Arbitration Law – Interim Measure – Section 9 Arbitration Act – Relief Granted – The Petitioner sought interim protection to secure claims arising out of breach of a Gas Supply Agreement (GSA) where the Respondent failed to meet the Minimum Guaranteed Offtake (MGO) – Held: Under Section 9, the Court is empowered to grant interim measures for protection of contractual rights and to prevent frustration of arbitration – Relief granted in form of partial deposit and disclosure of assets [Paras 29-31].

Minimum Guaranteed Offtake (MGO) – Liquidated Damages – Enforceable Contractual Provision – The GSA provided for liquidated damages in case of shortfall in gas offtake – The Respondent argued that such damages were in the nature of penalty – Held: Where parties agreed on a clear formula and rate, such clauses are enforceable and do not constitute penalty per se – Prima facie, Petitioner established breach and entitlement [Paras 26-28].

Securing Arbitrable Claims – Balance of Convenience – The Court assessed whether a prima facie case was made out, and whether irreparable injury would be caused if interim protection was denied – Held: Respondent's financials showed insufficient liquidity; petitioner’s right needed safeguarding pending arbitration – Ordered Respondent to deposit ₹1.25 Crores and disclose assets [Paras 31-34].

Section 9 vs. Final Relief – Scope Clarified – The Court reiterated that a mini-trial is impermissible under Section 9 – However, where the claim is clear, liquidated, and based on an admitted contract, interim protection can be granted to safeguard the arbitration outcome [Para 27].

Interim Protection – Conditions for Grant – Application Partly Allowed – The Court partly allowed the petition by directing the Respondent to deposit ₹1.25 Crores with the Registrar General and disclose assets – Remaining prayers including attachment of property were declined at this stage [Paras 35-36].

Maintainability of Appeals – Jurisdiction of High Court under Land Grabbing Act – Special Courts Abolished – Appeals Not Maintainable - The batch of Land Grabbing Appeals challenged various orders of Special Tribunals constituted under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 – The issue arose whether appeals originally maintainable before the Special Court (abolished via G.O.Ms.No.420 dated 02.09.2016) could now be heard by the High Court as appellate authority – Held: High Court is not an appellate forum under the Act – The right to appeal perished with abolition of Special Court unless substituted by competent legislation – Appeals dismissed as not maintainable [Paras 16, 48-50, 84-90].

Statutory Construction – Interpretation of Notification vis-à-vis Statutory Provisions – G.O.Ms.No.420 dated 02.09.2016 – High Court Not Substituted as Appellate Forum – The Court held that while the State Government had the power to abolish the Special Court, it could not substitute the High Court as the appellate forum via executive notification – Such substitution could only be made by legislative amendment to the Act – Government Order held to be beyond the scope of statutory power under Section 7-A of the Act – Notification cannot override statutory provisions [Paras 49-56, 59, 60, 74].

Doctrine of Devolution and Successive Forum – Not Applicable – High Court Cannot Inherit Appellate Powers – The Court rejected the argument that appellate powers devolve upon the High Court due to abolition of the Special Court or by virtue of its superior judicial status – Held: Appeals are statutory and appeal forums must be provided by statute – No doctrine or administrative order can vest such power in the High Court without legislative sanction [Paras 73-77].

Writ Jurisdiction – Remedy Still Available – Orders of Special Tribunal Subject to Judicial Review – Though the appeals are not maintainable under the Act, the Court clarified that orders of Special Tribunals can still be challenged before the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution – However, conversion of pending appeals into writ petitions was declined due to non-fulfillment of procedural requisites [Paras 81-88].

Final Decision – Land Grabbing Appeals Dismissed – Remedy Lies in Writ Petitions – Held: All Land Grabbing Appeals filed directly before the High Court or transferred from the abolished Special Court are dismissed as not maintainable – Appellants may file writ petitions within three months – Interim orders to continue for that duration [Paras 90-91].

NDPS Act – Confiscation of Vehicle – Death of Accused – Trial Abated – Confiscation Not Sustainable – Vehicle seized in connection with possession of opium – Accused died during trial and proceedings abated – Held: Since trial never took place and there was no conviction, acquittal, or discharge, confiscation under Section 60(3) read with Section 63 NDPS Act not applicable – Confiscation order quashed – Vehicle directed to be released on superdari to legal heirs [Paras 2, 6, 11-13].

Interpretation of Statutes – Scope of Section 60(3) and Section 63 NDPS Act – Applicability only where adjudication (conviction, acquittal, or discharge) occurs – Confiscation in absence of trial not contemplated by statute – Petitioners heard as required under proviso to Section 63 – Confiscation still held unlawful [Paras 10-12].

Decision – Order dated 20.02.2019 by Special Judge (NDPS), Fatehgarh Sahib set aside – Confiscated vehicle (Volkswagen Vento PB-11AT-0026) directed to be released on superdari to petitioners on appropriate bonds – Petition allowed [Para 13-14].

PIL - Constitutional Validity – Section 193(9) BNSS and Default Bail under Section 187(3) – Provision Upheld – Challenge rejected to Section 193(9) BNSS, 2023 as arbitrary and violative of Article 21 – Held: Provision allows further investigation post charge-sheet with court permission; safeguards including 90-day limit and judicial oversight provided – No violation of right to default bail or personal liberty found [Paras 11-16].

Right to Personal Liberty – Article 21 and Detention – No Infringement – Power of further investigation under BNSS not unfettered – Requires court permission and limited by 90-day timeline, extendable only by court – Hence, does not defeat the statutory safeguard of default bail under Section 187(3) [Paras 13-16].

Interpretation of Statutes – Presumption of Constitutionality – Possibility of Misuse Not a Ground – Mere apprehension of potential abuse of lawful provision not sufficient to declare it unconstitutional – Courts must interpret law, not legislate – Appropriate remedy lies with Legislature in case of misuse – Challenge dismissed [Paras 17-20].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – No merit found in challenge to Sections 193(9) and 187(3) of BNSS, 2023 – Court upheld constitutionality of impugned provisions and dismissed PIL [Paras 21-22].

Regular Bail – Allegations under BNS and POCSO – Bail Granted – Petitioners sought regular bail in connection with FIR alleging harassment of two minor girls aged 13 and 14 under Sections 126(2), 78(1), 79, 352 BNS and Section 12 of POCSO Act – Charge-sheet filed and investigation completed – Petitioners in custody for over four months with no prior criminal record – Held: Seriousness of allegations alone not sufficient to deny bail pre-trial – Bail granted with stringent conditions to ensure victim safety and fair trial [Paras 3, 6, 15-18].

Concurrent Jurisdiction – Section 439 CrPC – High Court's Power to Entertain Bail Petition – Argument that bail lies before High Court only upon change in circumstances after Sessions Court rejection held to be incorrect – Held: High Court’s jurisdiction under Section 439 CrPC is original and concurrent with Sessions Court – No bar on moving High Court after bail refusal by Sessions Court on same facts – Reliance placed on Devi Das Raghu Nath Naik v. State [Paras 13-14].

Victim Safety and Bail Conditions – Risk Mitigated by Stringent Terms – Petitioners directed not to contact victims or visit their village – Surrender of passports and mandatory disclosure of mobile and social media accounts ordered – Conditions imposed to ensure petitioners do not intimidate witnesses or abscond – Held: Such protective measures justify release despite seriousness of offence [Paras 16-18].

Final Decision – Bail Allowed – Petitioners ordered to be released on bail on furnishing personal bonds of ₹1,00,000 with one surety each – Held: Continued detention not justified in absence of antecedents and in light of completed investigation – Violation of bail terms would entitle prosecution to seek cancellation [Paras 18-20].

Criminal Writ - Maintainability under Article 227 – Challenge to Orders in Criminal Proceedings – Petition Held Maintainable – Objection to maintainability overruled as Article 227 permits interference in exceptional circumstances involving miscarriage of justice, even when alternate remedy under Section 482 CrPC exists – Petition entertained as interim relief had already been granted [Paras 15-19].

Civil vs. Criminal Proceedings – Simultaneous Proceedings Permissible – Criminal Trial Permitted to Continue – Pendency of civil suit for cancellation of will deed and mutation does not bar criminal prosecution where prima facie ingredients of offence under IPC are made out – Held: Mere pendency of civil proceedings not a ground to quash criminal case [Paras 20-24].

Discharge under Section 239 CrPC – Grounds for Discharge Absent – Charges Not Groundless – Petitioners failed to show that the charges were groundless as per standard laid down by Supreme Court – Material placed by prosecution sufficient to proceed to trial – Discharge rightly refused by Trial Court and upheld in Revision [Paras 28-31, 36].

Forgery and Misrepresentation – Prima Facie Offence Made Out – Allegations of Manipulating Family Register and Executing Forged Will – Petitioners claimed as wife and daughter of deceased despite contradictory records and absence of adoption/marriage proof – Held: Enough prima facie material to proceed under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC [Paras 25, 32-35].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Orders of Trial Court and Revisional Court upheld – No legal or procedural error found warranting interference – Criminal proceedings to continue [Paras 37-38].

Service Law – Promotion – Clause 3(a) Army Order – FIR Does Not Constitute Prosecution – Promotion Withheld Illegally – Petitioner promoted as JCO via order dated 25.05.2022 – Promotion not implemented citing pending FIR and Clause 3(a) of Army Order – Held: Mere registration of FIR without charge-sheet or cognizance by court does not amount to prosecution – Withholding promotion on this basis is illegal – Directions issued to treat petitioner as JCO with all consequential benefits [Paras 1–14].

Applicability of Sealed Cover Procedure – Supreme Court Precedent in K.V. Jankiraman – Clarified – Promotion can be withheld only after issuance of charge-sheet or memo in criminal/disciplinary proceedings – FIR not sufficient ground to trigger Clause 3(a) of Army Order – Tribunal’s contrary view held perverse and unsustainable [Paras 8–13].

Decision – Tribunal Order Dated 14.12.2023 Set Aside – Petitioner to be Treated as Promoted – Promotion to JCO w.e.f. 25.05.2022 restored with consequential salary and service benefits – Compliance within 8 weeks [Paras 13–16].

Family Law - Marriage – Validity of Hindu Marriage – Section 7 of the HMA – Appeal dismissed – Husband sought declaration that marriage was void on ground that Saptapadi was not performed – Held: Section 7(1) allows solemnisation of marriage as per customary rites of either party, without mandating Saptapadi in all cases – Sub-section (2) applies only if Saptapadi forms part of customary rites – Thus, absence of Saptapadi does not by itself invalidate marriage [Paras 8-9].

Burden of Proof – Non-performance of Saptapadi – Appellant failed to discharge burden – Husband, despite alleging non-performance, did not examine priest, relatives, or witnesses – Mere non-production of marriage album by wife does not shift burden – Presumption of validity of marriage operates in law – Hence, plea of invalidity rejected [Paras 7, 10, 13].

Presumption of Marriage and Legitimacy – Evidence Act, Sections 50 and 114 – Strong presumption arises when parties cohabit as husband and wife and child is born – Such presumption cannot be lightly rebutted – Reliance placed on Ningu Vithu Bamane v. Sadashiv Ningu Bamane, 1986 SCC OnLine Bom 30, affirming presumption of marriage and legitimacy of children – Appellant failed to adduce strong and conclusive evidence to rebut presumption [Paras 10-11].

Decision – The Family Court’s dismissal of husband’s suit upheld – Appeal dismissed – Presumption of valid marriage stands, and no ground to declare marriage void [Paras 14].

Civil Writ - Securitisation Application – Rejection on Technical Grounds – Signatures of All Applicants – Rejection Held Illegal – Securitisation Application under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act was dismissed by DRT solely on the ground that not all applicants had signed the petition or affidavit and that all borrowers were not impleaded – Held: Once the petition was entertained in 2020 and kept pending for five years with interim orders, it could not be dismissed later on hyper-technical procedural grounds – Procedural rules must subserve the ends of justice [Paras 2-4, 10-12].

Maintainability of Writ – Alternative Remedy under SARFAESI Act – Exceptions to Rule – Held: Though remedy before DRAT exists, High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 where order passed is in defiance of fundamental principles of judicial procedure – Present case falls within exception as per Supreme Court’s ruling in PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank [Paras 6-7, 13].

Procedural Law – Not a Tyrant – Application of Sathyanath v. Sarojmani – Held: Rules of procedure are meant to advance cause of justice – Non-signing of affidavit by all borrowers not fatal when all parties had executed vakalatnama and were duly represented – DRT ought to have decided matter on merits [Paras 5, 11].

Decision – DRT Order Quashed – Matter Remitted – Held: Impugned order dated 12.08.2025 passed by DRT rejecting Securitisation Application is set aside – Matter remanded for decision on merits within two months [Paras 14-15].