NDPS Act – Joinder of Charges – Section 218 Cr.P.C. Violated – Discharge Granted – Applicant was charged under Sections 8(c), 22(b), 27A and 29 of the NDPS Act based on alleged procurement of 44 grams of mephedrone in small quantities over 18 months – Held: Charges for distinct acts of procurement spread over more than a year could not be tried jointly in the absence of compliance with Section 219 Cr.P.C. – Prosecution failed to establish legal basis for joinder of more than three offences over 18 months – Charges framed were legally unsustainable [Paras 9–16].

Evidentiary Standard – WhatsApp Chats and Co-Accused Confession – No Prima Facie Material – Prosecution relied on WhatsApp chats between applicant and co-accused and confession of co-accused – Held: Chats did not refer to contraband or specific transactions; confession of co-accused inadmissible under Section 25 of Evidence Act – No recovery from applicant – Mere hearsay insufficient to frame charges under Sections 27A and 29 NDPS Act [Paras 17–20].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Section 397 Cr.P.C. – Scope and Application – Orders Quashed – High Court held that invocation of severe charges without adhering to procedural safeguards constitutes error of law – Held: Trial court orders rejecting discharge showed failure of application of mind and non-compliance with Cr.P.C. – Discharge application allowed and revision application upheld [Paras 7–8, 21–24].

Decision: Criminal Revision Application allowed – Orders dated 04/07/2023 and 07/10/2023 passed by the Special Judge in NDPS Special Case No.711 of 2021 quashed – Applicant discharged under Sections 8(c), 22(b), 27A and 29 of NDPS Act [Paras 22–24].

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIRs - Multiple FIRs – Separate Incidents at Different Locations – Quashment Denied – Petitioner sought to quash FIR in Guruvayoor crime alleging abuse of process due to multiple FIRs – Held: FIRs concern distinct offences at different times and places – Each incident constitutes a separate and independent transaction – No violation of Article 20(2) or double jeopardy principles [Paras 4-7].

Jurisdictional Separation – Guruvayoor and Thiruvananthapuram Offences Independent – FIRs Not Interchangeable – Held: FIR and final report from Thiruvananthapuram did not cover Guruvayoor incident – Charge framing for Guruvayoor offence not shown – Separate investigation and trial warranted [Paras 5-6].

Misuse of Process – No Prima Facie Case of Abuse – Petitioner failed to produce charge documents to show overlap in trial – Court found no legal infirmity or duplication in parallel FIRs – Dismissal of Section 482 petition justified [Paras 6-8].

Directions Issued – Clarity in Trial Scope – Trial Court to Limit Charges – Directed Nedumangad Special Court to confine trial to Thiruvananthapuram incident – Any overlap with Guruvayoor incident to be rectified via alteration of charge [Para 8].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Section 482 CrPC Invocation Unmerited – No bar on Guruvayoor FIR proceeding – Liberty given to ensure distinct prosecution and avoid prejudice to accused [Paras 8-9].

Arbitration Law - Arbitration Agreement – Prima Facie Existence – Appointment of Arbitrator – Arbitration Clause Survives Termination of Contract – Respondents objected to invocation of arbitration on the ground that the MoU and Agreement of Sale stood terminated by efflux of time – Held: The arbitration agreement is a separate contract and survives the termination of the principal contract – The effect of the Indemnity Bond and the claim of termination are issues to be decided by the arbitral tribunal and not at the Section 11 stage – Appointment of arbitrator ordered [Paras 14-16].

Insufficient Stamping – Objection Not Maintainable at Referral Stage – Respondents objected to enforceability of arbitration clause citing insufficient stamping – Held: Following the 7-Judge Bench decision in In Re: Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements and Stamp Act, the referral court under Section 11 cannot decide stamping objections – Such objections are to be dealt with by the arbitral tribunal – Objection rejected [Paras 13].

Interpretation of Arbitration Clause – Use of Word ‘May’ – Whether Mandatory or Directory – The arbitration clause in the Agreement of Sale used the word ‘may’ – Held: Where the intention to arbitrate is clear from reading the MoU and the Agreement of Sale together, use of ‘may’ does not dilute the enforceability of the arbitration clause – MoU contains a clear binding arbitration clause – Both agreements are interconnected and form part of the same transaction – Arbitration clause held valid and binding [Paras 17-18].

Scope of Court’s Power Under Section 11 – Referral Court’s Role Limited – Courts at Section 11 stage cannot decide on the merits of termination, novation, or arbitrability of disputes – The court’s role is limited to examining whether a prima facie arbitration agreement exists – Issues such as termination of contract, effect of the indemnity bond, and whether disputes are arbitrable fall within the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal [Paras 15-16].

Decision – Arbitration Application Allowed – Justice V.V.S. Rao (Retd.) appointed as sole arbitrator – Parties are at liberty to raise all issues including termination, stamping, and arbitrability before the arbitral tribunal – Miscellaneous applications stand closed [Para 20].

Civil Law - Court Fees – Partition Suit – Article 17(vi) vs. Section 7(iv)(b) of the Court Fees Act – Fixed Court Fee Payable – Defendant no.2 sought rejection of plaint arguing plaintiff was not in possession and must pay ad valorem court fee – Plaintiff, as Class II heir, pleaded constructive possession and cited tenancy in one of the properties – Held: Plaintiff deemed in constructive possession in law – No averment of ouster – Fixed court fee under Article 17(vi) applicable – Application rejected [Paras 1, 5-7, 13, 21-27, 31-37].

Constructive Possession – Co-ownership in Partition Suit – Presumption in Law – Plaintiff being Class II heir claimed 50% share in estate of deceased brother – Some properties were tenanted and under interim court custody – Held: Law presumes joint possession among co-owners unless ouster is pleaded – Plaintiff successfully averred constructive possession – Ad valorem court fee not attracted [Paras 20-26, 31-34].

Delay in Objection – Application after Three Years – Not Fatal but Considered – Application filed three years after defendants' appearance – Held: While delay alone is not conclusive, timing reflects lack of merit – Application under Order VII Rule 11(c) held to be misconceived [Paras 10, 23].

Distinction from Cited Precedents – Ramesh Kumar Bhagchandka and Om Prakash Arora – Not Applicable – Plaintiff in present case is legal heir with pleaded constructive possession – In contrast, cited precedents involved either admission of ouster or absence of co-ownership – Held: Precedents not applicable to facts of present case [Paras 16, 35].

Decision – Application Dismissed – Fixed Court Fee Found Proper – Plaintiff not required to pay ad valorem court fee – No averment of ouster – Constructive possession deemed in law – Application under Order VII Rule 11(c) dismissed [Paras 33-37].

Civil Law - CLAT PG 2024–25 – Disputed Answer Key – Judicial Review Partially Allowed – Petitioners contested the final answer key for four questions citing misapplication of legal principles – Court held that for Questions 21 and 98, the Consortium's answers were incorrect, and directed it to revise scoring accordingly – Held: In case of legal interpretative error or factual discrepancy, courts may intervene even in academic matters, especially when based on flawed reasoning [Paras 6-8, 17].

Competitive Exam – Framing of Questions from Non-Primary Sources – Judicial Caution – The Court found that the passages for Questions 21 and 57 were not extracted from judgments but were commentary-based, which led to misinterpretation by candidates – Held: Candidates are to be assessed only on the material in the passage, especially where no prior reading list is provided – Evaluation must align with content presented [Paras 7-8, 12].

CLAT PG – Fee for Objections – ₹1,000 Per Question Held Excessive – Court noted the disparity between CLAT’s fee and those charged by other national-level examination bodies – However, considering that most candidates already paid the amount and results were due, the levy was not quashed for this year – Held: Consortium should reconsider and possibly reduce the fee for future exams and consult Justice G. Raghuram Committee for guidance [Paras 25-26].

CLAT PG – Public Law Challenge to Consortium – Maintainability Upheld – The Consortium, though a private body, performs a public function in conducting national law entrance exams and is therefore subject to judicial review under Article 226 – Held: Petitions maintainable and fit for limited interference [Implied across judgment].

Decision – Writ Petitions Partly Allowed – Consortium directed to revise marks for Questions 21 and 98, and maintain deletion of Question 56 – Answer to Question 57 upheld as correct – Fee structure for objections not quashed but future reforms suggested [Paras 8, 12, 17, 26-27].

Civil Writ - Mobile Tower Installation – Cancellation of NOC by Gram Panchayat – Violation of Natural Justice – Resolution Set Aside – The Gram Panchayat revoked an earlier granted NOC permitting the petitioners to install a mobile tower, citing public objections regarding health risks from radiation – The High Court held the action arbitrary as no notice or hearing was given to the petitioners prior to cancellation – Held: Revocation without following audi alteram partem is invalid and legally unsustainable [Paras 30–31, 39].

Administrative Law – Lack of Scientific Basis – Cancellation Based on Unsubstantiated Complaints – Resolution Quashed – The resolution was based on generalized health concerns without any supporting scientific data – Court emphasized that apprehensions unsupported by evidence cannot override validly granted permissions – Held: Resolution lacks application of mind and fails the test of reasonableness [Paras 32–33, 39–40].

Telecommunication Law – Scope of Panchayat Powers – No Authority to Cancel NOC Once Granted – The Gram Panchayat, having issued NOC under GR dated 11 December 2015, had no further power to rescind it – The High Court reiterated that such powers are not vested under applicable telecom laws or policies – Held: Cancellation was ultra vires the Panchayat’s authority [Paras 34, 44].

Regulatory Framework – Section 14(4) of Telecommunication Act, 2023 – No Coercive Action Without Central Permission – The Court held that, in absence of public emergency or natural disaster, coercive steps such as shutdown or cancellation by local authorities are impermissible – Held: No such exigency existed; hence action unjustified [Para 35].

Telecom Infrastructure – National Policy and Public Necessity – Courts Support Expansion – Referring to national policies and precedents from other High Courts, the Bombay High Court stressed the necessity of mobile towers for modern communication – Held: Mobile connectivity is an essential service, and arbitrary local objections cannot override statutory rights and national infrastructure goals [Paras 41–50].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Resolution Quashed – The Court allowed the petition in terms of both prayer clauses, setting aside the impugned resolution and restraining respondents from obstructing installation or operation of the mobile tower – Held: NOC once granted cannot be revoked arbitrarily or without due process [Para 51].

Civil Law - Commercial Suit – Disclosure of Documents – Order 11 Rule 1 CPC – Leave Rightly Refused – Petitioner’s application to place additional documents on record during Defendant's evidence stage was rejected by the Trial Court – Held: Petitioner failed to disclose these documents along with the written statement despite opportunity and court direction – COVID-19 restrictions could not explain non-filing in October 2023 – Rejection of application upheld [Paras 4, 5, 14].

Order XI Rule 1 CPC – Reasonable Cause – Burden Not Discharged – The Court emphasized that ‘reasonable cause’ for non-disclosure under Order XI Rule 1 must be shown when documents were in the party’s possession – Petitioner failed to justify delay despite earlier knowledge and possession of the documents – Application filed only after conclusion of Plaintiff’s evidence – Held: Delay was tactical, not bona fide [Paras 11, 12, 15].

Scope of Article 227 – Limited Supervisory Jurisdiction – High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute its view for that of the Trial Court unless the decision is perverse or suffers from jurisdictional error – Trial Court acted judiciously – Held: No interference warranted [Para 16].

Procedural Discipline in Commercial Litigation – Emphasized – Court reiterated importance of adhering to timelines and procedural rigour under the Commercial Courts Act – Delay or omission must be explained with diligence – Judicial discretion under Order XI must be exercised strictly [Paras 9, 12, 14].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – The High Court upheld the Trial Court’s order rejecting the application for filing additional documents at an advanced trial stage – Directed Trial Court to proceed expeditiously [Paras 17-18].

Service Law - Medical Reimbursement – Heart Transplant at Non-Empanelled Hospital – Petition Allowed – Petitioner underwent urgent heart transplant at a private hospital due to non-availability of CGHS-empanelled hospitals in Mumbai with necessary license and expertise – Held: Denial of full reimbursement on grounds of CGHS rate limitations and 'planned' nature of surgery was arbitrary – High Power Committee failed to appreciate exigency and violated Article 21 rights [Paras 2–4, 32–34, 42–43].

Relaxation of CGHS Rules – Applicability of Office Memorandum dated 15 July 2014 – Judicial Endorsement – Court held that the Office Memorandum clearly permits relaxation for full reimbursement in special/emergency circumstances – Heart transplant held to be such a circumstance – Held: HPC ought to have considered the petitioner’s case sympathetically in light of constitutional obligations [Paras 36–38].

Right to Life and Medical Urgency – Constitutional Interpretation – Court recognized right to medical treatment as part of Article 21 – Petitioner could not be denied treatment due to financial incapacity or mechanical policy application – Held: Medical reimbursement must uphold dignity and life preservation [Paras 39–41, 43–46].

Administrative Function – High Power Committee – Duty of Sensitivity – HPC failed to comply with prior court directions for hearing and ignored facts warranting discretionary relief – Held: Mechanistic rejection without personal hearing contrary to equity and fair play [Paras 23–24, 44–46].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – High Court directed respondents to grant full reimbursement of Rs. 22,08,440 with 9% interest – Impugned decisions dated 30 November 2021 and 13 April 2022 quashed – Reimbursement to be completed within four weeks [Paras 47–48].

Criminal Law – Quashing - Unnatural Sex by Husband – Consent and Marital Status – Proceedings Upheld – Applicant sought quashing of charges under Section 377 IPC asserting exemption based on marital relationship – Held: Unnatural intercourse by husband without wife's consent, even if she is above 18, is punishable under Section 377 IPC – Marriage does not negate a woman's bodily autonomy or her right to sexual dignity and orientation – Court declined to follow contrary Madhya Pradesh High Court view and relied on Navtej Singh Johar and Puttaswamy to affirm that non-consensual carnal intercourse violates Article 21 and is triable under Section 377 IPC [Paras 18–25].

Dowry Harassment – 498A IPC – Delay in FIR – Not Fatal – Allegations and Continuous Cruelty Sufficient – Allegations of dowry harassment and cruelty were corroborated through statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC – Delay in lodging FIR not fatal as harassment was continuous – Independent witnesses’ silence or lack of support not decisive – FIR discloses triable case and no ground for quashing made out [Paras 3–4, 27–30].

Medical Evidence and Consent – Lack of Medical Examination Not Ground for Quashing – Material Sufficient for Trial – Court held refusal of medical examination by complainant does not nullify prosecution – Presence of prima facie material including complainant’s statements justified continuation of trial – Right to privacy and sexual dignity held paramount even within marriage [Paras 19, 29].

Decision – Quashing Denied – Charges Maintainable – Applicant at Liberty to Seek Bail – Allahabad High Court rejected the application to quash proceedings – Held that charges under Section 377 IPC and dowry laws are prima facie made out – Directed that applicant may apply for bail before trial court [Paras 26, 31–32].