NDPS Act – Compliance with Section 50 – Search Procedure Properly Followed – Bail Denied - The petitioner alleged non-compliance of Section 50 NDPS Act, claiming he was not informed about his right to be searched before the nearest Gazetted Officer or Magistrate – Court held that the petitioner was informed in English of his right under Section 50 and refused to avail it in writing – Referring to Supreme Court rulings, the Court held that “nearest” does not mandate proximity, only intent to ensure fair procedure – Thus, compliance with Section 50 was held to be sufficient [Paras 15-16].

Constructive Possession – Recovery from Rented Premises – Exclusive Possession Proven – Bail Rejected - Petitioner challenged the recovery of 205 gms of contraband from his rented room, arguing lack of exclusive possession – Court relied on landlord’s statement under Section 161 CrPC confirming petitioner was sole occupant of the room – Held: Recovery attributable to the petitioner – no benefit of doubt at bail stage [Paras 17-18].

Procedural Lapses – Sections 57 and 52A NDPS Act – Delay in Sampling Not Fatal – Procedural Irregularities Do Not Entitle Bail - Petitioner argued non-compliance of Sections 52A and 57 due to delay in presenting the accused and drawing of sample – Court held that such procedural irregularities are not grounds for bail unless serious prejudice is shown – Sampling conducted next day held permissible – Supported by Supreme Court judgments in NCB v. Kashif and UOI v. Mohan Lal [Paras 19, 22-25].

Presence of ACP – Non-Signing of Seizure Memo Not Material – No Ground for Bail - Petitioner contended the ACP’s presence was doubtful as his signature was not on seizure memo – Court rejected this, noting the seizure memo was signed by IO and witnesses and presence of ACP was otherwise established [Paras 20-21].

Section 37 NDPS Act – Commercial Quantity Recovery – Bail Denied – Petitioner in Custody Since 15.06.2023 – No Grounds Made Out to Satisfy Twin Conditions - Charges framed, trial ongoing, and commercial quantity of contraband recovered – No material before Court to infer petitioner is unlikely to reoffend or that case is prima facie not true – Bail application dismissed in view of Section 37 embargo [Paras 26-27].

Decision – Bail Application Dismissed – Commercial Quantity Recovery Attracts Section 37 NDPS Bar – Court found that the recovery from the petitioner’s person and exclusive rented premises amounted to commercial quantity – No procedural violations that would vitiate the trial were made out – Held: No case for bail is made out under the stringent conditions of Section 37 – Application dismissed [Para 27].
 

Circumstantial Evidence – Last Seen Theory – Standard of Proof – Appeal Dismissed - The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence including last-seen theory, police dog trail, accused’s conduct, and past misconduct – The minor witness (P.W.2) who initially supported the last-seen theory turned hostile and admitted inability to identify accused due to darkness – The Court held that the last-seen theory is a weak piece of evidence unless corroborated with additional material which was lacking in the present case – Absence of proximity in time between the alleged last-seen incident and the recovery of the dead body breaks the necessary chain of circumstances [Paras 13-14].

Police Dog Evidence – Unreliable Without Corroboration – Not Sufficient for Conviction - The Court noted that no evidence was led regarding the training, credibility, or procedural safeguards followed in using the police dog – Without forensic corroboration or supporting evidence, the police dog’s tracking trail was held to be insufficient and speculative to link the accused to the crime [Paras 17-18].

Past Conduct and Bad Character – Cannot Substitute Proof of Present Offence – The prosecution sought to rely on prior allegations of misconduct against Respondent No.1, including unproven past instances of rape within the village – The Court held that prior bad character, in the absence of a clear nexus to the current offence, cannot substitute for direct or circumstantial proof linking the accused to the charged crime [Para 15].

Suspicious Behaviour – Insufficient to Establish Guilt – Requires Conclusive Chain – The accused’s non-participation in the search, distracted demeanor, and remarks made during the search were deemed inadequate in the absence of other incriminating evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Such behaviour may be inappropriate but does not constitute legal proof [Para 16].

Forensic Evidence – Absence of Blood, Semen, or Biological Link – Failure of Prosecution – The Court noted that the chemical examination report (Ext.13) did not reveal any incriminating material on the seized articles or clothing of the accused – The lack of scientific evidence further weakened the prosecution's case [Para 19].

Acquittal Upheld – Chain of Circumstances Incomplete – The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a cogent, credible, and continuous chain of circumstances against Respondents – Acquittal recorded by the trial court was upheld and the leave to appeal was refused [Paras 20-22].
 

Arbitration Law - Section 9 Arbitration Act – Maintainability Post Final Award – Petition Maintainable – Final Award Passed After Hearing Closed - Court held that merely because the final award was passed after the Section 9 petition was argued and reserved, the reliefs sought did not become infructuous – Reliefs under Section 9 may extend until enforcement of the award, especially where enforcement was pending – Petition under Section 9 upheld as maintainable [Paras 8(e)(iii)-(iv), 36].

Emergency Arbitrator Award – Not Directly Enforceable – But Can Be Considered for Section 9 Relief – Court Clarifies Scope - While Emergency Award under SIAC Rules is not directly enforceable under the Act, it can be relied upon to support a Section 9 interim relief application – Reliance placed on Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC – Held: Respondents rightly relied on Emergency Arbitrator’s award as a factor, not for enforcement [Paras 7(c), 8(b), 23-24].

Interim Measures – Order 38 Rule 5 CPC Compliance – Not Mandatory in Arbitration Proceedings – Discretionary Relief Justified - Court held that though technical compliance with Order 38 Rule 5 CPC is not mandatory, interim relief can be granted if a strong prima facie case and balance of convenience are shown – Respondents had established urgency and likelihood of asset dissipation – Decision in Essar House and Sepco Electric Power followed [Paras 8(c)(ii)-(iv), 26-28].

Obstructionist Conduct – Relevant but Not Sole Basis for Relief – Conduct Evaluated Holistically - The appellants’ delays in complying with Cost Award, valuation challenges, and failure to furnish bank guarantee were held as part of obstructive conduct – However, Court clarified that “obstructionist conduct” was not the sole basis for relief; it was one of several relevant considerations [Paras 8(d)(iii)-(iv), 31-33].

Scope of Appellate Interference – Section 37 Arbitration Act – Limited Jurisdiction – No Interference Warranted - Appellate Court reiterated limited scope under Section 37—interference only when findings are arbitrary, capricious, or perverse – Since the learned Single Judge’s order was based on valid reasoning and discretion, appeals dismissed [Paras 8(a), 9].

*Decision – Commercial Arbitration Appeals Dismissed – Interim Relief Upheld – No Interference under Section 37 – High Court affirmed the interim order requiring appellants to furnish ₹145 crore security and disclose assets – Relief granted under Section 9 based on multiple factors including Emergency Award, obstructive conduct, and risk of defeating award – Final Award’s passage during pendency did not affect maintainability [Paras 9-10].
 

Criminal Law – NI Act – Territorial Jurisdiction – Rejection of Complaint Reversed – Post-Dasharath Jurisdiction Clarified – Trial Court rejected complaint on grounds that the cheque dishonour occurred outside its territorial jurisdiction – High Court held complaint maintainable since accused had appeared and pleaded “not guilty” before Dasharath Roop Singh Rathore judgment – Stage of Section 145(2) NI Act was deemed crossed – Complaint restored [Paras 7–9, 14–21, 23]. 
 

Procedural Law – Stage of Proceedings – Section 145(2) NI Act – Clarified – High Court held recording of evidence need not be completed; initiation after summoning is sufficient to proceed – Trial court failed to properly assess whether matter had entered evidentiary stage – Pre-summoning affidavit not sufficient; post-summoning appearance and plea essential [Paras 16–20]. 
 Revisional Power – Remedy Available – Judicial Error Corrected – High Court allowed revision as trial court misinterpreted jurisdiction post-SC judgment – Held: Magistrate at Bidhannagar had legal authority to proceed with trial and should not have declined cognizance [Paras 19–21]. 
 Speedy Trial – Spirit of NI Act and Supreme Court Guidelines – Reiterated – Court cited Indian Bank Association v. Union of India for early disposal mandate – Directions reemphasized that trial must proceed on day-to-day basis once accused appears and pleads [Paras 12–13, 20]. 
 
Decision: Criminal revision allowed – Order of trial court rejecting complaint quashed – Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bidhannagar deemed to have jurisdiction to entertain and proceed with the complaint under Section 138 of NI Act – Trial to proceed expeditiously in accordance with law [Paras 22–23]. 
 

Custom Law - Export Consignment Detention – Delay in Seizure Memo – Customs Act – Violation of Procedural Safeguards - Petitioner’s export goods detained since 13.01.2025 without seizure memo or panchanama – Court held that such detention without formal seizure for over two months was unjustified – Detention in violation of CBEC Circulars mandating action within three days and timely provisional release [Paras 2-10].

Circular Compliance – CBIC Instructions Ignored – Provisional Release Required – Court referred to Circular No. 30/2013 reaffirming obligation to expedite export clearance and avoid prolonged detention unless prohibited goods – Court found that CBEC instructions were disregarded by Customs authorities despite multiple letters from exporter [Paras 6, 13, 16].

Customs Investigation – Initiation Only After Filing Writ – Unjustified Delay – Held that the Customs Department took action such as issuance of seizure memo and summons only after writ petition was filed – Delay termed impermissible and prejudicial to exporter’s rights – Summons dated 25.03.2025 indicated belated inquiry [Paras 10, 14-15].

Duty Drawback Fraud Allegation – Grounds for Detention Must Be Substantiated – Customs claimed suspicion of overvaluation to claim unlawful duty drawback – Court held that proper procedural steps must be taken if such suspicion exists, but detention cannot be indefinite or without formal orders [Paras 11-12].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Customs Directed to Provisionally Release Goods – Court ordered Customs to decide and provisionally release goods within 7 days, subject to appropriate conditions – Petitioner directed to appear on 27.03.2025 with documents sought in summons – Writ petition disposed of accordingly [Paras 17-19].

Land Acquisition – Apportionment Dispute – Collector’s Refusal to Refer Case – Quashed – Petitioner Claimed Share in Ancestral Property - The petitioner, asserting a claim through lineage from a common ancestor, challenged the Sub-Divisional Officer’s order disbursing ₹34 crore compensation without referring the apportionment dispute to the authority under Section 35 MIDC Act – Held: Petitioner’s interest could not be dismissed as frivolous merely due to lack of interim relief or absence in revenue records [Paras 5, 20-22, 41-44].

Section 35 MIDC Act – Discretionary Power to Refer Disputes – Not Absolute – Collector Must Refer Disputes in Case of Competing Claims – The High Court held that while Section 35 uses the term “may,” discretion must be exercised judiciously—if a genuine apportionment dispute exists, Collector is obliged to refer – Decision of SDO in refusing reference without proper consideration of rival claims held to be perverse [Paras 38-40, 44-45].

Judicial Function of Apportionment – SDO Not Competent to Decide Complex Ownership Issues – Reference Mandatory - Referring to Vinod Kumar v. District Magistrate and Rukminibai v. Krishnath, the Court reiterated that apportionment involves valuation of extinguished interests and must be decided by a judicial authority, not by revenue officers or the Collector/SDO [Paras 30-35, 37-39].

Revenue Records – Not Determinative of Title – Premature Disbursal Based on Survey Entries Invalid – SDO Erred - Court held SDO placed undue emphasis on names in revenue records and absence of injunction from civil suit—this approach ignored the genealogical linkage and pending partition suit, which established at least a prima facie claim [Paras 43, 44].

Direction to Refer – Writ of Mandamus Issued – Authority to Decide Apportionment – SDO Directed to Transfer Funds - Court directed the SDO to refer the apportionment dispute to the designated authority under Section 35 of MIDC Act within one month and deposit the compensation amount along with accrued interest—authority to decide entitlement of each party in accordance with law [Paras 55-57].

Decision – Writ Petitions Allowed – SDO’s Order Set Aside – Apportionment Dispute to Be Referred to Competent Authority – High Court held refusal to refer dispute was based on irrelevant considerations—directed SDO to forward compensation amount to authority for adjudication and equitable apportionment—Rule made absolute [Paras 55-60].

Civil Law – Declaration, Joint Possession, and Permanent Injunction – Plaintiffs (respondents) filed a suit against petitioners (defendants) challenging sale deeds and claiming joint possession and injunction over ancestral property – Plaintiffs, daughters of Paramvir Singh, alleged that the property was joint Hindu family property and the sale deeds executed by their brother Sukhjinder Singh were illegal – Trial Court dismissed the defendants’ application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint, holding that plaintiffs need not pay ad valorem court fee as they were not executants of the sale deeds and claimed to be in possession [Paras 2-3].

Court Fees – Applicability of Ad Valorem and Fixed Court Fee – Defendants contended that since plaintiffs sought joint possession, court fee on market value under Section 7(iv)(c) and 7(v) of the Court Fees Act was payable – Trial Court held plaintiffs were in possession and no such court fee was needed – High Court noted that plaintiffs had cleverly drafted the plaint to appear in possession while also seeking joint possession relief – Held: Court fee under Section 7(iv)(c) and 7(v) is indeed payable, dominant relief being joint possession and not mere declaration or cancellation of sale deeds [Paras 9-11].

Maintainability of Revision Petition – Plaintiffs argued that the question of court fee was between plaintiffs and the State and not maintainable under revision by defendants – High Court clarified that the revision was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and not under Section 115 CPC – Held: Revision is maintainable, defendants have the right to challenge the order passed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC [Para 8].

Decision: Revision petition allowed – Impugned order dated 03.12.2024 set aside – Plaintiffs directed to pay court fee as per Section 7(iv)(c) and 7(v) of the Court Fees Act within six weeks if not already paid – Pending applications disposed of [Para 11].
 

Civil Law - Representative Suit – Non-compliance with Order I Rule 8 CPC – Suit Not Maintainable – The plaintiffs failed to comply with the procedural requirements of Order I Rule 8 CPC for filing a representative suit, including obtaining leave of the court and public notice – Held, the suit is not maintainable as representative suit [Paras 33-35].

Limitation – Challenge to Ancient Transactions – Suit Barred – Plaintiffs challenged the sale deed of 1963 without questioning the earlier foundational sale deed of 1953 – Suit filed after lapse of over 40 years – Held, barred by limitation under Articles 58 and 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963 [Paras 32-35].

Finality of Decree – Principle of Res Judicata – Suit Hit by Res Judicata – The decrees obtained in O.S.No.542/1970, O.S.No.553/1989, O.S.No.1466/1992 and confirmed in RFA Nos.79 & 80 of 2002 and SLP before Supreme Court have attained finality – Held, the challenge to decrees is barred by principles of Res Judicata [Paras 30-31].

Title and Possession – No Right Derived by Plaintiff – Agreements and GPA Invalid – The vendor of the plaintiffs (Munichikkaiah) had already alienated his share and had no subsisting title – Held, plaintiffs acquired no title or possession under agreements – Subsequent transactions invalid [Paras 2729].

Boundary Discrepancies – Claim Beyond Agreement – Inconsistency in Extent – Plaintiffs’ claim for 8 acres 3 guntas exceeded the extent in agreements (6 acres 20 guntas) – Held, the suit schedule land and claimed property do not tally – Claim rejected [Para 36].

Development and Third-Party Rights – Plaintiffs Formed Layout without Title – No Protection under Representative Capacity – Plaintiffs had formed layout and sold sites but lacked title themselves – No protection available through representative suit mechanism [Paras 28-29].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The Regular First Appeal fails as the suit was barred by limitation, hit by res judicata, improperly framed as a representative suit, and lacked merit on title and possession – Trial court judgment upheld [Paras 36-37].

Civil Writ - Recruitment – Eligibility Criteria – One-Year LLM Degree – Arbitrary Exclusion – Provisional Selection List Quashed – Petitioner, though securing first rank in written exam, excluded on ground that her LLM was of one-year duration – Notification did not specify LLM must be of two-year duration – Held: Arbitrary to exclude candidate where UGC recognizes one-year LLM; No valid basis for discrimination between equivalent courses [Paras 5–11].

UGC Recognition – One-Year LLM Programme – Valid for Public Appointments – LLM from National Law School, Bangalore, a reputed institution – UGC approval suffices – Petitioner eligible as per existing norms – Court held that once accepted for Ph.D. enrolment, cannot be disqualified for public post [Paras 7–13].

Judicial Precedents – Division Bench Binding – Clarified Educational Patterns – Followed in Parandhaman and Suganya Jeba Sarojini cases – Held: Educational pattern (10+2+5+1) valid; one-year LLM cannot be disqualified on this basis – Pattern-based disqualification without statutory backing is untenable [Paras 8–10].

Discrimination in Selection – Merit Ignored – Violation of Fairness – Petitioner outranked selected candidates yet excluded due to non-existent restriction – Held: Such exclusion violates principles of merit and non-arbitrariness under Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution [Paras 11–14].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Selection List Quashed – Court directed appointment of petitioner with retrospective notional seniority and all consequential service and monetary benefits – Respondents directed to act within eight weeks [Paras 15–16].