Arbitration – Interim Award on Limitation – Premature Decision without Evidence – Found Contrary to Fundamental Policy - Arbitrator decided limitation issue as preliminary issue solely on demurrer relying only on claimant's pleadings – Arbitrator himself noted that with evidence the outcome might differ – Held: Decision violates judicial approach requirement under fundamental policy of Indian law – Interim award modified [Paras 19-25]. 
 
Section 34 Arbitration Act – Scope of Judicial Review – Limited but Permissible when Award Contravenes Fundamental Policy - Held: Court cannot review award on merits but can interfere when award is perverse or based on flawed procedure breaching judicial approach – Such breach occurred as limitation was decided without parties' evidence [Paras 13-19]. 
 
Estoppel – Consent to Procedure for Preliminary Issue – Respondents Not Estopped – Arbitrator Misread Proceedings - Held: Respondents’ initial willingness to argue limitation issue did not waive their right to lead evidence – Objection was raised at appropriate stage – Arbitrator wrongly foreclosed right to evidence [Paras 21-24]. 
 
Public Policy – Award Rendered in Violation of Fundamental Policy of Indian Law – Modification Upheld - Held: Arbitrator's approach was against principles of natural justice and judicial approach - Modified order by Single Judge justified - Appeal dismissed [Paras 24-26]. 
 
Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Arbitrator to Re-examine Limitation Issue Based on Evidence - Modification of interim award sustained – Arbitrator to decide limitation issue afresh based on evidence [Para 26]. 
 

Criminal Law – Conviction under Sections 498A, 302, and 201 IPC – Conviction set aside due to lack of direct evidence and incomplete chain of circumstantial evidence - The prosecution failed to establish any cogent and consistent link between the appellants and the crime – Star witness PW-15's testimony disbelieved due to delay, omissions, and improbabilities – Defence theory of suicide not ruled out – Held: Conviction cannot be sustained [Paras 56-93]. 
 
Section 498A IPC – Allegations of Cruelty – Vague and Omnibus Allegations Insufficient – Conviction unsustainable - No contemporaneous complaint, specific incidents, or details of cruelty alleged – Witnesses depose general dissatisfaction and quarrels without meeting the legal requirements of cruelty under Section 498A IPC – Trial Court wrongly convicted based on conjectures [Paras 55-58]. 
 
Section 106 Evidence Act – No Shift of Burden – Absence of Proof of Presence of Accused - Prosecution failed to prove that appellants were present at the scene at the time of occurrence – Application of Section 106 Evidence Act to infer guilt was misplaced – Mere relationship with deceased or proximity to the incident does not justify shifting burden to accused [Paras 59-61, 75-79, 82]. 
 
Testimony of PW-15 – Delayed Statement under Section 164 CrPC – Reliability Doubtful – Statement rejected - PW-15, a crucial prosecution witness, did not mention incriminating facts in the FIR or inquest report – Delay of over two weeks in recording Section 164 statement unexplained – No prior Section 161 statement recorded – Held: Statement is unreliable and likely an afterthought [Paras 62-71]. 
 
Post-Mortem Evidence – Conducted by Unqualified Person – Opinion Lacking Forensic Value - Post-mortem done under supervision of a doctor without forensic expertise and performed by a Dom untrained for dissection – Report lacked essential details like burn percentage, type of asphyxia, or time of death – Held: Medical evidence unfit for reliance [Paras 83-87]. 
 
Circumstantial Evidence – Failure to Complete Chain – Possibility of Suicide Plausible – Prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt - Absence of credible motive, no clear eyewitnesses to the crime, serious lacunae in investigation and medical evidence – Defence theory of suicide or self-inflicted death held probable – Conviction set aside [Paras 84-90]. 
 
Decision – Appeals Allowed – Conviction and Sentences Under Sections 498A, 302, 201 IPC Set Aside – Appellants Acquitted - Held: Prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt – Appellants released [Paras 90-93]. 
 

Civil Law - Documentary Evidence – Post-Institution Sale Deeds – Relevancy Not Established – Leave Rightly Denied - Petitioners sought to introduce certified copies of sale deeds executed in 2019 while suit filed in 2010 was at argument stage—Held: Documents did not exist at time of suit, not referred in pleadings, and pertained to other survey numbers—Trial court correctly held them irrelevant to dispute in Sy.No.237 [Paras 2–6, 14].

Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC – Discretion of Court – Not Routine – High Threshold for Late Documents - Court reiterated that documents not filed with plaint can be received at trial only with leave and for good cause—Discretion under Order VII Rule 14(3) is exceptional and must be exercised judiciously, especially when hearing has commenced [Paras 10–13].

Amendment of CPC – Harshness Removed, Not Unrestricted Inclusion - While 2002 Amendment relaxed earlier bar on late filing, Court clarified it still does not permit introduction of unrelated or newly created documents unless clearly relevant and justified—No such justification found in present case [Paras 9–11].

Pleading and Issues – No Basis in Original Suit – New Documents Cannot Broaden Scope - The Court held that bringing post-suit documents into record without corresponding pleadings effectively introduces new issues—Trial courts have discretion to prevent such expansion beyond the plaint [Paras 12–13].

Decision – Civil Revision Petitions Dismissed – No Infirmity in Trial Court’s Rejection of IAs Seeking to Receive Post-Suit Documents – Miscellaneous Petitions Closed – No Costs [Para 15].
 

Criminal Law – NDPS Act – Compliance with Section 42 – Mandatory Procedural Requirement – Non-Compliance Vitiates Trial – Although the prosecution claimed a chance recovery of contraband, the circumstances and memos on record indicated prior information—Held: Since there was no compliance with Section 42 i.e., no record of information or intimation to superior officers, the prosecution’s case was vitiated [Paras 12-22]. 
 
NDPS Act – Section 50 Compliance – Right to be Searched before 
Magistrate/Gazetted Officer – Violation Held Fatal – Despite the accused being given an option to be searched by the police, there was no clear communication of his right to be searched before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer—Held: Noncompliance of mandatory requirements under Section 50 renders the search and recovery illegal and inadmissible [Paras 23-27]. 
 
Interpretation of NDPS Provisions – Burden on Prosecution – Prosecution Failed to Establish Due Compliance – The prosecution failed to demonstrate strict compliance with procedural safeguards under Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act—Total non-compliance held to be impermissible as per settled law [Paras 1921, 26-27]. 
 
Appeal Against Acquittal – Scope of Interference – Findings Not Perverse – The acquittal by the learned Special Judge was held reasonable and based on proper appreciation of evidence—Held: No ground to interfere with the order of acquittal—Appeal dismissed [Paras 28-29]. 
 

Bail under NDPS Act – Recovery Marginally Exceeding Commercial Quantity – Bail Granted – The petitioner was found with 55 kg poppy husk and 500 grams opium – The Court observed that the recovery was marginally over the commercial quantity limit – Petitioner was in custody for 1 year and 5 days – Only 2 out of 20 prosecution witnesses examined – Trial likely to take a long time – Bail granted considering prolonged incarceration and pending trial [Paras 3-4].

Clean Antecedents – No Previous Conviction or Criminal History – The petitioner had no past criminal record and was not involved in any other case – The Court considered clean antecedents as a significant factor favoring bail – Bail cannot be mechanically denied solely due to seriousness of offence without considering individual circumstances [Paras 3-4].

Right to Speedy Trial – Article 21 of the Constitution – Delay in Trial Considered – The Court emphasized that prolonged pre-trial detention violates Article 21 rights – Referred to Hussainara Khatoon, Dataram Singh, and Baljinder Singh alias Rock cases to hold that bail is the rule and detention an exception – Bail is justified where there is no immediate prospect of conclusion of trial [Paras 4-5].

Decision – Bail Granted – Petition allowed – Petitioner directed to be released on regular bail on furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court – No opinion expressed on merits of the case [Para 5].
 

Civil Law - Specific Performance – Validity of Agreement and Compliance by Vendees – Agreements Upheld – Both agreements to sell dated 28.04.1984 and 10.06.1985 found to be valid and unrevoked – Plaintiffs proved payment of earnest money and continued possession – Held: Trial court rightly found that plaintiffs fulfilled their contractual obligations while the vendor failed to obtain income tax clearance and complete partition formalities [Paras 7, 48-52]. 
 
Readiness and Willingness – Deposition by Power of Attorney – Admissible – Plaintiffs' attorney, who was also a close family member (husband/father), was held competent to depose – Court held that Section 120 of the Evidence Act allows a spouse to testify for another, and his involvement in the transaction from inception was well documented – Held: No adverse inference can be drawn against plaintiffs for non-appearance when their attorney was adequately involved and competent [Paras 29-47]. 
 
Limitation – No Fixed Date for Sale Execution – Cause of Action Dependent on Vendor’s Acts – Since execution of sale deed was conditional upon vendor obtaining clearance certificate and completing partition entries, limitation would begin only upon refusal or non-compliance – Held: Suit not barred by limitation [Paras 53-55]. 
 
Order II Rule 2 and Section 11 CPC – No Bar to Present Suit – Prior Suits Not Decided on Merits – Two previous suits dismissed for being premature or nonmaintainable—third suit withdrawn—Held: Rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 does not bar subsequent suit under Order VII Rule 13 – Suit for specific performance maintainable [Paras 13-28]. 
 
Possession – Plaintiffs Shown to be in Physical Possession – Dispute Over Malkana Possession Baseless – Agreement dated 28.04.1984 confirmed possession with plaintiffs, which continued post-partition – Held: Possession never legally transferred to defendant No.2, who is not a bona fide purchaser and acted with notice of earlier agreement – Concurrent findings upheld [Paras 56-61]. 
 
Appeal Against Concurrent Findings – No Interference Warranted – High Court reiterated limits on second appellate jurisdiction – Held: No perversity or misreading of evidence in judgments of lower courts – Appeal dismissed [Paras 62-63]. 
 

Service Law - Reservation in Promotion – Quantifiable Data – Constitutionality Upheld – Petitioners challenged reservation policy dated 07.10.2023 alleging non-compliance with requirements under Article 16(4A) – Held: Haryana Government had undertaken a detailed cadre-wise and group-wise study demonstrating inadequacy of SC representation – State complied with the constitutional mandate and Supreme Court guidelines in M. Nagaraj and Jarnail Singh – Reservation upheld [Paras 10.1-10.5, 12].

Delegation of Power – Promotion Criteria – No Unlawful Delegation Found – Allegation that power under Article 16(4A) was delegated to Departmental Promotion Committees – Rejected – Held: Instructions merely implemented a State policy already backed by quantified data; decision-making authority not abdicated [Paras 6, 10.5].

Creamy Layer Exclusion – Not Applicable to SCs in Promotion – Petitioners argued for application of creamy layer exclusion to SC candidates – Rejected – Held: As per binding precedents including Jarnail Singh and B.K. Pavitra, creamy layer concept not applicable to SCs in the context of promotional reservations [Paras 4.2, 6].

Administrative Efficiency – Article 335 Compliance – Promotion Conditional on Eligibility – Petitioners contended that promotion policy violates Article 335 – Held: Instructions mandated only eligible SC candidates for promotion and maintained performance-based probation – Efficiency of administration safeguarded [Paras 7, 11].

Decision – Petitions Dismissed – Instructions Upheld – Court held that the State of Haryana fulfilled constitutional preconditions for granting reservation in promotions – No constitutional infirmity found – Petitions dismissed, validating the 07.10.2023 instructions [Paras 10-13].

Eviction – Bona Fide Requirement – Office of Advocate in Commercial Premises – Decree Upheld - Held: An Advocate's office in a commercial building attracts Section 12(1)(f) for eviction on ground of bona fide need for non-residential use – Office run from second floor of residential building with access difficulties for litigants not reasonably suitable – Landlord entitled to evict for establishing proper office [Paras 13-19].

Alternative Accommodation – Suitability Question of Fact – Court Cannot Impose Standard on Landlord - Held: It is not for the tenant or Court to dictate suitability of existing space – Landlord is best judge of his bona fide requirement – The office on second floor was unsuitable due to accessibility issues for old and infirm litigants [Paras 17-20].

Profession v. Business – Office of Advocate Covered Under Non-Residential Use - Although profession is not commerce, Advocate's office situated in commercial building is treated as non-residential use within meaning of Section 12(1)(f) – Distinction between residential office and office in commercial area recognized [Paras 11-14].

Pleadings – Material Facts Sufficient – Specific Pleadings Regarding Non-Availability of Suitable Accommodation Found - Petitioner had clearly pleaded lack of suitable alternative accommodation and inability to run office properly – Contentions regarding lack of formal plea rejected [Paras 16-18].

Judicial Approach – Tenant Cannot Dictate Landlord’s Needs – Well Settled Principle - Held: Courts cannot insist how landlord should utilize property or where he should run office – It is open to landlord to choose suitable accommodation for professional purposes [Paras 19-21].

Decision – Second Appeal Dismissed – Eviction Decree Under Section 12(1)(f) Affirmed - Appellant directed to vacate premises as per eviction decree confirmed by Appellate and Trial Courts [Paras 22-23].
 

Matrimonial Law – 125 CrPC - Maintenance – Interest on Maintenance – Mandatory under Precedent – Review Allowed - The applicants sought review of the judgment dated 29.11.2024 on the ground that the Court failed to apply the binding precedent of Prakash vs. Vithabai, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1487, which mandates award of interest on arrears of maintenance – The Court held that failure to apply the said binding precedent amounted to an error apparent on the face of the record – The bar under Section 362 CrPC does not apply to proceedings under Section 125 CrPC as per Sanjeev Kapoor vs. Chandana Kapoor (2020) 13 SCC 172 – Review allowed and interest @9% per annum awarded on maintenance from 07.06.2024 till realization [Paras 5-28].

Review – Error Apparent on Record – Non-consideration of Binding Precedent – The Court held that overlooking binding judgments, including Prakash (supra), amounts to an error apparent on the face of the record and warrants review, particularly in proceedings under Section 125 CrPC which are quasi-civil in nature [Paras 17-24].

Maintainability – Review in Maintenance Proceedings – Embargo under Section 362 CrPC Relaxed – The Court reiterated that Section 362 CrPC does not bar review in Section 125 CrPC proceedings owing to their social welfare character – Reference made to Sanjeev Kapoor (supra) and Rina Kumari vs. Dinesh Kumar Mahto 2025 SCC OnLine SC 72 [Paras 15-24].

Decision – Review Allowed – Interest Granted – The Court reviewed the judgment dated 29.11.2024 and directed Respondent No.1 to pay interest @9% per annum on the maintenance amount awarded from 07.06.2024 till the date of realization – Rest of the judgment remained unaltered [Paras 27-28].