Arbitration – Interim Measures – Invocation of Bank Guarantees – Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – The appellant sought to invoke several bank guarantees provided by the respondent, while the respondent sought a restraint on this action – The Arbitral Tribunal granted an injunction restraining the appellant from invoking the bank guarantees on the grounds of special equities and non-compliance with the terms of the guarantees – The appellant challenged the Tribunal’s decision under Section 37(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Held: The Tribunal's decision was upheld as it found that the letters of invocation were not in compliance with the terms of the guarantees, and special equities existed in favor of the respondent, justifying the injunction [Paras 1, 4, 61-112].

Bank Guarantee – Conditional and Unconditional Bank Guarantees – Invocation Requirements – Appellant contended that a bank guarantee (BG) must be invoked according to its terms – If conditional, the invocation must meet specific conditions set out in the BG – If unconditional, injunction against invocation is permissible only under egregious fraud, irretrievable injustice, or special equities – Tribunal justified injunction against invocation on grounds that the letter of invocation did not conform to the BG and special equities existed – Held: BGs were unconditional and letters of invocation were in conformity with BGs, no egregious fraud or irretrievable injustice was shown – Injunction against invocation was not justified [Paras 89-91, 92, 106, 113-114, 128-130, 132].

Principles Governing Bank Guarantees – Precedents Cited – Court referred to Supreme Court judgments including Himadri Chemicals and Vinitec Electronics establishing principles for bank guarantee invocation – Unconditional bank guarantees must be honored by banks irrespective of disputes between parties – Injunction against invocation can be granted only in cases of egregious fraud, irretrievable injustice, or special equities – Fraud must vitiate the entire underlying transaction – Irretrievable injustice must be exceptional, overriding the terms of the guarantee [Paras 94, 24-28, 29-32, 36, 43, 49, 51].

Letters of Invocation – Compliance with Bank Guarantees – Letters of invocation must substantially meet the requirements of the BGs – Tribunal erred by limiting its consideration to specific paragraphs of the letters – Letters included references to termination notices detailing respondent's breaches – The invocation was in accordance with BGs’ stipulations – Subsequent addendum or curative notice can supplement initial defective invocation [Paras 96-110, 112, 113].

Special Equities – Justifying Injunction – Tribunal's decision based on alleged financial distress resulting from invocation lacked empirical evidence – Special equities must be overwhelming and predominate over bank's obligation to honor the BG – In absence of cogent evidence showing irretrievable injustice, special equities cannot justify injunction against invocation – Invocation does not result in irreparable harm to the respondent as restitution remains possible through arbitration [Paras 115-121, 122-124, 130, 131].

Conclusion – Tribunal’s Order Set Aside – Tribunal's findings were unsustainable on facts or in law – No case for injuncting invocation of BGs existed – Requirements of BGs were satisfied in the letters of invocation – No irretrievable injustice or special equities shown – Appeal allowed – Stay on invocation of BGs vacated [Paras 128-130, 132, 142-143].

Leasehold Property – Division and Partition – The Gupta and Jain families acquired a leasehold property on a perpetual lease from the Military Estate Officer – The property was sold to them in two equal undivided shares through two separate Agreements to Sell (ATS) – Held: The perpetual lease did not restrict division or partition of the property, allowing each family to have separate and independent possession – The court ruled that the property could be divided, and the respective portions were always intended to be separate, specific, independent, and exclusive since the purchase in 1983 [Paras 134-142].

Perpetual Lease Deed – Interpretation and Restrictions – Clause 8 of the perpetual lease allowed for assignment, transfer, or sub-lease of the property or any part thereof with mere intimation to the Military Estate Officer – Held: The clause did not prohibit subdivision of the property, and thus, the families were not restricted from dividing the property into distinct portions – The suit property was capable of being sub-divided as per the terms of the lease [Paras 136-140].

Sale Deeds and Supplementary Agreements – Division and Independent Portions – The families executed separate sale deeds and supplementary agreements defining specific portions of the property – The court observed that the ATS, supplementary agreements, and sale deeds indicated the intention for separate sales of independent and distinct areas – Held: The sale deeds executed in 2000 reflected the reality of the division, confirming separate ownership of the North-Eastern and South-Western portions by the Jain and Gupta families, respectively [Paras 150-156].

Construction and Alteration – Unauthorized Construction – The Gupta family was found to have constructed a new outhouse without obtaining requisite sanctions from authorities – The court noted that while the families had independent possession, any construction must comply with the terms of the perpetual lease and obtain necessary permissions – However, this did not affect the ownership of the separate portions [Paras 180-185].

Property Dispute – Partition and Ownership – Dispute between Gupta family and Jain family over the property located at 4 Cavalry Lines, Delhi – Disagreement on whether the property was divided or undivided and the validity of the construction and erection of a partition wall – Held: The suit property was divided into two equal shares, with the Gupta family owning the South West portion and the Jain family owning the North East portion – Agreement to Sell (ATS) executed on 16.09.1983 indicated the division – The purdah wall erected by the Jain family was a physical demarcation of the partitioned areas – Jain family entitled to an injunction against interference by the Gupta family [Paras 158-239].

Construction by Gupta Family – Unauthorized Additions – Evidence showed that the Gupta family expanded their outhouse from 900 sq. ft. to 3010 sq. ft. – Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) declared the construction unauthorized and issued a demolition notice – Additional construction indicated that the Gupta family treated their portion of the property as distinct and separate – Plaintiff witness PW1 testified to the changes in the outhouse but could not confirm specific details due to renovations [Paras 158-159].

Mutation Letters and Lease Rent – Separate Records Indicating Division – Mutation letters from 1985 indicate that the property was mutated in favor of both families, but did not specify distinct areas – The Hon'ble Supreme Court has established that mutation entries do not confer title and are meant for revenue records only – Evidence showed both families were paying lease rent separately from 1985 to 1992, indicating they treated the property as divided – Defense Estates Office records supported the separate payment of lease rents by both families [Paras 160-167].

Purdah Wall and Physical Partition – Erection and Purpose – The Jain family constructed a purdah wall in 1991, claiming it was within their portion of the property – Gupta family argued the wall was for preventing soil erosion and siltage, but could not provide substantive evidence – Court found that the wall, along with a black line running through the verandahs, served as a partition between the properties as per the ATS – No complaints from the Gupta family regarding the wall were recorded, suggesting acceptance of the division [Paras 185-199].

Registered Sale Deeds – Reconfirmation of Partition – Sale deeds executed in favor of the Jain family reconfirmed the division indicated in the ATS – These deeds described the North East half portion in detail, consistent with the area occupied by the Jain family – The court held that these documents were valid and not barred by the doctrine of "Post Litem Motam," which applies to statements or declarations rather than registered sale deeds [Paras 200-214].

Court’s Findings and Relief Granted – Partition Affirmed – The court held that the suit property was divided at the time of the execution of the ATS and that the Jain family occupied the North East portion, while the Gupta family occupied the South West portion – Jain family's suit for a declaration of ownership of the North East portion and for an injunction was granted – The Gupta family was restrained from creating obstacles and interfering in the Jain family's possession and completion of the purdah wall – Gupta family’s suit claiming the property was incapable of partition was dismissed [Paras 221-234].

Decision – Final Orders – The court decreed in favor of the Jain family and dismissed the suit by the Gupta family – No orders as to costs – The court appreciated the assistance provided by the legal teams in disposing of the long-standing dispute [Paras 239].

Negotiable Instruments Act, Section 138 – Joint Account Holder Liability – Quashing of Complaint – Accused was arraigned merely as a joint account holder, not as the drawer or signatory of the dishonored cheque – The cheque was issued by the petitioner's husband in his personal capacity – The petitioner is not liable under Section 138 of the Act in the absence of compliance with Section 141 – Complaint against the petitioner is quashed [Paras 3-7].

Criminal Procedure Code, Section 482 – Abuse of Process of Law – Quashing Proceedings – High Court’s inherent power under Section 482 can be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of the court – The continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would cause unnecessary harassment – Complaint against the petitioner is set aside to prevent abuse of legal process [Paras 7-9].

Decision – Petition allowed – The impugned proceedings being Criminal Case No. 49143 of 2018 pending in the Court of learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Surat, quashed and set aside qua the present petitioner (Accused No. 2) only [Para 9].

Criminal Law - Acquittal - Conviction under Sections 323 and 436 IPC - Sufficiency of Evidence – The appellants were convicted for voluntarily causing hurt and committing mischief by fire – The prosecution case was that the appellants demanded money from the complainant and, upon refusal, assaulted him and set his house on fire – Held: The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt – The key prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and his wife, were not supported by independent witnesses, and there were inconsistencies in the evidence – The benefit of doubt was extended to the appellants, leading to their acquittal [Paras 12-20].

Role of Independent Witnesses – Credibility of Evidence – The court emphasized the lack of support from independent witnesses for the prosecution’s version – Testimonies from neighbors indicated a dispute over money between the complainant and the appellants – The court noted that the prosecution's case rested on unreliable evidence, and the failure to seize key items such as the stick and kerosene can further weakened the case [Paras 15-18].

Medical Evidence – Absence of Injuries – The medical examination of the complainant and the village Kotwar showed no external injuries, casting further doubt on the prosecution’s claim of assault – The complainant’s wife had minor scratch marks, which could have been caused by broken bangles – Held: The absence of injuries and the lack of seizure of weapons indicated the prosecution’s failure to establish the occurrence of the alleged assault [Paras 19-20].

Decision – Acquittal on Benefit of Doubt – The court held that the prosecution failed to establish the charges against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt – Given the inconsistencies and lack of credible evidence, the benefit of doubt was extended to the appellants – The conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted of the charges against them [Paras 20-22].

Maintainability of Writ Petition – Arbitration Clause in Contract – Article 226 of the Constitution – The petitioner challenged the termination of his LPG distributorship license by IOCL, raising issues of arbitrariness and violation of fundamental rights – The respondent argued that the presence of an arbitration clause in the contract barred the petitioner from seeking remedy under Article 226 – Held: The court ruled that the writ petition was maintainable as the petitioner alleged arbitrary and unreasonable action by a state instrumentality, and the presence of an arbitration clause did not constitute an absolute bar to judicial review in cases involving violation of constitutional mandates [Paras 6-12].

Termination of License – Misrepresentation and Ownership of Land – The petitioner was accused of misrepresenting ownership of land when applying for the LPG distributorship – He purchased the land in question based on a sale deed but later discovered that the vendor did not have full ownership – Held: The court found that the petitioner acted in good faith based on the information provided by the vendor and complied with IOCL’s instructions to cure the defect in the land title – IOCL conducted field verification before granting the license, and thus shared responsibility in ensuring due diligence – The termination of the license was deemed unsustainable as the alleged misrepresentation did not meet the criteria outlined under Section 18 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Paras 13-20].

Misrepresentation under Section 18 of the Indian Contract Act – The court analyzed the definition of misrepresentation under Section 18 of the Indian Contract Act, concluding that the petitioner’s actions did not amount to misrepresentation – The court emphasized that the misrepresentation must induce the other party to gain an advantage and that the party alleging misrepresentation had the means to discover the truth with ordinary diligence – In this case, both parties were mistaken, and IOCL had a duty to verify the information before entering into the contract [Paras 18-22].

Decision – Termination Quashed – License to be Continued – The court held that the termination order was unsustainable and quashed it – IOCL was directed to allow the petitioner to continue with the distributorship license, making a specific order within eight weeks – The court emphasized the petitioner’s right to livelihood and the absence of legal tenability in the misrepresentation claim [Paras 23-26].

Preventive Detention – Allegations of Mala Fide Action – The petitioner, a local journalist, was detained under the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, based on a dossier alleging his involvement in repeated criminal acts – The petitioner contended that the detention was mala fide, with the authorities portraying him falsely as a habitual offender by selectively referring to FIRs against him, some of which had resulted in acquittals – Held: The court found that the detention order was issued without proper application of mind, and the authorities failed to acknowledge the acquittals in several FIRs, indicating a mala fide intent to suppress the petitioner’s rights.

Violation of Fundamental Rights – Right to Personal Liberty – The court emphasized that the right to life and personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be deprived without due process – The detaining authority acted in a mechanical manner, accepting the dossier without independently verifying the facts or applying its own mind – This led to a violation of the petitioner's fundamental right to liberty.

Reliance on Outdated and Non-Substantive FIRs – Lack of Immediate Threat to Public Order – The dossier included FIRs dating back to 2001 to 2013 and a recent FIR from 2023, but most did not involve grave charges or an immediate threat to public order – The court held that relying on outdated and minor FIRs to justify preventive detention was an abuse of power – Preventive detention requires a clear and present danger to public order, which was not established in this case.

Judicial Scrutiny of Preventive Detention Orders – The court reiterated the importance of judicial scrutiny in cases of preventive detention, cautioning against the casual use of such powers by the police and executive authorities – It emphasized that preventive detention must be based on concrete evidence of a real threat to public order, and not on vague or generalized allegations.

Decision – Quashing of Detention Order – The court quashed the preventive detention order No. 02/DMP/PSA of 2024 dated 09.03.2024, along with the approval/confirmation orders, as being illegal and a violation of the petitioner's fundamental rights – The Superintendent District Jail Poonch was directed to immediately release the petitioner from custody, restoring his personal liberty.

NEET Counseling – Refund of Security Deposit – Procedural Remedy – The petitioner participated in the NEET (UG) counseling for the academic session 2022-23 and deposited a security amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-. Despite not being allocated any institution, the petitioner did not receive the refund – Held: The respondent authorities are directed to decide on the petitioner's representation for a refund of the security deposit within six weeks of receiving the certified copy of this order – No objection from respondents [Paras 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6].

Decision: Writ petition disposed of – Respondent No. 2 (Director General, Medical Education and Training U.P., Lucknow) directed to decide the petitioner's representation for the refund of the security deposit dated 03.08.2023 within six weeks [Para 6].

Writ Jurisdiction – Tender Process – Preferential Policy – Petitioner, a micro enterprise registered under Udyam, challenged the tender terms for excluding it from the benefits under Assam Procurement Preference Policy, 2021, and the Procurement Preferential Order, 2017 – Court found that the petitioner did not meet the eligibility requirement of 10 years of existence as stipulated in the tender – Held: Tender terms, including requirements for bidder existence, fall within the domain of the tendering authority and are not arbitrary or unreasonable – Writ jurisdiction should not be exercised to interfere with commercial decisions unless malafide, arbitrariness, or irrationality is proven [Paras 22-28].

Micro & Small Enterprise – Benefits Under Tender – Registered Micro Enterprise ("Udyam") – Petitioner's registration as Udyam is not disputed, allowing for certain concessions in the tender process – However, to avail these benefits, the petitioner must first fulfill the technical eligibility criteria as laid out in the tender document – As the petitioner did not fulfill the 10-year existence clause, the preferential benefits were not applicable [Paras 23, 29].

Judicial Review in Tender Matters – Limited Scope – Evaluating tenders and awarding contracts are commercial functions, and the judiciary should not interfere unless there is evidence of arbitrariness, irrationality, or favoritism – The clause requiring 10 years of existence for bidders is not found to be arbitrary or unreasonable in this context [Paras 25-28].

Decision – Writ petition dismissed – The Court held that the petitioner did not meet the eligibility requirement of 10 years of existence as stipulated in the tender document – The conditions laid out in the tender were within the prerogative of the authority and not arbitrary or unreasonable – Interim order vacated [Paras 29-30].

Criminal Procedure Code, Section 439 – Bail – Third Application – Offences under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 326A, 302, and 304-B IPC – Accusation of administering acid to the deceased leading to her death – Second bail applications were dismissed with liberty to file afresh – First bail application dismissed as not pressed – Bail granted due to lack of prima facie evidence in postmortem report [Paras 1-12].

Evidence Act, Section 27 – Recovery of Evidence – Recovery of hydrochloric acid bottle based on information provided by the applicant – Postmortem report does not show external or internal injuries indicative of acid administration – Viscera sent for examination to determine the presence of poison – Bail granted considering lack of direct evidence of acid administration causing death [Paras 5-10].

Postmortem Report – No Indication of Acid Administration – The postmortem report did not reveal injuries consistent with acid administration – No external or internal injuries on face, lips, throat, etc. – Viscera sent to ascertain the presence of poison, suggesting no direct evidence of acid-caused injury or burns [Paras 6-10].

Decision – Bail application allowed – Petitioners granted bail due to the absence of prima facie evidence of acid administration in the postmortem report – Applicants to be released on personal bond and sureties [Paras 12-14].