Arbitration – Interim Award on Limitation – Premature Decision without Evidence – Found Contrary to Fundamental Policy - Arbitrator decided limitation issue as preliminary issue solely on demurrer relying only on claimant's pleadings – Arbitrator himself noted that with evidence the outcome might differ – Held: Decision violates judicial approach requirement under fundamental policy of Indian law – Interim award modified [Paras 19-25]. 
 
Section 34 Arbitration Act – Scope of Judicial Review – Limited but Permissible when Award Contravenes Fundamental Policy - Held: Court cannot review award on merits but can interfere when award is perverse or based on flawed procedure breaching judicial approach – Such breach occurred as limitation was decided without parties' evidence [Paras 13-19]. 
 
Estoppel – Consent to Procedure for Preliminary Issue – Respondents Not Estopped – Arbitrator Misread Proceedings - Held: Respondents’ initial willingness to argue limitation issue did not waive their right to lead evidence – Objection was raised at appropriate stage – Arbitrator wrongly foreclosed right to evidence [Paras 21-24]. 
 
Public Policy – Award Rendered in Violation of Fundamental Policy of Indian Law – Modification Upheld - Held: Arbitrator's approach was against principles of natural justice and judicial approach - Modified order by Single Judge justified - Appeal dismissed [Paras 24-26]. 
 
Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Arbitrator to Re-examine Limitation Issue Based on Evidence - Modification of interim award sustained – Arbitrator to decide limitation issue afresh based on evidence [Para 26]. 
 

Criminal Law – Rape – Appeal Against Conviction - Consistency and Reliability of Victim’s Testimony – Conviction Upheld – The appellant challenged the conviction on the ground that the victim’s story was improbable due to her conduct post-incident and absence of immediate complaint – Held: The victim had reasonable explanation for not lodging immediate complaint as she was influenced by the wife of the accused and was in a distressed condition – The delay does not cause material doubt on the prosecution case – The evidence of the victim is trustworthy and inspires confidence – No material contradictions found to discard her testimony [Paras 16-37]. 
 
Medical Evidence – Injuries and Corroboration – Conviction Supported – The victim’s version was corroborated by medical evidence of four doctors – Bite marks and contusions on sensitive parts like breasts were noticed, which were consistent with her version of forceful assault – Defence argument regarding absence of semen and lack of exact age of bite marks is not sufficient to discard the medical findings – Injuries were found to be fresh and possible due to resistance during the assault [Paras 22-36]. 
 
Delays in Reporting – Impact on Credibility – Delay Explained Satisfactorily – Victim’s reluctance to lodge the complaint immediately was due to threats by the accused and emotional influence of accused’s wife – Her delay was natural considering the circumstances and was adequately explained by subsequent conduct and testimony – Such delay does not create any material doubt [Paras 37-43]. 
 
Law on Rape Convictions – No Corroboration Mandatorily Required – Reliance Placed on Supreme Court Judgment – The court reaffirmed that corroboration is not a sine qua non if the victim’s evidence is trustworthy – Reference made to State of Punjab vs. Gurmeet Singh (1996) 2 SCC 384 – Court can convict based on sole testimony of the prosecutrix if it inspires confidence – Defence failed to prove any ulterior motive or false implication [Paras 38-42]. 
 
Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The court upheld the conviction recorded by the trial court holding the appellant guilty under Sections 376(2)(n), 323, and 506 of IPC – No infirmity found in the judgment – Appeal dismissed as devoid of merit [Paras 44-45]. 
 

Guardianship – Applicability of JJ Act over Guardians and Wards Act – JJ

Act Held Applicable – Children were found to be orphans within Section 2(42)(ii) of JJ Act as their mother was missing and mentally incapacitated and maternal grandmother expressed inability to care – Court held that JJ Act overrides the Guardians and Wards Act in such cases – Guardianship application under the 1890 Act not maintainable [Paras 25, 49-50, 76].

Child Welfare – Institutionalization Not Mandatory – Principle of Last Resort – Direct Placement Possible – Section 3(xii) mandates institutionalization only if no fit person or family support is available – Held: Court or CWC must first explore possibility of placement with a “fit person” including appellant who acted as caregiver since birth – Institutionalization not compulsory in such peculiar facts [Paras 57-66].

Definition of Orphan – Distinction between Orphan, Abandoned and Surrendered Child – Orphan Status Attracted – Appellant argued children were not abandoned or surrendered – Held: Children were orphans under Section 2(42)(ii) as legal guardian (mother) was mentally incapacitated and missing – Formal declaration of abandonment or surrender unnecessary [Paras 45-49].

Family Support – Concept Broadened – De Facto Caregiver Can Constitute Family Support – Held: “Family” in Section 32(1) JJ Act not limited to blood relatives – Appellant, who cared for children since birth with grandmother’s consent, amounts to family support – Children not orphans “without family support” to warrant automatic institutionalization [Paras 53-56].

Child Welfare Committee – Power to Place Children with Fit Person – CWC Directed to Consider Placement with Appellant – CWC directed to conduct inquiry under Section 36, giving appellant opportunity to be declared as “fit person” under Section 37(1)(d) or consider other suitable options like foster care or sponsorship before resorting to institutionalization [Paras 73-77].

Best Interest of Child – Welfare Paramount – JJ Act Principles Applied – Court emphasized that welfare of children is paramount under Section 3 of JJ Act – Existing bonding with appellant and continuous care since birth tilt balance against disrupting their placement without careful inquiry [Paras 5772].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Order Modified – Matter Remitted to CWC – Application under Guardians and Wards Act rejected but Court directed CWC to conduct inquiry and explore placement of children with appellant as a “fit person” or under other suitable non-institutional schemes as per JJ Act [Paras 73-77].

Criminal Law – Conviction under Sections 498A, 302, and 201 IPC – Conviction set aside due to lack of direct evidence and incomplete chain of circumstantial evidence - The prosecution failed to establish any cogent and consistent link between the appellants and the crime – Star witness PW-15's testimony disbelieved due to delay, omissions, and improbabilities – Defence theory of suicide not ruled out – Held: Conviction cannot be sustained [Paras 56-93]. 
 
Section 498A IPC – Allegations of Cruelty – Vague and Omnibus Allegations Insufficient – Conviction unsustainable - No contemporaneous complaint, specific incidents, or details of cruelty alleged – Witnesses depose general dissatisfaction and quarrels without meeting the legal requirements of cruelty under Section 498A IPC – Trial Court wrongly convicted based on conjectures [Paras 55-58]. 
 
Section 106 Evidence Act – No Shift of Burden – Absence of Proof of Presence of Accused - Prosecution failed to prove that appellants were present at the scene at the time of occurrence – Application of Section 106 Evidence Act to infer guilt was misplaced – Mere relationship with deceased or proximity to the incident does not justify shifting burden to accused [Paras 59-61, 75-79, 82]. 
 
Testimony of PW-15 – Delayed Statement under Section 164 CrPC – Reliability Doubtful – Statement rejected - PW-15, a crucial prosecution witness, did not mention incriminating facts in the FIR or inquest report – Delay of over two weeks in recording Section 164 statement unexplained – No prior Section 161 statement recorded – Held: Statement is unreliable and likely an afterthought [Paras 62-71]. 
 
Post-Mortem Evidence – Conducted by Unqualified Person – Opinion Lacking Forensic Value - Post-mortem done under supervision of a doctor without forensic expertise and performed by a Dom untrained for dissection – Report lacked essential details like burn percentage, type of asphyxia, or time of death – Held: Medical evidence unfit for reliance [Paras 83-87]. 
 
Circumstantial Evidence – Failure to Complete Chain – Possibility of Suicide Plausible – Prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt - Absence of credible motive, no clear eyewitnesses to the crime, serious lacunae in investigation and medical evidence – Defence theory of suicide or self-inflicted death held probable – Conviction set aside [Paras 84-90]. 
 
Decision – Appeals Allowed – Conviction and Sentences Under Sections 498A, 302, 201 IPC Set Aside – Appellants Acquitted - Held: Prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt – Appellants released [Paras 90-93]. 
 

Service Law – Departmental Appeal – Punishment Enhanced Without Notice – Order Set Aside – Petitioner, a police officer, was initially punished with forfeiture of two increments after an incident involving a minor—Home Secretary enhanced punishment to reduction in rank without issuing notice – Held: Enhancement of penalty without show cause notice violates Rule 16.28(3) of Punjab Police Rules – Order set aside as procedurally illegal [Paras 1–3, 6–11].

Rule 16.28 PPR – Enhancement of Penalty – Review Must Follow Due Process – Respondents claimed Home Secretary acted under Rule 16.28 PPR – Held: Enhancement in appeal cannot be justified under review powers unless separate review proceedings are initiated with due notice – Procedure under Rule 16.28 not followed, making order unsustainable [Paras 7–13].

Merits of Misconduct – Disproportionate Punishment – Incident Did Not Involve Misuse of Authority – Petitioner acted during official duty, found two condoms in a minor’s vehicle—No direct act of abuse or harassment attributed to him – Held: Disciplinary authority’s original punishment of two increment forfeitures was proportionate – Further enhancement unjustified [Para 14].

Judicial Precedent – Appellate Authority Cannot Enhance Punishment Without Power – Ref: Nirvair Singh v. Financial Commissioner Taxation, 2019 (20) GSTL 349 – Held: Unless statute confers specific power, appellate authority cannot impose higher penalty – Impugned action ultra vires [Paras 12–13].

Final Decision – Petition Allowed – Impugned Order Quashed – Court restores DGP’s order and sets aside Home Secretary’s order enhancing penalty – Petitioner to retain substantive rank of Head Constable [Para 15].
 

Civil Writ - Rejection of application filed under Section 32 of the Bihar Consolidation Act - Consolidation Proceedings – Effect of Completion Without Formal Denotification – Collector Rightly Declined Jurisdiction - Court held that once the Draft Scheme under Section 13(1) is finalized and certificates are issued under Section 15, and the scheme is confirmed under Section 16, the consolidation proceedings are deemed complete for all practical purposes – Mere absence of Gazette Notification under Section 26A does not revive Collector’s power under Section 32 – Petition rightly dismissed [Paras 11-12].

Concurrent Civil Suit – Title Suit Pending – Proper Forum Available – Writ Not Maintainable - Since the petitioner had already filed Title Suit No. 802 of 2020 challenging the same gift deed and seeking its cancellation, Court held that consolidation authorities need not proceed in parallel – Civil Court is appropriate forum for adjudication [Paras 11-12].

Delay – Prolonged Delay without Satisfactory Explanation – Petition Filed After 5 Years of Gift Deed - Gift deed was executed in 2016, but petition under Section 32 filed only in 2021 – Plea of petitioner that knowledge arose later was disbelieved – Court noted suppression of fact that petitioner had already participated in earlier title suits related to the same gift [Paras 10-12].

Interpretation – Sections 5 and 32 Read with Full Bench Decision – Voidness of Transfers Post-Consolidation Cannot be Invoked Indefinitely - Following Full Bench in Panna Devi and other judgments, Court reiterated that transfers made post-confirmation of consolidation proceedings cannot be challenged merely due to lack of formal notification under Section 26A if the process is otherwise completed [Paras 8-11].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Collector’s Order Upheld – Petitioner Directed to Pursue Remedy Before Civil Court [Para 13].

Civil Law - Mutation Proceedings Challenged – Based on Time-Barred Decree – Limitation Applies – Orders Quashed - Petitioners challenged mutation granted to respondent No.4 based on a 1995 final decree—Held: Mutation application filed in 2013–2014 was hopelessly barred under Article 136 of Limitation Act—Revenue authorities erred in recognizing a decree long unenforced and beyond prescribed time limits [Paras 6–13, 16].

Section 4 ROR Act – Application for Mutation Must Be Filed Within 90 Days – Mandatory Compliance Required - As per ROR Act, any person acquiring rights via court decree must apply within 90 days—Respondent No.4 failed to comply; thus mutation based on decree is invalid—Court emphasized statutory deadline cannot be relaxed casually [Paras 6, 9–10, 16].

Engrossment of Decree – Does Not Postpone Limitation – Supreme Court Precedent Applied - Citing Chiranji Lal v. Hari Das, Court held that delay in providing stamp paper or engrossment does not delay limitation—Execution period begins from decree date itself [Para 12].

Section 58B of Telangana Land Revenue Act – Not Applicable – Misapplication of Provision - Respondent authorities relied on Section 58B to validate decree—Court held it applies only to occupancy rights, not to decrees in partition suits—Erroneous legal basis rejected [Para 16].

Delay and Laches – Undue Delay Defeats Equity – Mutation Denied - Respondent No.4’s inaction for over 18 years deemed fatal—Court reiterated that law aids the vigilant and not the indolent—Principle of vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt applied [Paras 13–15].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Mutation Orders Dated 07.03.2015 and 04.11.2019 Set Aside – Revenue Records to Be Rectified – Passbooks to Be Issued to Petitioners in Accordance With Law [Para 17].

UAPA Bail – Prima Facie Case – Appellant Found in Possession of Looted Prohibited Arms – Bail Denied - Appellant apprehended in camouflaged dress along with looted prohibited bore weapons during Manipur ethnic violence – Investigation reveals Appellant’s past criminal history, training, and active participation in PLA activities – Recovery linked to stolen statearmoury weapons – Court held prima facie case under Sections 18, 23, and 39 of UAPA established, barring bail under Section 43D(5) [Paras 48-57]. 
 
Distinct FIRs – NIA FIR and Manipur FIR – Jurisdiction of NIA Valid - Appellant's contention regarding double jeopardy and re-arrest after bail rejected – Held: FIRs distinct as NIA case involves larger transnational conspiracy, while Manipur FIR relates to incident-specific charges – NIA jurisdiction upheld as MHA notification remains effective despite High Court setting aside procedural transfer order [Paras 30-34]. 
 
Co-accused Not Arrested – Discretion of Investigating Agency – Not a Ground for Bail - Court held that NIA’s selective arrest policy based on security situation and individual roles cannot be faulted – Appellant’s leadership role and influence distinguished him from co-accused who were enlarged on bail – Co-accused status cannot be a ground for parity [Paras 35-
36]. 
 
Tripod Test – Risk of Influencing Witnesses and Disturbing Public Order – Bail Refused - Appellant found to have significant local influence; apprehension that his release may aggravate law and order – Court accepted prosecution’s sealed cover materials indicating threat to peace and investigation – Bail denied considering seriousness of allegations and potential threat [Paras 55-57]. 
 
Doctrine of Speedy Trial – Not Absolute – Gravity and Prima Facie Case Under UAPA Override - Although the Court recognized the right to speedy trial under Article 21, it held that in UAPA cases, gravity of offence and national security considerations weigh against enlargement on bail unless conditions under Section 43D(5) are clearly not met [Paras 47, 57]. 
 
Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Bail Rejected – NIA Directed to Proceed with Investigation Expeditiously [Paras 57-58]. 
 

Child Custody – Trauma Due to Litigation – Modification of Custodial Arrangements Set Aside – Welfare of Child Paramount - The Family Court altered an earlier consent decree granting shared custody based on allegations of the mother violating its terms – The child, diagnosed with ADHD, was unwilling to go with the father and displayed emotional distress in court – Held: Courts must exercise parens patriae role and prioritize the child’s emotional and psychological welfare – Modification of custody based solely on presumed non-compliance of mother unsustainable when child’s trauma is evident – Impugned order set aside; original decree restored [Paras 21-31].

Child Rights – Court Appearance by Children – Guidelines Issued – Psychological Harm Recognized - The Court found that repeated court appearances had caused the child emotional breakdown and feelings of stigmatization – Held: Children should not be compelled to appear in court unless absolutely necessary – Orders passed to ensure dignity, privacy, and minimal disruption to children involved in custody disputes [Paras 23-34].

Exchange of Custody – Court Premises Not Ideal – Neutral Venues Recommended - The practice of using court premises for custody exchange can reinforce trauma in children – Held: Neutral venues, preferably chosen with parental consensus, should be prioritized unless exceptional reasons dictate otherwise – Registry directed to circulate this guideline to all Family Courts [Paras 34-35].

Decision of the Case – Appeal Allowed – Custody Arrangement Restored – Guidelines for Child-Friendly Judicial Processes - The appeal was allowed, and the original custodial arrangement restored – Detailed directions issued to ensure children’s welfare in family litigation – Registry ordered to circulate guidelines to Family Courts [Paras 31-35].