitions are liable to be dismissed at the threshold without considering merits – Suppressio veri, expressio falsi applies – Paras [80-85], [89(vii)].

Property Law – Encroachment vs. Title – Cancellation of Void Documents – Petitioner argued that the Patta was never cancelled – Held: Cancellation presupposes the existence of a validly issued document – Since the alleged Patta was void ab initio due to lack of competence and statutory compliance, it never legally existed – The Petitioner’s status is that of an encroacher on government land acquired by LDA – Paras [87], [89(i)].

Decision: Appeal dismissed - The Court upheld the LDA's actions as lawful, declaring the petitioner an encroacher with no valid title - Paras [89-90].

Family Law – 125 CrPC - Maintenance – Assessment of Income – Reliance on ITR – Petitioner-husband claimed low income but his ITR for AY 2018-19 showed annual income of Rs. 5,18,268/- (approx. Rs. 43,189/- pm) – Petitioner claimed subsequent ITRs showed reduced income – Held: Family Court rightly relied on the ITR of AY 2018-19 as the most reliable indicator, rejecting subsequent lower ITRs and undated salary certificates as unreliable attempts to conceal income – [Paras 8, 9, 11].

Family Law – Maintenance – Quantum and Apportionment – Annurita Vohra Formula – Family Court awarded Rs. 25,000/- pm to wife out of husband's assessed income of Rs. 43,189/- pm – Held: Awarding more than half of the husband's income is excessive – Applying the principle of apportionment (2 shares for husband, 1 for wife), the wife is entitled to roughly 1/3rd of net income – Considering inflation and need for dignified living, maintenance modified to Rs. 17,000/- per month – [Paras 12, 13].

Criminal Procedure – Section 125 vs. Interim Order – Petitioner argued final maintenance cannot exceed interim maintenance without proof of changed circumstances under Section 127 Cr.P.C. – Held: Final determination under Section 125 is independent of the interim order and is based on evidence led during trial – It is not a modification under Section 127 Cr.P.C. – Family Court can enhance or reduce amount in final judgment based on evidence – [Para 10].

Decision: Petition disposed of. Impugned judgment modified; maintenance reduced from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 17,000/- per month.

Service Law – Termination/Cancellation of Absorption – Principles of Natural Justice – University cancelled absorption of petitioners citing illegality in initial appointment by former In-charge VC, relying on an Enquiry Committee report – No notice or hearing given; report not supplied – Held: Even if appointments are alleged to be illegal, if facts (like existence of posts, advertisement) are disputed, adherence to natural justice is mandatory – Unilateral cancellation without hearing violates audi alteram partem – [Paras 34, 35, 37].

Administrative Law – Non-Speaking Order – Requirement of Reasons – Impugned order merely referred to Enquiry Report and Governor's letters without discussing individual cases or reasons – Held: Reasons are the heartbeat of an order – A non-speaking order having civil consequences (loss of job) is void – [Paras 38, 41, 42].

Service Law – Illegal vs. Irregular Appointments – Right to Hearing – University argued "illegal ab initio" appointments need no hearing – Held: Exceptions to natural justice are rare – Where petitioners worked for years and were absorbed by competent authority, they cannot be condemned unheard – "Useless formality" theory rejected as facts were not incontrovertible – [Paras 35, 36].

Decision: Writ petitions allowed. Impugned order quashed. Petitioners to be reinstated with consequential benefits. Liberty granted to University to proceed afresh in accordance with law.

Service Law – Wrongful Dismissal – Grant of Back Wages – “No Work No Pay” – Petitioner, a PwD employee, dismissed from service solely on basis of criminal conviction despite stay of conviction by appellate court – Dismissal order later set aside and matter remanded for fresh decision – Competent authority granted all service benefits including salary up to extended age of retirement (60 years) – Successor authority later reviewed and denied salary for intervening period on principle of “no work no pay” – Held: Principle of “no work no pay” not applicable where employee was willing to work but was illegally prevented by employer – Department being at fault, petitioner entitled to full pay and allowances [Paras 18–21, 25].

Administrative Law – Review by Successor-in-Office – Illegality – Earlier order granting service benefits reviewed by successor authority without notice or hearing – Held: Successor in office has no jurisdiction to review or recall an order passed by predecessor unless statute so permits – Such review violates principles of natural justice and is impermissible in law [Paras 18, 22].

Criminal Law Impact on Service – Stay of Conviction – Effect – Conviction and sentence stayed by appellate court prior to dismissal – Subsequent release on probation under Sections 468 and 471 IPC – Protection under Section 12 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 – Held: Dismissal founded on conviction which stood stayed was illegal and unsustainable [Paras 3–5, 19].

Persons with Disabilities – Extension of Retirement Age – Service Benefits – Petitioner appointed against handicapped quota – Retirement age extended to 60 years pursuant to Supreme Court decision and Government instructions – Petitioner held entitled to continuation in service till 31.05.2015 with all consequential benefits [Paras 6, 16–18].

Interest on Delayed Retiral Benefits – Entitlement – Retiral dues including gratuity, pension and leave encashment released after inordinate delay of several years – Held: In absence of justification for delay, petitioner entitled to interest as compensation for wrongful retention of money by State – Interest awarded @ 7% per annum [Paras 23–25].

Principles of Natural Justice – Violation – Review order passed without issuing show cause notice or affording opportunity of hearing – Held: Order vitiated on account of violation of audi alteram partem [Paras 18–19].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Order dated 21.11.2019 set aside – Petitioner held entitled to pay and allowances for period from 01.06.2014 to 31.05.2015 with interest @ 7% per annum – Further entitled to interest @ 7% per annum on delayed payment of pensionary benefits w.e.f. 01.09.2015 till actual payment – Respondents directed to compute and release amounts within three months [Para 25].

Constitution of India – High Court Administration – Territorial Allocation of Business – Rule 3A Appellate Side Rules – Dispute arose in Kolhapur; Appeal decided in Pune; Writ filed in Mumbai – Rule 3A mandates matters "arising in" Kolhapur district "shall" be heard at Kolhapur Circuit Bench – Held: Rule 3A is mandatory – The Chief Justice is the Master of the Roster – Litigants cannot choose the Bench – Petition must be heard at Kolhapur – [Paras 14, 15, 24].

Constitution of India – Article 227 – Situs of Dispute – Petitioner argued doctrine of merger (Appellate order at Pune) gave jurisdiction to Mumbai/Pune – Held: For internal allocation of work within the same High Court, the situs of the original authority/cause of action (Kolhapur) determines the Bench – Doctrine of merger does not override administrative rules of allocation – [Paras 18, 19, 20].

Judicial Discipline – Master of Roster – Held: Judges sitting at Principal Seat cannot assume jurisdiction over matters assigned to Circuit Benches by the Chief Justice via Rules/Roster – [Para 23].

Decision: Petition to be transmitted to the Circuit Bench at Kolhapur for disposal.

Negotiable Instruments – Cheque Dishonour – Appeal against Acquittal – Admitted Signature – Defence Unproved – Accused issued cheque for Rs.2,00,000 allegedly towards friendly loan – Cheque dishonoured for 'insufficient funds' – Accused admitted signature but claimed cheque was misused – Claimed cheque given to third party (Subramaniam), but failed to examine him as witness – Trial Court acquitted accused holding loan not proved and transaction improbable – Appellate Court held such reasoning erroneous as cheque and signature were admitted and presumption under Section 139 NI Act not rebutted – However, respondent died during pendency of appeal – Appeal rendered infructuous and dismissed [Paras 1–3, 5].

Criminal Procedure – Death of Accused – Effect on Appeal – During pendency of appeal against acquittal, police confirmed death of accused – Death Certificate produced and verified through official report – Held: No further adjudication possible – Appeal dismissed as abated [Para 3].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – In view of death of accused during pendency of appeal, no further adjudication warranted – Criminal Appeal abated.

Election Law – Writ of Quo Warranto - Reservation and Caste Certificate – Requirement for Reserved Posts – Appellant contested and won election for Zila Panchayat Member from a seat reserved for OBC category – Appellant submitted an affidavit claiming OBC status ("Pal Baghele") but admittedly did not possess a caste certificate – Held: A candidate contesting for a reserved post must possess a valid caste certificate as proof of belonging to that category – Self-declaration via affidavit is insufficient to contest an election for a reserved seat – The requirement is mandatory to ensure the benefit of reservation reaches the intended beneficiaries – [Paras 11, 14].

Constitutional Law – Writ of Quo Warranto – Maintainability after Election Petition Dismissal – Respondent No. 6 sought a writ of quo warranto challenging appellant's authority to hold office after his wife's election petition was dismissed on technical grounds – Appellant argued that the dismissal of the election petition barred the writ – Held: Dismissal of an election petition does not debar an independent voter/citizen from seeking a writ of quo warranto if the holder of the office lacks the fundamental eligibility (caste certificate) – No right can be conferred on an individual which they cannot possess under law – The writ is maintainable to prevent a usurper from holding public office – [Paras 8, 12, 13].

Constitution of India – Article 226 – Interference in Election Matters – Held: While Article 329(b) bars interference during the election process, the High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 after the election process is over if there is a violation of constitutional provisions or statutory eligibility criteria – Allowing a person ineligible for a reserved seat to continue in office would be a fraud on the Constitution – [Paras 13, 14].

Decision: Appeal dismissed - The order declaring the appellant ineligible to hold the post of Member, Zila Panchayat is upheld - [Para 15].