Arbitration – Appeal under Section 37 – Maintainability – Ad-interim injunction – Appellants challenged an ad-interim order passed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 directing parties to maintain status quo ante – Office raised objection on maintainability under Section 37(1)(b) as petition was still pending – Held: Order amounts to granting an interim measure under Section 9 – Covered under Section 37(1)(b) – Appeal maintainable [Paras 5, 6, 11, 17–18, 25, 31–32].

Commercial Courts Act – Section 13(1) – Scope of Appeal – Commercial Court's interim order under Section 9 of Arbitration Act can be appealed if it falls under Section 37(1)(b) or Order 43 CPC – Held: Section 13 does not create independent right of appeal but facilitates appeal where it lies under Section 37 or Order 43 – Ad-interim injunction appealable if extraordinary circumstance shown [Paras 15, 28–30].

Interim Injunction – Appeal against Ad-Interim Order – Principles – Court referred to Innovative Pharma Surgicals and A. Venkatasubbaiah Naidu cases – Held: Appeal against ad-interim injunction maintainable in extraordinary circumstances such as delay or inaction in hearing vacation application – Interim order having serious consequences cannot be treated as non-appealable merely due to its interim nature [Paras 21–24].

Divergence from Other High Courts – Meghalaya High Court view in NTPC v. Meghalaya Power Distribution Ltd. that ad-interim orders are non-appealable under Section 37(1)(b) was not accepted – Andhra Pradesh High Court held ad-interim injunctions falling within the scope of Section 9 are appealable under Section 37 [Paras 26–28].

Civil Procedure – Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC – Ad-interim injunction granted under Order 39 is appealable – Same principle applies to ad-interim orders under Section 9 of Arbitration Act – Harmonious construction with Section 104 CPC and Section 37 Arbitration Act warranted [Paras 20, 24].

Decision: Office objection overruled – Appeal held maintainable under Section 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC – Matter directed to be numbered – Appeal to be posted for further hearing on 30/12/2025.

Service Law – Regularization – Daily Wage / Casual Employees – Long Continuous Service – Forest Department, Haryana – Petitioners engaged as casual labour / daily wagers since around year 2000 – Services illegally terminated – Labour Court awards directed reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages – Awards upheld by High Court and attained finality – Petitioners sought regularization under Haryana Regularization Policies dated 01.10.2003 and 10.02.2004 – Claims rejected by Department citing lack of sanctioned posts, non-compliance with recruitment rules, alleged breaks in service and withdrawal of policy – Held: Petitioners entitled to consideration and regularization [Paras 2–3, 16–42].

Labour Court Award – Continuity of Service – Legal Effect – Restitutio ad Integrum – Award of reinstatement with continuity of service is not symbolic but restores employee to uninterrupted service for all consequential benefits – Employer estopped from disputing length or nature of service after judicial affirmation – Continuity obliterates illegal termination and condones breaks not attributable to employee – State cannot indirectly nullify binding judicial determinations [Paras 17–22].

Regularization Policy dated 01.10.2003 & 10.02.2004 – Accrued and Crystallised Rights – Policy prescribed eligibility of daily wage Group-D employees completing three years’ service as on 30.09.2003 with 240 days’ work per year – Petitioners fulfilled all substantive conditions while policy was in force – Withdrawal of policy in 2007 cannot retrospectively extinguish accrued rights – Right to consideration stood crystallised once eligibility conditions were fulfilled [Paras 23–38].

Uma Devi Doctrine – Scope and Limitations – Misapplication by State – Ratio in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi aimed at preventing illegal backdoor appointments – Not intended to deny regularization to employees with long uninterrupted service under State’s knowledge – Distinction between “illegal” and “irregular” appointments emphasized – Mechanical reliance on Uma Devi to defeat parity-based and policy-based claims deprecated [Paras 39–56].

Parity and Non-Discrimination – Articles 14 & 16 – Hostile Discrimination – Petitioners demonstrated that similarly situated and even junior employees were regularized by the Department – State failed to show intelligible differentia – Selective denial of benefit held arbitrary and discriminatory – Equality clause mandates similar treatment to similarly placed employees [Paras 43–49].

Legitimate Expectation – Welfare State Obligation – Model Employer Doctrine – Long continuation of service under State creates legitimate expectation of regularization – State as model employer cannot exploit vulnerable workforce by keeping them perpetually temporary – Withdrawal of beneficial schemes cannot defeat legitimate expectation where State’s inaction caused delay [Paras 33–34, 62].

Delay and Laches – Non-Communication of Rejection Order – Impugned order dated 13.11.2020 never communicated to petitioners – Petitioners gained knowledge only during contempt proceedings – Delay attributable to State – Doctrine of laches inapplicable where impugned action not disclosed to affected party [Paras 64–65].

Creation of Posts – Judicial Restraint – Direction Limited to Policy Consideration – Court reiterated it cannot direct creation or sanction of posts – However, State bound to act fairly within existing policy framework – Direction issued to regularize petitioners under 2003–2004 Policy without compelling creation of posts [Para 65].

Decision: Writ petitions allowed – Orders rejecting regularization set aside – Respondents directed to regularize petitioners under Regularization Policy dated 01.10.2003 as amended on 10.02.2004 – Regularization to be granted within one month – Petitioners entitled to all consequential benefits including arrears with interest @ 6% per annum – Pending applications disposed of.

Service Law – Recruitment to Ashram Hostels – Advisory Committee – Chairman and Convener – Recruitment Notification dated 07.01.2025 issued by Chairman-cum-Convener of Block Level Advisory Committee under Resolution dated 11.12.2006 – Petitioner contended that as per later order dated 18.12.2024, Headmaster/Teacher-in-Charge should act as Member-Convener – Held: Recruitment process having commenced pursuant to policy direction dated 11.03.2024 relying on Resolution of 2006, subsequent modification in constitution of Advisory Committee would not invalidate recruitment already initiated [Paras 10–12].

Administrative Law – Change of Policy – Prospective Operation – Modification of Advisory Committee composition by order dated 18.12.2024 cannot retrospectively affect recruitment process already set in motion under prevailing policy – State authorities justified in continuing recruitment under earlier framework [Paras 10–11].

Recruitment Process – No Prejudice to Candidates – Petitioner neither participated in selection process nor demonstrated any change in eligibility criteria or prejudice caused due to Chairman acting as Convener – Mere technical objection regarding authority issuing notification insufficient to vitiate recruitment [Paras 13–14].

Tribal Welfare – Preference to Candidates Familiar with Tribal Ethos – Guidelines – Letter dated 18.06.2025 regarding preference to candidates acquainted with tribal language, culture and milieu issued after publication of recruitment notice – Held: Subsequent advisory guidelines cannot nullify completed selection process when no participating candidate has challenged the same [Para 11].

Judicial Review – Limited Interference – High Court reiterated that courts should not interfere with recruitment processes conducted transparently and in accordance with prevailing policy unless arbitrariness, mala fides or violation of statutory provisions is established – No such infirmity found in present case [Paras 12–14].

Decision – Writ petition dismissed – Recruitment process upheld – Direction issued to Headmaster, Paramanandapur Jagannath Institution to allow selected candidate (respondent no. 10) to join forthwith [Para 14].

Criminal Law – Quashing - Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Predicate/Scheduled Offence – Closure Report Accepted – Effect – Continuation of PMLA Proceedings – ECIR registered by ED, Kolkata was admittedly founded on two Kolkata FIRs treated as scheduled offences – Both FIRs culminated in final/closure reports on the ground of mistake of fact and such closure reports were accepted by the jurisdictional Magistrate – Held: Once the scheduled offence stands negated by acceptance of closure report, the very foundation of “proceeds of crime” under Section 2(1)(u) PMLA disappears and PMLA proceedings cannot survive so long as such acceptance is not set aside [Paras 19–21, 30–32, 36–41].

Money Laundering – Proceeds of Crime – Meaning and Scope – Section 2(1)(u) PMLA – Proceeds of crime must be property derived or obtained “as a result of” criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence – Explanation added in 2019 is clarificatory and does not enlarge the scope of the main provision – In absence of a subsisting scheduled offence, attached/freezed properties cannot continue to be treated as proceeds of crime [Paras 21–22, 43–45].

PMLA Proceedings – Dependency on Predicate Offence – Reiterating Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, held that PMLA is not a stand-alone regime divorced from the scheduled offence – Acceptance of closure report stands on the same footing as quashing, discharge or acquittal for the purpose of survival of PMLA proceedings – Liberty to revive proceedings can be granted only if the predicate offence is revived in accordance with law [Paras 30–31, 55].

ECIR – Nature – Internal Document – Limits of ED’s Power – Though ECIR is an internal administrative document and multiple FIRs may be investigated under one ECIR, ED cannot continue or resurrect an ECIR when its sole predicate offences have ceased to exist – Inclusion of a different predicate offence at a later stage, when original scheduled offences stand closed, is impermissible [Paras 32–33, 54].

Multiple PMLA Proceedings – Same Predicate Offence – Bar – Kochi CBI charge-sheet (DV-1/2014) was already the subject-matter of an independent ECIR and prosecution complaint pending before the Special PMLA Court at Kochi – Attempt to rely upon the same CBI charge-sheet to sustain a separate PMLA prosecution in Kolkata amounts to impermissible second cognizance on the same predicate offence – Such dual proceedings are barred in law [Paras 41–47].

Section 66(2) PMLA – Scope – Section 66(2) contemplates sharing of information for registration of a new scheduled offence or further investigation – Mere sharing of information does not crystallize a scheduled offence nor revive a non-existent predicate offence – Unless property qualifies as “proceeds of crime”, Section 66(2) cannot sustain PMLA action [Paras 49–53].

Reason to Believe – Provisional Attachment – Formation of “reason to believe” under Section 5 PMLA must be founded on tangible material and a live nexus with a subsisting scheduled offence – After acceptance of closure report, belief regarding existence of proceeds of crime becomes untenable and cannot be sustained on suspicion or conjecture [Paras 37–39].

Decision – Quashment – ECIR No. KLZO-I/22/2021 and ML Case No. 15 of 2023 quashed – Liberty reserved to ED to seek revival if closure reports in predicate FIRs are set aside or fresh legitimate grounds arise in accordance with law [Para 55].

Contempt of Courts – Appeal against discharge of contempt rule – Though no appeal lies under Section 19 of Contempt of Courts Act, Letters Patent Appeal maintainable where Single Judge travels beyond contempt jurisdiction, adversely affects substantive rights and reopens parent order – Impugned order set aside – Contempt rule revived [Paras 20–22, 96–101].

Contempt Jurisdiction – Appealability – Section 19, Contempt of Courts Act – Appeal under Section 19 lies only against an order punishing for contempt – No statutory appeal against discharge of contempt rule – However, where Single Judge, while discharging rule, travels beyond contempt jurisdiction and passes directions or observations affecting substantive rights, such order qualifies as a “judgment” appealable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent – Preliminary objection to maintainability rejected [Paras 1–8, 20–23].

Letters Patent Appeal – Scope – Order Affecting Rights – Impugned order not confined to discharge of contempt rule but imposed penal costs, recorded findings of contumacious conduct against petitioner, and effectively modified earlier writ orders relating to remuneration – Such adjudication beyond contempt jurisdiction directly affected valuable civil rights of appellant – Held: LPA maintainable [Paras 18–22].

Limits of Contempt Jurisdiction – Reopening Parent Order – In contempt proceedings, court cannot sit in appeal over or reopen merits of parent order – Learned Single Judge, while hearing contempt, reconsidered remuneration payable, relied on documents produced on the day of hearing, and held that petitioner could not claim more than Rs.11,890/- contrary to final writ orders granting Rs.19,000/- – Such exercise held wholly without jurisdiction [Paras 79–83, 96–99].

Natural Justice – Penal Costs and Contumacious Conduct – Finding of contumacious conduct against petitioner recorded without issuing rule or affording opportunity of hearing – Penal costs imposed on premise of such finding – Held: Procedure de hors law and contrary to settled principles governing contempt proceedings – Stigmatic and penal consequences cannot follow without due process [Paras 84–89, 96–98].

Contradictory Findings – Suppression of Facts – Single Judge recorded that writ petition itself disclosed petitioner’s engagement as volunteer since 2015, yet concluded that petitioner misled court by suppressing such fact – Held: Findings mutually contradictory and unsustainable on record [Paras 69–75, 94–95].

Finality of Parent Orders – Contempt Court Bound – Earlier writ orders dated 07/03/2024 and modification dated 03/05/2024 were not challenged and had attained finality – Contempt court could not indirectly nullify or modify them while discharging contempt rule [Paras 34–35, 77–83].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned order dated 26/07/2024 passed in WPCRC 112 of 2024 set aside – Contempt Rule revived – Learned Single Judge directed to hear contempt proceedings afresh from the stage prior to impugned order – Observations in appellate judgment not to prejudice merits – Operation of judgment stayed for three months – No order as to costs [Paras 100–107].

Arbitration Law – Section 34 – Scope of Interference – Limited Judicial Review – Petition seeking setting aside of arbitral award directing borrower and guarantor to jointly and severally pay amounts exceeding Rs.43 crores with interest – Court reiterated that Section 34 does not permit reappreciation of evidence or appellate review – Award to be interfered with only if grounds under Section 34 are strictly made out [Paras 20, 39–40].

Arbitration Law – Proof of Debt – Alleged Dispensation with Burden of Proof – Challenge based on arbitral finding that borrower had “almost admitted” the claim – Court held that award must be read holistically – Statement of Defence of borrower admitted sanction of facilities, execution of guarantee and liability to repay – Use of expression “almost admitted” not perverse – Debt duly established on record – No patent illegality found [Paras 21–23].

Arbitration Law – Delay in Pronouncement of Award – Effect on Validity – Award challenged on ground of inordinate delay between conclusion of arguments and pronouncement – Court relying on Lancor Holdings Ltd. v. Prem Kumar Menon held that mere delay is not a standalone ground under Section 34 – Delay must be unexplained and must adversely reflect on findings – Petitioner himself contributed to delay by filing multiple applications – No prejudice demonstrated – Award not vitiated [Paras 24–33].

Arbitration Law – Guarantee – Novation / Variation of Contract – Plea that enhancement of credit limits discharged guarantor rejected – Arbitral Tribunal found that petitioner, as Director, himself signed applications for enhancement – Deed of Guarantee expressly covered enhanced limits and was unconditional, continuing and irrevocable – No novation or material alteration without consent established – Findings neither perverse nor contrary to law [Paras 34–38].

Arbitration Law – Reasoned Award – Adequacy of Reasons – Contention that arbitral tribunal adopted a casual and cavalier approach rejected – Court held that adequacy or elaborateness of reasons cannot be examined under Section 34 – As long as reasons are discernible and conclusions are intelligible, award cannot be set aside – Arbitral Tribunal is not required to write a judgment like a court [Paras 39–43].

Arbitration Law – Interim Applications – Non-decision – Natural Justice – Allegation that several interim applications were not decided rejected – Court found that applications related to belated and inconsistent plea of forgery after admission of guarantee – Applications either expressly dealt with in the award or implicitly rejected – Petitioner responsible for procedural delays – No violation of natural justice made out [Paras 44–53].

Arbitration Law – Conduct of Party – Abuse of Process – Court noted repeated attempts by petitioner to delay proceedings and evade liability after actively invoking arbitration – Filing of Section 34 petition held to be another attempt to avoid repayment of admitted dues [Paras 30, 52–54].

Decision: Arbitration Petition dismissed – Arbitral Award dated 4 April 2024 upheld – No further costs imposed considering award of arbitral costs and interest already granted – Petition dismissed accordingly [Paras 54–56].

Criminal Law - NIA Act – Section 21 – Appeal against order framing charge – Maintainability – Held: order framing charge is interlocutory for purposes of appeal under NIA Act – appeals dismissed as not maintainable – remedy lies under Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS [Paras 1–20].

Criminal Procedure – National Investigation Agency Act – Section 21 – Appeal – Scope – Expression “judgment, sentence or order, not being an interlocutory order” – Interpreted in light of scheme and object of NIA Act – Held: “order” refers to final orders capable of appellate scrutiny on facts and law – Not intermediate orders such as framing of charge [Paras 15–18].

Charge – Framing of – Nature of order – Though treated as “intermediate order” for purposes of revision under Section 397 CrPC, such classification not applicable while interpreting appellate provision under Section 21 NIA Act – Order framing charge does not finally determine rights and proceedings continue till conviction or acquittal – Hence interlocutory for appeal under NIA Act [Paras 11–12, 16–18].

Statutory Interpretation – Purposeful interpretation – NIA Act enacted to ensure expeditious investigation and trial of scheduled offences affecting national security – Bar on revisions and limited appellate remedy intended to avoid delay – Permitting appeals against charge-framing orders would defeat legislative intent [Paras 13–16].

Appeal vs. Revision – Distinction – Jurisprudence on “intermediate orders” developed in context of revisional jurisdiction under CrPC (Amar Nath; Madhu Limaye) – Same concept cannot be bodily imported into appellate jurisdiction providing appeal “on facts and law” – At stage of charge, factual adjudication impermissible [Paras 8–12, 16].

Remedy of Accused – Availability – Though appeal under Section 21 NIA Act not maintainable, accused not remediless – Inherent jurisdiction of High Court under Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS remains available to challenge framing of charge on limited grounds of abuse of process, lack of jurisdiction or manifest injustice [Paras 16–18].

Precedent – V.C. Shukla v. State – Constitution Bench – Order framing charge held interlocutory under Special Courts Act – Principles applied while interpreting Section 21 NIA Act – Appeal against charge-framing order not envisaged [Paras 11–12].

Decision: Appeals dismissed on ground of maintainability – All pending applications disposed of [Paras 19–20].

Land Law – Common Land – Applicability of J&K Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1956 – Section 1(4) of the Act expressly excludes applicability of the Act to areas declared as Municipalities – Land in question situated within Municipal Council, Udhampur – Respondents themselves admitted non-applicability of the Act – Held: Invocation of Common Lands Act, 1956 for passing impugned order was wholly without jurisdiction [Paras 11–12].

Writ Jurisdiction – Administrative Action – Lack of Statutory Authority – Impugned order directing seizure of building material and lodging of FIR passed by relying upon inapplicable statute – Action taken without affording opportunity of hearing – Held: Order unsustainable being arbitrary and dehors statutory powers [Paras 3, 11, 13].

Supreme Court Directions – Scope – Jagpal Singh Case – Directions in Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2011) 11 SCC 396 applicable only to Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat/Shamlat/Poramboke land – Land falling within municipal limits and recorded as proprietary land does not fall within said category – Held: Supreme Court directions wrongly applied [Paras 11–13].

Revenue Records – Gair Mumkin Talai – Proprietary Rights – Though land recorded as Gair Mumkin Talai, revenue record showed ownership of private individuals including respondent No.6 – Mere description as Gair Mumkin Talai does not automatically convert land into common or Panchayat land – Restrictions on alienation do not negate ownership [Paras 2, 13].

Seizure of Property – Third Party Rights – Petitioner did not claim ownership over land – Building material stored with consent of recorded owner – Even assuming violation, action could lie only against landowner and not against petitioner – Held: Seizure and FIR direction against petitioner unjustified [Paras 13–14].

Municipal / Water Resources Law – Plea Raised Without Action – Contention that land vests in Government or Municipal Council under Municipal Act or Water Resources Act unsupported by revenue entries or prior proceedings – Held: Such plea cannot sustain impugned action; liberty reserved to authorities to proceed under appropriate law if permissible [Para 15].

Relief – Release of Seized Property – Prayer for release of seized material rendered infructuous as material already released pursuant to earlier court directions – Writ petition confined to legality of impugned order [Para 10].

Decision: Impugned order dated 04.03.2017 quashed – Action taken under Common Lands Act held illegal – Writ petition allowed to the extent indicated.

Writ of Mandamus – Matching Grant to Bar Association – Policy Decision of State – Petitioner-Bar Association at Sub-Division level sought release of ₹50 lakhs for lawyers’ chambers and ₹20 lakhs for library under 2009 policy – State admitted entitlement but withheld grant citing non-submission of vetted estimate – Held: Objection technical in nature – State cannot deny benefit of policy when entitlement undisputed – Direction issued to verify estimates through PWD and release grant – Petition allowed [Paras 15-18].

Government Policy – Financial Assistance to Bar Associations – Notifications dated 11.11.2002 and 06.08.2009 provided for matching grant for construction of lawyers’ chambers and library – Grant for Sub-Division level Bar clarified as ₹50 lakhs for chambers and ₹2 lakhs for library – Court held petitioner entitled subject to compliance with policy conditions [Paras 4, 14, 16].

Technical Objection – Non-Vetting of Estimate – State pleaded estimate not prepared or vetted by PWD – Court observed Executive Engineer of PWD could have deputed officer for site visit and preparation/vetting of estimate – Administrative inaction cannot defeat substantive right under policy – Direction for spot inspection and cross-verification issued [Paras 14, 16-17].

Parity and Non-Discrimination – Similar Grants to Other Bars – Petitioner pleaded similar grants released to other Bar Associations – No denial by State of policy applicability – Withholding grant held unjustified once eligibility established [Paras 10, 15-16].

Directions: Respondent-State directed to release ₹50 lakhs as matching grant for construction of lawyers’ chambers and ₹2 lakhs for library fund – Prior to release, Executive Engineer, PWD (B&R), Amritsar to depute engineer to inspect site, verify estimates and expenditure and submit report by 15.01.2026 – Grant to be released by 10.02.2026 upon receipt of report – Bar Association directed to cooperate and furnish account details – Writ petition allowed [Paras 17-19].