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].
 

Civil Law – Mortgage by Conditional Sale – Redemption – Appellant filed a suit for redemption of mortgage and possession of land mortgaged by his father – Trial court and First Appellate Court dismissed the suit treating the document (Ex.P/1) as an absolute sale deed – High Court held that Ex.P/1 is a "Shartiya Farokhtnama" i.e., mortgage by conditional sale – Substantial question of limitation resolved in favor of appellant as redemption period is 30 years under Article 61(a) of Limitation Act – Suit filed within limitation – Appellant being Karta of Hindu Undivided Family is competent to file suit alone without impleading other heirs – Estoppel under Section 115 of Evidence Act not applicable [Paras 1-40].

Mortgage Deed – Nature of Document – Courts below erred in construing Ex.P/1 as an absolute sale ignoring clear recital of condition of redemption within five years – Comparison with contemporaneous transactions showed Ex.P/1 was not an outright sale but a mortgage – Consideration amount disproportionate to area compared to other sale deeds suggesting mortgage nature – Courts failed to apply Section 58(c) of Transfer of Property Act defining mortgage by conditional sale [Paras 17-19].

Limitation – Period for Redemption – Suit for redemption governed by Article 61(a) of Limitation Act – Period of limitation is 30 years from the date of right to redeem accrued – Right accrued on 17.03.1974, suit filed in 2002 well within limitation – Courts below erred in applying 3 years limitation treating transaction as sale [Paras 29-33].

Locus Standi – Right of Karta – Appellant as Karta of Joint Hindu Family entitled to sue alone – Non-joinder of brothers does not affect maintainability – No objection raised by other heirs – Courts below wrongly held suit defective for non-joinder [Paras 34].

Estoppel – Applicability – Doctrine of estoppel under Section 115 of Evidence Act not applicable where transaction adjudged as mortgage and suit within limitation – Redemption right cannot be estopped [Paras 35].

Decision: Second Appeal allowed – Judgments and decrees of Trial Court and First Appellate Court set aside – Suit decreed for redemption and possession – Respondent directed to execute redemption deed on payment of Rs. 11,000/- within stipulated period – Parties to bear their own costs [Paras 40-41].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Criminal Complaint - Defamation – Reporting Public Figure’s Statement – Fair and Truthful Reporting – Summoning Set Aside - Petitioners being editors and journalists had truthfully reported the statement made by MP Bhagwant Mann regarding alleged monetary inducement to the complainant MLA – Court held that the news report merely reproduced the speech without distortion and lacked any independent imputation by petitioners – Mens rea for defamation absent – Petitioners’ actions fall under First Exception to Section 499 IPC – Summoning order quashed [Paras 9-13].

Section 499 IPC – Requirement of Intention or Knowledge to Defame – Not Satisfied – Proceedings Quashed - Held: Essential ingredients of defamation include intention, knowledge or reasonable belief of harming reputation – No such material found in the complaint or preliminary evidence against petitioners – Magistrate's finding without evidentiary basis – Summoning order is unsustainable [Paras 9-11].

First Exception to Section 499 IPC – Accurate Reporting of True Statement in Public Interest – Journalistic Protection Available - Reporting of public figures’ statements without embellishment or distortion, when relevant to public interest, is protected – Petitioners’ act of publishing unaltered version of MP's statement falls within legal protection – No offence made out [Paras 8-12].

Quashing of Proceedings – Power under Section 482 CrPC Invoked – Abuse of Process Prevented - In the absence of essential ingredients of defamation, summoning petitioners to trial would result in abuse of process and miscarriage of justice – Complaint and proceedings quashed in exercise of inherent powers [Paras 11-13].

Decision – Petitions Allowed – Criminal Complaint and Summoning Order Quashed – Bail/Surety Discharged [Para 13].

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].

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]. 
 

Limitation – Applicability of Extended Limitation due to COVID-19 – Petition and Appeal held to be within time - Appellant’s original petition filed during the Covid-19 limitation relaxation period as per Supreme Court directions – The Appeal filed within 90 days as provided by Section 28(4) of the Hindu Marriage Act was also within limitation despite Section 19(3) of Family Courts Act prescribing a shorter limitation – Appeal held to be maintainable [Paras 15-23].

Customary Divorce – Burden of Proof – Customary Divorce not Proved – Respondent failed to lead any documentary or oral evidence to establish customary divorce from first wife as required under Section 29(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act – Mere pleading without proof rejected – The Trial Court erred in not framing an issue regarding the existence and validity of customary divorce – Appellant entitled to succeed on this ground [Paras 24-39].

Impleadment of First Wife – Rule 8 of the Rules Under Hindu Marriage Act – Impleadment Not Mandatory – Court held that the first wife need not be impleaded as a co-respondent since the question was one of legal validity of marriage and not of her personal rights – The Trial Court's reliance on non-impleadment was misplaced – Appellant’s petition not defective for want of co-respondent [Paras 40-52].

Maintenance/Alimony – Maintainability of Claim by Second Wife – Though Appellant did not press for alimony, Court clarified that second wife is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act even where the marriage is declared void – Reference made to Sukhdev Singh v. Sukhbir Kaur, 2025 INSC 197 – The Trial Court’s contrary view was incorrect [Para 53].

Offence of Rape – Misconception of Marriage – Respondent liable under Section 375 IPC / Section 63 BNS – Consent of appellant obtained on mistaken belief of valid marriage – Respondent’s conduct falls under ‘Fourthly’ clause of Section 375 IPC and Section 63(d)(iv) of BNS – Appellant’s mistaken belief of lawful marriage proved – Respondent committed rape punishable under Section 375/376 IPC and corresponding BNS provisions [Paras 54-58].

Desertion – Respondent’s Conduct Amounts to Desertion – Respondent failed to prosecute his restitution petition and remained unrepresented before the High Court despite due service – Court concluded that Respondent deserted the appellant and wilfully abstained from proceedings [Paras 59-62].

Trial Court Judgment – Improper Appreciation of Evidence – Judgment Set Aside – Trial Court wrongly presumed appellant’s knowledge of first marriage, failed to frame necessary issues, and misapplied rules on maintenance and impleadment – Findings were contrary to settled law and unsupported by evidence – Impugned order dated 19.11.2024 set aside and appeal allowed [Paras 63-72].
 

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].
 

Civil Law - Review Jurisdiction – Error Apparent on Record – Not Made Out – Review Rejected – Applicant (Assessee) sought review of earlier judgment alleging failure to consider seizure of documents and resultant delay in filing return under Section 139 – Court held: No error apparent on face of record; ITR being “non-est” was merely an obiter, not a conclusive finding – Review dismissed [Paras 6–14, 17–18].
Block Assessment vs. Regular Assessment – Allegation of Double Taxation – Issue to be Examined in Appeal – Court clarified that interplay between block and regular assessment proceedings and alleged double taxation may be examined in statutory appeal but not a ground for review – Held: Review cannot be used to revisit findings already rendered [Paras 13, 16–17].
Substantial Question of Law – Left Open for Tribunal Post-Remand – Not Ground for Review – Review applicant argued that Court failed to answer the admitted substantial question of law – Held: Since matter was remanded, Tribunal had jurisdiction to reconsider factual and legal issues – Non-answering does not vitiate original judgment [Para 16].
Scope of Review – Cannot Substitute or Rehear Merits – Principles Reiterated – Detailed discussion of precedent including Lily Thomas, Shanti Conductors, Parison Devi, and Murali Sundaram – Held: Review is not an appeal in disguise – Only a patent error justifies intervention; none found here [Paras 6–12].
Decision: Review application dismissed – No error apparent on record found in judgment dated 16.05.2014 – Observations regarding ITR being “non-est” clarified as obiter – Connected statutory appeal to proceed independently – No costs [Paras 17–18].