Jurisdiction – Commercial Courts – Execution of Arbitral Award – Petitioners contested the execution of an arbitral award by the Learned Principal District Judge, East Godavari, claiming that the matter falls under the jurisdiction of the Commercial Court due to pecuniary limits. The Principal District Judge’s decision was challenged, citing the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which specifies that only the Commercial Court can handle execution petitions for amounts above the set pecuniary limit [Paras 1-13].

Commercial Courts Act – Amendment and Pecuniary Jurisdiction – The court noted that the pecuniary jurisdiction under the Commercial Courts Act was amended in 2018, reducing the limit from Rs. 1,00,00,000/- to Rs. 3,00,000/-. Consequently, the execution petition should be handled by the Commercial Court at Visakhapatnam, as the amount involved was Rs. 46,46,965/-, which is above the amended limit [Paras 7, 13].

Principal District Judge’s Authority – Arbitral Awards – The Principal District Judge, East Godavari District, was deemed to lack jurisdiction to handle the execution petition following the 2018 amendment. The court emphasized that the jurisdiction now lies with the Commercial Court in matters exceeding Rs. 3,00,000/- [Paras 9-12].

Stay of Judgment and Impact on Current Proceedings – Although the petitioners’ relied upon a Division Bench judgment, the Supreme Court had stayed this judgment. However, the stay did not nullify the principles established, which continue to apply to similar cases unless suspended [Para 15].

Decision – Petition Allowed – The proceedings before the Learned Principal District Judge, East Godavari, were set aside. The respondent was granted leave to transfer the execution petition to the Commercial Court at Visakhapatnam or file a fresh execution petition in the appropriate court [Para 16].

Criminal Law – Conviction and Sentencing – Appellants challenged the conviction under Sections 307, 324, 34 RPC, and Section 4/25 Arms Act – Conviction under Section 307 RPC reduced from seven years to three years, other sentences upheld – Conviction under Section 4/25 Arms Act set aside due to lack of evidence regarding weapon dimensions – Appellants directed to surrender within 15 days [Paras 1-35].

Eyewitness Testimony – Contradictions and Reliability – Minor inconsistencies in witness statements regarding weapon types and sequence of events – Held not sufficient to discredit the overall prosecution case – Testimony of injured and eyewitnesses considered reliable – Supreme Court principles on ocular evidence and injured witness reliability applied [Paras 8-22].

Evidence – Recovery of Weapons – Admissibility issues – Weapons produced by accused, not recovered through disclosure – Held inadmissible but did not affect overall conviction due to strong eyewitness testimony – Supreme Court precedents on recovery of weapons cited [Paras 23-24].

Probation of Offenders Act – Applicability – Benefit under Section 4 denied – Offence under Section 307 RPC punishable with life imprisonment, thus not eligible for probation – Supreme Court precedent on probation applicability referenced [Paras 30-32].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Conviction under Section 307/34 and 324/34 RPC upheld with reduced sentence – Conviction under Section 4/25 Arms Act set aside – Appellants directed to surrender for sentence execution – Trial court record and judgment copy sent back [Paras 34-35].

Criminal Law – Circumstantial Evidence – Dying Declaration-Conviction based on the dying declaration alleged to have been made by the deceased before the second wife (P.W.15), implicating the appellant – Court observed inconsistencies in the testimonies and contradictions in the statements of key witnesses – Evidence of dying declaration found unreliable due to lack of corroboration from the son (P.W.7), who was present at the scene [Paras 9-9A, 10].

Recovery of Evidence – Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act-Recovery of a plastic jerrycan containing kerosene based on the appellant’s statement – Court noted discrepancies in the quantity of kerosene reported and questioned the visibility and accessibility of the jerrycan – Held recovery statement inadmissible under Section 27 as the jerrycan was found in an open and visible location [Paras 14].

Motive and Conduct- Court evaluated the motive suggested by the prosecution, i.e., jealousy due to the deceased’s preference for his second wife – Found the motive insufficient to establish guilt – Appellant’s conduct of attempting to assist the deceased and weeping at the scene considered inconsistent with the behavior of a perpetrator [Paras 10, 12].

Decision - Appeal allowed – Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted and to be released forthwith unless detained in another case [Paras 15].

Urban Development – Unauthorized Construction – Petitioners challenged provisional orders for demolition of buildings constructed on leased land – Claimed construction followed legal requirements and sought regularization – Court directed authorities to follow due process, consider petitioners’ explanations, and provide fair hearing – Emphasized demolition only if public interest or safety is affected [Paras 1-55].

Administrative Law – Principles of Natural Justice – Petitioners argued respondent authorities acted arbitrarily, without proper enquiry or opportunity for hearing – Court reinforced requirement for due process and fair hearing in administrative actions – Directed authorities to objectively verify records and consider explanations before proceeding [Paras 52-55].

Decision – Writ Petitions Disposed – Held – Respondent authorities must follow due procedure in accordance with law – Petitioners permitted to submit additional explanations – No coercive steps to be taken during pending proceedings – Authorities to ensure fair and objective decision-making [Para 55].

Criminal Law – Territorial Jurisdiction – Section 498-A IPC, Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Section 3(1)(x) of SC & ST (POA) Act – Appellants sought discharge on grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction, contending harassment occurred in Kurnool, not Visakhapatnam – Special Judge found continuous offence and dismissed discharge petitions – High Court affirmed, stating no merit in jurisdictional argument as alleged offence was continuing – Appeals dismissed [Paras 1-16].

Discharge of Accused – Section 227 Cr.P.C. – Grounds for Discharge – Insufficient Evidence – Appellant in Crl.A.No.318 of 2024 argued no allegations against her in charge sheet or witness statements – High Court upheld dismissal of discharge petitions, emphasizing charge sheet and statements revealed sufficient material against all appellants – No basis for discharge [Paras 11-14].

Decision: Criminal Appeals dismissed – Orders by Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Offences under SC & ST (POA) Act, Visakhapatnam, upheld – No merit found in appeals [Para 16].

Selection Criteria – Legality and Fairness – Petitioner, an Indian Dressage athlete, challenged the selection criteria for the Paris Olympic Games – Contended criteria favored Respondent No. 2 and relied on outdated performance metrics – Court examined adherence to FEI standards and principles of fairness and rationality – Found criteria balanced, reflecting both past performance and current form – Selection based on highest average scores from best four Grand Prix events in past year deemed fair [Paras 1-34].

Judicial Review – Scope and Limits – Court emphasized judicial restraint in interfering with sports federations' selection criteria – Reiterated that judicial intervention is warranted only in cases of manifest arbitrariness or perversity – Cited precedents underscoring deference to expert bodies in sports governance [Paras 13-15].

Consistency in Performance – Importance in Selection – Respondent No. 2’s selection based on consistent high performance over specified period – Court held historical performance metrics ensure selection of stable and consistently high-performing athletes – Rejected petitioner's argument favoring recent performances only [Paras 17-27].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Held – Selection criteria not arbitrary or discriminatory – EFI’s adherence to FEI guidelines validated – Petitioner’s plea dismissed, affirming selection of Respondent No. 2 to represent India at Paris Olympics [Para 38].

Public Interest Litigation – Construction and Management of Cattle Pounds – Petitioner seeks direction for the construction and maintenance of cattle pounds with requisite infrastructure to confine stray animals – State of Punjab, in response, submits status reports highlighting existing measures, financial assistance to Gaushalas, and relevant By-laws – Court concludes that the State’s measures address the petitioner’s concerns, emphasizing the need for adherence to By-laws to mitigate accidents and injuries caused by stray cattle [Paras 1-4].

Urban Local Bodies – Implementation of By-laws – Affidavits by Haryana and U.T. Chandigarh detail measures taken, including construction of cattle pounds, imposition of fines, and vaccination programs – Court recognizes these steps as sufficient redressal, with an advisory for States to consider uniform By-laws to enhance efficacy in handling stray cattle issues [Paras 5-9].

Decision – Writ petitions disposed of – Court mandates strict adherence to By-laws by State Authorities to ensure safe urban environments – States encouraged to adopt best practices from other jurisdictions for uniformity in stray cattle management [Paras 4, 9].

Rape and Criminal Intimidation – Conviction of Grandson for Raping Grandmother – Appellant challenged conviction for rape and criminal intimidation – Prosecution provided consistent evidence from the victim and corroboration from her daughter and neighbors – Appellant’s history of substance abuse considered – Delay in filing FIR deemed justified due to familial relationships and threats – Conviction and sentence upheld [Paras 1-10].

Victim Testimony – Reliability and Corroboration – Court upheld victim’s testimony despite delay in reporting and absence of immediate medical evidence – Family dynamics and threats explained delay – Victim’s statement supported by daughter’s corroboration and neighbor’s testimony [Paras 4-7].

Evidence – Delay in FIR and Non-seizure of Victim’s Clothes – Court accepted delay in FIR citing Supreme Court precedents on rape case reporting delays – Non-seizure of clothes not detrimental due to victim’s immediate bathing – Medical report indicated possibility of sexual assault [Paras 6-7].

Mental Health of Accused – Request for Psychiatric Evaluation – Appellant’s habitual substance abuse and past behavior cited – Court found no necessity for psychiatric evaluation given the evidence and nature of offenses [Para 2].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Conviction and sentences for life imprisonment under Section 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(n), and two years under Section 506, IPC upheld – Sentences to run concurrently with fines imposed [Para 8-9].

Registration Act – Section 68(2) – Superintendence Powers – Petitioner contested the cancellation of sale deeds by the District Registrar, asserting misuse of power without proper inquiry – High Court found the Registrar’s actions arbitrary and lacking legal foundation – Orders quashed [Paras 1-4, 6-9].

Registration Act – Section 77-A – Misuse of Authority – District Registrar re-cancelled the sale deeds based on a subsequent complaint despite an appellate directive to resolve the matter in civil court – High Court condemned this as misuse of power and directed disciplinary action against the Registrar [Paras 6-8].

Fraud vs. Forgery – Legal Distinctions – Court differentiated between fraud and forgery, emphasizing that allegations of fraud require detailed pleading and proof in civil proceedings – Impugned order found to be without sufficient legal basis [Para 6].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Impugned order set aside – Directed parties to seek remedies in civil court – Directed Inspector General of Registration to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the District Registrar [Paras 7-9].