Works of Defence Act, 1903 - National Security - Restricted Zones - Construction Permissions - PIL highlighting illegal constructions near vital military installations in Jodhpur - Held, since the matter involves national security and sensitive zones of the Indian Air Force and Indian Army, all permissions granted by local authorities must strictly adhere to the Notifications and guidelines issued by the Ministry of Defence/Central Government from time to time. [Paras 5, 13].

Works of Defence Act, 1903 - Survey and Demolition - Unauthorized Encroachments - Local authorities directed to conduct a detailed survey of Khasra No. 632 and its sub-divisions - Held, if constructions are found to have been raised de hors the mandatory guidelines or without required permissions/NOCs, the local authorities shall take urgent steps to remove or demolish such constructions in accordance with law. [Paras 11, 14-15].

Works of Defence Act, 1903 - No Objection Certificate (NOC) - Mandatory Compliance - Construction permissions in restricted areas - Held, local authorities must obtain an NOC from the concerned defence authorities before granting construction permissions in appropriate cases as per Central Government notifications - Even if a layout plan was previously sanctioned, construction permissions issued in violation of mandatory Ministry of Defence instructions must be cancelled. [Paras 16, 20].

Works of Defence Act, 1903 - Timeline for Compliance - Judicial Oversight - Court directed the entire exercise of survey and removal of unauthorized persons/structures to be completed within three months - Compliance report ordered to be furnished before the Court on or before 03.08.2026. [Paras 17-18].

Decision: Writ petitions disposed of with specific directions for survey and demolition – Contempt petitions and pending applications also stand disposed of.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 12(5) — Ineligibility of Arbitrator — Seventh Schedule — Unilateral Appointment — Arbitration clause provided for disputes to be referred to Sole Arbitration of Chairman and Managing Director of HPCL with additional power to appoint any other person as Arbitrator — Post-amendment (w.e.f. 23.10.2015), Chairman and Managing Director of the Corporation fell within categories enumerated in Seventh Schedule and became ineligible by operation of law to act as Arbitrator — Once ineligible, Chairman and Managing Director could not appoint any other person as Arbitrator either — Appointment of Sole Arbitrator by such person was squarely hit by decisions in TRF Ltd. and Core-II — Such Arbitrator lacked inherent jurisdiction — Award made by him rendered invalid — Held: Appointment of Sole Arbitrator was in violation of Section 12(5) and principles of equal treatment — Award set aside [Paras 75–77, 90–91].

Section 12(5) Proviso — Express Waiver in Writing — What Constitutes — Consent vs. Waiver — Distinction — Corporation by letter dated 24.01.2018 sought appellant's written consent for appointment of its serving officer as Sole Arbitrator — Appellant by letter dated 15.02.2018 appointed his own Arbitrator (counter offer) — Corporation turned down counter offer — Appellant by letter dated 07.03.2018 gave consent for Corporation to appoint an Arbitrator — Held: Letter dated 07.03.2018 at best amounts to consent for appointment of an Arbitrator (including a retired officer) and not an express written waiver of right to object under Section 12(5) — No consensus ad idem between parties on waiver — Waiver requires conscious, unequivocal, written expression of intent to relinquish the right — Participation in arbitral proceedings or mere consent to appointment does not constitute valid waiver under Section 12(5) proviso — Bhadra International relied upon [Paras 77–85].

Section 12(5) — De Jure Ineligibility — Nature and Effect — Ineligibility under Section 12(5) read with Seventh Schedule strikes at the root of appointment — Upon incurring such ineligibility, mandate of Arbitrator automatically terminates under Section 14(1)(a) — Party may approach Court directly under Section 14 without first invoking challenge procedure under Section 13 — Award passed by an ineligible Arbitrator is non-est and carries no enforceability in law — Distinction between Fifth Schedule (justifiable doubts — challenge under Sections 13 and 34) and Seventh Schedule (de jure ineligibility — termination under Section 14) explained [Paras 52–59, 86].

Section 37 Appeal — Challenge to Ineligibility of Arbitrator — At Any Stage — Objection to inherent lack of jurisdiction of Arbitrator can be raised at any stage of proceedings including for the first time in appeal under Section 37 — An award passed by an ineligible Arbitrator being non-est, there is no question of the objection being time-barred or precluded — Even where specific ground was not very precisely raised in Section 34 petition, if the ground was dealt with and is raised in memo of appeal, the appellant cannot be non-suited — Bhadra International followed [Paras 86–88].

Equal Treatment of Parties — Section 18 — Unilateral Appointment — Constitutional Validity — Principle of equal treatment of parties applies at all stages of arbitration including the stage of appointment of Arbitrators — Clause allowing one party to unilaterally appoint Sole Arbitrator gives rise to justifiable doubts as to independence and impartiality — In a three-member tribunal, mandating other party to select Arbitrator from panel curated by one party is against principle of equal treatment — Unilateral appointment clauses in public-private contracts violative of Article 14 of the Constitution — Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v. ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV) (Core-II) followed [Paras 65, 90].

Arbitrator's Duty — Disclosure — Section 12(1) read with Sixth Schedule — Sole Arbitrator did not furnish the mandatory declaration as required under Section 12(1) read with the Fifth and Sixth Schedules at the time of appointment — Such non-disclosure assumes additional significance in the absence of a valid express waiver [Para 77].

Second Ground — Natural Justice — Not Adjudicated — Since appointment of Arbitrator was found to be without jurisdiction and the award was set aside on that ground, Court found it unnecessary to examine the second ground of challenge regarding alleged violation of principles of natural justice and procedural infractions during arbitral proceedings [Para 88].

Decision: Appeal allowed — Judgment and order dated 19.04.2023 of Commercial Court-II, Lucknow in Arbitration Case No. 766 of 2019 set aside — Arbitral award dated 26.04.2019 set aside — Parties at liberty to get fresh Arbitrator appointed in accordance with law — No order as to costs.

Specific Performance – Maintainability of Suit – Unilateral Termination of Agreement to Sale – Declaratory Relief – Where Agreement Contains No Termination Clause – Where a vendor unilaterally cancels an Agreement to Sale (ATS) without any contractual right to do so, such termination amounts to a repudiatory breach, and the vendee is entitled to directly seek specific performance without first obtaining a declaratory relief that the termination was bad in law – The ATS in question contained no clause permitting the vendor to cancel it or forfeit earnest money; Clause 8 expressly conferred upon the vendee the right to sue for specific performance even if the vendor refused to execute the sale deed – Held: In the absence of a termination clause, unilateral cancellation by the vendor is a breach of contract, not a valid termination, and no declaratory relief is a precondition to the suit for specific performance [Paras 7.7 to 7.13].

Time – Essence of Contract – Sale of Immovable Property – Mere Stipulation of Time Period Insufficient – In contracts for sale of immovable property, there is a well-settled presumption that time is not the essence of the contract – A mere six-month time limit in Clause 6 of the ATS does not, by itself, render time the essence of the contract – The intention to make time the essence must be expressed in unequivocal language and must be gathered from the express terms, nature of property, and surrounding circumstances – In the present case, no clause provided for termination or rescission upon non-adherence to the time limit, and Clause 7 required government permissions which themselves could cause delay – Held: Time was not the essence of the contract [Paras 7.22 to 7.24].

Readiness and Willingness – Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Conduct of Plaintiff – Continuous readiness and willingness to perform the contract is a condition precedent to the grant of specific performance and must be proved throughout the period from the date of the contract till the date of the decree – In the present case, the plaintiff paid Rs. 2,000/- as earnest money at execution and thereafter paid a further Rs. 6,000/- as evidenced by an entry in defendant no. 1's own handwriting in the plaintiff's diary (Exh. 108) – The plaintiff consistently asserted readiness to execute the sale-deed and promptly replied to the vendor's cancellation notice – The vendor, on the other hand, made inconsistent statements and changed his version repeatedly – Held: Plaintiff proved continuous readiness and willingness; the defendant failed to establish that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform [Paras 7.14 to 7.21].

Bona Fide Purchaser – Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Sections 41 and 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Constructive Notice – Good Faith – A subsequent purchaser who fails to make reasonable inquiries into the title of the property before purchase cannot claim the protection of a bona fide purchaser for value without notice – Defendant No. 2 admitted that no public notice was published and no title clearance certificate was obtained prior to purchase – The vendor (Defendant No. 1) had sold the property in violation of a subsisting injunction order – The doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act binds subsequent purchasers irrespective of actual notice of the injunction – Held: Defendant No. 2 failed to prove good faith and absence of notice; he is bound by the decree for specific performance [Paras 7.25 to 7.29].

Decision: Both appeals dismissed – Judgment and decree of the City Civil Court in Civil Suit No. 4584 of 1986 confirmed and approved – Decree for specific performance upheld, sale-deed executed by Defendant No. 1 in favour of Defendant No. 2 declared illegal, null and void – Costs awarded in favour of the plaintiff – Operation of the judgment stayed for two weeks on the request of appellants' counsel.

Criminal Law – Section 324 IPC – Acquittal – Appeal by Injured Witness – Medical Evidence – Discrepancy between PW2's version of a stab wound and MLC recording a lacerated wound, which is ordinarily caused by a blunt object rather than a sharp weapon — independent corroborative witnesses present at the scene, including cousin brothers and aunt, not examined by prosecution — weapon not recovered and no attempt made to recover it despite disclosure by accused — Held: Evidence on record insufficient to find accused guilty under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC — acquittal upheld [Paras 20, 24, 26, 32].

Evidence Act – Section 32(2) – Admissibility of MLC in Absence of Examining Doctor – MLC prepared by Dr. Suman Karmakar, who had left hospital services and whose attendance could not be procured without undue delay or expense — PW4 and PW5 deposed being familiar with the handwriting and signature of the doctor and identified his signature — Held: MLC proved under Section 32(2) read with Sections 47 and 67 of the Evidence Act — non-examination of the treating doctor per se does not vitiate the evidentiary value of the MLC so proved [Paras 22–23].

Section 222 CrPC – Minor Offence – Section 307 IPC Not a Minor Offence vis-à-vis Section 324 IPC – Appellant contended that appellate court could convict for Section 307 IPC by invoking Section 222(1) CrPC even though charge was framed only under Section 324 IPC — Held: Sections 307 and 324 IPC are not cognate offences with common main ingredients — Section 307 is not a minor offence in relation to Section 324 IPC — Section 222(1) CrPC cannot be invoked to convict for a graver offence when accused was charged with a lesser one [Paras 28–31].

Appellate Interference in Acquittal – Limited Scope – Appellate court ought not to interfere with acquittal unless findings are perverse, manifestly erroneous, or based on misappreciation of material evidence — if the view of the trial court is plausible and reasonable, interference is not warranted merely because another view is possible [Para 32].

Recovery of Weapon – Not Sine Qua Non – Non-recovery of the weapon used in the crime is not a sine qua non for establishing guilt of the accused if other credible evidence is available — however, in the present case, the remaining evidence was also found insufficient [Para 20].

Decision: Appeal dismissed — acquittal of A1 and A2 under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC upheld — pending applications closed.

Environmental Law – Coastal Regulation Zone – Illegal Constructions – CRZ 2011 – Andhra Pradesh Tourism Development Authority and APTDC initiated steps for establishing a tourism hub including brewery, resto-bar, and hotel resort over Ac.2.40 cents in Sy.No.314 of Kapuluppadu Revenue Village – Structures erected within CRZ-notified coastal area without obtaining any building permission from Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation as required under the APMC Act – Union of India confirmed no permissions had been granted by Ministry of Environment and Forests – CRZ-2020 notification not brought into force, leaving CRZ-2011 in operation – Held: Structures are clearly illegal and liable to be removed [Paras 3–7].

Principles of Natural Justice – Adequate Opportunity – Tourism Development Corporation's contention that demolition order dated 19.11.2025 was passed in violation of principles of natural justice rejected – Corporation had been served notices, filed explanation on 09.04.2025 which was disposed of on 25.04.2025 – Multiple inspections conducted by GVMC – Corporation failed to produce any valid building permission at any stage – Held: Adequate opportunity was afforded; no violation of natural justice made out [Paras 10–11].

Rule of Law – State Entities – No Exemption – Tourism Development Corporation contended that impugned demolition order could not have been passed as structures were set up by a Government entity pursuant to government policy – Court firmly rejected this contention – Held: Law of the land applies equally to State entities; the adage "Howsoever high you may be, the Law is above you" holds good – State Corporations enjoy no special protection or exemption from statutory provisions [Para 10].

Decision: W.P.(PIL) No. 110 of 2018 allowed – W.P. No. 625 of 2026 dismissed – Commissioner, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, directed to implement demolition order dated 19.11.2025 within three weeks from receipt of this order – No order as to costs – Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, stand closed [Para 12].

Execution of Arbitration Award – Surety/Guarantor – Second Execution Petition – Section 145 CPC – No Bar – Respondent No.1/decree holder held an arbitration award dated 12.12.2018 directing the respondents, including the petitioner, to pay Rs.54,24,277.50 with interest @18% p.a. – Respondent No.1 had earlier filed E.P.No.1329 of 2021 against J.Dr.No.3 (borrower) and thereafter filed E.P.No.1003 of 2024 against the petitioner/J.Dr.No.5 (guarantor) in respect of the EP schedule property – Petitioner challenged registration of the second EP contending that the decree holder was required to first exhaust the remedy against the primary borrower – Held: Section 145 CPC does not create any bar to filing an execution petition against a surety simultaneously with or during the pendency of an execution petition against the borrower – Pendency of one execution petition against one judgment debtor is not a legal bar to institute another execution petition against the remaining judgment debtors – Petitioner, being a party to the award proceedings and a judgment debtor thereunder, cannot claim that the decree holder must first exhaust remedies against the borrower – Petitioner at liberty to raise such objections as are open to him under law before the Execution Court – No case for interference made out [Paras 7–12].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition dismissed – No order as to costs – Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, stand closed.

Education Law – NEET (UG) 2026 – Delayed Fee Payment – Portal Buffering Claim – Petitioner uploaded registration form and documents on 09.02.2026 but did not submit the fee for over a month – On the last extended date of 11.03.2026, successful logins were made but no payment completed – Server logs furnished by NTA showed repeated successful logins; claimed inability to make payment not demonstrated – Oral submissions by Senior Counsel that form was uploaded only on 11.03.2026 found contrary to portal records and not even averred in the petition – Petitioner approached Court nearly one month after the alleged failure – Held: No interference warranted; petition dismissed [Paras 5-6, 8-10, 15-16].

"Portal Cannot Be Opened for One Candidate" – Consistent Judicial Position – Coordinate Bench judgments of this Court and the Supreme Court in Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India affirm that the NEET portal cannot be reopened for a single candidate – Supreme Court orders granting indulgence in isolated cases were based on peculiar facts, including demonstrated earnest and repeated attempts to log in, as in Atul Kumar v. Chairman (2024 SCC Online SC 2684) – Facts of present case do not meet that threshold [Paras 13-14].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – No interference called for [Para 16].

Criminal Law – Proclaimed Offender – Quashing of Proclamation – Non-Compliance with Section 82 Cr.P.C. – Petitioner released on bail in 1981 and migrated to Canada in May 1981, as evidenced by Immigration Certificate showing original entry date of 09.05.1981 – Only summons and non-bailable warrants issued; mandatory 30-day period not afforded – Report dated 06.12.1983 stating petitioner refused summons contradicted by Immigration Certificate establishing petitioner's absence from India – Co-accused acquitted vide judgment dated 23.11.1987 – Petitioner granted Canadian citizenship in 1990 and came to know of proceedings only in February 2024 – Pursuant to this Court's order dated 17.03.2026, petitioner appeared before Court below and was released on interim bail vide order dated 25.03.2026 – Held: Impugned order dated 10.12.1983 is in clear contravention of Section 82 Cr.P.C.; Court below failed to record requisite judicial satisfaction regarding absconding or concealment; proclamation issued in mechanical and perfunctory manner; order quashed – All consequential proceedings arising therefrom also quashed [Paras 1–11].

Proclamation – Mandatory Requirements – Section 82 Cr.P.C. – Essential Conditions – Prior issuance of warrant is a sine qua non for proclamation – Court must record satisfaction on material on record that accused has absconded or is concealing himself so that warrant cannot be executed – Proclamation must specify date and place of appearance not less than 30 clear days from date of publication – Publication must be effected in all three modes under Section 82(2)(i) conjunctively, namely: public reading at conspicuous place of ordinary residence, affixation at house or conspicuous place of town/village, and affixation at courthouse – Statement of serving officer as to date and mode of publication must be recorded – Court must make written statement that proclamation was duly published – Non-compliance with any of these requirements renders the proclamation and subsequent proceedings a nullity – Provisions cannot be invoked in a casual or cavalier manner given serious civil and criminal ramifications on liberty of the accused [Paras 5–9].

Inherent Powers – Section 528 BNSS / Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Exercise of Jurisdiction – Where proclamation proceedings are found to be illegal and procedurally flawed, continuation of criminal proceedings founded thereon amounts to abuse of process of law – Inherent jurisdiction exercisable to secure ends of justice and prevent such abuse – Petitioner's bona fide conduct established by voluntary appearance before Court below upon direction of this Court [Para 10].

Decision: Petition allowed – Impugned order dated 10.12.1983 declaring petitioner a proclaimed offender quashed – All consequential proceedings arising therefrom quashed qua the petitioner.

Public Interest Litigation – Punjab Police SAANJH Portal – Service Charges on FIR/DDR Downloads – Petitioner challenged imposition of Rs. 80/- as service charge for downloading FIRs, Rs. 100/- for DDR and Rs. 30/- for Lost Information Receipt from the Punjab Police SAANJH Portal – Representation dated 24.03.2026 submitted by Petitioner No. 1 to the Government of Punjab, Department of Home Affairs and Justice and the Director General of Police, Punjab, pending consideration – Court disposed of the PIL without expressing opinion on merits – Held: Competent Authority directed to consider and decide the representation dated 24.03.2026 by passing a speaking order in accordance with law within 30 days from receipt of certified copy of this order and to communicate the same to the petitioner [Paras 2–4].

Decision: PIL disposed of – Competent Authority directed to decide representation dated 24.03.2026 by speaking order within 30 days – No opinion expressed on the merits of the case – Liberty granted to petitioner.