Arbitration – Non-Signatory Bound by Arbitration Clause – Appellant, a purchaser of property from vendors bound by an arbitration agreement, contended that it was not bound by the arbitration clause as it was not a signatory. The court held that a non-signatory, claiming through or under a party to the arbitration agreement, is bound by the arbitration clause. The court applied the principle established in the Cox and Kings case, interpreting Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [Paras 1-18].

Lis Pendens – Application to Arbitration Proceedings – The court held that the doctrine of lis pendens applies to proceedings under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Thus, any transfer of property during such proceedings is subject to the outcome of the arbitration [Paras 19-24].

Interim Measures – Arbitration and Conciliation Act – The court modified the interim restraint order to remain in force for 45 days from the date of receipt of notice from the Arbitral Tribunal or until any interim measures are passed by the Tribunal, whichever is earlier [Paras 25-38].

Decision – Appeal allowed in part – Held – The interim measure dated 15.04.2024, in A.A.No.15002/2024 before V Additional District Judge Bengaluru Rural, shall remain in force for 45 days from the date of receipt of notice issued by the Arbitral Tribunal on the parties to the proceeding before the Arbitral Tribunal or till any interim measures/orders passed by the Arbitral Tribunal on an application by either of the parties, whichever is earlier. All contentions on merit, including whether the arbitration clause is binding on the appellant, are kept open to be decided by the Tribunal.

Anticipatory Bail – Section 438 Cr.P.C. – Petitioner sought anticipatory bail in relation to accusations of caste-based atrocities and violence – Court analyzed the applicability of Sections 18 and 18A of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, which typically bar anticipatory bail – Court found no prima facie case of caste atrocity against the petitioner based on the allegations and evidence presented – Anticipatory bail granted under Section 438 Cr.P.C., considering petitioner’s age, political status, and lack of flight risk [Paras 1-17].

Evidence Assessment – Prima Facie Case – Court noted the need to examine whether allegations prima facie indicate involvement in an atrocity under the SC and ST Act – Found no direct evidence against the petitioner for inciting or participating in violence – Emphasized the necessity of judicial application of mind to determine applicability of statutory bars to anticipatory bail [Paras 7-14].

Application of Section 438 Cr.P.C. Despite Charge Sheet – Cited precedents affirming that filing of charge sheet does not preclude consideration of anticipatory bail – Analyzed facts and circumstances to determine the merit of bail petition, concluding custodial interrogation unnecessary due to completed investigation [Paras 10-15].

Decision: Petition for anticipatory bail allowed – Petitioner to be released on bail upon arrest with conditions for personal bond and sureties – Emphasized non-influence of this order on trial proceedings [Paras 16-17].

Narcotic Drugs – Conviction – Appeal: Appellant convicted for possession and trafficking of charas (9 kg and 800 grams) – Trial Court sentenced appellant to 20 years imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000 – Appellant’s challenge based on procedural lapses in sampling and certification as per NDPS Act and Standing Orders – High Court finds procedural irregularities in drawing samples and failure to follow mandatory provisions under Section 52A of the NDPS Act – Appellant’s conviction set aside [Paras 1-33].

Procedure under Section 52A of NDPS Act – Statutory obligation for drawing samples in presence of Magistrate – Failure to comply with Standing Orders No. 1/88 and 1/89 regarding the sampling and storage of seized narcotic drugs – High Court emphasizes necessity for compliance with statutory procedures to maintain integrity of evidence [Paras 20-28].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted – High Court underscores importance of adherence to prescribed procedures for seizure and sampling to ensure fair trial and uphold justice [Para 32-33].

Bail – NDPS Act – Regular Bail – Petitioner (Accused No.2) involved in illegal possession and transportation of 48 kgs of Ganja – Arrested on 02.03.2024 and in judicial custody since then – Entire investigation completed except filing of charge sheet – Bail granted with conditions – Petitioner to execute a personal bond for Rs.10,000/- with two sureties – Required to appear before the Station House Officer once a week until charge sheet filing [Paras 2-9].

Investigation Status – Completion and Bail Considerations – Acknowledgment of completed investigation barring charge sheet submission – Court inclined to grant bail considering the petitioner’s prolonged detention without trial progression [Paras 4-8].

Bail Conditions – Personal Bond and Sureties – Requirement of Rs.10,000/- bond and sureties – Weekly appearance mandate before Station House Officer to ensure compliance and presence [Paras 8-9].

Decision:

Criminal Petition allowed. Petitioner granted bail with specified conditions.

Bail – NDPS Act – Commercial Quantity Recovery – Procedural Irregularities – Petitioner seeking regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a case under Section 22 of the NDPS Act, involving recovery of commercial quantity of Tramadol Hydrochloride – Contention that recovery was a chance discovery made by a police party in a private vehicle, not recorded in the police zimni – Court noted procedural irregularities and prolonged incarceration – Bail granted [Paras 1-10].

Right to Speedy Trial – Article 21 of the Constitution – Emphasized the right to a speedy trial as part of the right to life and liberty under Article 21 – Highlighted the principle that “Bail is a rule, jail is an exception” – Reference to precedents asserting the importance of minimizing pre-conviction detention periods [Paras 6-8].

Decision:

Petition allowed – Petitioner granted regular bail on furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court – Court clarified that observations made should not be construed as opinions on the merits of the case [Paras 9-10].

Guardian Appointment – Vegetative State – Petitioners requested the court to appoint the petitioner no.1 as the guardian and manager of the properties of her husband, who is in a vegetative state since 2019. The court reviewed the medical condition and the affidavits filed by the family members, noting the absence of legislative provisions for appointing a guardian in such cases and invoking its parens patriae jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to provide the requested relief [Paras 1-18].

Parens Patriae Doctrine – Application in Absence of Legislation – The court referenced judgments emphasizing the role of parens patriae when no statutory remedy exists for appointing guardians for persons in comatose states. The court outlined specific guidelines and conditions for the guardianship to ensure the best interest of the patient and prevent misuse of power [Paras 10-13].

Decision: The petition was partly allowed. The petitioner no.1, Anjuben Karansinh Dodiya, was declared as the guardian and manager of the movable and immovable properties of the patient, Karansinh Rajusinh Dodiya, subject to periodic reporting and monitoring by the Registrar General of the High Court of Gujarat and a public official/Social Welfare Officer. The guardianship will remain effective until the patient recovers from the comatose state [Para 15-18].

Promissory Note – Validity and Execution – Suit for recovery based on a promissory note allegedly executed by the appellant – Trial court ruled in favor of the respondent – Appellant contested the authenticity of the note and its execution – High Court affirmed trial court’s decision, citing sufficient evidence supporting the genuineness of the note and the transaction [Paras 1-19].

Promissory Note – Burden of Proof – Plaintiff’s evidence substantiated the execution and consideration of the promissory note – Appellant’s denial of the signature and transaction deemed unconvincing – High Court highlighted the importance of corroborative testimony from attestors and the scribe of the promissory note [Paras 14-18].

Evidence Act – Section 73 – Court’s power to compare signatures – Trial court’s comparison of disputed signatures with admitted ones upheld – High Court stressed the judicial discretion allowed under Section 73 for comparing signatures without necessarily seeking expert opinion [Paras 17-18].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Trial court’s decree and judgment affirmed – No costs awarded.

Customs Law – Suspension of Broker License – Appeal against suspension of Customs Broker License – CESTAT upheld suspension citing proportional penalty for facilitating fraudulent exports – Supreme Court found suspension under Regulation 16 as an interim measure, not a penalty – CESTAT erred in construing suspension as penalty and perpetuating it indefinitely – Order set aside [Paras 1-9].

Customs Broker Obligations – Regulation 10(n) – Violation Alleged – Appellant accused of failing to verify client details per Regulation 10(n) – Evidence showed appellant relied on official documents (IEC, GSTIN) – Physical verification not required – CESTAT misinterpreted obligations under Regulation 10(n) – No violation established [Paras 10-12].

Evidence and Procedure – Statement of authorized representative recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act – Statement confirmed official documentation and business activities of the exporter – Tribunal's reliance on this evidence deemed insufficient to prove violation [Paras 10-12].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order of CESTAT set aside – No violation of Regulation 10(n) established – Suspension of license lifted [Para 14].

Condonation of Delay – Divorce Proceedings – Remarriage of Respondent – Appeal against the decree of divorce granted ex-parte – Appellant’s delay in filing appeal attributed to lack of communication from her advocate – First appellate court’s refusal to condone delay upheld – Consideration of husband’s remarriage during pendency of delay condonation application significant – Held, appeal and condonation application infructuous due to remarriage [Paras 1-13].

Effect of Remarriage Post-Decree of Divorce – Section 15 of Hindu Marriage Act – Legal validity of remarriage post-divorce decree if no appeal filed within limitation period – Held, second marriage lawful in absence of appeal or stay on decree – No distinction between ex-parte and contested divorce decrees under Section 15 – Appeal against divorce decree filed after respondent’s remarriage considered infructuous [Paras 6-12].

Principle of Finality and Legal Certainty – Importance of timely appeal in divorce matters – Courts emphasize on maintaining finality and certainty in matrimonial disputes to prevent complications arising from subsequent marriages – Reiteration of settled law that remarriage post-divorce decree, without pending appeal, is lawful [Paras 7-9].

Decision:

Second appeal dismissed – Decree of divorce and refusal to condone delay affirmed – Appeal declared infructuous due to respondent’s remarriage – Legal principles of Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act applied.