Civil Law – Ad Interim Injunction - Tender Process – Swiss Challenge Method – Validity Upheld – Plaintiff Challenged Debt Assignment Notice – Swiss Challenge Method Recognised by Law – Court Held: RBI Master Circular and precedent in Ravi Development v. Shree Krishna Prathisthan support the method – Selection of Anchor Bidder not required to be disclosed – No breach of transparency found – Appeal allowed, interim injunction vacated [Paras 29-34, 56-58].

Locus Standi – Challenge to Tender Terms – Participation Not Mandatory but Eligibility Essential – Plaintiff Challenged Terms Without EoI Submission – Held: Even if challenge is to tender terms, challenger must plead eligibility and interest in participation – Plaintiff failed to do so – Suit held prima facie not maintainable [Paras 22-28].

Transparency and Due Diligence – No Violation of RBI Circular – Adequate Time Provided – RBI Clause 59 requires “adequate” time for due diligence – Court found 9 days sufficient given immediate online access – No denial of information – Allegation of arbitrary base-bid disclosure rejected as premature [Paras 36-41].

Non-Disclosure of Valuation Reports – Allegation Unfounded and Premature – Challenge to Reserve Price Unsupported – Held: Plaintiff not entitled to data without EoI submission – No proof offered that mandatory dual external valuations not done – Challenge speculative and unsubstantiated [Paras 42-43].

Alleged Collusion – Resolution on Same Date of EoI Notice Suggests Pre-Planning – Held: Challenge by non-participating plaintiff on borrower-centric grounds creates suspicion of collusion – Particularly as low reserve price benefits buyer, not bidder – Conduct raises prima facie doubt on bona fides [Paras 45-53].

Interim Relief – Grant of Injunction Based on Erroneous Legal Tests – Trial Court Erred – Held: Trial court failed to consider prima facie maintainability and applied incorrect legal standards – Injunction order set aside for being perverse and contrary to settled law [Paras 54-58].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Interim Injunction Set Aside – Trial Court Directed to Decide Temporary Injunction Afresh – Judgment stayed for 15 days to allow challenge – CAN 1 of 2025 disposed [Paras 59-63].

Arbitration and Land Acquisition – Solatium under Section 23(2) of Acquisition Act – Scope of Section 37 of Arbitration Act – Appeals Dismissed – Petitioners sought inclusion of solatium in compensation for land acquired under the Highways Act – Held: Though solatium is statutorily payable after the striking down of Section 3J in Tarsem Singh, neither the arbitral award nor the Section 34 judgment could be modified to include solatium – Jurisdiction under Section 37 does not permit modification of arbitral awards – Court upheld the impugned judgment dismissing the challenge under Section 34 [Paras 6–8, 27–34, 37].

Jurisdictional Limits – Section 34 and Section 37 of Arbitration Act – No Power to Modify Arbitral Award – Legal Framework Reaffirmed – Arbitral award passed when Section 3J was in force did not consider solatium – Held: Courts under Section 34 or Section 37 cannot modify arbitral awards to grant statutory entitlements not forming part of the original award – Reliance placed on M. Hakeem, Rishabhkumar, and Gayatri Balasamy – Petitioners directed to pursue other legal remedies for enforcement of solatium [Paras 20–28, 32–34, 37].

Constitutional Law – Striking Down of Section 3J of Highways Act – Consequence on Pending Arbitration Awards – No Retrospective Rectification by Section 37 Court – Though Tarsem Singh declared Section 3J unconstitutional and confirmed entitlement to solatium for acquisitions between 1997 and 2015, Court held that awards passed before the ruling cannot be retrospectively modified in proceedings under Section 37 – Petitioners' entitlement remains intact, but cannot be granted in current jurisdiction [Paras 14–16, 30–31, 37].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Impugned judgment under Section 34 upheld – Arbitral awards not interfered with – Petitioners’ entitlement to solatium recognized but must be pursued through appropriate legal remedies – No order as to costs [Paras 37–38].

Civil Law – IBC - Moratorium under IBC – Bar on Institution of Proceedings – Section 14 of IBC – Suit Filed During Moratorium Held Non Est – The respondent instituted a suit for declaration, possession and rent recovery against the applicant company during the moratorium period imposed under Section 14 by the NCLT – Held: The suit was filed on 21.01.2022 during the subsistence of moratorium which commenced on 30.08.2021 and continued till 19.05.2023 – Suit barred under Section 14(1)(a) of the IBC and hence liable to be rejected – Order rejecting application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC set aside [Paras 4, 12-14, 26-27].

Overriding Effect of IBC – Section 238 – Special Law Prevails – Section 238 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code gives it overriding effect over other laws – Held: IBC being special law prevails over general provisions of CPC – Civil court cannot proceed with suits in contravention of IBC moratorium – Plaint rightly rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC read with Section 151 CPC [Paras 14, 26-27].

Jurisdiction of Civil Courts – Section 63 of IBC – NCLT Has Exclusive Jurisdiction – Suit regarding recovery of leased premises by lessor during CIRP of lessee – Held: Claims regarding operational debt and possession during CIRP fall within the domain of NCLT – Civil court lacks jurisdiction under Section 63 of IBC – Suit held to be barred by law [Paras 16, 18-20].

Operational Debt – Rent Claim as Operational Debt – Duty to File Claim Before RP – Respondent failed to raise claim before Resolution Professional during CIRP – Held: Rent due qualifies as operational debt – Once resolution plan is approved, such claims stand extinguished – Suit not maintainable post-approval – Resolution plan approved on 19.05.2023 – Suit filed during CIRP not curable [Paras 15, 18, 27].

Decision – Rejection of Plaint Allowed – Civil Suit Filed During Moratorium Period Not Maintainable – Civil Revision Application allowed – Trial court's rejection of Order VII Rule 11 application quashed – Plaint rejected as barred by law under Order VII Rule 11 and Section 151 CPC [Paras 26-27].

Civil Law - Court Fees – Partition Suit – Article 17(vi) vs. Section 7(iv)(b) of the Court Fees Act – Fixed Court Fee Payable – Defendant no.2 sought rejection of plaint arguing plaintiff was not in possession and must pay ad valorem court fee – Plaintiff, as Class II heir, pleaded constructive possession and cited tenancy in one of the properties – Held: Plaintiff deemed in constructive possession in law – No averment of ouster – Fixed court fee under Article 17(vi) applicable – Application rejected [Paras 1, 5-7, 13, 21-27, 31-37].

Constructive Possession – Co-ownership in Partition Suit – Presumption in Law – Plaintiff being Class II heir claimed 50% share in estate of deceased brother – Some properties were tenanted and under interim court custody – Held: Law presumes joint possession among co-owners unless ouster is pleaded – Plaintiff successfully averred constructive possession – Ad valorem court fee not attracted [Paras 20-26, 31-34].

Delay in Objection – Application after Three Years – Not Fatal but Considered – Application filed three years after defendants' appearance – Held: While delay alone is not conclusive, timing reflects lack of merit – Application under Order VII Rule 11(c) held to be misconceived [Paras 10, 23].

Distinction from Cited Precedents – Ramesh Kumar Bhagchandka and Om Prakash Arora – Not Applicable – Plaintiff in present case is legal heir with pleaded constructive possession – In contrast, cited precedents involved either admission of ouster or absence of co-ownership – Held: Precedents not applicable to facts of present case [Paras 16, 35].

Decision – Application Dismissed – Fixed Court Fee Found Proper – Plaintiff not required to pay ad valorem court fee – No averment of ouster – Constructive possession deemed in law – Application under Order VII Rule 11(c) dismissed [Paras 33-37].

Criminal Writ - Illegal Arrest – Grounds of Arrest Not Effectively Communicated – Violation of Article 22(1) – Petitioner alleged that accused was arrested without proper intimation of arrest grounds to relatives and in violation of constitutional rights – Held: Arrest must comply with Article 22(1), and grounds must be meaningfully conveyed – However, in present case, remedy lies via habeas corpus, not under Articles 226/227 – Writ not maintainable [Paras 1, 14, 21].

Habeas Corpus vs. Mandamus/Certiorari – Judicial Remand Order Bars Writ Relief – Detention pursuant to Magistrate’s remand order cannot be challenged through writs of mandamus or certiorari – Proper procedure is habeas corpus, to be filed before Division Bench – Single Bench cannot issue such relief under writ jurisdiction in the facts presented [Paras 14, 20-21].

Custodial Torture Allegations – Show Cause Against Investigating Officer – Petitioner’s plea for action against IO on grounds of custodial assault rejected – Court emphasized available remedies through appropriate forums rather than constitutional writ for such claims [Para 1, 21].

Constitutional Safeguards – Grounds of Arrest Must Be Specific, Not Formal – Reiterated that ‘grounds’ are distinct from generic ‘reasons for arrest’ – Cited landmark rulings affirming need for specific, comprehensible, and written communication – However, current case lacks sufficient cause for interference under writ jurisdiction [Paras 15-17, 21].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed as Not Maintainable – Petitioner directed to approach appropriate forum for habeas corpus – Writ Court declined relief under Articles 226/227 in light of existing judicial remand and absence of manifest illegality [Para 21].

Civil Law - Commercial Suit – Disclosure of Documents – Order 11 Rule 1 CPC – Leave Rightly Refused – Petitioner’s application to place additional documents on record during Defendant's evidence stage was rejected by the Trial Court – Held: Petitioner failed to disclose these documents along with the written statement despite opportunity and court direction – COVID-19 restrictions could not explain non-filing in October 2023 – Rejection of application upheld [Paras 4, 5, 14].

Order XI Rule 1 CPC – Reasonable Cause – Burden Not Discharged – The Court emphasized that ‘reasonable cause’ for non-disclosure under Order XI Rule 1 must be shown when documents were in the party’s possession – Petitioner failed to justify delay despite earlier knowledge and possession of the documents – Application filed only after conclusion of Plaintiff’s evidence – Held: Delay was tactical, not bona fide [Paras 11, 12, 15].

Scope of Article 227 – Limited Supervisory Jurisdiction – High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute its view for that of the Trial Court unless the decision is perverse or suffers from jurisdictional error – Trial Court acted judiciously – Held: No interference warranted [Para 16].

Procedural Discipline in Commercial Litigation – Emphasized – Court reiterated importance of adhering to timelines and procedural rigour under the Commercial Courts Act – Delay or omission must be explained with diligence – Judicial discretion under Order XI must be exercised strictly [Paras 9, 12, 14].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – The High Court upheld the Trial Court’s order rejecting the application for filing additional documents at an advanced trial stage – Directed Trial Court to proceed expeditiously [Paras 17-18].

Civil Law - CLAT PG 2024–25 – Disputed Answer Key – Judicial Review Partially Allowed – Petitioners contested the final answer key for four questions citing misapplication of legal principles – Court held that for Questions 21 and 98, the Consortium's answers were incorrect, and directed it to revise scoring accordingly – Held: In case of legal interpretative error or factual discrepancy, courts may intervene even in academic matters, especially when based on flawed reasoning [Paras 6-8, 17].

Competitive Exam – Framing of Questions from Non-Primary Sources – Judicial Caution – The Court found that the passages for Questions 21 and 57 were not extracted from judgments but were commentary-based, which led to misinterpretation by candidates – Held: Candidates are to be assessed only on the material in the passage, especially where no prior reading list is provided – Evaluation must align with content presented [Paras 7-8, 12].

CLAT PG – Fee for Objections – ₹1,000 Per Question Held Excessive – Court noted the disparity between CLAT’s fee and those charged by other national-level examination bodies – However, considering that most candidates already paid the amount and results were due, the levy was not quashed for this year – Held: Consortium should reconsider and possibly reduce the fee for future exams and consult Justice G. Raghuram Committee for guidance [Paras 25-26].

CLAT PG – Public Law Challenge to Consortium – Maintainability Upheld – The Consortium, though a private body, performs a public function in conducting national law entrance exams and is therefore subject to judicial review under Article 226 – Held: Petitions maintainable and fit for limited interference [Implied across judgment].

Decision – Writ Petitions Partly Allowed – Consortium directed to revise marks for Questions 21 and 98, and maintain deletion of Question 56 – Answer to Question 57 upheld as correct – Fee structure for objections not quashed but future reforms suggested [Paras 8, 12, 17, 26-27].

Criminal Law – Quashing - Unnatural Sex by Husband – Consent and Marital Status – Proceedings Upheld – Applicant sought quashing of charges under Section 377 IPC asserting exemption based on marital relationship – Held: Unnatural intercourse by husband without wife's consent, even if she is above 18, is punishable under Section 377 IPC – Marriage does not negate a woman's bodily autonomy or her right to sexual dignity and orientation – Court declined to follow contrary Madhya Pradesh High Court view and relied on Navtej Singh Johar and Puttaswamy to affirm that non-consensual carnal intercourse violates Article 21 and is triable under Section 377 IPC [Paras 18–25].

Dowry Harassment – 498A IPC – Delay in FIR – Not Fatal – Allegations and Continuous Cruelty Sufficient – Allegations of dowry harassment and cruelty were corroborated through statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC – Delay in lodging FIR not fatal as harassment was continuous – Independent witnesses’ silence or lack of support not decisive – FIR discloses triable case and no ground for quashing made out [Paras 3–4, 27–30].

Medical Evidence and Consent – Lack of Medical Examination Not Ground for Quashing – Material Sufficient for Trial – Court held refusal of medical examination by complainant does not nullify prosecution – Presence of prima facie material including complainant’s statements justified continuation of trial – Right to privacy and sexual dignity held paramount even within marriage [Paras 19, 29].

Decision – Quashing Denied – Charges Maintainable – Applicant at Liberty to Seek Bail – Allahabad High Court rejected the application to quash proceedings – Held that charges under Section 377 IPC and dowry laws are prima facie made out – Directed that applicant may apply for bail before trial court [Paras 26, 31–32].

Service Law - Medical Reimbursement – Heart Transplant at Non-Empanelled Hospital – Petition Allowed – Petitioner underwent urgent heart transplant at a private hospital due to non-availability of CGHS-empanelled hospitals in Mumbai with necessary license and expertise – Held: Denial of full reimbursement on grounds of CGHS rate limitations and 'planned' nature of surgery was arbitrary – High Power Committee failed to appreciate exigency and violated Article 21 rights [Paras 2–4, 32–34, 42–43].

Relaxation of CGHS Rules – Applicability of Office Memorandum dated 15 July 2014 – Judicial Endorsement – Court held that the Office Memorandum clearly permits relaxation for full reimbursement in special/emergency circumstances – Heart transplant held to be such a circumstance – Held: HPC ought to have considered the petitioner’s case sympathetically in light of constitutional obligations [Paras 36–38].

Right to Life and Medical Urgency – Constitutional Interpretation – Court recognized right to medical treatment as part of Article 21 – Petitioner could not be denied treatment due to financial incapacity or mechanical policy application – Held: Medical reimbursement must uphold dignity and life preservation [Paras 39–41, 43–46].

Administrative Function – High Power Committee – Duty of Sensitivity – HPC failed to comply with prior court directions for hearing and ignored facts warranting discretionary relief – Held: Mechanistic rejection without personal hearing contrary to equity and fair play [Paras 23–24, 44–46].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – High Court directed respondents to grant full reimbursement of Rs. 22,08,440 with 9% interest – Impugned decisions dated 30 November 2021 and 13 April 2022 quashed – Reimbursement to be completed within four weeks [Paras 47–48].