Civil Revision - Court Fee – Maintainability of Revision by Defendant – Petition Dismissed as Withdrawn – The petitioners challenged the trial court’s order rejecting their application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on grounds of improper court fee – Held: As per settled law, revision against decisions on court fee at the instance of the defendant is not maintainable – Petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to raise the plea at trial stage [Paras 1-2, 5].

Jurisdiction – Objection on Valuation and Court Fee – To Be Considered During Trial – Petitioners permitted to withdraw revision and pursue objections during trial – Held: Plea of improper valuation and non-payment of ad valorem court fee raised in written statement shall be considered independently by trial court, uninfluenced by impugned order [Paras 3-5].

Decision – Revision Petition Dismissed as Withdrawn – Liberty Granted – Petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to raise pleas in accordance with law at the stage of final adjudication – Trial court directed to consider the same de hors observations in impugned order [Para 5].

Arbitration Law - Arbitral Jurisdiction – Judicial Review under Articles 226/227 – Scope of Intervention Limited – The writ appeal challenged the Single Bench’s interference with an arbitral tribunal’s order under Section 16 of the Arbitration Act – Held: High Court’s intervention under Article 226/227 is impermissible unless there is a patent lack of jurisdiction, perversity, or bad faith – The tribunal acted within its jurisdiction in deciding the nature of the agreement – Interference unjustified [Paras 1, 6-7, 18-19, 24-25].

Nature of Agreement – Sale vs. Agreement for Sale – Interpretation by Tribunal Final – The respondent claimed the agreement was a sale deed and thus liable for higher stamp duty under Article 23 – The tribunal held it was an agreement for sale and not a conveyance – Held: Interpretation of contractual clauses is within arbitral tribunal’s exclusive domain – Court should not substitute its view unless the finding is perverse or without jurisdiction [Paras 3-4, 20-23].

Stamp Act – Stampability Dispute – Tribunal Empowered to Decide – Arbitral tribunal rejected the plea of insufficient stamping raised belatedly based on N.N. Global judgment – Held: The tribunal’s finding that the agreement did not attract duty under Article 23 is not demonstrably perverse – Impounding was not warranted – Writ Court erred in substituting its view [Paras 6-7, 21-24].

Arbitration Framework – Challenge to Section 16 Orders – Writ Petition Not Maintainable – Section 37 of the Act does not provide for appeal against rejection of a Section 16 plea – Such orders can only be challenged after the final award under Section 34 – Held: Entertaining a writ petition against a Section 16 order undermines the arbitration process – High Courts must discourage such challenges [Paras 13-17].

Extraordinary Jurisdiction – Articles 226/227 – Only in Exceptional Cases – The Court reiterated that judicial review over arbitral orders should be exercised only in rare cases involving bad faith, perversity, or inherent lack of jurisdiction – Held: No such ground existed in the present matter – Single Bench exceeded its jurisdiction [Paras 18-19].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Interference by Single Bench Set Aside – The Division Bench set aside the judgment of the Single Bench and restored the arbitral tribunal’s order – Held: Tribunal’s finding on stampability and nature of contract was within its jurisdiction – Appeal allowed, no costs [Paras 24-26].

NDPS Act – Bail in Commercial Quantity Case – Section 37 NDPS Act – Bail Rejected – Petitioners arrested with 203.306 kg of ganja filed for bail under Sections 437 and 439 CrPC and Sections 480 and 483 BNSS – Petitioners argued prolonged incarceration of 641 days infringed Article 21 rights – Court held that twin conditions under Section 37 of NDPS Act were not satisfied – Held: Prolonged incarceration insufficient for bail in commercial quantity cases unless accused undergoes a substantial part of sentence or trial is unduly delayed beyond threshold – Petitioners' detention of 641 days not enough to override Section 37 limitations – Bail Denied [Paras 1-3, 6, 21-23].

Fundamental Rights – Article 21 – Right to Speedy Trial vs. Statutory Bar on Bail under NDPS Act – Petitioners cited Apex Court judgments supporting bail due to violation of right to speedy trial – Court distinguished those cases based on longer durations of custody (2.5+ years) – Held: While right to speedy trial is sacrosanct, the NDPS Act’s restrictions cannot be lightly ignored unless prolonged and unjustified delay is clearly shown – Mere delay insufficient without crossing statutory thresholds – Petitioners not entitled to conditional liberty overriding Section 37 [Paras 7-10, 21-22].

Judicial Discretion – Limitations under NDPS Act – Section 37 Must Be Strictly Complied With – Respondent relied on binding precedents mandating that courts must not grant bail in commercial quantity drug cases unless both conditions under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) are satisfied – Held: Section 37’s bar is mandatory and non-derogable unless twin conditions are cumulatively satisfied – Court not satisfied that petitioners are not guilty or unlikely to reoffend – Bail refused [Paras 11-20].

Final Decision – Criminal Petition Dismissed – Trial Court Directed to Expedite Trial – Court dismissed the bail petition due to non-fulfillment of statutory requirements – Directed the trial court to conclude the trial within six months in accordance with law [Para 23].

Criminal Law - Summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C. – Fresh Evidence Not Mandatory – Application Allowed Based on PW1’s Testimony – The petitioners were previously declared innocent by SIT and placed in Column 2 of the challan – Held: Trial court rightly exercised discretion under Section 319 Cr.P.C. based on examination-in-chief of complainant (PW1) implicating the petitioners – No need for cross-examination at this stage – Summoning valid [Paras 2, 4, 7-9].

Investigative Finding – Not Binding on Court – SIT's Declaration of Innocence Does Not Preclude Summoning – The SIT had declared six accused including the petitioners as innocent relying on alibi supported by CCTV and CDRs – Held: Investigative findings are not final and cannot override the power of the court under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon persons named in evidence [Paras 3, 7-9].

Alibi – To Be Decided at Trial – Petitioners' Plea of Alibi Based on CCTV and CDRs – Held: Such plea is a matter of trial – Cannot bar summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C. where eye-witnesses have implicated the petitioners in direct testimony – Trial court rightly summoned petitioners to face trial along with co-accused [Paras 4, 8-9].

Dismissal of Prior Application under Section 193 Cr.P.C. – No Bar to Application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. – Earlier application under Section 193 Cr.P.C. had been rejected and confirmed in revision – Held: Rejection under Section 193 Cr.P.C. does not preclude fresh summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C. based on evidence adduced during trial [Paras 3-4, 8].

Summoning Based on Examination-in-Chief – Permissible – No Requirement of Cross-examination – Citing Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab – Held: Examination-in-chief is valid basis for summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C.; Evidence need not be tested by cross-examination at this stage [Paras 8-9].

Decision – Revision Dismissed – No Infirmity in Order of Trial Court – Petitioners failed to show legal perversity or arbitrariness in trial court’s exercise of discretion under Section 319 Cr.P.C. – Summoning order upheld – Revision petition dismissed [Para 9].

Criminal Law – Appeal Against Conviction - Robbery – Contradictions in Prosecution Evidence – Benefit of Doubt – Conviction Set Aside – Acquittal -Appellants convicted for robbery under Sections 395/34 IPC challenged conviction citing discrepancies in witness testimonies regarding place, time of arrest, and recovery of stolen items – Court found material contradictions in statements of key witnesses, inconsistencies on recovery sources, non-sealing of seized articles, and non-joining of public witnesses despite availability – Such lapses undermined authenticity of prosecution case – Held: Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellants acquitted [Paras 13-14, 17-18].

Criminal Trial – Non-Joining of Public Witnesses – Effect – Failure to associate independent witnesses, despite availability, throws doubt on fairness of investigation – Cited Pawan Kumar v. Delhi Administration (1987) CC 585 DHC – No plausible explanation offered – Adverse inference drawn against prosecution [Para 14].

Standard of Proof – Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof – Reiterated Supreme Court rulings in Wahid v. State (Cr. A. No. 201/2020) and Ashish Batham v. State of M.P. (2002) 7 SCC 317 – Mere suspicion, however strong, is not a substitute for proof beyond reasonable doubt – Benefit of doubt must go to accused [Paras 16-18].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 395/34 IPC quashed – Bail bonds cancelled, sureties discharged [Paras 18-19].

Service Law - Transfer Policy – Mass Transfers at behest of Public Representatives – G.O.Ms.No.23 (15.05.2025) & G.O.Ms.No.5 (12.06.2025) – Partial Allowance/Remand – Common order on batch WPs challenging 2025 transfers; Court finds large-scale recommendations by MLAs/MPs fixed both transfer and posting, undermining executive instructions; directs fresh counselling strictly per G.O.Ms.No.23 & 5 for erstwhile Kurnool & Krishna; petitions from other districts dismissed; plea against DAO’s jurisdiction rejected [Paras 22–25, 26–32].

Judicial Review of Transfers – Scope – Guidelines vs. Public Interest – Courts’ Restraint – Reiterated that transfer orders made in public interest/administrative reasons are ordinarily immune to interference, absent breach of statutory mandate or mala fides – Shilpi Bose; Major General J.K. Bansal cited [Paras 13–16].

Public Representatives’ Recommendations – Permissible Limits – Recommendation per se does not vitiate transfer (Mohd. Masood Ahmad; Sri Pubi Lombi) – but mass-scale postings dictated by such letters, fixing both transfer and destination, dehors the policy, are impermissible – present record shows exceptionally high numbers in erstwhile Kurnool & Krishna; interference warranted [Paras 23–29].

Transparency & Seniority Handling – Counselling Exercise and Station Seniority – First transfer since 2019 DSC appointments required heightened transparency; Kurnool/ Krishna counselling taken manually; options invited on 28–30.06.2025; orders issued same day; lists based on date of birth used for inter se order; exercise held wanting vis-à-vis G.O.Ms.No.5/Clause 8 [Paras 21–22].

Jurisdiction of Issuing Authority – District Agricultural Officer / Joint Director of Agriculture – Objection overruled: by G.O.Ms.No.35 (30.01.2020) JDA made appointing authority; by G.O.Ms.No.31 (26.02.2022) “District Agricultural Officer” used as generic designation; impugned orders not without competence [Para 30].

Directions / Disposition – (i) WPs from erstwhile Kurnool & Krishna allowed; fresh counselling to be conducted strictly under G.O.Ms.No.23 (15.05.2025) and G.O.Ms.No.5 (12.06.2025); (ii) WPs from other districts dismissed; (iv) No costs [Para 32].*

Civil Law  – RDB Act ss.2(g), 17, 18, 19 & 31 – Transfer of pending bank suit to DRT after amalgamation – Petition Dismissed – HDFC Ltd.’s recovery suit (2007) became a bank’s claim post-amalgamation with HDFC Bank Ltd.; held: “debt” under s.2(g) covers liabilities claimed as due by a bank during its business (including assigned/amalgamated claims); s.18 bars civil court jurisdiction; s.31 read purposively to effectuate the bar; transfer to DRT proper – Writ petition dismissed; interim protection continued for six weeks [Paras 2–5, 10–24, 29–30].

Definition of “Debt” – Claim by Bank during business – Includes assigned/amalgamated loans – RDB Act s.2(g) – Court rejects argument that only amounts originally advanced by a bank qualify; plain text covers any liability “claimed as due… by a bank… during the course of” its business; recovery of loans taken over via assignment/amalgamation falls within s.2(g) [Paras 14–15].

Section 31 vs Sections 17 & 18 – Purposive Construction – Civil Court’s Jurisdiction Ousted – Though the case may not literally fit s.31’s transfer text (suit filed after DRT establishment), s.18’s negative bar and s.17’s conferral of exclusive jurisdiction require pending matters falling within DRT’s remit to go to DRT; s.31 is procedural and reinforces this bar [Paras 16–23].

Amalgamation v. Assignment – Effect on Party Status & Forum – On amalgamation, the transferor company loses its entity; present plaintiff prosecutes not as assignee but as successor, strengthening DRT jurisdiction post-merger – Saraswati Industrial Syndicate applied [Paras 25–28].

Precedents – Delhi DB in Kotak Mahindra supports transfer to DRT after assignment; SC in United Bank of India and Allahabad Bank v. Canara Bank emphasise DRT’s exclusive domain – Division Bench (Delhi) held suits become non-maintainable on original side after assignment to a bank; Supreme Court explains s.31 must be read to ensure bank suits are decided by Tribunals; DRT’s adjudicatory jurisdiction is exclusive [Paras 10–12].

Decision – Writ petition dismissed – Order dated 04/04/2024 transferring Commercial Suit No. 12/2019 to DRT, Aurangabad sustained – Interim order continued for six weeks [Paras 29–30].

Criminal Law - Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Quashing of Summoning Order in prosecution under FSS Act – Dismissed – Petitioners, including Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd., its nominees, Banaskantha District Co-op. Milk Producers’ Union Ltd., and CP Wholesale India Pvt. Ltd., sought quashing of summoning order dated 18.01.2021 in complaint for alleged sale of unsafe, sub-standard, and misbranded ‘Amul’ ghee – Petitioners claimed seized product was counterfeit, not supplied/manufactured by them, and proceedings were barred by limitation under Section 77 FSS Act – Court held that invoices, internal records, and counterfeit allegations are private documents requiring proof at trial; not a ground for quashing at summoning stage – Commissioner validly extended limitation under proviso to Section 77 citing COVID-19 lockdown and delayed responses – No exceptional ground made out – Petitions dismissed; summoning order upheld [Paras 42-46, 47-48].

Counterfeit Product Allegation – Evidentiary burden lies at trial stage – Petitioners’ reliance on batch distribution records and prior complaint against distributor to show counterfeit nature of seized goods cannot be conclusively accepted at pre-trial stage – Determination of genuineness of product is a matter of evidence [Paras 42-43].

Limitation under Section 77 FSS Act – Complaint within extended time – Though complaint filed beyond one year from seizure date (07.03.2019), Commissioner of Food Safety recorded reasons and granted extension up to three years under Section 77 proviso – Complaint filed on 03.09.2020 held within time [Paras 44-46].

Decision – No ground made out for quashing; petitions dismissed; summoning order dated 18.01.2021 sustained [Paras 47-48].

Civil Law - Review – CPC Order 47 Rule 1 / Section 114 – “Innocuous” Direction Procured by Suppression – Recall Justified – Common order dated 23/06/2025 in W.P. No. 22484/2025 directed CMDA to consider petitioner’s representation without notice to the affected builder; review applicant showed that material facts (consents/agreements, EC minutes, pending civil suit) were concealed, and the order was misused through public notices – Held: Non-disclosure amounts to unclean hands; error apparent; order reviewed and recalled; writ petition dismissed [Paras 3, 5–7, 13–18].

Suppression of Material Facts – Abuse of Process – Public Notices Misrepresenting Relief – Writ petitioner sought only consideration of representation; yet issued newspaper notices projecting challenge to planning/building permissions – Such concealment/misrepresentation condemned; sufficient to dismiss writ at threshold [Paras 13–16].

Contractual Consent & Association Resolutions – Clauses Permitting Reconstitution/Phase-II and EC Minutes Allowing Construction – Clause 20 of construction agreement authorised plan amendments/reconstitution with neighbouring property and additional FSI/TDR; handing-over agreement Clause 8 recorded ingress/egress to Phase II and common amenities; EC minutes (31.07.2021 & 29.08.2021) permitted continuation of Phase II Block-4 – Non-disclosure vitiated writ relief [Paras 8–10].

Parallel Civil Proceedings – Pending Suit on Contractual Clauses – O.S. No. 74 of 2025 seeking declaration/injunction against access/amenities noted; had it been disclosed, parties would have been relegated to civil court – Another reason to review/recall [Paras 11–12, 15].

Process – No Prior Notice in Writ Due to Limited/“Innocuous” Prayer – Acceptable at admission stage; but once abuse surfaces, Court can correct course in review jurisdiction [Paras 3(ii)-(iii), 16–18].

Decision – Review allowed – Order dated 23/06/2025 in W.P. No. 22484/2025 reviewed and recalled – Writ petition dismissed – No costs – Connected WMPs closed [Para 18].*