Preventive Detention – PITNDPS Act – Territorial Jurisdiction – Forum Conveniens – Writ Petition Dismissed – Petitioner challenged detention order passed by Joint Secretary, Department of Revenue, Government of India and rejection of representations – Though detention order and memoranda were issued from Delhi, predicate offences, sponsoring authority, records and petitioner’s residence were all situated in West Bengal – Held: Delhi High Court possessed jurisdiction as part of cause of action arose in Delhi, but declined to exercise discretionary jurisdiction applying doctrine of forum conveniens – Petition dismissed with liberty to approach appropriate High Court [Paras 1, 5, 9, 17–18].

Article 226(2) – Cause of Action in Part – Not Determinative – Mere existence of jurisdiction under Article 226(2) does not mandate exercise thereof – Even if a minuscule part of cause of action arises within territorial jurisdiction, High Court may refuse to entertain petition if another forum is more appropriate and convenient – Jurisdiction and exercise of jurisdiction distinguished [Paras 9–13, 16].

Forum Conveniens – Discretionary Refusal to Entertain Writ – Doctrine permits Court to decline adjudication where lis has closer and more substantial nexus with another jurisdiction – Factors considered include location of parties, sponsoring authority, pending criminal cases, records and evidence – High Court of Calcutta or Rajasthan held to be more appropriate forums [Paras 6, 12–13, 17].

Preventive Detention – Sponsoring Authority and Predicate Offences – Relevance to Forum – Detention based on criminal cases registered in West Bengal – Sponsoring authority (NCB Kolkata) and relevant material located in West Bengal – Held: These constitute integral and dominant part of cause of action outweighing issuance of detention order from Delhi [Paras 2–3, 17].

Reliance on Precedents – Forum Conveniens Doctrine Reaffirmed – Court relied upon Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India, Ambica Industries v. CCE, Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. v. Union of India and Bharat Nidhi Ltd. v. SEBI – Principles reiterated that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary and guided by convenience of parties and interests of justice [Paras 10–15].

Liberty to Approach Appropriate Forum – Dismissal on ground of forum conveniens does not bar petitioner from challenging detention order on merits before jurisdictional High Court – Liberty expressly reserved [Paras 18–20].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed on ground of forum conveniens – Delhi High Court declined to exercise discretionary jurisdiction – Liberty granted to petitioner to approach appropriate High Court/forum – Pending applications disposed of.

Criminal Law – Quashing - Proclaimed Person – Section 82 Cr.P.C. – Mandatory Compliance – No person can be declared a proclaimed offender/person unless the procedure prescribed under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is strictly and meticulously followed – Provisions of Section 82 are mandatory in nature and any non-compliance vitiates the entire proclamation proceedings [Paras 5, 6].

Proclamation Proceedings – Recording of Satisfaction – Foundational Requirement – Before issuing proclamation, Court must record its satisfaction that the accused has absconded or is concealing himself to evade arrest – Absence of such satisfaction in the impugned order renders the proclamation illegal – Mechanical declaration of proclaimed person deprecated [Paras 5, 8, 9].

Non-Bailable Warrants and Proclamation – Procedural Safeguards – Issuance of non-bailable warrants and proclamation cannot be a matter of course – Court must be prima facie satisfied, on relevant material, that despite reasonable diligence the accused could not be arrested – Failure to adhere to statutory safeguards amounts to illegality [Paras 6–8].

Section 82 Cr.P.C. – Mode and Manner of Publication – Statutory requirements regarding specification of date, time and place for appearance, minimum period of thirty days, and prescribed modes of publication are mandatory – Non-compliance cannot be cured as a mere irregularity and renders the proclamation and subsequent proceedings a nullity [Paras 6–7].

Accused on Bail – Absence Explained – Humanitarian Circumstances – Petitioner was earlier granted regular bail and had been appearing before the trial Court – Non-appearance explained on account of serious illness and subsequent demise of co-accused sister – Trial Court failed to consider relevant circumstances while invoking Section 82 Cr.P.C. [Paras 2, 5].

Inherent Powers – Section 528 BNSS / Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Where proclamation proceedings are found to be contrary to mandatory statutory provisions, High Court justified in exercising inherent powers to prevent abuse of process of Court and to secure ends of justice – Continuation of criminal proceedings held to be futile [Paras 10–11].

Decision: Petition allowed – Impugned order dated 24.10.2025 declaring the petitioner as proclaimed person quashed – All consequential proceedings arising out of FIR No.30 dated 23.03.2023 set aside.

Criminal Law - Prevention of Corruption Act – Demand and Acceptance of Bribe – Proof – Conviction Upheld – Accused, Village Man, alleged to have demanded and accepted ₹500 as illegal gratification for facilitating transfer of Jama rights and land revenue mutation – Prosecution relied on evidence of complainant (PW1), decoy witness (PW2) and trap proceedings – Phenolphthalein test positive and tainted currency recovered from accused – Held: Evidence of PW1 regarding demand and acceptance remained unshaken – Foundational facts proved beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) PC Act sustained [Paras 9–20].

Public Servant – Competence to Perform Official Act – Irrelevant for Bribery Offence – Defence contention that accused was not competent authority to measure land rejected – Held: Even if accused was not statutorily empowered, demand and acceptance of bribe for influencing official process attracts offences under PC Act – Complainant entitled to rely on representations made by public servant [Paras 14, 20].

Trap Case – Minor Contradictions – Effect – Alleged inconsistencies in testimonies of prosecution witnesses regarding handing over of money and positioning during trap – Held: Minor discrepancies not affecting core prosecution case – No material contradiction to discredit demand and acceptance [Paras 6, 20].

Legal Principles – Demand as Sine Qua Non – Application of Neeraj Dutta Doctrine – Court reiterated that proof of demand and acceptance is essential for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) – Reliance placed on Constitution Bench decision in Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi) – Found that prosecution satisfied twin requirements through cogent oral and circumstantial evidence [Paras 17–19].

Sentence – Appellate Interference – Leniency – Considering facts and circumstances, sentence reduced to minimum permissible while maintaining conviction – Rigorous imprisonment reduced while fine maintained – Substantive sentences to run concurrently [Paras 21–22].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction confirmed – Sentence modified – Bail cancelled – Accused directed to surrender to undergo modified sentence.

Criminal Law - Sexual Offences – Rape – Deaf and Mute Victim – Conviction under Section 376 IPC challenged – Victim was deaf and dumb – Her testimony was recorded without following mandatory requirements of Section 119 of Indian Evidence Act – No videography, no record of signs/gestures, no oath administered to interpreter – Held: Evidence of victim inadmissible due to non-compliance with procedural safeguards – Conviction under Section 376(1) IPC set aside [Paras 17, 21].

Testimony of Disabled Witness – Section 119 of Evidence Act – Interpretation Requirements – Proviso mandates assistance of interpreter and video recording – Multiple interpreters used at different stages – No proof of oath to interpreters or record of gestures – Held: Trial vitiated for failure to adhere to statutory procedure in recording evidence of disabled witness [Paras 20-21].

Delay in Lodging Complaint – Inconsistencies in Date of Occurrence – Victim’s mother gave contradictory versions – Statements under Section 164 CrPC and oral testimony at variance – Evidence raised serious doubt whether rape occurred on 18.11.2015 or 27.11.2015 – Held: Unexplained delay and contradictions weaken prosecution case [Paras 10, 18, 19].

Circumstantial Evidence – Relationship between Parties – Victim was a major – Appellant’s marriage proposal to victim’s sister rejected – Panchayat held to compel appellant to marry victim – Medical report confirmed sexual intercourse but no injuries or signs of force – Held: Facts indicate prior relationship rather than forcible act – Offence made out under Section 417 IPC, not rape [Paras 22–24].

Decision: Conviction under Section 376(1) IPC modified to Section 417 IPC – Sentence reduced to period already undergone – Appellant directed to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation to victim under Section 357(3) CrPC – Criminal Appeal partly allowed [Paras 24–26].

Specific Performance – Execution of Decree – Deposit of Balance Sale Consideration – Article 227 – Supervisory Jurisdiction – Decree directed execution and registration of sale deed within stipulated time and permitted deposit of balance consideration if required during execution – Decree-holder filed execution petition within stipulated period and undertook to deposit entire balance consideration with interest – Executing Court permitted deposit though order passed beyond prescribed period – Held: Since decree-holder applied within time, delay attributable to Court cannot prejudice decree-holder – No jurisdictional error or perversity warranting interference [Paras 1–3, 6–9].

Execution Proceedings – Powers of Executing Court – Bound by Decree – Executing Court cannot rewrite or travel beyond decree but is empowered to facilitate compliance with decree terms – Where decree-holder expresses readiness and willingness and seeks permission to deposit consideration within time, Executing Court acts within jurisdiction in allowing such deposit – No violation of decree conditions established [Paras 6–8].

Section 28, Specific Relief Act – Rescission of Contract – Scope – Judgment-debtor sought rescission of alleged unregistered sale deed and recall of order permitting deposit – Held: Section 28 aims to balance equities between parties – When decree-holder sought compliance within stipulated period and delay occurred due to Court process, rescission not warranted – Application rightly dismissed [Paras 6–9].

Delay Attributable to Court – Litigant Not to Suffer – Well-settled principle that party should not be prejudiced for delay caused by Court – Permission to deposit granted later does not defeat decree-holder’s rights when application was filed in time – No illegality in Executing Court’s approach [Para 9].

Precedents – Applicability – Judgments in V.S. Palanichamy Chettiar, P. Shyamala, and Chanda v. Rattni distinguished – In cited cases, decree-holders failed to seek extension or deposit within reasonable time – Present case stands on different footing as execution petition with readiness to deposit was filed within prescribed period [Paras 5–9].

Scope of Article 227 – Limited Interference – High Court to interfere only in cases of patent lack of jurisdiction, perversity, or grave injustice – Impugned orders reflect lawful exercise of discretion by Executing Court – No ground for supervisory interference made out [Paras 1, 9].

Decision: Civil revision dismissed – Orders dated 20.03.2025 and 19.08.2025 upheld – No interference under Article 227 warranted – Pending applications, if any, disposed of.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Injury Claim – Enhancement of Compensation – Just Compensation – Reassessment by High Court – Claimant aged 62 years suffered permanent disability of 20% to whole body due to motor vehicle accident – Tribunal awarded compensation on lower side – High Court reassessed income on basis of minimum wages in absence of proof of actual income – Monthly income fixed at ₹11,100 instead of guesswork – Held: Compensation must be fair, reasonable and in tune with settled law [Paras 9–11].

Permanent Disability – Loss of Future Earning Capacity – Multiplier Method – Disability certificate proved 20% permanent disability affecting earning capacity – Tribunal’s assessment found inadequate – Multiplier of 7 applied considering age of claimant – Loss of future earnings recalculated accordingly – Principles laid down in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar followed [Paras 6, 9, 17].

Non-Pecuniary Damages – Pain and Suffering – Enhancement – Claimant suffered multiple grievous injuries, underwent surgeries and prolonged hospitalization – Permanent disability resulted in loss of dignity and normal enjoyment of life – Tribunal awarded meagre amount – Held: ₹3,00,000 awarded towards pain and suffering in light of Supreme Court precedent recognising intangible and lifelong impact of injuries [Paras 11–13].

Attendant Charges – Dependence on Others – Reasonable Lump Sum Award – Evidence showed claimant required assistance in daily activities due to disability – Applying principles from Kajal v. Jagdish Chand and later High Court precedent – Held: Claimant entitled to attendant charges – Lump sum of ₹50,000 awarded [Paras 14–15].

Other Heads – Transportation, Special Diet, Loss of Amenities – Tribunal’s Award Inadequate – High Court enhanced amounts under transportation, special diet, loss of amenities and disability considering nature of injuries and prolonged treatment – Ensured holistic compensation covering pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses [Paras 16–17].

Interest – Rate of Interest on Enhanced Compensation – Interest @ 9% per annum awarded from date of filing of claim petition till realization – In consonance with Supreme Court decisions [Para 18].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Award dated 21.05.2024 modified – Total compensation enhanced from ₹2,29,248/- to ₹8,65,728/- – Enhanced amount of ₹6,63,480/- payable with interest @ 9% per annum – Insurance Company directed to deposit amount within two months.

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Approved Resolution Plan – Clean Slate Principle – Extinguishment of Claims – Industrial Disputes Act Proceedings – Held: All workmen claims not forming part of Resolution Plan stand extinguished – Resolution Plan approved by NCLT under Section 31 – No provision made for reinstatement, back wages or service benefits of respondent-employees – Employees neither included in list of existing manpower nor had lodged claims before Resolution Professional – Held: After approval of Resolution Plan, no proceedings can be continued or initiated in respect of claims not forming part of the Plan – Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court lacked jurisdiction to proceed further [Paras 15–18].

IBC v. Industrial Disputes Act – Section 238 IBC – Overriding Effect – In case of inconsistency between IBC and Industrial Disputes Act, provisions of IBC to prevail – Continuation of Section 33-A proceedings post-approval of Resolution Plan would defeat objectives of IBC – Tribunal erred in adjudicating merits after resolution approval [Paras 9, 15–16].

Section 32A IBC – Immunity to Successful Resolution Applicant – Change in Management – Resolution Plan resulted in complete change of control and management – Successful Resolution Applicant cannot be saddled with liabilities arising from acts of erstwhile management or CIRP period unless expressly provided in Resolution Plan – Protection under Section 32A attracted [Paras 9, 10, 16].

Moratorium under Section 14 IBC – Lifting of Moratorium – No Revival of Extinguished Claims – Lifting of moratorium after approval of Resolution Plan does not revive claims which stand extinguished – Moratorium intended to ensure smooth CIRP, not to preserve claims beyond Resolution Plan [Paras 15–18].

Reinstatement Claims – Workmen – Not Maintainable Post-Resolution Plan – Even claim for reinstatement without back wages cannot survive once Resolution Plan approved and claim not recognised therein – Industrial Tribunal’s view that reinstatement claim was tenable held erroneous [Paras 16–18].

Judicial Precedent – Binding Effect of Supreme Court Decisions – Reliance placed on Essar Steel India Ltd. Committee of Creditors v. Satish Kumar Gupta and Electrosteel Steel Ltd. v. Ispat Carrier Pvt. Ltd. – Held: Successful Resolution Applicant must not face undecided or residual claims after approval of Resolution Plan [Para 15].

Decision: Writ Petitions allowed – Impugned orders passed by Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court quashed and set aside – Pending industrial dispute and complaint proceedings held terminated – Rule made absolute.

Motor Vehicles Act – Claims Tribunal Procedure – Deletion of Party – Prematurity – Order Quashed – Claimants challenged MACT order deleting insurer (Respondent No.2) at preliminary stage on ground that policy covered only own damage – Tribunal passed order before completion of pleadings, framing of issues and recording of evidence – Held: MACT cannot decide insurer’s liability piecemeal without full inquiry as mandated under Sections 168 and 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act – Impugned order contrary to statutory scheme and Rules – Deletion set aside [Paras 3–4, 15, 18].

Claims Tribunal – Applicability of CPC – Order I Rule 10 CPC – Not Applicable – Goa Motor Vehicles Rules specify limited application of CPC provisions to MACT proceedings – Order I Rule 10 CPC not extended to Tribunal under Rule 300 – Tribunal lacks power to drop or implead parties based on preliminary examination without inquiry – Pleas regarding liability must be adjudicated after evidence [Paras 14–15].

Insurance Liability – Determination Requires Evidence – Contract of Insurance – Dispute whether vehicle was insured only for own damage or also for third party risk – Existence of multiple insurers pleaded – Held: Determination of inter se liability of insurers depends on proof of insurance contracts and evidence – Such issues cannot be decided at threshold [Paras 5, 7, 15, 18].

Summary Procedure – Not Piecemeal Adjudication – Though MACT follows summary procedure, it must decide all issues together in one inquiry – Reliance placed on Bimlesh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. – Tribunal erred in deciding maintainability and liability in isolation – Inquiry must culminate in a comprehensive award [Paras 16, 18].

Deletion of Party – Demurrer Principle – Premature Exercise of Power – Plea that claim discloses no cause of action against insurer must be tested assuming pleadings to be true – Following Om Prakash Jaiswal v. Manish Kumar – Deletion at preliminary stage before evidence held impermissible [Paras 17–18].

Consequential Directions – Recasting of Issues and Fresh Inquiry – Respondent No.5 later filed written statement during pendency of writ petition – Issues framed in absence of Respondent No.2 held unsustainable – Tribunal directed to recast issues after restoring Respondent No.2 and proceed with evidence and final award [Paras 19–20].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Order dated 10.08.2023 deleting Respondent No.2 quashed and set aside – MACT directed to recast issues after completion of pleadings and decide claim petition after recording evidence of all parties – Rule made absolute [Para 20].

Civil Law - Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Scope – At stage of deciding application under Order VII Rule 11(d), Court must confine itself to averments in plaint and documents filed therewith – Defence or written statement cannot be looked into – If plaint discloses triable issues, rejection impermissible – Suit cannot be dismissed on disputed questions of fact [Paras 17-19].

Benami Act – Section 4(1) – Bar of Suit – Trial court rejected plaint holding suit barred as plaintiff alleged property in mother’s name to be benami – Held, whether property is benami and whether it falls within exceptions under Section 4(3) are questions of fact requiring evidence – Bar under Section 4(1) not attracted at threshold stage [Paras 26-29].

Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) – Purchase from Joint Family Funds – Plaintiff pleaded that property was purchased from HUF funds and income of partnership firm – If proved, transaction may fall within exception under Section 4(3) – Such plea raises triable issue and cannot be adjudicated summarily [Paras 24, 28-29].

Fiduciary Capacity – Mother Holding Property – Though mother not coparcener, fiduciary relationship between son and mother can attract exception under Section 4(3)(b) – Whether mother held property in fiduciary capacity for benefit of plaintiff is matter for evidence – Suit not ex facie barred [Paras 29].

Burden of Proof – Benami Nature – Burden lies on person asserting benami transaction – Determination depends on source of funds, relationship of parties, conduct and surrounding circumstances – Cannot be decided without trial [Paras 21, 25, 27].

Error by Trial Court – Material Illegality – Trial court erred in concluding suit barred merely on plaint averment of benami – Failed to consider exceptions under Section 4(3) – Order held perverse and unsustainable [Paras 29-30].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment and decree dated 30.08.2025 set aside – Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC dismissed – Suit restored to original number – Trial court directed to decide suit within six months – Parties to bear their own costs.