Civil Law - Res Judicata – Applicability between Specific Performance and Eviction Suit – Not Attracted – The petitioner contended that eviction proceedings were barred by res-judicata due to prior dismissal of the specific performance suit – The Court held that the earlier suit dealt with enforcement of an agreement of sale, while the present suit concerns the petitioner’s liability to be evicted after dismissal of specific performance – Absence of identity of issues between the two suits excludes the applicability of res-judicata [Paras 9-11]. 
 
Order XIV Rule 2 CPC – Preliminary Issue – Scope Explained – The petitioner sought trial of the res-judicata plea as a preliminary issue under Order XIV Rule 2 CPC – The Court clarified that only jurisdictional bars or statutory bars qualify as preliminary issues – The plea of res-judicata in the facts of this case is a mixed question of fact and law, and cannot be tried as a preliminary issue [Paras 10-11]. 
 
Possession and Appeal Pending – Question of Eviction Open – 
Observation – The Court clarified that though res-judicata is not attracted, the effect of the Division Bench’s injunction and the pendency of A.S. No. 326 of 2018 on the petitioner’s right to resist eviction remains open and will be decided appropriately in the eviction suit [Para 11]. 
 
Decision – Civil Revision Dismissed – Civil Revision Petition dismissed – Question of eviction subject to consideration in the pending eviction suit on merits [Paras 11-12]. 
 

Taxation Law - GST Liability – Deposit of Tax under Wrong Head – Writ Allowed – The petitioner, engaged in renting out commercial property, paid GST to NOIDA, which inadvertently deposited the amount under an incorrect head – Both GST authorities and NOIDA admitted the petitioner’s payment – The Court held that the petitioner could not be penalized for NOIDA’s mistake and cannot be subjected to double taxation and penalty [Paras 3-13]. 
 
Compensation – Mandamus Issued Against NOIDA – Rs.19.22 Lakhs Directed to be Paid – The Court, invoking Article 226, directed NOIDA to compensate the petitioner with Rs.19,22,778/- being the amount of tax and penalty imposed due to NOIDA’s error – NOIDA was given liberty to recover the said amount from the erring officer responsible for the mistake [Paras 14-18]. 
 
Administrative Law – Accountability of Public Authorities – Responsibility Fixed – The Court emphasized that where the loss is caused due to the fault of public authorities, they are liable to compensate the affected party and may recover the amount internally from the responsible officer – Directions also issued to the District Magistrate to ensure compliance in case of NOIDA’s failure [Paras 16-18]. 
 
Decision – Writ Allowed with Directions – Writ petition allowed – NOIDA directed to pay Rs.19,22,778/- within 15 days failing which the District Magistrate is to recover and pay the amount to the petitioner – Compliance affidavit directed [Paras 18-22]. 
 

Criminal Law - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Section 9, 10, 11, 12 & 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Lack of Prima Facie Evidence – Case based on CDRs and Transcripts – Quashing Allowed - The petitioners challenged the FIR, charge sheet, and summoning order alleging conspiracy and illegal gratification to obtain a loan from Syndicate Bank – The Court held that there was no corroborative evidence supporting the prosecution's allegations except for CDRs and intercepted conversations – CDRs alone, without independent proof, cannot establish conspiracy – Held: Petitioners cannot be subjected to criminal prosecution based solely on speculative evidence [Paras 80-93].

Vicarious Liability – Absence of Specific Allegations – Managing Director Not Liable – Quashing Allowed - The Court reiterated that vicarious liability cannot be fastened on company officials in the absence of specific statutory provision or clear allegations – Mere designation of Petitioner No.2 as CMD of M/s Prakash Industries Ltd. does not attract vicarious criminal liability – Held: Prosecution failed to demonstrate how the petitioners were involved in the alleged conspiracy [Paras 83-85, 106].

Criminal Conspiracy – No Prior Meeting of Mind – Mere Communication Not Sufficient – Quashing Allowed - Court found that the prosecution failed to prove any prior meeting of minds or agreement between petitioners and other accused – Routine business communication between petitioners and other accused like Pawan Bansal cannot amount to criminal conspiracy – Held: Mere presence of CDRs and conversations without corroboration cannot establish conspiracy under Section 120B IPC [Paras 87-93].

Witness Testimony – Contradictory and Inconclusive – Cannot Be Sole Basis – Quashing Allowed - Statements of key witnesses such as Mr. U.S. Majumdar and Mr. Ghanshyam Mudgal were found to be vague, inconsistent and not incriminating – Court held that such uncorroborated statements are insufficient for framing charges – Held: No prima facie case made out against the petitioners [Paras 109-116].

Commercial Transactions – Routine Loan Processing – Not Indicative of Conspiracy – Quashing Allowed - The petitioners’ engagement with Altius Finserve Pvt. Ltd. for processing a loan was held to be a standard business transaction – Absence of direct evidence linking this arrangement to any illegal gratification – Held: The prosecution’s theory of conspiracy was speculative and unsubstantiated [Paras 117-123].

Decision – FIR, Chargesheet, Cognizance Order Quashed – Proceedings Against Petitioners Terminated - The Court quashed FIR RC No. AC-1/2014/A-0005, the charge-sheet dated 27/09/2017 and the cognizance order dated 09/03/2018 passed by the Special Judge, Patiala House Courts against M/s Prakash Industries Ltd., Mr. Ved Prakash Agarwal, and Mr. Vipul Agarwal – All consequential proceedings also quashed [Paras 148-149].
 

Consumer Rights – Service Charge in Restaurants – Guidelines under CPA, 2019 – Upheld – CCPA guidelines prohibiting mandatory levy of service charge held valid – The Court upheld the guidelines issued by CCPA barring mandatory collection of service charge, observing that such charges cannot be imposed coercively, and must be voluntary – Held: Such mandatory collection is deceptive, amounts to unfair trade practice under Section 2(47) of CPA, and violates consumer rights – CCPA empowered under Section 18(2)(l) to issue binding guidelines in the interest of consumers [Paras 83-85, 174(i), 174(iii)(iv)]. 
 
Freedom of Trade – Article 19(1)(g) vs. Consumer Interest – Reasonable Restriction – Upheld – The guidelines were found not to infringe Article 19(1)(g) as they imposed reasonable restrictions in public interest – Court held the limitation on the restaurant’s right to impose service charges was proportional and constitutional – Larger interest of consumers prevailed over business interests of establishments [Paras 83-85, 174(ii)]. 
 
Contract Law – Unconscionable Contracts – Service Charge Clause – Invalid – Even if a customer accepts service charge knowing its inclusion on the menu, the resulting contract is not enforceable – Court ruled the unequal bargaining power and lack of real choice renders such contracts void as unfair and unconscionable under the CPA [Paras 99-101]. 
 
Statutory Backing – Guidelines of CCPA – Binding Nature – Upheld – The Court held that guidelines issued under Section 18(2)(l) of the CPA, 2019 are binding and not merely advisory – The statutory scheme envisages enforcement of such guidelines through penal provisions under Section 88 of the Act [Paras 73-75, 136-138, 174(i)]. 
 
Misleading Practices – Terminology and Lack of Transparency – Service 
Charge Illegal – The use of terms like “levy” and “service charge” was held to be misleading and deceptive to consumers – The absence of visible and transparent disclosure of service charge violated the consumer’s right to know 
– Held to constitute unfair trade practice under CPA [Paras 170-171, 174(iv)]. 
 
Final Decision – Writ Petitions Dismissed – Guidelines Validated – The Court dismissed the writ petitions filed by the restaurant associations and upheld the validity and enforceability of the guidelines issued by CCPA – Declared that the service charge must be voluntary and any mandatory imposition would be illegal [Para 174]. 
 

Criminal Law – Murder – Appeal against conviction – Common Intention – Eyewitness Testimony – Section 302/34 IPC – Conviction Converted – Appellants accused of beating deceased with belcha and kassi during worksite quarrel – Sole eyewitness PW-17 testified to quarrel and dragging of body, but did not witness actual assault – Trial court convicted both under Section 302/34 IPC – Held: Incident arose out of sudden altercation, no premeditation – In absence of direct evidence of fatal blow, case falls under Section 304 Part II IPC [Paras 13, 18, 33–42]. 
 
Section 145 Evidence Act – Hostile Witness – Partial Credibility – PW-17 declared hostile and cross-examined – Although he retracted some police statements, core testimony on dragging body and shutter closure remained consistent – Court held such testimony admissible and reliable under Section 145 – Presence of accused and circumstantial evidence unerringly pointed to guilt [Paras 34–36]. 
 
Culpable Homicide – Sudden Provocation – Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC – Applicability Considered – Deceased initiated quarrel by abusing A-2, which escalated into fatal fight – Court relied on precedents including Pulicherla Nagaraju and Dauvaram Nirmalkar to hold that appellants acted without premeditation in a fit of anger – Conviction altered from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II IPC [Paras 37–42]. 
 
Sentence – Mitigating Circumstances – Period Already Undergone – Appellants from lower socio-economic background – No prior criminal record – Having undergone nearly 10 years of incarceration – Sentence reduced to period already undergone – No fine imposed [Para 42]. 
 
Decision: Appeals partly allowed – Conviction altered from Section 302/34 to Section 304 Part II IPC – Appellants sentenced to imprisonment for period already undergone – No fine imposed [Paras 42–43]. 
 

Civil Law - Land Dispute – Claim of Succession – Section 171 UPZA & LR Act – Relationship Not Established – Petitioner claimed inheritance rights over land previously held by Ruda Singh – Claimed to be nephew through maternal line – Court held: No reliable documentary or oral evidence was filed to establish familial relationship – Certificate from Gram Pradhan found vague and unauthorized – Earlier order vesting land in State unchallenged for decades – Held: No succession right established [Paras 3, 14, 21, 39– 44, 56–63]. 
 
Consolidation Proceedings – Effect of Prior Orders – Order Vesting Land in State Remained Unchallenged – Despite initiation of consolidation in 1995, earlier order dated 17.09.1984 under Section 194 UPZA & LR Act vesting land in State was never properly challenged – Revision against consequential order dismissed – Consolidation authorities erred in ignoring prior final order – Deputy Director rightly rectified error [Paras 9, 26, 41–48, 55, 69–71]. 
 
Pleadings and Conduct – Suppression and Contradictory Claims – Petitioner filed multiple objections under Section 9-A(2) with inconsistent grounds—initially on succession, later on unregistered will – No evidence of will brought – Serious discrepancies in age, identity documents, signatures, and name aliases found – Execution of gift deeds soon after name entry recorded in revenue record raised suspicion – Petitioner acting as proxy for third party with history of land grabbing – Held: Petition tainted by concealment, lacks merit [Paras 24–25, 52–54, 64–68, 70]. 
 
Decision: Writ Petition Dismissed – Deputy Director of Consolidation’s order upheld – Earlier unchallenged order of land vesting in State prevails – Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer erred in granting rights to petitioner without examining credibility and prior orders – Interim order vacated – Costs made easy [Paras 69–71]. 
 
 

NDPS Act – Bail Application – Prolonged Incarceration – Commercial Quantity – Application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. – Accused in custody since 31.10.2023 for offences under Sections 20(b)(ii)A, 22(c), and 25 of NDPS Act – Trial pending before Additional Sessions Judge-V, Thiruvananthapuram – Petitioner seeks bail citing prolonged incarceration and delay in trial – Held: Though commercial quantity is involved, prolonged incarceration due to prosecution’s laches militates against Article 21 – Petitioner can approach Trial Court for bail in light of Apex Court precedents [Paras 2, 4, 5, 6–11]. 
 
Prolonged Incarceration – Article 21 vs Section 37 NDPS Act – Accused in custody for more than 20 months – Court observed that prolonged incarceration without fault of the accused violates Article 21 – Referenced SC decisions in Ankur Chaudhary v. State of M.P., Nitish Adhikary v. State of W.B., and Hasanujjaman v. State of W.B. which held that delay in trial caused solely by prosecution can override rigour of Section 37 NDPS – Also relied on Kerala HC’s own precedent in Shuaib A.S. v. State of Kerala [Paras 6–11]. 
 
Trial Delay – Prosecution's Lapses – Prosecution failed to cite all necessary witnesses initially – After examining existing witnesses, prosecution filed petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to summon more witnesses without clear purpose – Petition was dismissed; prosecution later given another chance to file proper petition – Delay attributed solely to prosecution, not to accused – Such delay justified consideration of bail despite Section 37 bar [Paras 9–11]. 
 
Decision: Bail application disposed – Petitioner allowed to file fresh bail application before Trial Court – Trial Court directed to consider bail on merits applying principles laid down by SC and HC in cited cases – To be decided within two weeks of application [Para 10]. 
 

Arbitration Law - Stock Broker Liability – Prior Written Instructions – NSE Regulations – Regulatory Requirement Not Mandatory in Civil Claims – Client challenged arbitral award citing lack of prior written instructions for trades – Held: Requirement for prior authorisation is regulatory, not determinative of civil liability – 
Absence of authorisation cannot invalidate trades if client participated with full knowledge – Tribunal rightly considered emails, SMS alerts, fund flows, and securities transfers to affirm client’s conscious involvement [Paras 1, 11–21, 24, 27–30]. 
 
Arbitral Review – Limited Scope Under Section 34 – Findings Not Perverse – Petitioner argued award contradicted findings in first arbitral award – Court held that appellate tribunal’s conclusions were logical and based on evidence – No perversity or arbitrariness established – Interference under Section 34 not warranted [Paras 19–21, 31]. 
 
SEBI Circular – Evidentiary Guidelines – Not Substantive Law – Court interpreted SEBI’s 2018 Circular as procedural and directory – Emphasized that post-trade evidence like fund and securities movement can establish trade legitimacy in absence of prior written authorisation – Rigid interpretation would lead to inequitable consequences and allow clients to escape liability [Paras 25–29]. 
 
Commercial Conduct – Active Participation – Client Received Trade Alerts and Made Payments – Despite lack of explicit authorisation, evidence of continuous trading conduct, receipt of contract notes, transfer of securities, and lack of protest showed participation – Tribunal entitled to weigh such evidence in totality [Paras 14–18, 22, 26]. 
 
Trade Usages and Section 28(3) – Legal Recognition of Industry Practices – Tribunal rightly considered usage of securities market including trade confirmations, account settlements, and autonomous instructions – Judgment aligned with SC’s ruling in Chokshi where oral agreements and trade conduct were upheld in composite claims [Paras 33–38]. 
 
Decision: Petitions dismissed – Impugned award upheld – Petitioner liable to pay ~Rs.69.20 lakhs with 12% p.a. interest – Costs of Rs. 1,00,000 imposed on petitioner payable to respondent within 4 weeks [Paras 41–42]. 
 

Criminal Law - Abduction for Ransom – Conspiracy and Execution – Section 364A, 120B IPC – Conviction Upheld - The appellants conspired and executed the abduction of Partha Roy Burman, inflicting gunshot injuries during the kidnapping and detained him at a secluded location to demand ransom – Multiple prosecution witnesses, including PW31 and PW32 (cooks), PW33 (co-accused turned prosecution witness), and PW35-PW55 (official and medical witnesses) corroborated the pre-planning, execution, custody of the victim, and ransom transaction – Held: The prosecution successfully proved the conspiracy and abduction beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 1-10, 23-31, 35-45].

Evidence – Hostile Witnesses – Reliability of Other Evidence – Conviction Not Vitiated - Although some key witnesses, including PW26 (victim) and relatives like PW20, PW22, PW23 turned hostile, their testimonies regarding initial facts and identification of injuries, along with other documentary and corroborative evidence like seizure lists, forensic reports, voice samples, and confessional statements under Section 164 CrPC, stood consistent and reliable – Held: Conviction sustainable even when certain witnesses turned hostile [Paras 31-38, 53-55, 66-67].

Electronic and Forensic Evidence – Admissibility and Reliability – Voice Samples and Footprint Matches – Audio cassette recordings of ransom calls matched with the voices of appellants as confirmed by CFSL expert (PW67) – Footprint evidence also corroborated the presence of appellants at relevant places – Held: Properly proved and relied upon [Paras 66-69, 73-77].

Abduction for Ransom – Criminal Conspiracy – Sections 364A and 120B IPC – Conviction Upheld - Prosecution proved that appellants hatched a conspiracy to abduct Partho Roy Burman for ransom through meetings, arrangement of hideouts and vehicles, and execution of the abduction with the use of arms – Conspiracy corroborated by direct evidence of PW31, PW32, and PW33 who were privy to planning meetings, distribution of roles and captivity of the victim – Victim was injured, confined at Bhoot Bunglow, and released after ransom payment – Held: Appellants participated actively in the conspiracy and execution, warranting conviction [Paras 105-120].

Test Identification Parade – Delay – Non-fatal – Delay in conducting TIP explained due to appellants being absconders – Appellants identified both in TIP and by prosecution witnesses who had seen them repeatedly during conspiracy meetings and captivity of the victim – Held: TIP delay does not vitiate identification when corroborated by substantive evidence [Paras 99-128].

Evidence of Approvers – PW31, PW32, PW33 – Acceptable and Reliable – Appellants challenged credibility of PW31, PW32, and PW33 as approvers – Court held that they were not chance witnesses but insiders to conspiracy, who lived with the accused for substantial periods – Their depositions were consistent, corroborated by independent circumstances and other witnesses – Held: Evidence of these approvers reliable [Paras 113-120].

Electronic Evidence – Compliance with Section 65B – Voice Samples, Emails, Audio Cassettes – Prosecution relied on intercepted calls, emails, and audio tapes – Although formal certificate under Section 65B was partly absent, electronic records collected under Section 27, proved through official witnesses, and corroborated by oral evidence were held admissible – Court distinguished between primary and secondary electronic evidence and applied substantial compliance doctrine – Held: Electronic evidence validly relied upon [Paras 134-138].

Delay in Recording Statements – Defence Argument Rejected – Delay caused due to appellants absconding for long periods and bifurcation of trial – Court accepted prosecution’s explanation and held that delay did not prejudice the defence – Held: Conviction cannot be vitiated on this ground [Paras 129-133].

Circumstantial Evidence – Chain Complete – Defence plea of incomplete chain rejected – Court found complete chain of circumstances established through eyewitnesses, recovery of articles, forensic reports, and testimonies of key witnesses PW31, PW32, PW33 and others – Held: Conspiracy, execution, ransom demand, payment, and release of victim proved beyond doubt [Paras 120-140].

Acquittal – Benefit of Doubt – Appellant Akhtar Hossain – Acquitted – Evidence insufficient to link Akhtar Hossain to supply of arms or direct participation – No evidence of his presence at Bhoot Bunglow or conspiracy meetings – Held: Conviction not sustainable against Akhtar Hossain – He is acquitted [Paras 141-143].

Final Decision – Convictions of all other appellants confirmed – Life imprisonment and fine upheld for Noor Mohammed @ Shahbaz, Jalal Molla @ Omar, Mizanur Rahman @ Shahjahan, Mujammel Sk. @ Akram, Ishaque Ahmed @ Dilsad, Arshad Khan, Tariq Mehmood @ Nayeem – Akhtar Hossain acquitted – Connected applications dismissed [Paras 141-144].