Arbitration Law - Arbitration Clause – Unilateral Termination Option – Clause Upheld – Appointment Directed - Clause allowing only the lender (Applicant) to opt out of arbitration upon becoming a SARFAESI beneficiary was challenged – Delhi High Court's Tata Capital ruling was distinguished as context-specific and not binding in Section 11 proceedings – Held: Existence of arbitration agreement was evident and valid; unilateral opt-out clause not fatal at this stage – Arbitrator appointed [Paras 3-17].

Scope of Section 11 – Limited Review – Existence of Arbitration Agreement Sufficient – Court Not to Assess Validity - Applying precedents including Interplay Judgment (2024) and SBI General Insurance, the Court reiterated that under Section 11(6A), the judicial review is limited to existence, not validity of arbitration clause – Substantive objections must be raised under Section 16 before the Arbitral Tribunal [Paras 18-19].

SARFAESI Proceedings – Not a Bar to Arbitration – Parallel Remedies Permissible - Applicant’s initiation of SARFAESI proceedings does not preclude arbitration – Relying on M.D. Frozen Foods v. Hero Fincorp, dual remedies permissible; arbitration agreement remains intact [Para 19].

Previous Arbitration Lapsed – Fresh Arbitration Not Barred – Unilateral Appointment Void – The Court held that prior arbitration, initiated through a unilaterally appointed arbitrator, had lapsed – Such proceedings were void ab initio due to lack of neutrality – Applicant’s fresh invocation of arbitration allowed under Section 11 [Paras 20-21].

Final Order – Arbitrator Appointed – Objections to Be Raised Before Tribunal - Sole Arbitrator appointed; respondents may raise jurisdictional and substantive issues before the tribunal under Section 16 – No stay granted as Respondents’ interests are protected by arbitral safeguards [Paras 21-24].
 

Criminal Law - Sexual Assault of Minor – Section 354B IPC and Section 10 POCSO – Conviction Upheld – Based on consistent testimony of the victim and her immediate disclosures to two neighbors, supported by FIR and medical evidence, the High Court confirmed the conviction – Appellant’s act of disrobing the 7-year-old victim after luring her into his room established assault with sexual intent [Paras 1–12].

Penetrative Sexual Assault – Allegation Disbelieved – Section 376AB Charge Not Made Out – Although the victim later alleged penetrative assault, her earlier statement under Section 164 CrPC and neighbors' accounts did not corroborate this – Doctor's finding of ruptured hymen without accompanying injuries led the court to reject rape charge [Paras 5–6, 12].

Medical and Witness Testimony – Inconsistencies Not Material – Court held minor contradictions and absence of medical injuries did not undermine consistent core accusation of sexual assault – Trial court rightly excluded exaggerated claims and focused on credible portion of testimony [Paras 6–8].

Admissibility of Magistrate Statements – Not Prejudicial – High Court rejected challenge that non-examination of Magistrate who recorded Section 164 CrPC statements prejudiced defence – Held: Such statements admissible under Section 80 Evidence Act; Appellant had opportunity to summon magistrate but didn’t [Para 13].

Age of Victim – Proven Through Birth Certificate – Challenge to age dismissed as birth certificate was on record and marked as exhibit without contrary evidence from Appellant [Para 13].

Presumption Under POCSO – Not Rebutted – Section 29 of POCSO invoked to affirm guilt – Appellant failed to rebut presumption or prove any ulterior motive such as property dispute – Contradictions deemed immaterial [Para 14].

Final Decision – Conviction and Sentence Affirmed – CRA (SB) No. 72 of 2023 Dismissed – Judgment of trial court upheld in entirety, with no interference warranted [Paras 15–16].
 

Civil Law - Specific Performance – Agreement of Sale – Lack of Readiness and Willingness – Suit Dismissed – Plaintiffs claimed execution of sale agreement dated 28-02-1998 and alleged part payment of ₹25 lakhs – Only plaintiff No.5, as attorney holder, was examined; others did not depose – Held: Plaintiffs failed to prove execution, payment, or readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract – Absence of required notices and oral evidence by principal parties fatal to claim [Paras 14–20].

Limitation – Article 54 of the Limitation Act – Barred by Time – Agreement fixed 28-02-1999 as last date for execution of sale deed – Suit filed on 09-01-2003 – Held: Beyond the three-year period prescribed under Article 54 – Plaintiffs' attempt to extend limitation through post-dated documents and MOUs was disbelieved – Suit barred by limitation [Paras 19a–j].

Procedural Requirements – Suit Not in Conformity with CPC Form 47 – Registered Demand Not Issued – Notices issued only by plaintiff No.5 individually and not by all vendees – Held: Suit not in compliance with mandatory Forms 47 and 48 under Appendix A of CPC – Absence of registered demand to perform contract renders the suit defective [Para 18a–e].

Power of Attorney – Attorney Cannot Depose to Pre-POA Events – Evidence of Plaintiff No.5 Inadmissible – Attorney was granted POA in 2001, but testified about transactions in 1998–1999 – Held: Attorney-holder cannot testify to acts done by principals prior to the POA unless he had personal knowledge – Testimony not reliable to prove core allegations [Paras 16e–f].

Adverse Inference – Plaintiff No.2 Signed as Attestor to GPA in Favour of Third Party – Did Not Enter Witness Box – Held: Adverse inference drawn – Weakens credibility of plaintiffs' version and supports defendant’s plea that transaction was for loan and not a genuine sale [Paras 16c–d].

Trial Court Findings – Non-Framing of Key Issues – Reversed – Trial Court failed to frame issues on limitation, validity of agreement, and readiness/willingness – Held: Decree granted without addressing essential legal requirements – Judgment set aside [Para 20].

Final Decision – Appeals Allowed – Trial Court Decree Set Aside – Suit for specific performance dismissed – No order as to costs [Para 22].
 

Taxation Law - Income Tax – Interpretation of Agreement – Assessment Based on Receipts, Not Gross Bills – Appeal Dismissed - The assessee contended that 5% infrastructure fee should be computed on gross advertising bills; however, the agreement specified 5% of “total receipts” – The Court upheld the lower authorities’ view that only net receipts disclosed in P&L (₹58.77 lakhs) were relevant – Held: Tribunal rightly rejected higher claim based on gross billing not reflected as income [Paras 1-11].

Commercial Expediency – Reasonableness of Expenditure – Judicial Deference to Business Judgment – Tribunal's View Affirmed - The assessee’s plea that AO erred in questioning business decisions was rejected – The Court reiterated principles from Walchand & Co. and J.K. Woollen Manufacturers that expenses must be real and incurred wholly for business – Disallowance of inflated claim upheld in absence of proof or perversity in findings [Paras 6-8].

Appeal under Section 260A – Limited Interference Permitted – No Perverse Finding – No Substantial Question of Law - Findings of AO, CIT(A), and ITAT were based on record and profit & loss statement – No case of perversity or legal misapplication found – Held: No interference warranted in appeal under Section 260A [Paras 9-12].

Final Decision – Question of Law Answered Against Assessee – Appeal Dismissed - The substantial question of law was answered in favour of revenue – Appeal dismissed as devoid of merit [Paras 12-13].
 

NDPS Act – Bail and Article 21 – Prolonged Incarceration Overrides Section 37 – Held: All petitioners except two had been in custody for nearly two years with trial not yet commenced—Court held that prolonged detention violated their fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21—Bail granted subject to conditions – However, bail denied to petitioners Jithin Cherian and Yash Gupta due to stronger material evidence and greater recovered quantities [Paras 91–103, 124–151].

Evidence and Recovery – Role of Individual Petitioners – Varies Across Accused – Petitioners had differing degrees of involvement—Some linked by parcel addressee name only, others by digital evidence, confession, or contraband recovery – NCB relied on voluntary statements, chats, and forensic data – Bail granted where evidence lacked direct attribution or corroboration [Paras 6–19, 27–29, 76–84, 123–124].

Controlled Delivery – Non-Compliance Not Fatal to Bail – Held: Controlled delivery procedure under Section 50A NDPS is directory and non-mandatory—Failure to undertake the same does not vitiate proceedings, but may affect credibility of prosecution’s case in certain instances [Paras 23, 85, 128].

Procedural Lapses – Irregularities in Seizure, Sampling and Certification – Petitioners cited delay in certification under Section 52A NDPS, improper packaging, sample handling and record-keeping—Court observed such procedural errors need to be tested during trial but factored in overall while granting bail [Paras 63–69, 65–66, 68–69].

Commercial Quantity – Differentiated Treatment Based on Quantity – Bail denied to Jithin Cherian (500 LSD blots) and Yash Gupta (prior similar parcel and digital recovery) – Held: Gravity of offence based on quantity and individual role justified continued detention in their cases [Paras 124–128, 144–151].

Decision – Bail Allowed for Five Petitioners – Petitions of Vaibhav Yadav, Arnav Dhankar, Pritesh Aggarwal, Nishant Rawat, and Avtar Singh allowed – Bail denied to Jithin Cherian and Yash Gupta – Petitioners directed to furnish sureties and comply with strict conditions [Paras 101–103, 124, 151].

Civil Law - Probate – Delay in Filing – Not Fatal – Continuous Right Doctrine Applied – Supreme Court precedents in Samir Kapoor and High Court ruling in Achin Ghosh followed – Delay of 19 years explained due to mutual compliance with Will terms and cause of action arising only after partition suit filed by daughters – Held: Probate is a legal sanction to perform a duty created by Will, and not bound by limitation like ordinary suits [Paras 26–33].

Execution and Attestation of Will – Statutory Compliance Proven – Sole surviving attesting witness (P.W.2) confirmed execution and attestation in accordance with Section 63 of Succession Act and Section 68 of Evidence Act – No counter-evidence or expert testimony filed by appellant – Held: Will duly proved [Paras 34–36].

Suspicious Circumstances – Allegations Unsubstantiated – Claims of interpolation, signature mismatch, unusual spacing, and attesting witness bias not supported by evidence – Court held these as minor discrepancies insufficient to raise valid suspicion – Reiterated that Will must be judged based on prudent person test, not fantasy of doubt [Paras 39–46].

Section 105 Succession Act – Lapse of Legacy – Not Relevant to Probate – Held: Issues of title or lapsed legacy fall outside probate court’s remit – Validity of Will’s execution is sole concern – Post-mortem demise of legatee does not affect validity of Will executed prior [Paras 54–56].

Final Decision – Probate Deemed Decree Upheld – Appeal Dismissed – Probate granted to respondent affirmed by First Appellate Court – Held: Testamentary Court’s role is to honour the last wishes of the deceased in absence of real suspicious circumstances [Paras 60–61].
 

Election Law - Corrupt Practice – Election Manifesto Promises – Not Attributable to Candidate – Petition Rejected - Allegations of corrupt practices arising from the 'five guarantees' made in the INC's election manifesto were held insufficient to constitute corrupt practice under Section 123 of the R.P. Act – The Court relied on S. Subramaniam Balaji v. State of Tamil Nadu and clarified that such promises are considered declarations of public policy and not acts of individual candidates – It was held that mere association with the manifesto or affixing a signature as a CLP leader does not establish personal liability or intent – Petition rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) of CPC for lack of cause of action [Paras 10-19].

Lack of Material Facts – Pleadings Defective – No Specific Allegation – Petition Dismissed - The Election Petition lacked material facts necessary to support allegations under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) – No details provided showing how the alleged conduct materially affected the result – Bald assertions and absence of particulars were deemed fatal – Rejection under Order VII Rule 11(a) confirmed [Paras 23-28].

Non-disclosure of Expenditure – Allegation Against Party, Not Candidate – Rejected - The petitioner alleged non-disclosure of expenditure for manifesto distribution – Held: Promises and related expenses pertained to the political party, not the individual candidate – Hence, no duty of disclosure by the respondent under the R.P. Act [Paras 29-31].

Pleadings After Limitation Period – Rejoinder Cannot Cure Deficiency – Ignored - Petitioner’s attempt to supplement material facts through rejoinder was rejected – Court reiterated that material facts must be present in the original petition filed within limitation – Reference made to Jeet Mohinder Singh v. Harminder Singh Jassi [Para 34-35].

Judicial Discipline – Binding Precedent – Balaji Decision Applicable – Petition Dismissed - The Court emphasized that until overruled, decisions of the Supreme Court such as S. Subramaniam Balaji are binding – Pending review or reference to larger Bench does not dilute binding nature – High Courts must follow settled precedent [Paras 36-38].

Casual Drafting – Lack of Diligence – Grounds Unsubstantiated – Election Petition Rejected - The Court noted careless drafting, factual inaccuracies, and copy-paste pleadings from other petitions – Such defects, combined with legal insufficiencies, led to rejection of the petition in limine [Paras 41-42].

Final Decision – I.A. No. 1/2023 Allowed – Election Petition Rejected - The application under Order VII Rule 11(a) of CPC was allowed – Entire election petition rejected for lack of cause of action and non-compliance with legal requirements [Paras 43-44].

Criminal Law – Quashing - Domain Name Dispute – Criminal Charges Quashed – Civil Dispute Mischaracterized – The petitioner was accused of impersonating the Chancellor of Alliance University and fraudulently attempting to take control of the university’s domain name – Held: Allegations arise from civil dispute over institutional control post-termination – Even if accepted at face value, do not disclose ingredients of forgery or cybercrime – Proceedings quashed [Paras 3–11, 27].

Cyber Offences – Section 66, 66D of IT Act – No Mens Rea or Unauthorized Access – Petitioner operated domain email claiming status as Chancellor, which he asserted under Section 15(2) of Alliance University Act – Held: No dishonest or fraudulent intention established – Use of email to claim disputed position does not constitute cybercrime under Sections 66 or 66D IT Act [Paras 9–10].

Forgery – Sections 465 and 468 IPC – No Falsification Proven – Court examined definition and precedents on “forgery” and “false documents” – Held: Mere assertion of status or domain management without proving false intent or fabrication does not meet threshold – Proceedings would amount to abuse of process [Paras 10–12].

Misuse of Criminal Law – Civil Dispute Converted into Crime – High Court Criticizes Vexatious Prosecution – Referring to SC judgments in Mahmood Ali, Deepak Gaba, and Randheer Singh, held that criminal law cannot be weaponized for private vendetta or ongoing institutional rivalry – Allegations lacked prima facie criminality [Paras 11–12, 27].

Decision – Proceedings Quashed – Cognizance in C.C. No. 3218/2021 set aside – Petition allowed under Section 482 CrPC [Para 27].
 

Patent Law – Challenge to Section 53 Patents Act – Appeal Dismissed – Petitioners sought to declare Section 53 unconstitutional for counting patent term from application date despite delays in grant – High Court upheld that Section 53 and Section 11A(7) operate in distinct domains – Section 53 governs term and cessation; Section 11A(7) confers provisional rights without full enforceability until patent is granted [Paras 12–24].

Delay in Grant – No Violation of Constitutional Rights – No Ground for Striking Down Provision – The delay of 7 years in granting the patent, though regrettable, was held not to invalidate the statutory scheme – Representation seeking legislative amendment or compensation was found beyond judicial remit under Article 226 [Paras 6–11, 23–27].

Pre-grant Rights and Enforcement – Limited Scope – Interim Protection Only – Section 11A(7) provides limited privileges but bars infringement proceedings before patent grant – Court reaffirmed statutory rights in patent law are distinct from common law and are enforceable only post-grant [Paras 13–16, 24].

Judicial Review of Legislative Policy – Separation of Powers – Rejected – Court held it cannot direct Parliament to amend legislation or restructure statutory timelines – Reliance on comparative models like the US Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) was held inapplicable in Indian context, as affirmed by expert committee in Nittoo Denko case [Paras 25–26].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Writ Dismissal Affirmed – No conflict found between Sections 53 and 11A(7) – Appellants directed to bear their own costs – Request for certified copy allowed [Paras 27–30].