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].

NDPS Act – Joinder of Charges – Section 218 Cr.P.C. Violated – Discharge Granted – Applicant was charged under Sections 8(c), 22(b), 27A and 29 of the NDPS Act based on alleged procurement of 44 grams of mephedrone in small quantities over 18 months – Held: Charges for distinct acts of procurement spread over more than a year could not be tried jointly in the absence of compliance with Section 219 Cr.P.C. – Prosecution failed to establish legal basis for joinder of more than three offences over 18 months – Charges framed were legally unsustainable [Paras 9–16].

Evidentiary Standard – WhatsApp Chats and Co-Accused Confession – No Prima Facie Material – Prosecution relied on WhatsApp chats between applicant and co-accused and confession of co-accused – Held: Chats did not refer to contraband or specific transactions; confession of co-accused inadmissible under Section 25 of Evidence Act – No recovery from applicant – Mere hearsay insufficient to frame charges under Sections 27A and 29 NDPS Act [Paras 17–20].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Section 397 Cr.P.C. – Scope and Application – Orders Quashed – High Court held that invocation of severe charges without adhering to procedural safeguards constitutes error of law – Held: Trial court orders rejecting discharge showed failure of application of mind and non-compliance with Cr.P.C. – Discharge application allowed and revision application upheld [Paras 7–8, 21–24].

Decision: Criminal Revision Application allowed – Orders dated 04/07/2023 and 07/10/2023 passed by the Special Judge in NDPS Special Case No.711 of 2021 quashed – Applicant discharged under Sections 8(c), 22(b), 27A and 29 of NDPS Act [Paras 22–24].

Civil Law - Partition Suit – Modification of Preliminary Decree – No Notice to Purchaser – Dismissal Upheld – Preliminary decree defining co-sharers' shares passed in 1979 – After death of a co-sharer in 1993, another co-sharer sold disputed share without seeking court modification – Application to recall 2012 order modifying decree rejected – Held: Legal heirs had withdrawn from litigation after selling interests; petitioner was aware of litigation and failed to act in time – Modification valid – Recall rightly rejected [Paras 42-45, 57-59, 62-64].

Inheritance Dispute – Applicability of Dayabhaga Law – No Pleadings Raised – Argument Rejected – Petitioner claimed under Dayabhaga law as brother’s heir to justify purchase of disputed share – Held: No foundational pleadings or proof supporting Dayabhaga applicability; parties had proceeded under Mitakshara assumptions throughout – Question not adjudicated in earlier stages – Not entertained under Article 227 jurisdiction [Paras 28-31, 52-54].

Bonafide Purchaser – No Protection under Section 41 TPA – Notice of Litigation – Agreement Executed without Modification of Preliminary Decree – Petitioner entered into agreement in 1995 knowing property was under litigation – No modification of decree to include purchased share – Held: No protection as bonafide purchaser – Purchaser knowingly stepped into disputed title – Section 41 not applicable [Paras 44-46, 55, 58].

Ex-Parte Order Allegation – Service by Publication and Substitution Applications Considered – Legal Heirs Chose Not to Contest – Petitioner Delayed Action – Held: Modification order not ex-parte; heirs served and chose not to participate – Recall application filed nine years later rightly rejected – No procedural lapse by court [Paras 48, 50, 63-64].

Concurrent Jurisdiction – Application Moved in One Case, Order Passed in Connected Case – Final Decree Proceedings Parallel – No Prejudice – Final Decree Cases Nos. 111/1980 and 33/1997 were consolidated in substance – Application filed in one but order recorded in another – Held: Clerical variance not fatal – Intent of order to vary shares upheld [Paras 65-66].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Recall of 2012 Modification Order Denied – Petitioner failed to establish any procedural illegality or miscarriage of justice – Modification of preliminary decree proper – Petition dismissed with direction to send records to lower court [Paras 68-70].

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].

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].

Arbitration Law - Arbitration Agreement – Prima Facie Existence – Appointment of Arbitrator – Arbitration Clause Survives Termination of Contract – Respondents objected to invocation of arbitration on the ground that the MoU and Agreement of Sale stood terminated by efflux of time – Held: The arbitration agreement is a separate contract and survives the termination of the principal contract – The effect of the Indemnity Bond and the claim of termination are issues to be decided by the arbitral tribunal and not at the Section 11 stage – Appointment of arbitrator ordered [Paras 14-16].

Insufficient Stamping – Objection Not Maintainable at Referral Stage – Respondents objected to enforceability of arbitration clause citing insufficient stamping – Held: Following the 7-Judge Bench decision in In Re: Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements and Stamp Act, the referral court under Section 11 cannot decide stamping objections – Such objections are to be dealt with by the arbitral tribunal – Objection rejected [Paras 13].

Interpretation of Arbitration Clause – Use of Word ‘May’ – Whether Mandatory or Directory – The arbitration clause in the Agreement of Sale used the word ‘may’ – Held: Where the intention to arbitrate is clear from reading the MoU and the Agreement of Sale together, use of ‘may’ does not dilute the enforceability of the arbitration clause – MoU contains a clear binding arbitration clause – Both agreements are interconnected and form part of the same transaction – Arbitration clause held valid and binding [Paras 17-18].

Scope of Court’s Power Under Section 11 – Referral Court’s Role Limited – Courts at Section 11 stage cannot decide on the merits of termination, novation, or arbitrability of disputes – The court’s role is limited to examining whether a prima facie arbitration agreement exists – Issues such as termination of contract, effect of the indemnity bond, and whether disputes are arbitrable fall within the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal [Paras 15-16].

Decision – Arbitration Application Allowed – Justice V.V.S. Rao (Retd.) appointed as sole arbitrator – Parties are at liberty to raise all issues including termination, stamping, and arbitrability before the arbitral tribunal – Miscellaneous applications stand closed [Para 20].

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 - Section 363, 376 of the IPC & Section 4 of the POCSO Act - Framing of Charge – Scope under Sections 227 & 228 CrPC – Legal Principles Reiterated – Held that at the stage of framing of charge, the court has to sift the evidence for limited purposes to determine whether a prima facie case exists – A strong suspicion suffices but the court cannot act as a mere post office – Reaffirmed the legal tests laid down in Prafulla Kumar Samal, Dilawar Balu Kurane, Sajjan Kumar, and Shashikant Sharma cases [Paras 7-13].

Kidnapping – Ingredients Not Made Out – Section 363 IPC – No Evidence of Enticement or Inducement – Both minor victims in their Section 164 CrPC statements clearly stated that they voluntarily took lift in petitioner’s vehicle without any allurement or coercion – Held that mere offering of a lift without inducement does not amount to kidnapping – Charge under Section 363 IPC unsustainable [Paras 14, 15, 22].

Rape – Lack of Evidence – Section 376 IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act – No Statement from Victims Alleging Sexual Assault – Medical report indicated prior sexual intercourse but did not connect the petitioner to the act – Absence of scientific or corroborative evidence such as forensic findings – Held: Charges for rape/penetrative sexual assault cannot be sustained merely on medical opinion without any supporting testimony or material connecting the accused – Charges quashed [Paras 19, 23].

Test for Framing Charge – Mere Existence of FIR and Medical Opinion Not Enough – The trial court failed to apply its mind to evaluate whether the material disclosed the commission of offences – Held that broad probabilities and totality of material should be considered but without conducting a mini trial – Trial court's mechanical framing of charges without requisite satisfaction is unsustainable [Paras 20, 24].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Charges framed under Section 363, 376 IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act set aside – Petitioner discharged – Challan dismissed – Observed that prosecution material did not raise even grave suspicion against the petitioner [Paras 25-26].