Default Bail - UAPA – Extension of Custody – Section 43D(2) – Default Bail Refused – Appellant challenged extension orders of 24.02.2024 and 26.02.2024 and rejection of default bail on 11.03.2024 – Contended that trial court acted mechanically, without individualised assessment, and that investigation was substantially complete – Held: Public Prosecutor’s 90-page report detailed specific investigative steps, pending analysis of voluminous digital evidence, fund trail, absconding accused, and ISIS-linked activities – Trial court applied mind, recorded satisfaction on necessity, and complied with safeguards in Zeeshan Qamar – No mechanical extension – Appeal dismissed [Paras 32-34, 38].

National Security – Necessity of Continued Detention – Allegations of ISIS Membership – Material showed appellant’s involvement in recce of cities, handling of explosives, receipt of ISIS literature, and encrypted communications – Investigation linked to wider conspiracy with cross-border elements – Releasing appellant at crucial stage would impede investigation and risk evidence destruction – Custody extension justified [Paras 34-37].

Default Bail – Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. – UAPA Framework – Court reiterated that statutory right arises only if charge-sheet not filed within prescribed/extended period – Under UAPA, extension up to 180 days permissible on valid Public Prosecutor’s report – Trial court’s extension order within legal limits – Gravity of offence relevant to necessity assessment, though not to default bail entitlement – No violation of safeguards [Paras 27, 38-39].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Trial court orders upheld – Continued custody under Section 43D(2) UAPA lawful – Pending applications disposed [Para 39].

Contempt Petition – Disconnection of Water Supply – Alleged Violation of Supreme Court Judgment – Petition Dismissed with Costs – Petitioner alleged willful disobedience of Supreme Court order in Rajeeb Kalita v. Union of India by builder disconnecting water supply in retaliation for protest over non-provision of amenities – Court found the dispute to be a private civil matter with no cogent proof of willful disobedience – Held: Contempt jurisdiction not attracted – Petition dismissed with exemplary costs of ₹50,000/- to be deposited with Punjab & Haryana High Court Bar Association [Paras 6-7, 14-16].

Contempt Jurisdiction – Disconnection of Water Supply – Alleged Violation of Supreme Court Directions – Petition Held Not Maintainable – Petitioner alleged that builder disconnected water supply to her flat in retaliation for residents’ protest over non-provision of basic amenities – Claimed violation of Supreme Court judgment prohibiting stoppage of essential services – Court held that dispute is purely private and civil in nature between petitioner and builder, without evidence of willful disobedience of Apex Court order – Contempt jurisdiction cannot be invoked in such circumstances [Paras 6-7].

Frivolous Litigation – Abuse of Process – Filing Contempt Petition Despite Directions to Avail Civil Remedies – Petitioner persisted in pressing contempt petition despite being advised to approach proper civil forum – Court found petition to be vexatious, constituting gross abuse of judicial process – Relied on Supreme Court rulings in Dalip Singh v. State of U.P., Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India and K.C. Tharakan v. SBI – Emphasized need to deter unscrupulous litigants from forum shopping and repetitive meritless filings [Paras 8-12].

Costs – Exemplary Costs to Deter Abuse of Judicial Process – Court imposed costs of ₹50,000/- to be deposited with Punjab & Haryana High Court Bar Association for construction/renovation of Women Bar Room – Directed recovery as arrears of land revenue in case of default [Paras 14-16].

Anticipatory Bail – Financial Scam – Co-operative Society – Pre-arrest bail granted with stringent conditions – Sneha MACS allegedly collected ₹6.32 crore from depositors, failed to repay – Accused No. 3, aged 71, retired bank officer, served as Director/CEO only from April 2022 to October 2024 – Majority of deposits mobilised before his tenure – Petitioner claimed to have invested ₹2 crore from own and family’s funds, making him also a victim – Investigation revealed no evidence of siphoning deposits for personal benefit – Petitioner cooperated with Investigation and Inquiry Officers; seizure of documents and material completed – Fixed residence and landed property; no risk of absconding – Health issues noted (kidney, thyroid, diabetes) – Court held custodial interrogation unwarranted; anticipatory bail granted subject to compliance with strict conditions [Paras 19–21].

Conditions Imposed – Personal bond of ₹50,000 with two sureties; weekly appearance before Station House Officer every Saturday 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. till charge sheet; no threats or inducement to witnesses; no travel outside district without SHO’s permission; surrender of passport or affidavit if none [Para 21].

Decision – Criminal petition allowed; pre-arrest bail granted subject to conditions [Para 21].

Arbitration Law - Arbitral Interim Relief – Remand of Section 17 Decision – Impugned Order Set Aside - The Arbitral Tribunal rejected interim relief to protect Atul’s rights under a development MoU citing termination, lack of clarity, and change in land use to NDZ – Held: Tribunal failed to consider material documents including the Oberoi MoU in full; findings were summary and not adequately reasoned – Order set aside and matter remanded for reconsideration with full disclosure [Paras 1-4, 62-66].

Title to Land – Revived Show Cause Notice as Fetter – No Absolute Title Established – Clear Title Not Achieved - The DB Judgement revived a 2002 SCN that restricted alienation without Government consent – Held: This revival precluded establishment of “absolute and clear title,” a precondition for Atul’s payment obligations under the MoU – Termination on ground of non-payment was premature [Paras 45-55].

Termination of Agreement – Letters Dated 28 July and 7 September 2020 – Not Effective Termination – Effective Termination Held to be 18 December 2023 - Tribunal treated 2020 letters as conclusive termination – Held: Language of subsequent letters indicated continued engagement – Only the 2023 letter with refund cheque amounted to final termination [Paras 30-34].

Existence of Earmarked Land – Layout Plan and Identification of 12.5 Acres – Dispute is Triable – No Basis for Summary Rejection - Tribunal found no identifiable land for performance – Held: Confirmation Deed referenced layout plan and fencing obligations implying identification – Whether plan existed is a factual issue requiring evidence [Paras 23-27].

NDZ Classification – Development for IT and Residential Use Possible – Inaccurate Assumption by Tribunal - Tribunal concluded that residential development was impossible due to NDZ classification – Held: DCPR 2034 allows for residential units as part of IT/ITES parks – Oberoi MoU itself contemplated residential development – Tribunal’s analysis flawed [Paras 13-16].

Oberoi MoU – Redacted Disclosure to Tribunal – Critical Evidence Withheld – Tribunal Misled - The Oberoi MoU, central to dispute, was submitted in highly redacted form, depriving Tribunal of material facts – Held: Full document must be disclosed (with limited redactions) to ensure fair adjudication – Tribunal to reconsider matter with full MoU [Paras 35-44].

Ready and Willingness to Perform – WhatsApp Chats as Prima Facie Evidence – Tribunal’s Reliance Not Perverse - Tribunal relied on October 2019 chats to infer unwillingness to perform – Held: Tribunal’s reliance was reasonable; however, readiness must be assessed in full factual context including absence of clear title at the time [Paras 17-22].

Impleadment of Non-Signatory – Oberoi Realty’s Participation Allowed – Interests Affected - Oberoi voluntarily sought impleadment, and their agreement (Oberoi MoU) materially impacted Atul’s rights – Held: As per recent Supreme Court precedent, Tribunal can consider impleadment of non-signatories – Application remanded for consideration [Paras 68-73].

Remand Ordered – Tribunal to Reconsider Section 17 Relief – Full Disclosure of Oberoi MoU Directed - Impugned Order set aside due to summary findings and withheld material – Directed: Oberoi MoU to be shared with Tribunal and Atul with redactions only on commercial terms – Fresh hearing on interim relief directed [Paras 62-64, 74-76].

Arbitration Law - Arbitral Award – Challenge under Section 34 – Patent Illegality – Award Set Aside – The petitioner challenged the arbitral award passed under MSMED Act by the Council at Punjab, which directed the petitioner to pay Rs.1,99,29,166/- including interest – Grounds included that the award was non-speaking, ignored vital evidence, and rejected the counter-claim without reasons – Held: The award suffered from patent illegality and violated public policy by ignoring inspection reports, failing to address delay in furnishing performance bank guarantee, and relying on interest calculations provided post-hearing without opportunity to rebut – Award set aside [Paras 3, 5, 16-27].

Jurisdiction – Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause – Chennai Court Held Competent – Despite the award being passed in Punjab, the original contract and purchase orders contained a jurisdiction clause conferring exclusive jurisdiction to Chennai Courts – Held: Petition under Section 34 maintainable before Madras High Court – Venue of arbitration under MSMED Act is only a matter of convenience for the supplier and does not override contractual jurisdiction clause [Paras 10-13, 16].

Pre-deposit under Section 19 of MSMED Act – Compliance Sufficient – Clarificatory Power of Court – Objection raised by respondent that 75% of post-award interest was not deposited – Held: Registry had accepted the deposit, and Court exercised its power under Section 19 to allow supplementation if necessary – Petition held maintainable [Paras 6, 31-33].

Counter-claim and Evidence – Rejection without Reason – Violation of Natural Justice – Petitioner's counter-claim based on delay, defective supplies, and documents including inspection reports was summarily rejected without reasons – Held: The Council failed to consider vital evidence or provide reasoning, making the award vulnerable under Section 34(2)(b)(ii) and 34(2A) as in conflict with public policy and patently illegal [Paras 5, 18-24].

Decision – Award Set Aside – Liberty to Initiate Fresh Arbitration – The impugned arbitral award dated 02.07.2024 was quashed – Both parties granted liberty to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings – Time spent before Council and Court excluded for limitation purposes under Section 14 of the Limitation Act [Para 35].

Criminal Law - Quashing of Proceedings – Commercial Dispute Given Criminal Colour – Allegations Civil in Nature – Proceedings Quashed – Petitioners challenged the criminal case alleging offences under Sections 420/406/422/34 IPC on the basis that there was no fraudulent or dishonest inducement from the inception – Court held that failure to pay outstanding dues in a commercial transaction does not constitute cheating or criminal breach of trust – Held: Allegations do not disclose criminal intent or offence – Proceedings are abuse of process and are quashed under Section 482 CrPC [Paras 1–22].

Cheating – No Dishonest Intention from Inception – Ingredients Not Satisfied – The complaint failed to demonstrate that the petitioners had any fraudulent intention at the time of initiating the transaction – Held: Mere failure to repay or honour a commercial obligation does not imply cheating under Section 420 IPC – No deception or inducement shown at the beginning of transaction [Paras 7, 14–17].

Criminal Breach of Trust – No Entrustment or Misappropriation – Offence Not Attracted – The complaint does not indicate any entrustment of property nor dishonest misappropriation – Held: Section 406 IPC not attracted as essential element of entrustment is absent – Civil dispute wrongly converted into criminal prosecution [Paras 11, 16–17].

Section 202 CrPC – Compliance Satisfied – Cognizance Valid – Petitioners’ claim that Magistrate failed to comply with Section 202 CrPC rejected – Held: Magistrate recorded complainant’s statement and other witness before issuing process – Procedural compliance found proper [Para 6].

Abuse of Process – Criminal Law Misused for Recovery of Dues – Proceedings Quashed – The complainant attempted to pressurise petitioners to settle civil dues by initiating criminal proceedings – Held: Such misuse of criminal process deprecated – Complaint quashed to secure ends of justice [Paras 8, 18–20].

Decision – Complaint Quashed under Section 482 CrPC – Criminal Revision Allowed – Court exercised inherent power to prevent abuse of process – Held: Entire proceedings in CS 41478 of 2017 quashed against the petitioners – All orders passed therein set aside [Paras 21–22].

Civil Law - Land Dispute – RDO Order Set Aside for Violation of Natural Justice – Remand Directed – In a batch of writ appeals and petitions concerning land in Survey Nos. 212/8 and 212/15 of Damineedu Village, the Court examined the legality of the Revenue Divisional Officer’s (RDO) order dated 09.06.2023, which was passed without notice to persons affected by an earlier Tahsildar order dated 24.05.2014 – The Court held that the RDO’s order suffered from a clear violation of natural justice and could not stand – However, the Tahsildar’s order was not held to be illegal or void and could be revived – Held: The RDO’s order is set aside and the matter remanded for fresh hearing after due notice to all affected parties – Revenue authority’s decision to remain subject to outcome of civil court and tribunal proceedings [Paras 14–22].

Violation of Natural Justice – RDO Order Passed Without Hearing Affected Parties – Illegal – The RDO failed to issue notice to several individuals who were found to be in possession of the land and whose rights were recorded by the Tahsildar in 2014 – Held: Order passed without hearing necessary parties is in breach of natural justice and liable to be set aside [Paras 14–16, 20].

Validity of Tahsildar’s 2014 Order – Not Void or Illegal – Capable of Revival – The Tahsildar had acted pursuant to earlier RDO directions dated 04.11.2013, issued notices, conducted enquiry, and passed orders recognising possession and making necessary entries – Held: The order cannot be considered illegal per se and may be revived – Court declined to interfere on merits at this stage [Paras 16–19].

Jurisdiction – Civil Courts and Tribunal to Determine Title – Revenue Authorities Limited to Mutation – The Court reiterated that title and ownership disputes must be adjudicated by civil courts or the Land Grabbing Tribunal – Revenue authorities' decisions are interim and subject to judicial determination – Held: Orders of Tahsildar and RDO do not confer or take away title [Paras 18, 21–22].

Pending Proceedings – Civil Suit Dismissed, Tribunal Case Pending – Earlier civil suit for declaration and injunction was dismissed for default – Land Grabbing Case No. 200 of 2022 pending – Held: RDO’s final decision will be subject to outcome of tribunal/civil court proceedings, which have overriding effect [Para 21].

Sub-Division and Mutation – 1981 Sub-Division Final – To Be Restored – The original sub-division entries made in 1981 were never challenged and must be restored as baseline – RDO directed to examine flow of title and possession afresh – Held: Fresh mutation and sub-division to be made per law after hearing all affected parties [Paras 18–22].

Decision – RDO’s Order Dated 09.06.2023 Set Aside – Appeal Remanded – Court held that impugned RDO order violated principles of natural justice and could not survive – Matter remanded for fresh decision with liberty to parties to approach appropriate forum for title adjudication – Writ appeals rendered infructuous and disposed of accordingly [Paras 20–22].

Civil Writ – PIL - Lonavala-Khandala – Ecological Preservation – Urban Planning – PIL for Infrastructure and Regulation of Construction – Continuation of Expert Committee till New Development Plan – Petition partly allowed – Petitioners sought directions to regulate uncontrolled development, demolish illegal structures, and provide infrastructure – Court noted substantial improvement due to interim orders since 2007, including demolition drives, partial implementation of Solid Waste Management Rules, sewerage plans, and regulation of new constructions via Court-appointed Expert Committee – Held: Expert Committee mechanism to continue only until new Development Plan and Development Control Regulations (DCRs) are finalised; thereafter, statutory Planning Authority to function independently – Directions issued for prompt infrastructure augmentation, action against illegal structures, publicity to grievance redressal system, preparation of new DCRs, and liberty to State to consider inclusion of Lonavala-Khandala in list of hill stations [Paras 16, 20-22, 24-29, 31-34].

Statutory Duties – Section 49 of the Municipal Councils Act – Municipal Council bound to provide basic infrastructure – Court reiterated statutory obligation to ensure facilities like water supply, sewerage, drainage, solid waste management, and roads – Directed compliance and coordination with State Government – Observed that dated 1996 Development Plan and DCRs allow excessive construction beyond infrastructure capacity [Paras 23-24, 31-33].

Urban Development – MRTP Act – Regulation of New Constructions – Role of Expert Committee – Extraordinary judicial measure justified due to past Planning Authority failures – Time-bound continuation till statutory reforms – Municipal Council to consider available infrastructure before granting permissions – New DCRs to embed safeguards achieved by Committee oversight [Paras 26-28, 33-34].

Policy – Inclusion in Hill Station List – Special Regulations for Tourist Resorts – Court declined to mandate inclusion of Lonavala-Khandala as hill station; held it is a policy matter for State – Liberty to petitioners to make representation – State may consider applying Special Regulations to safeguard ecology [Para 30].

Decision – PIL disposed with directions – Infrastructure improvement, action against illegal constructions, continuation of Expert Committee till finalisation of new Development Plan/DCRs, and liberty to seek inclusion in hill station list – Connected petitions and applications also disposed [Para 34-36].

Civil Law - Specific Performance – Oral Agreement to Reconvey – Specific Performance Denied – Suit Dismissed – The plaintiffs sought enforcement of an alleged oral agreement to reconvey property allegedly transferred to the defendant to secure a business loan – The trial court disbelieved the oral agreement and upheld the sale deed as valid – Held: Oral agreement not proved and plea of reconveyance not substantiated – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1–4, 7–8, 17, 28].

Inconsistent Pleadings – Reliefs Mutually Contradictory – Suit Improperly Framed – Plaintiff simultaneously sought specific performance, cancellation of sale deed, declaration that it is void, and that it is sham – Held: Reliefs are inconsistent and mutually exclusive – Suit not maintainable as framed [Para 10].

Registered Sale Deed – Consideration Proven – Payments Established – Defendant produced bank records, fixed deposits and documents showing financial capacity and payments made to plaintiff and Preethy – Plaintiff’s alternate claim that payments were for charity was found to be false – Sale deed held valid and supported by consideration [Paras 14, 22–24].

Adverse Inference – Key Witness Withheld – Preethy Not Examined – Despite being central to transaction and added as co-plaintiff, Preethy failed to appear or testify – Held: Adverse inference to be drawn against plaintiffs for withholding material witness [Para 25].

Possession and Title – Defendant Shown in Possession – Mutation Completed – Defendant proved possession and mutation of title through documentary evidence and reliable witness – Plaintiff did not refute mutation or tax payment by defendant – Trial court's finding affirmed [Para 26].

Sham Transaction Allegation – Not Substantiated – Plaintiff's plea that sale deed was sham and without intent to transfer ownership rejected due to lack of proof and inconsistencies in case theory – Defendant’s version supported by surrounding circumstances and payments made [Paras 17–24].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Trial Court Judgment Affirmed – High Court upheld validity of sale deed, rejected plea of reconveyance, and dismissed appeal – Held: No grounds to interfere with findings of trial court – Appeal lacks merit [Paras 27–28].