Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Political Vengeance – Allegation of Favoritism in Tender Allotment – Petitioner challenged the FIR alleging corruption in tender allotment under the amended Punjab Foodgrains Labour & Cartage Policy 2020-21 – Held: FIR quashed as no cognizable offence was disclosed – Allegations against the petitioner were based on conjectures and lacked substance – No loss to the public exchequer was established, and the required work was performed without fault – Quashing warranted to prevent abuse of process of law [Paras 6.2–9].

Forgery Allegations – Tender Process – Clerical Errors – Petitioner accused of providing fake vehicle registration numbers for tender qualification – Held: Errors were clerical and not indicative of criminal intent – Goods were transported using appropriate vehicles without loss or disruption – FIR quashed [Para 6.2].

Doctrine of Parity – Co-Accused Granted Relief – Co-accused Paramjit Chechi’s petition for quashing the same FIR was allowed earlier – Petitioner’s role being identical, petition was also allowed on the same grounds [Paras 6.2–7].

Decision: FIR No. 11 dated 16/08/2022, registered under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B IPC and Sections 7, 8, 12, and 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988, along with all consequential proceedings, quashed – Petition allowed [Para 10].

Matrimonial Law – Interim Maintenance – Priority of Decision – The appellant sought a decision on her application for interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the main petition – Held: Family Court rightly decided to take up the application along with the main petition, in line with established legal principles [Para 6].

Procedural Law – Right to Examination – Arbitrariness in Closure – Appellant’s right to examine herself was closed after her absence during cross-examination on a single day despite prior notice to the court – Held: Closure of the appellant’s right was arbitrary given her prior participation in cross-examination and professional commitments – Family Court directed to reschedule cross-examination in consultation with both parties [Paras 6–7].

Cross-Examination – Time Limits in Matrimonial Disputes – Need for Expediency – Court emphasized the importance of expediting cross-examinations in family matters to align with the objectives of the Family Courts Act, 1984 – Prolonged and irrelevant questioning must be avoided to ensure speedy resolution of matrimonial disputes [Paras 9–10].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Family Court's order closing the appellant’s right to examine herself was set aside – Appellant directed to appear for cross-examination on a date fixed by the Family Court in January 2025 – Family Courts directed to ensure expedited cross-examinations without undue harassment to parties [Paras 7, 10].
 

Writ Jurisdiction – Scope Against Private Bodies – Banking Activities – The Court examined the maintainability of writ petitions against private banks concerning alleged non-compliance with contractual obligations – Held: Private banks performing commercial activities are not subject to writ jurisdiction unless statutory or public duties are involved. Claims arising out of private contracts are not enforceable under Article 226 of the Constitution [Paras 18–20, 22].

RBI Guidelines – Applicability to Scheduled Banks – Nature of Circulars – Petitioners argued that banks violated Clause 7.6 of the RBI Master Circular by disbursing housing loans contrary to construction progress – Held: Circulars are directory, not mandatory, and primarily act as guidelines for policy formulation by banks; hence, non-adherence does not warrant judicial interference under writ jurisdiction [Paras 7, 19–21].

Consumer Protection – Alternative Remedies – The Court emphasized the availability of alternative remedies, including proceedings before the National Consumer Commission and the Integrated Ombudsman Scheme – Held: Relief under Article 226 cannot be granted when effective alternative forums are available and already approached by the petitioners [Paras 22–23].

Decision: Writ petitions dismissed as not maintainable, with liberty granted to petitioners to pursue alternative remedies.
 

Civil Law - Order 41 Rule 27 CPC – Additional Evidence – Permissibility – Lower Appellate Court allowed the plaintiffs to produce revenue records as additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, citing lack of knowledge as the reason for non-production before the Trial Court – Held: The plaintiffs’ inability to produce evidence due to lack of knowledge does not satisfy the requirements under Order 41 Rule 27 – Additional evidence cannot be allowed to fill gaps in a party's case unless it satisfies the statutory conditions – Application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC dismissed [Paras 13-20].

Order 41 Rule 25 CPC – Framing Additional Issue on Adverse Possession – Procedure for Remand – Lower Appellate Court framed an additional issue on adverse possession and remanded the matter to the Trial Court after setting aside the judgment and decree – Held: Since the Trial Court omitted to frame the issue of adverse possession, the Lower Appellate Court correctly framed the additional issue and directed remand – However, under Order 41 Rule 25, the Appellate Court should have retained the appeal and referred only the additional issue to the Trial Court for findings, rather than setting aside the entire judgment and decree [Paras 21-22].

Scope of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC – Appellate Court’s Discretion – Provision under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is an exception to the general principle that an appeal must be decided on the basis of the evidence on record – Additional evidence can only be allowed in exceptional circumstances when the evidence is essential for pronouncing judgment or for any substantial cause – Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate the necessity or due diligence required for invoking Rule 27 [Paras 13-19].

Remand under Order 41 Rules 23, 23-A, and 25 – Applicability – The Lower Appellate Court’s power to remand was invoked under Order 41 Rule 25, not Rules 23 or 23-A – Appellate Court erred in setting aside the judgment and decree – Remand should have been limited to the additional issue while retaining the appeal [Paras 21-22].

Decision – Application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC rejected – Lower Appellate Court’s order of remand modified: Judgment and decree of the Trial Court restored; remand limited to the additional issue on adverse possession, to be tried by the Trial Court and returned to the Appellate Court for final decision – Revision petition partially allowed [Paras 23-25].
 

Bail Pending Trial – Allegations of Money Laundering – Proceeds of Crime – The petitioner, a former minister, was accused of laundering proceeds of crime arising out of corruption in tender allocation under the Punjab Foodgrains Labour & Cartage Policy 2020-21 – Allegations included acquiring proceeds of crime as immovable properties and gold worth crores, which were concealed through relatives and shell entities – Held: Petitioner granted bail as the predicate offenses were quashed by the High Court, and further incarceration would serve no purpose – Petition allowed [Paras 6.2-6.5].

Policy Amendment – Judicial Review Upheld – No Malafide Intent Found – The Punjab Foodgrains Labour & Cartage Policy 2020-21, which introduced amendments requiring a minimum turnover for bidding, was judicially reviewed and upheld by Division Benches of the High Court – Held: The amendment facilitated all bidders and did not disclose any arbitrariness or malafide intent [Paras 6.2].

Predicate Offenses Quashed – Effect on PMLA Complaint – Both predicate offenses (FIR Nos. 11 and 18 of 2022) were quashed by the High Court on the same date, eliminating the basis for continuing prosecution under the PMLA – Held: Further detention of the petitioner in custody was unjustified, and bail was granted [Para 6.5].

Compliance with PMLA – Procedural Safeguards Violated – The petitioner contended that his arrest was in violation of Section 19 of the PMLA, as he was summoned as a witness but arrested on the same day – Held: E.D. overstepped its jurisdiction by investigating beyond the scope of PMLA and failed to conclusively establish the tainted source of alleged proceeds of crime [Paras 3.1, 3.6].

Decision – Petition allowed – Petitioner directed to be released on bail in Complaint No. COMA/24/2024 dated 26.09.2024, arising from ECIR No. JLZO/16/2022, on furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Special Court/Duty Magistrate – Further incarceration was deemed unnecessary in light of quashed predicate offenses [Paras 7-9].
 

Contract Law - Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause – Interpretation of Contractual Jurisdiction Clauses – Clause 13(b) of the ISDA Agreement conferred exclusive adjudicatory jurisdiction to the High Court of Mumbai – Held: The clause was valid and binding on the parties, as it was neither void under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act nor contrary to public policy – A jurisdictional clause conferring exclusive competence on one court is valid if the chosen court has territorial jurisdiction and part of the cause of action arises within its domain [Paras 5-6, 11-13].

Jurisdictional Limitation – Cause of Action Requirement – For a court to exercise jurisdiction under an exclusive jurisdiction clause, part or whole of the cause of action must arise within its territorial jurisdiction – Held: Since a part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the High Court of Mumbai, the clause is enforceable, and courts outside Mumbai lack jurisdiction in this matter [Paras 7, 12-14].

Waiver of Jurisdiction – Binding Nature of Contract – By entering into a valid contract that includes an exclusive jurisdiction clause, the parties waive their right to approach other courts – Held: The respondents, having consented to the jurisdiction clause, were estopped from invoking the jurisdiction of civil courts in Gurgaon. The clause must be strictly enforced [Paras 13-15].

Applicability of Proviso in Jurisdiction Clause – The exception in Clause 13(b), allowing Party B (the petitioner) to bring proceedings in other forums, applies only to the petitioner and not to the respondent – Held: Respondents could not rely on the proviso to invoke the jurisdiction of courts outside Mumbai [Paras 14-15].

Decision – Reference Answered – Civil Revision Petition Disposed Of – The jurisdictional clause in the ISDA Agreement is declared valid and enforceable. The case is remanded to the Roster Bench for further proceedings in light of this decision [Para 16].
 

Criminal Writ - Habeas Corpus – Custody of Minor – Applicability of Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 – The petitioner, a biological father, filed a habeas corpus petition alleging illegal custody of his minor son (aged 9 years) with the maternal grandparents (respondents) – Held: The petitioner, being the natural guardian under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, is entitled to the custody of the minor – Custody with the maternal grandparents is not in accordance with the law, and their refusal to return the child constitutes illegal custody [Paras 19-22, 26, 63].

Best Interest of the Child – Paramount Consideration – Welfare Principle – While adjudicating custody matters, the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration – The mother, who is living in Canada since 2021, has shown no interest in the child’s welfare and failed to participate in legal proceedings, while the petitioner demonstrated stable financial and emotional readiness to care for the child – Custody awarded to the petitioner as it serves the best interest of the minor [Paras 56-59, 63].

Maintainability of Habeas Corpus Petition – Custody by Maternal Grandparents – Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act – Respondents argued that habeas corpus was not maintainable as the petitioner had alternative remedies under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 – Held: Habeas corpus is maintainable as the custody with maternal grandparents does not fall under any legally recognized category of guardianship (natural, testamentary, or legal guardian) – Refusal to hand over custody to the natural guardian amounts to illegal detention [Paras 13-19, 26].

Visitation Rights for Maternal Grandparents – The Court permitted the maternal grandparents (respondents) to visit the child after every fortnight for two hours at the petitioner’s residence, ensuring the child maintains familial bonds with both sides of the family [Paras 66-67].

Decision: Writ of habeas corpus allowed – The custody of the minor child, Harmanveer Singh, aged 9 years, directed to be handed over to the petitioner (biological father).
The maternal grandparents (respondents) are permitted visitation rights after every fortnight at the petitioner’s residence for two hours with prior intimation [Paras 63-67].
 

Appointment of Lambardar – Preference to Ex-Servicemen – Rule 15(c) of Punjab Land Revenue Rules – Collector’s Decision Upheld – The appellant challenged the appointment of the private respondent as Lambardar, arguing that the appellant’s younger age (29 years) should outweigh the respondent’s experience as a retired Subedar (51 years old) – Held: Rule 15(c) prioritizes services rendered to the State – Age factor cannot outweigh the preference for an ex-serviceman who retired after serving the nation – Collector's decision upheld [Paras 7-8].

Collector's Discretion – Limited Scope of Judicial Review – Interference Not Warranted – The Financial Commissioner’s decision to override the Collector’s choice was set aside – The court noted that the Collector personally interacted with the candidates, considered their relative merits (age, education, and service to the State), and selected the respondent – The Single Judge appropriately upheld the Collector’s discretion, observing no perversity in the decision [Paras 5-9].

Educational Qualifications – Marginal Difference Not Decisive – The appellant argued his 12th-grade qualification made him a better candidate than the respondent, who had studied up to the 10th standard – Held: The marginal difference in educational qualifications was not significant, especially when weighed against the respondent’s service as an ex-serviceman – Respondent was not illiterate, and the Collector rightly prioritized his service record [Paras 5, 9].

Hereditary Claim – No Preference Allowed – The appellant’s hereditary claim as the son of the previous Lambardar was rejected – Held: Hereditary claims violate Article 14 of the Constitution – The Collector and the court appropriately excluded hereditary preference in the selection process [Para 5].

Land Ownership – Relevant Factor – The respondent owned land in the village, while the appellant did not – The court found this factor validly considered by the Collector in favor of the respondent [Para 9].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – The High Court upheld the respondent’s appointment as Lambardar and affirmed the learned Single Judge’s order – Held: The Collector’s discretion was exercised properly, and there was no perversity or illegality warranting interference [Paras 9-10].
 

Civil Law - Temporary Injunction – Maintainability of Appeal – Non-Compliance with Order 39 Rule 3 CPC – Appeal against an ex parte interim injunction issued by the Trial Court restraining the appellant from proceeding with a General Body Meeting to consider expulsion of the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 – Held: Appeal maintainable under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC, as the Trial Court failed to assign reasons for granting an ex parte injunction as mandated under Order 39 Rule 3 CPC – Observed that courts must exercise discretion cautiously when granting interim orders, particularly without notice to the opposing party, and must comply with statutory requirements [Paras 12-18].

Procedural Compliance – Recording of Reasons for Ex Parte Injunction – Order 39 Rule 3 CPC – The Trial Court, while granting the ex parte injunction, merely noted the materials on record without recording specific reasons for dispensing with notice to the opposite party – Held: Such an omission violates the statutory mandate under Order 39 Rule 3 CPC, which requires courts to explicitly state reasons why delay in granting the injunction would defeat its purpose [Paras 13-16].

Anticipatory Relief – Prematurity of Cause of Action – Membership Expulsion – Respondent No. 1 filed a suit anticipating ratification of his membership termination at a General Body Meeting scheduled for 29/11/2024 – Held: Relief sought by the respondent for declaration was premature as the General Body Meeting had not yet taken place, and no actionable grievance had crystallized – The Trial Court should have noted this while adjudicating the application for injunction [Paras 13, 18].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Ex parte injunction order set aside – Trial Court directed to reconsider the application on merits within 30 days – Interim order of this Court to remain in force until the Trial Court's decision [Para 19].