POCSO Conviction – Appeal Dismissed – Testimony of Child Victim Found Reliable – Conviction Upheld – The appellant challenged his conviction under Sections 5(m), (n), and (p) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Sections 377 and 380 IPC for sexually assaulting a 6-year-old boy – The Trial Court had sentenced the appellant to 20 years RI – On appeal, the High Court held that the testimony of the child victim was clear, credible, and consistent, and corroborated by the MLC – Minor inconsistencies were immaterial and FSL's negative report did not discredit the prosecution case – Foundational facts having been established, presumption under Section 29 POCSO Act applied – The appellant failed to rebut the presumption – Appeal dismissed, conviction and sentence upheld [Paras 1, 7-19].

Child Witness – Competency and Credibility – No Need for Corroboration – Conviction Sustained – The victim, aged 6 years, was found competent to depose and identified the appellant clearly – Held: Once the child’s testimony is found reliable, corroboration is not legally necessary – The consistent account of abuse and immediate disclosure to mother satisfied evidentiary standards [Paras 7-8, 14-15].

Medical Evidence – MLC Supports Allegation – FSL Report Inconclusive – The MLC noted fissure, bleeding, and increased anal tone – Held: Even if FSL did not confirm presence of semen/DNA, the MLC and testimony of the child were sufficient to sustain conviction – Medical corroboration is supportive but not essential where oral testimony is trustworthy [Paras 10-11, 14].

Presumption under Section 29 POCSO Act – Foundational Facts Established – Burden Not Rebutted – The prosecution established foundational facts of penetrative sexual assault through direct evidence and medical findings – Held: The statutory presumption applied – Appellant failed to rebut it either through cross-examination or defence evidence – Conviction justified [Paras 17-18].

Contradictions and Improvements – Not Put to Witness – No Material Impact – Alleged inconsistencies in victim’s and mother’s statements were not substantiated during trial – Held: Without confronting witnesses, the claim of contradictions cannot be entertained – Testimony remained intact and credible [Paras 4, 13].

False Implication Defence – Alleged Money Dispute Unproven – Appellant claimed he was falsely implicated due to salary dispute and cramped living conditions – Held: The defence was speculative and unsupported – The child’s consistent narrative and medical evidence disproved this theory [Paras 4, 12, 16].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Sentence of 20 Years RI Upheld – The High Court confirmed the Trial Court’s conviction and sentence – Appellant directed to surrender before the Jail Superintendent – No interference warranted [Paras 19-20].

Criminal Law - Bail  – Allegation of Foreign Nationality – illegal entry into India - Prima Facie Case of Identity Fraud – Bail Rejected – The applicant was found in possession of digital documents indicating Bangladeshi origin and is accused of forging Indian identity documents to claim citizenship – Held: In absence of verified proof of Indian citizenship and pending verification from UIDAI and other authorities, the application for bail is rejected [Paras 1-5, 22-26, 30-31].

Citizenship Determination – Documentary Evidence – Mere Possession of Aadhaar, PAN, Voter ID Not Conclusive – The applicant relied on Indian identity documents to assert citizenship – Held: These documents do not override statutory requirements of citizenship under the Citizenship Act, 1955 – Verification of issuance and authenticity is necessary before relying on them for legal status [Paras 18-20, 29].

Illegal Migration – Burden of Proof – Section 9 of the Foreigners Act – When prima facie evidence of foreign origin is presented by the State, the burden shifts to the accused – Held: The applicant has failed to discharge this burden by not producing any verified document of Indian citizenship [Paras 21, 29].

Forensic Evidence – Digital Birth Certificates Found – Bangladeshi Origin Suspected – Digital documents retrieved from the applicant’s phone include birth certificates showing Bangladeshi place of birth – Held: The explanation offered by the applicant at this stage is insufficient – Investigation needed to verify source and authenticity [Paras 3, 7, 23-25].

National Security Concerns – Real Risk of Absconding or Tampering with Evidence – Seriousness of Charges Considered – Allegations involve misuse of national identification systems and potential links to wider illegal immigration networks – Held: Given seriousness of offences and applicant’s capability to recreate false identity, bail at this stage would pose serious risk to investigation and national interest [Paras 27-28, 30].

Investigation Pending – UIDAI and Government Authorities Yet to Verify Documents – Ongoing Investigation under Section 193(8) BNSS – The Court noted that identity verification and forensic analysis are still in progress – Held: Bail cannot be granted until crucial investigative steps are completed [Paras 4, 26, 30].

Decision – Bail Denied – Liberty to Apply Again – Regular bail application rejected – However, liberty granted to revive the request if the trial does not conclude within one year [Paras 31-32].

Arbitration Law - Arbitral Jurisdiction – Judicial Review under Articles 226/227 – Scope of Intervention Limited – The writ appeal challenged the Single Bench’s interference with an arbitral tribunal’s order under Section 16 of the Arbitration Act – Held: High Court’s intervention under Article 226/227 is impermissible unless there is a patent lack of jurisdiction, perversity, or bad faith – The tribunal acted within its jurisdiction in deciding the nature of the agreement – Interference unjustified [Paras 1, 6-7, 18-19, 24-25].

Nature of Agreement – Sale vs. Agreement for Sale – Interpretation by Tribunal Final – The respondent claimed the agreement was a sale deed and thus liable for higher stamp duty under Article 23 – The tribunal held it was an agreement for sale and not a conveyance – Held: Interpretation of contractual clauses is within arbitral tribunal’s exclusive domain – Court should not substitute its view unless the finding is perverse or without jurisdiction [Paras 3-4, 20-23].

Stamp Act – Stampability Dispute – Tribunal Empowered to Decide – Arbitral tribunal rejected the plea of insufficient stamping raised belatedly based on N.N. Global judgment – Held: The tribunal’s finding that the agreement did not attract duty under Article 23 is not demonstrably perverse – Impounding was not warranted – Writ Court erred in substituting its view [Paras 6-7, 21-24].

Arbitration Framework – Challenge to Section 16 Orders – Writ Petition Not Maintainable – Section 37 of the Act does not provide for appeal against rejection of a Section 16 plea – Such orders can only be challenged after the final award under Section 34 – Held: Entertaining a writ petition against a Section 16 order undermines the arbitration process – High Courts must discourage such challenges [Paras 13-17].

Extraordinary Jurisdiction – Articles 226/227 – Only in Exceptional Cases – The Court reiterated that judicial review over arbitral orders should be exercised only in rare cases involving bad faith, perversity, or inherent lack of jurisdiction – Held: No such ground existed in the present matter – Single Bench exceeded its jurisdiction [Paras 18-19].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Interference by Single Bench Set Aside – The Division Bench set aside the judgment of the Single Bench and restored the arbitral tribunal’s order – Held: Tribunal’s finding on stampability and nature of contract was within its jurisdiction – Appeal allowed, no costs [Paras 24-26].

Quashing of FIR - Criminal Misconduct – Misappropriation of SGRY rice – Sections 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d) P.C. Act and Sections 465, 471, 409, 120B IPC – Quashment and discharge denied – Petitioners accused of conspiring with Panchayat Secretary to forge beneficiary committee minutes, create fictitious beneficiary lists, and obtain sanction for release of 46,573 kg of rice under SGRY project, later misappropriated without executing works – FSL report indicated forged signatures and handwriting attributable to 2nd petitioner – Court held prosecution materials disclose prima facie case warranting trial; quashing/discharge cannot be granted on conjectures or witness silence in 164 Cr.P.C. statements [Paras 6-7].

Role of Accused – FSL evidence – Handwriting match sufficient for prima facie case – Even if petitioner’s name absent in some annexures, evidence of his role as Standing Committee Chairman who obtained sanction and forged records links him to offence; individual participation in conspiracy need not be proved at pre-trial stage [Paras 9-15].

Decision – Petitions dismissed; interim order vacated; Special Court directed to conclude trial within four months [Paras 7-8].

Civil Law  – RDB Act ss.2(g), 17, 18, 19 & 31 – Transfer of pending bank suit to DRT after amalgamation – Petition Dismissed – HDFC Ltd.’s recovery suit (2007) became a bank’s claim post-amalgamation with HDFC Bank Ltd.; held: “debt” under s.2(g) covers liabilities claimed as due by a bank during its business (including assigned/amalgamated claims); s.18 bars civil court jurisdiction; s.31 read purposively to effectuate the bar; transfer to DRT proper – Writ petition dismissed; interim protection continued for six weeks [Paras 2–5, 10–24, 29–30].

Definition of “Debt” – Claim by Bank during business – Includes assigned/amalgamated loans – RDB Act s.2(g) – Court rejects argument that only amounts originally advanced by a bank qualify; plain text covers any liability “claimed as due… by a bank… during the course of” its business; recovery of loans taken over via assignment/amalgamation falls within s.2(g) [Paras 14–15].

Section 31 vs Sections 17 & 18 – Purposive Construction – Civil Court’s Jurisdiction Ousted – Though the case may not literally fit s.31’s transfer text (suit filed after DRT establishment), s.18’s negative bar and s.17’s conferral of exclusive jurisdiction require pending matters falling within DRT’s remit to go to DRT; s.31 is procedural and reinforces this bar [Paras 16–23].

Amalgamation v. Assignment – Effect on Party Status & Forum – On amalgamation, the transferor company loses its entity; present plaintiff prosecutes not as assignee but as successor, strengthening DRT jurisdiction post-merger – Saraswati Industrial Syndicate applied [Paras 25–28].

Precedents – Delhi DB in Kotak Mahindra supports transfer to DRT after assignment; SC in United Bank of India and Allahabad Bank v. Canara Bank emphasise DRT’s exclusive domain – Division Bench (Delhi) held suits become non-maintainable on original side after assignment to a bank; Supreme Court explains s.31 must be read to ensure bank suits are decided by Tribunals; DRT’s adjudicatory jurisdiction is exclusive [Paras 10–12].

Decision – Writ petition dismissed – Order dated 04/04/2024 transferring Commercial Suit No. 12/2019 to DRT, Aurangabad sustained – Interim order continued for six weeks [Paras 29–30].

Civil Law - Review – CPC Order 47 Rule 1 / Section 114 – “Innocuous” Direction Procured by Suppression – Recall Justified – Common order dated 23/06/2025 in W.P. No. 22484/2025 directed CMDA to consider petitioner’s representation without notice to the affected builder; review applicant showed that material facts (consents/agreements, EC minutes, pending civil suit) were concealed, and the order was misused through public notices – Held: Non-disclosure amounts to unclean hands; error apparent; order reviewed and recalled; writ petition dismissed [Paras 3, 5–7, 13–18].

Suppression of Material Facts – Abuse of Process – Public Notices Misrepresenting Relief – Writ petitioner sought only consideration of representation; yet issued newspaper notices projecting challenge to planning/building permissions – Such concealment/misrepresentation condemned; sufficient to dismiss writ at threshold [Paras 13–16].

Contractual Consent & Association Resolutions – Clauses Permitting Reconstitution/Phase-II and EC Minutes Allowing Construction – Clause 20 of construction agreement authorised plan amendments/reconstitution with neighbouring property and additional FSI/TDR; handing-over agreement Clause 8 recorded ingress/egress to Phase II and common amenities; EC minutes (31.07.2021 & 29.08.2021) permitted continuation of Phase II Block-4 – Non-disclosure vitiated writ relief [Paras 8–10].

Parallel Civil Proceedings – Pending Suit on Contractual Clauses – O.S. No. 74 of 2025 seeking declaration/injunction against access/amenities noted; had it been disclosed, parties would have been relegated to civil court – Another reason to review/recall [Paras 11–12, 15].

Process – No Prior Notice in Writ Due to Limited/“Innocuous” Prayer – Acceptable at admission stage; but once abuse surfaces, Court can correct course in review jurisdiction [Paras 3(ii)-(iii), 16–18].

Decision – Review allowed – Order dated 23/06/2025 in W.P. No. 22484/2025 reviewed and recalled – Writ petition dismissed – No costs – Connected WMPs closed [Para 18].*

Criminal Law - Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Quashing of Summoning Order in prosecution under FSS Act – Dismissed – Petitioners, including Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd., its nominees, Banaskantha District Co-op. Milk Producers’ Union Ltd., and CP Wholesale India Pvt. Ltd., sought quashing of summoning order dated 18.01.2021 in complaint for alleged sale of unsafe, sub-standard, and misbranded ‘Amul’ ghee – Petitioners claimed seized product was counterfeit, not supplied/manufactured by them, and proceedings were barred by limitation under Section 77 FSS Act – Court held that invoices, internal records, and counterfeit allegations are private documents requiring proof at trial; not a ground for quashing at summoning stage – Commissioner validly extended limitation under proviso to Section 77 citing COVID-19 lockdown and delayed responses – No exceptional ground made out – Petitions dismissed; summoning order upheld [Paras 42-46, 47-48].

Counterfeit Product Allegation – Evidentiary burden lies at trial stage – Petitioners’ reliance on batch distribution records and prior complaint against distributor to show counterfeit nature of seized goods cannot be conclusively accepted at pre-trial stage – Determination of genuineness of product is a matter of evidence [Paras 42-43].

Limitation under Section 77 FSS Act – Complaint within extended time – Though complaint filed beyond one year from seizure date (07.03.2019), Commissioner of Food Safety recorded reasons and granted extension up to three years under Section 77 proviso – Complaint filed on 03.09.2020 held within time [Paras 44-46].

Decision – No ground made out for quashing; petitions dismissed; summoning order dated 18.01.2021 sustained [Paras 47-48].

Criminal Law – Appeal Against Conviction - Robbery – Contradictions in Prosecution Evidence – Benefit of Doubt – Conviction Set Aside – Acquittal -Appellants convicted for robbery under Sections 395/34 IPC challenged conviction citing discrepancies in witness testimonies regarding place, time of arrest, and recovery of stolen items – Court found material contradictions in statements of key witnesses, inconsistencies on recovery sources, non-sealing of seized articles, and non-joining of public witnesses despite availability – Such lapses undermined authenticity of prosecution case – Held: Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellants acquitted [Paras 13-14, 17-18].

Criminal Trial – Non-Joining of Public Witnesses – Effect – Failure to associate independent witnesses, despite availability, throws doubt on fairness of investigation – Cited Pawan Kumar v. Delhi Administration (1987) CC 585 DHC – No plausible explanation offered – Adverse inference drawn against prosecution [Para 14].

Standard of Proof – Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof – Reiterated Supreme Court rulings in Wahid v. State (Cr. A. No. 201/2020) and Ashish Batham v. State of M.P. (2002) 7 SCC 317 – Mere suspicion, however strong, is not a substitute for proof beyond reasonable doubt – Benefit of doubt must go to accused [Paras 16-18].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 395/34 IPC quashed – Bail bonds cancelled, sureties discharged [Paras 18-19].

Electricity Law - Electricity Undertaking Acquisition – Depreciation on Consumer-Funded Assets – Section 7-A(2) of Indian Electricity Act – Claim Rejected – The petitioner Board sought deduction of depreciation on works constructed at consumer/local body expense – Held: Such assets not funded by the licensee are excluded from book value for compensation; thus, depreciation on them also cannot be claimed – In line with Pilibhit Electric Supply Co. and other precedents [Paras 4-10].

Stores and Spare Parts – Independent Valuation Under Section 7-A(2)(iii) – Inclusion Justified – The Special Officer rightly considered value of spare parts separately based on physical verification and store records – Claim of double inclusion by Board not substantiated – No interference warranted [Para 11].

Advance Collections – Rs. 2,50,000 Collected Revenue Not Deductible – Amount was not an advance from Board to Ex-Licensee but revenue collected on its behalf – Properly excluded from deductions under Section 7-A(5)(a) – Board’s objection rejected [Para 12].

Railway Siding Charges – Challenge Not Pressed – Petitioner waived argument on this head – Findings of Special Officer on this issue upheld without detailed discussion [Para 13].

Consumer Advances – Claim of Rs. 8,75,393.59 – Already Reflected as Contribution – Amount adjusted in accounts as consumer contribution and excluded from book value – Not separately deductible – Special Officer’s finding upheld [Para 13].

Employee Dues – Gratuity, Leave, SC Awards – Not Payable Absent Actual Disbursement – Gratuity or leave encashment claims not substantiated with proof of payment – Special Officer correctly held no deferred liability existed at takeover date – Claim rightly disallowed [Paras 14-15].

Development Reserve – No Deduction When Utilized in Undertaking – Section 7-A(5)(h) – Special Officer found entire reserve invested in fixed assets transferred to Board – Nothing remained in balance with Ex-Licensee – No error in denying further deduction – Supported by SC precedent in Tinsukhia Electric Supply Co. [Paras 16-17].

Final Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Challenge against specific components of Award dated 12.07.1982 found without merit – Award upheld – Petitioner directed to pay interest on principal amount as per statute within 6 months [Para 18].