Civil Law - Municipal Tender – Challenge to Eligibility Criteria and Marking Scheme – Petitions Dismissed – Petitioners challenged the tender process initiated by MCGM for collection and transportation of municipal solid waste for the period 2025–2032, particularly opposing Corrigendum-III dated 1 July 2025 – Petitioners alleged arbitrary modification of eligibility criteria, introduction of a discretionary marking system, and restriction on Joint Venture bidders – The Court held that the tender terms were within the discretion of the tendering authority, well-reasoned, and supported by legal principles – No mala fides, arbitrariness, or procedural impropriety was found – Writ Petitions dismissed [Paras 1, 16, 30].

Interpretation of Tender Conditions – Experience Requirement of Seven Years – Not Continuous – Petitioners misinterpreted Clause A.1.1 of the tender, alleging that continuous seven-year experience was mandated – Court clarified that requirement was to have completed work(s) of specified value during the past seven years, not over seven consecutive years – Held: Petitioners’ interpretation misplaced; experience condition was neither arbitrary nor new [Paras 17–20].

Scope of Judicial Review – Judicial Restraint in Tender Matters – Court reiterated settled law that the tendering authority is the best judge of its requirements and terms – Courts cannot sit in appeal over decisions unless they are perverse, arbitrary, or actuated by mala fides – Held: MCGM acted within its domain and no interference was warranted under Article 226 [Paras 11–16, 30].

Marking System – Work Plan and Presentation – Not Arbitrary – Petitioners objected to 50% marks being allocated to subjective criteria – Court held that given the turnkey nature of the contract, detailed evaluation was justified – Marking system was structured, criteria-based, and had a rational nexus with project objectives – No unreasonableness or scope for arbitrary exclusion found [Paras 21–27].

Restriction on Joint Ventures – Removed by Corrigendum – Issue Rendered Academic – Petitioners challenged restriction on JV bidders bidding for multiple groups – Court found that Corrigendum-III had already removed such restriction, allowing JV participation across groups, subject to fulfilment of financial and technical eligibility – Objection found baseless [Paras 28–29].

Decision  – No Grounds for Interference – No Element of Arbitrariness or Illegality – Court found that all grounds raised by the Petitioners lacked merit – No violation of Article 14 or public procurement norms – Petitioners failed to establish any procedural impropriety or bias – Petitions dismissed with no order as to costs [Para 30].

Criminal Revision – Rash and Negligent Driving – Sections 304A, 337, 338 IPC – Conviction Affirmed – The accused, driver of a goods auto, caused an accident by driving rashly and negligently despite repeated warnings from passengers to slow down – Accident resulted in death of one passenger and injuries to others – Trial Court convicted and sentenced accused to 8 months SI under Section 304A IPC with fines under Sections 337, 338 IPC and MV Act provisions – Sessions Court confirmed conviction and sentence – High Court held that testimonies of injured eyewitnesses were credible, consistent, and corroborated by medical and documentary evidence – Defence version of sudden braking to avoid collision with oncoming lorry unsupported by evidence – No error or perversity in concurrent findings – Conviction sustained [Paras 15-30].

Sentencing – Reduction of Sentence – Section 304A IPC – Sentence Reduced from Eight Months to Three Months – Considering mitigating factors such as absence of intoxication, lapse of 18 years since accident, no prior criminal record, age of accused, and being sole breadwinner – High Court reduced sentence to 3 months SI while affirming other sentences and fines imposed – Period already undergone to be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. – Petitioner directed to surrender to serve remaining sentence [Paras 31-39].

Criminal Law - Rape and Murder of Minor – Circumstantial Evidence – “Last Seen Together” – Sections 302 & 376AB IPC, Section 5/6 POCSO Act – Conviction Upheld – Appellant, related to victim, was last seen with her by four witnesses on the night of the incident – Victim found dead next morning with bleeding from private parts – Medical evidence established homicidal death due to smothering and probable sexual assault – Defective investigation (no DNA test, no seizure of accused’s clothes) did not vitiate trial – Presumption under Section 29 POCSO Act applied – Accused failed to discharge burden under Section 106 Evidence Act – Conviction for rape and murder affirmed [Paras 38–42, 49–52, 55–57, 61–62].

Defective Investigation – Impact on Prosecution Case – Law reiterated that lapses in investigation (non-conduct of DNA profiling, seizure lapses) alone cannot lead to acquittal if other trustworthy evidence exists – Court’s duty to assess remaining credible material and separate grain from chaff – Here, last seen evidence of multiple natural witnesses corroborated by medical and circumstantial evidence sufficient for conviction [Paras 52–53, 58–59].

Partial Penetration – Proof of Rape – Medical Evidence – Rape is a legal term and even partial penetration suffices – Absence of injuries on private parts not fatal when bleeding from genitals of 8-year-old victim recorded in inquest and postmortem, and human blood found on her clothes – Sexual assault proved [Para 57].

Sentencing – Death Penalty – Rare and Exceptional Cases – Principles – Considering aggravating factors (tender age of victim, trust reposed, heinous nature) and mitigating factors (young age of accused, no prior criminal antecedents, possibility of reform, case based on circumstantial evidence) – Death penalty held not warranted – Sentence for Section 302 IPC commuted to life imprisonment for minimum 25 years without remission; sentence for Section 376AB IPC reduced to 20 years rigorous imprisonment; fines imposed – Reference for confirmation of death sentence dismissed [Paras 66–71].

Civil Law – Declaration and Recovery Suit - Maintainability of Suit – Collateral Challenge to Arbitral Award – Sections 5 & 34 of Arbitration Act – Suit Barred – Plaintiff filed a civil suit seeking to set aside an Arbitral Award by alleging newly discovered fraud in a prior commercial transaction which was already subject to arbitration – Held: The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is a complete code; civil suits challenging an award are barred under Sections 5 and 34 – Fraud, if any, was not played upon the Arbitral Tribunal or Court but inter se among parties, and is therefore not sufficient to bypass the statutory bar – Suit dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC [Paras 1, 49, 66-69, 74, 77, 79-80].

Jurisdiction of Civil Courts – Section 9 CPC vs. Arbitration Act – Implied Bar – Not Maintainable – The Court held that Section 9 CPC does not override the Arbitration Act’s non-obstante clause – Where the statute provides an exclusive remedy for challenge to Arbitral Awards under Section 34, Civil Court jurisdiction is ousted – Filing a separate suit post exhaustion of remedies under Section 34 amounts to abuse of process [Paras 63, 66, 78-80].

Fraud Allegations – Arbitrability of Disputes – Arbitration Clause Survives – The Court held that even where fraud is alleged in contract performance or internal corporate actions, such issues are arbitrable unless fraud was played on the Arbitral Tribunal or Court itself – Here, arbitration agreement was undisputed and allegations concerned only Addendum No. 2 – Therefore, the subject matter was held to be arbitrable and not exempt from arbitration mechanism [Paras 27, 75-77].

Limitation – Delayed Suit Based on “Discovery” of Fraud – No Fresh Cause of Action – Plaintiff argued fraud was discovered only in 2022 after internal inquiry and hence suit was within limitation – Court rejected the contention, holding that the Arbitration Act does not allow revival of challenge beyond statutory limits based on delayed discovery – Mere CBI complaint or inquiry does not extend limitation period or constitute new cause of action [Paras 70-72].

Decision – Civil Suit Not Maintainable – Abuse of Process – Arbitral Award Upheld by Supreme Court – Held: Civil suit filed by plaintiff to nullify Arbitral Award is barred by law and amounts to collateral attack – Allowing such suits would defeat the purpose of finality under Arbitration Act – Suit rejected at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 CPC [Paras 82-87].

Criminal Law - Quashing of Proceedings – Section 498A IPC – Petition Dismissed – Petitioner sought quashing of GR Case No. 1569 of 2023 arising from complaint by wife alleging physical and mental cruelty—FIR contained no dowry demand but alleged assault and neglect—Court held that FIR is not required to detail every incident; absence of wife’s presence in proceedings and petitioner’s inability to serve her notices suggested possible neglect—Though some arguments favoured petitioner, quashing not proper under Section 482 CrPC at this stage—Liberty given to raise all points at charge-framing before Trial Court [Paras 2, 4, 6-7].

Scope of Section 482 CrPC – Court reiterated that jurisdiction should be exercised sparingly to prevent abuse of process—Quashing permissible only when FIR fails to disclose any cognizable offence—Neglect of spouse and children may, prima facie, amount to cruelty under Section 498A IPC depending on evidence [Paras 6-7].

Decision – Criminal revision dismissed; liberty granted to petitioner to agitate defences before Trial Court at charge-framing; no costs; interim orders vacated [Para 8].

Criminal Law – Bail - Terrorism Case – Bengaluru Riots of 11.08.2020 – Bail Rejected – Sections 16, 18, 20 UAP Act – Accused Nos. 6 & 20 alleged to have conspired, mobilized mobs, vandalized police station, burnt vehicles, and attacked police personnel – Earlier bail rejections upheld by High Court and Supreme Court – Contention of delay in trial and contradictions in witness statements rejected – Court found accused engaged in abuse of process by filing successive bail/discharge pleas to stall trial – Delay attributable to accused, not prosecution – No change in circumstances to warrant bail [Paras 4–15].

Plea of Parity with Co-accused Sentenced to 7 Years on Guilty Plea – Not Applicable – Accused had not pleaded guilty or shown remorse unlike co-accused Nos. 14, 16, 18 – Possible punishment under Section 16 UAP Act includes life imprisonment/death – Premature to assume same sentence – Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb distinguished – Risk to society considered – Bail denied [Paras 16–19].

Civil Law  – Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Statutory Notices (s.80 CPC, s.280 ZP Act, s.180 MVP Act) – Plaint Rejected – Respondent filed suit on 30.07.2024 challenging eviction steps (order 01.03.2024; notice 15.07.2024) after issuing notice dated 24.07.2024 – Held: Pre-suit notice requirements under s.80 CPC (two months, waiver only per s.80(2)) and under s.280 ZP Act / s.180 MVP Act (three months; no waiver power) are mandatory – No pleadings of urgency/waiver; post facto waiver plea (Exh-48) inconsequential – Trial court erred in refusing O7 R11 – Order quashed; plaint rejected [Paras 2–6, 8–13, 14, 22].

Statutory Notice – Section 80 CPC vs. Section 280 ZP Act / Section 180 MVP Act – Waiver Distinction – Two-month notice under s.80 CPC is mandatory but may be waived only with leave u/s 80(2); by contrast, ZP Act/MVP Act notice periods have no waiver provision – Trial court lacked jurisdiction to dispense with those notices – Suit within nine days of notice is non-maintainable [Paras 9–13].

Pleadings & Timing – No Urgency/Dispensation Pleaded – Post-facto Application Ineffective – Plaint contained no averment of urgency or waiver; Exh-48 seeking s.80(2) leave filed months after O7 R11 rejection – cannot cure initial defect; moreover, waiver not possible for ZP Act/MVP Act notices [Paras 10, 12, 14].

Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Trial Court’s Error of Jurisdiction – Reversal – Trial court considered only s.80(2) CPC and ignored the mandatory, non-waivable notices under special statutes – Findings termed perverse; plaint liable to rejection [Paras 12–13, 22].

Precedents – Distinguished – Pioneer Builders (AIR 2007 SC 113) concerned s.80 CPC and post-leave decree; Sudhir Kumar Sharma (MANU/SC/0892/2013) inapplicable as s.80(2) plea was not pending here and special statute notices applied; other authorities on s.80 CPC alone (Ghulam Rasool; Chandrashekhar P. Rathi; Vasant Ambadas Pandit; K.K. Sharma) not helpful [Paras 15–21].

Decision – Civil Revision allowed – Impugned order dated 01.10.2024 quashed – Plaint in RCS No.652/2024 rejected [Para 22].

Employment Law - Compassionate Appointment – Married Daughter – Dependency Requirement – Appeal Partly Allowed – Deceased Eastern Coalfields employee’s widow (aged above 45), married daughter, and son-in-law sought compassionate appointment under NCWA—Clause 9.3.3 (excluding married daughters) declared unconstitutional by Single Judge with prospective effect; claims rejected for lack of dependency proof—Division Bench held marital status irrelevant but dependency at time of death is condition precedent; married daughter and son-in-law produced no evidence of co-residence or financial reliance; findings of suppression of address documents stood unshaken—Rejection upheld—Widow entitled to monetary compensation under NCWA if applied within 30 days [Paras 13-17, 22, 25-27].

Interpretation of NCWA – Even after striking down Clause 9.3.3, remaining clauses 9.3.0, 9.3.1, 9.3.2, 9.3.4, and 9.5.0 limit benefit to dependents—Dependency must be established by evidence; burden lies on claimant [Paras 15-17, 22].

Precedent Distinction – Sukumoni Hembram and Subhadra cases inapplicable where dependency not proved; those cases involved unmarried daughters admittedly dependent on deceased [Para 19].

Relief to Widow – As per NCWA, widow above 45 years entitled to monetary compensation, not appointment—Direction issued to grant compensation with arrears within 90 days upon application [Para 27].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed; rejection of claims of married daughter and son-in-law upheld; direction issued to release monetary compensation to widow on application; no costs [Paras 26-28].

Family Law - Child Visitation Rights – Welfare of Minor Paramount – Civil Revision Allowed – Petitioner/father’s plea for visitation to 10-year-old son was dismissed by Trial Court—During mediation, child initially distressed but later conversed with father for over 20 minutes on neutral topics—Mediator recommended supervised visitation to avoid distress—High Court held delay or pendency stage of divorce case irrelevant; love and bonding with both parents vital unless shown contrary to welfare—Order of dismissal set aside—Father permitted supervised visitation twice a month for three months under clinical psychologist’s supervision, with report to be submitted thereafter [Paras 12-22].

Parens Patriae Jurisdiction – Court reiterated that in custody/visitation matters there is no straitjacket formula; welfare of minor overrides disputes between parents—Child’s reactions, maturity, and circumstances to be assessed on case-specific basis [Paras 12-17].

Supervised Visitation – Detailed Directions – Visitation fixed on 2nd and 4th Sundays, 10 a.m. to 12 p.m., at Phoenix Mall, Chennai, under supervision of Ms. Madhumitha, Clinical Psychologist—Father to pay ₹6,000 per visit towards supervision charges—Arrangement limited to three months, with liberty to seek further orders under Section 26 HMA post-divorce proceedings [Paras 21-23].

Decision – Civil Revision Petition allowed; Trial Court order set aside; visitation rights granted on specified terms; divorce proceedings to be concluded within four months [Paras 21-24].