Arbitration – Appointment of Arbitrator – Delay in Invoking Arbitration Clause – Rejected – Petitioner company supplied furniture under multiple contracts to various Block Development Offices in 2020 – After pursuing civil suits before a court lacking territorial jurisdiction, petitioners invoked arbitration clause in March 2024 and filed petitions under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Respondents objected on grounds of limitation and maintainability – Held: Delay not ex-facie unreasonable – Invocation of arbitration not demonstrably time-barred – Issue of limitation to be decided by Arbitral Tribunal – Appointment of Arbitrator warranted [Paras 19-23].

Arbitration Law – Limitation – Distinction between limitation for claims and for Section 11 petition – Cause of action for claim arises on breach; limitation for Section 11 petition runs from failure to appoint arbitrator – Though arbitration was invoked after more than three years of supply, the petitioner was pursuing civil suits in a court that lacked jurisdiction – Held: Period spent in bona fide litigation can be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act – Not a case of dead or non-arbitrable claim [Paras 17-21].

Scope of Section 11(6) – Limited Judicial Review – Referral Court should not conduct elaborate enquiry at appointment stage – Where issue of limitation is not manifestly clear, matter to be left to Arbitral Tribunal – Held: Referral court’s role is confined to prima facie scrutiny – Doubt as to time-barred nature of claim must be resolved by Arbitral Tribunal and not by the court [Paras 8-13, 21].

Decision:

Petitions allowed – Ms. Asifa Padroo, Advocate, appointed as Sole Arbitrator – Arbitrator to examine limitation as preliminary issue – Arbitration to proceed on merits – Costs to be shared equally by parties, subject to final award [Paras 23-24].

Service Law – UPSC Recruitment – Shortlisting Criteria – Petitioners challenged shortlisting for ADA recruitment where UPSC increased experience criteria from 2 years (as advertised) to 6 years (UR/OBC) and 5 years (EWS), citing large number of applicants – Held: UPSC has authority to adopt rational shortlisting methods as per advertisement clauses; enhancement does not alter eligibility but filters applicants for interview – Such shortlisting upheld as valid [Paras 3–9, 12].

Recruitment – Eligibility vs. Selection Criteria – Distinction clarified between basic eligibility (which remains 2 years’ practice as per advertisement) and selection-stage filtering (6 years' practice for interview) – Held: Shortlisting does not violate rights of eligible candidates; experience-based cut-off serves administrative efficiency and is not arbitrary [Paras 6, 10–12].

Precedents – Shortlisting Permissible – Supreme Court in MPPSC v. Navnit Kumar Potdar, (1995) 1 SCT 50 and Union of India v. T. Sundararaman, (1997) 4 SCC 664 held that shortlisting via enhanced criteria is part of the selection process and valid if rational and transparent – Applied to present facts – Petitioners not entitled to interim relief or direction to appear in interview [Paras 10–11].

Judicial Review – No Interference Warranted – Tribunal’s order refusing interim relief found to be reasoned and justified – High Court declined interference under Articles 226/227 – No prima facie case or balance of convenience in favour of petitioners [Paras 12–13].

Decision: All three writ petitions dismissed – Tribunal’s refusal to stay UPSC interview process upheld – UPSC’s enhanced experience criteria for interview stage found reasonable and lawful [Paras 12–13].

Criminal Law – Bail – Criminal Breach of Trust and Cheating – Distinction Between Offences – Misappropriation of Government Funds – BNS, 2023 – Petitioner, a 63-year-old retired Superintendent from the Forest Department, was arrested for misappropriating ₹19.25 lakhs through unknown accounts – Final charge sheet filed but not yet numbered – Petitioner has been in judicial custody for 110 days – No custodial interrogation sought – Held: As offences under criminal breach of trust and cheating cannot co-exist on the same facts, and in view of Apex Court rulings, bail granted with stringent conditions [Paras 3–7].

Interpretation of Statutes – BNS and BNSS – Scope of Bail under New Criminal Codes – Court applied Sections 480 and 483 of the BNSS, 2023 and Section 316(5) of BNS, 2023 to consider bail – Referred to case law under corresponding IPC provisions to interpret analogous offences – Emphasized the legal incompatibility between entrustment (breach of trust) and inducement (cheating), citing Delhi Race Club and Arshad Neyaz Khan [Paras 4–6].

Judicial Discretion – Bail Granted Based on Length of Custody and Absence of Risk – Bail with Conditions – Petitioner voluntarily surrendered and has fixed residence – No evidence of risk of flight – No request made for custodial interrogation – Court found continued detention unnecessary and granted bail on condition of regular appearance before police and personal bond [Paras 3, 7–8].

Decision: Criminal Petition allowed – Petitioner to be released on bail upon furnishing bond of ₹50,000 with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate, Atmakur – Directed to report before Station House Officer every Saturday from 10:00 am to 5:00 pm until filing of charge sheet [Para 8].

Succession Law – Registered Will – Suspicious Circumstances – Reversal of Appellate Court Judgment – Plaintiff claimed ½ share in suit land based on Will executed by father Sardara Singh – Defendants challenged Will citing testator’s terminal illness, proximity of death, delay in disclosure, and dubious attestation – High Court held that mere registration of Will is not enough where Will is shrouded in suspicious circumstances – Will discarded as not proved in accordance with law [Paras 30–43].

Attesting Witness – Credibility – Non-acquaintance with Testator – Procedural Irregularity – One attesting witness unfamiliar with testator’s personal life – Name handwritten while other’s was typed – Admitted signing at behest of other witness and lacked basic knowledge of testator – Not credible to prove Will [Paras 34–36].

Proof of Will – Inconsistencies in Testimony – Onus on Propounder Not Discharged – Time of execution, presence of witnesses, and names mentioned in Will contradicted in depositions – No explanation for exclusion of legal heirs – No reason for non-production of Will at time of mutation – Held: Will not proved beyond doubt [Paras 38–42].

Coparcenary Property – Limited Right to Bequeath – Plaintiff’s Claim Unsupported – Even if testator had right to bequeath ¼ share under Section 30 of Hindu Succession Act, Will still had to be proved valid – Suspicion around Will remained unresolved – Plaintiff entitled only to his legal ¼ share [Paras 28–29].

Permanent Injunction – Not Maintainable Against Co-sharer – Legal Error by First Appellate Court – Injunction granted against co-sharers found unsustainable in law – No injunction can be granted against co-owner without partition – First Appellate Court's judgment set aside [Para 46–47].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree dated 11.03.2016 passed by First Appellate Court set aside – Trial Court’s judgment dated 24.04.2014 restored – Will dated 07.06.2005 held to be surrounded by suspicious circumstances – Plaintiff entitled only to monetary relief as decreed by trial court – No relief granted on basis of Will.

Administrative Law – Reservation – OBC-NCL Certificate – Cut-off Date for Eligibility – Delay in Furnishing Document – Petitioner was denied admission to DNB Surgery seat under OBC quota due to failure to produce valid OBC-NCL certificate by the cut-off date (25.02.2025) – Certificate was applied for only after counselling date and issued on 28.03.2025 – Court held that in absence of valid document or prima facie evidence of eligibility as on cut-off date, benefit of reservation could not be extended – OM dated 08.10.2015 could not apply to petitioner as no provisional proof existed [Paras 3, 22-24].

Review Jurisdiction – Error Apparent on Record – Discovery of New Evidence – Scope of Review under Article 226 – RTI-based evidence about other candidates allegedly being selected without valid certificates did not constitute error apparent on the face of record – Court emphasized that review is not an appeal in disguise – Petitioner failed to meet statutory requirements under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC for invoking review jurisdiction [Paras 14-18, 33-34].

Negative Equality – No Right to Seek Parity in Illegality – Allegation that other candidates (including Dr. Chandra Prakash) were admitted despite similar or worse lapses could not justify granting relief to petitioner – Court held that Article 14 does not permit negative equality – Absence of impleadment of such candidates further limited judicial examination of those cases [Paras 27-29].

Reservation Law – Prima Facie Proof Requirement under OBC Guidelines – Dynamic Nature of Creamy Layer Status – Earlier OBC-NCL certificate dated 10.09.2013 could not serve as valid proof as it had expired – Court emphasized that non-creamy layer status is dynamic and must be based on current income status, making outdated certificates irrelevant [Paras 22-23].

Decision: Review Petition dismissed – No error apparent or sufficient ground for invoking review jurisdiction – Alleged procedural irregularities in other cases could not be a ground for parity – Pending applications also disposed of [Paras 33-35].

Criminal Law – Discharge – Magistrate’s Jurisdiction – Re-investigation – Magistrate discharged the accused petitioner after considering the police report which exonerated him – Simultaneously directed re-investigation without request or leave under Section 173(8) CrPC – Held: Magistrate became functus officio after discharge and lacked authority to order re-investigation suo motu – Direction for re-investigation unsustainable in law and contrary to settled legal position [Paras 1, 6, 10, 11, 15].

Criminal Law – Further Investigation vs. Re-investigation – Court distinguished between ‘further investigation’ permissible under Section 173(8) CrPC and ‘re-investigation’ which is impermissible without statutory sanction – Magistrate may permit further investigation only at prosecution’s behest and prior to discharge – No such application existed – Held: Only investigating agency may seek leave for further probe – Re-investigation order quashed but liberty given to police to proceed under law if new evidence emerges [Paras 10, 11, 14, 16].

Evidence – Absence of Prima Facie Case – FIR named three accused but charge-sheet was filed only against one – Communication from Assistant Commissioner Revenue exonerated petitioner of any role in the issuance of cheque – FSL report relied on by prosecution pertained to an unrelated matter – Held: Material on record failed to substantiate petitioner's involvement – Discharge order valid and based on judicial application of mind [Paras 4, 5, 12, 13].

Decision: Petition partly allowed – Discharge of petitioner upheld – Magistrate’s direction for re-investigation set aside – Police permitted to conduct further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC if new material is discovered in accordance with law.

Criminal Law – Truncation of Proceedings – Hostile Prosecutrix – In a prosecution for gang rape, prosecutrix resiled completely from allegations and denied sexual assault – Statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. disowned – Held, where star witness demolishes prosecution case, continuation of trial would be futile – Trial court justified in truncating proceedings and acquitting accused [Paras 6, 9–14, 18].

Criminal Law – Rape – Evidentiary Value of Testimony – Prosecutrix categorically stated that alleged videos were fake and no sexual assault was committed – Lodging of FIR explained as result of depression and mistaken belief – Absence of incriminating evidence held fatal to prosecution case [Paras 9–14].

Criminal Law – Consensual Relationship – Evidence on Record – Witnesses admitted existence of love affair between prosecutrix and one of accused – Possibility of consensual relationship could not be ruled out – Prosecution failed to establish forcible sexual assault beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 12–14, 18].

Information Technology Act – Section 67 – Proof of Publication or Transmission – Mere seizure of mobile phone and memory card insufficient – Prosecution failed to prove that alleged obscene material was published or transmitted electronically – FSL expert not cited as witness – Authentication of videos/photos not established – Charge under Section 67 IT Act held not provable [Paras 15–17].

Criminal Trial – Appreciation of Evidence – Duty of Court – Where evidence on record makes conviction impossible, prolonging trial amounts to empty formality – Trial court correctly exercised discretion in closing prosecution evidence and acquitting accused [Paras 18–19].

Appeal Against Acquittal – Scope of Interference – Appellate court will not interfere unless findings are perverse or illegal – Acquittal based on proper appreciation of evidence – No perversity or illegality found [Paras 18–19].

Decision: Criminal Appeal dismissed – Judgment of acquittal dated 12.10.2023 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Anantnag upheld – No ground made out for interference – Trial court record directed to be returned.

Criminal Law – Suspension of Sentence – Condition to Deposit Compensation – Petitioners convicted under Section 138 NI Act sought suspension of sentence – Appellate Courts allowed suspension but directed 20% of compensation to be deposited – Petitioners challenged such conditions, citing financial incapacity or delay – Held: As per Division Bench ruling in Coromandel International Ltd., imposition of such condition is permissible but not mandatory – Deposit not a prerequisite to maintain appeal [Paras 2–3, 6–8]

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 148 – Scope and Application – Court held that Section 148 empowers Appellate Court to direct deposit of 20% compensation during appeal – But non-deposit does not bar right to appeal – Failure to deposit may allow Appellate Court to vacate suspension of sentence, but such power must be exercised judicially and with due regard to liberty and hardship [Paras 7–8]

Right to Bail – Non-compliance with Deposit Condition – Petitioners argued that inability to deposit should not cancel bail – Court reiterated that liberty is paramount – Where sentence is suspended, and appeal is pending, non-payment alone cannot lead to automatic revocation unless due opportunity and judicial satisfaction is recorded [Paras 8–13]

BNSS – Applicability of Section 403 and 430 – Section 403 BNSS (bar on review) does not prevent reconsideration where legal error apparent or rights are affected – Section 430 BNSS (akin to Section 389 CrPC) governs suspension of sentence and empowers Court to impose reasonable conditions, but such power not to be exercised mechanically [Paras 7–10]

Division Bench Reference – Precedent – Larger Bench in Coromandel International Ltd. v. Shri Ambica Sales Corporation, 2025 (4) RCR (Cri) 490, clarified that deposit under Section 148 NI Act is not mandatory for hearing appeal or continuing bail – Appellate Courts can waive or modify deposit in exceptional cases – Liberty cannot be sacrificed solely due to non-deposit [Paras 7–8]

Decision: All six petitions allowed in part – Orders directing deposit of 20% of compensation stayed temporarily – Matters remanded to respective Appellate Courts for fresh consideration in light of Coromandel International judgment – Appellate Courts to decide afresh within 15 days – Till then, condition of deposit to remain inoperative and bail not to be cancelled – Courts to prioritize hearing and disposal of appeals within 60 to 90 days, unless delay is attributable to complainant [Paras 9–15]

Civil Law – Appeal by Non-Party – Grant of Leave to Appeal – Section 96 CPC – Locus Standi – Application by a person who was not a party to the suit seeking leave to file first appeal against an ex parte decree for declaration of title and confirmation of possession – Held: Mere non-joinder as a party is not an absolute bar, but the applicant must establish that she is bound by or prejudicially affected by the decree – Non-party must show semblance of subsisting right over the suit property [Paras 5–6].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 – Interference with Discretionary Order – District Judge granted leave to appeal by a cryptic and non-speaking order without proper reasoning – High Court held that supervisory jurisdiction can be exercised where the subordinate court fails to consider relevant legal parameters while granting leave to appeal to a non-party [Paras 3, 6].

Ex Parte Decree – Declaration of Title and Possession – Encroacher’s Claim – First Appellate Court relied on Amin’s report showing encroachment by the applicant prior to filing of suit – Held: Encroachment or assertion of an independent claim does not ipso facto make such person “adversely affected” by the decree – Such person had remedy either to seek impleadment in the suit or to file an independent suit [Paras 6–8].

Fraud Allegation – Knowledge of Suit – Effect – Applicant seeking leave to appeal did not plead lack of knowledge of pendency of suit – Allegation of fraud simpliciter insufficient to confer right to appeal against decree – Held: Absence of pleading showing binding effect of decree disentitles non-party from maintaining appeal [Para 8].

Decision: CMP allowed – Order dated 28.01.2020 granting leave to appeal set aside – Non-party cannot challenge the decree by way of appeal – Liberty reserved to seek appropriate independent legal remedy, if so advised.