Arbitration – Ineligibility of Arbitrators – Section 12(5) read with Seventh Schedule – Tribunal comprising employees of respondent declared void ab initio – Held: Clause 64(7) of GCC provides for applicability of Arbitration Act, 1996 and statutory modifications – Conduct of both parties invoking amended provisions, including Section 33, shows implied agreement to apply 2015 Amendment – No written waiver under proviso to Section 12(5) – Appointment of Tribunal contrary to mandatory disqualification under Item 1 of Seventh Schedule – Award passed by ineligible arbitrators is non est in law and patently illegal [Paras 31–48].

Arbitration – Section 26 of 2015 Amendment – Application to Pending Proceedings – Court held that arbitration clause incorporating phrase “statutory modifications” reflects intent to apply amended law – Parties’ conduct in invoking amended Act further proves mutual agreement – Held: 2015 Amendments applicable even though Tribunal constituted in 2014 as per clause and conduct – Respondent’s own application under amended Act estops denial of applicability [Paras 34–42].

Public Policy – Violation of Fundamental Legal Norms – Award passed by ineligible arbitrators violates fundamental policy of Indian law – Held: Award offends core principles of neutrality and independence in adjudication – Appointment contrary to law and not curable in absence of express post-dispute waiver – Award held void and unenforceable being in conflict with most basic notions of justice and public policy under Section 34(2)(b)(ii) [Paras 28–30, 48].

Court's Jurisdiction under Section 34 – Limited Interference – Reiterated that Court does not sit in appeal or re-appreciate evidence – Only limited scrutiny on statutory grounds – Since Award found void for want of jurisdiction, Court declined to examine merits of claims [Paras 27–30, 51].

Interpretation of Arbitration Clause – “Statutory Modification” – Forward-looking clause in GCC held sufficient to attract amended regime – Cited decisions in APR Constructions, Skoda Auto, Bharat Broadband – Distinguished contrary rulings where such intention was absent or proceedings had reached Section 34 stage pre-amendment [Paras 35–38, 49–50].

Decision:

Petition under Section 34 allowed – Arbitral Award dated 23.01.2020 and Supplementary Award dated 20.03.2020 set aside – Held that arbitral proceedings stood vitiated due to appointment of ineligible arbitrators – No adjudication on merits – Petitioner at liberty to pursue appropriate legal remedy [Para 51].

Civil Writ - Constitutional Law – Right to Property – Article 300-A – Land Taken Without Compensation – TDR Certificates Directed – Petitioners executed gift deed for 405 sq. yards of land in 2014 for road widening—Respondents denied compensation or TDR on ground that land was voluntarily gifted as condition for building permission – Court held there was no record showing waiver of compensation or that gift deed was a pre-condition for permission – Held: Petitioners were entitled to TDR certificates as land was taken for public purpose without due compensation, violating Article 300-A of the Constitution [Paras 1–2, 14–20].

Municipal Law – Land Surrender for Public Purpose – Gift Deed Does Not Bar Compensation – Municipal Corporation relied on the gift deed and petitioners’ development benefits to deny compensation – Court ruled that gift deed cannot be used to override constitutional right to fair compensation for public acquisition – Building permission and constructed area allotted to petitioners were held irrelevant to the compensation claim [Paras 7–9, 15, 19].

Property Law – Voluntariness and Coercion in Development Agreements – Gift Deed Not Truly Voluntary When Conditioned on Official Permissions – Court noted that even if any affidavit or undertaking was taken from the petitioners to waive compensation, such documents would not amount to voluntary consent if extracted as a condition for development approval – Such undertakings were held unenforceable and contrary to constitutional protections [Para 17].

Reliance on Precedents – Compensation for Public Acquisition Must Be Fair and Just – Court relied on Bommadevara Venkata Subba Rao v. State of A.P. and Kolkata Municipal Corpn. v. Bimal Kumar Shah – Reaffirmed that even if right to property is no longer fundamental, it remains a constitutional right—State cannot forcibly acquire land without compensation [Paras 9–10].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Respondents directed to calculate eligibility and issue TDR Certificates to petitioners within 8 weeks – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR - Second FIR – Distinct Allegations – Petitioners sought quashing of FIR No. 230/2024 claiming it was a second FIR barred by the judgment in T.T. Antony – Earlier FIR No. 38/2021 pertained to inducement to invest in a business scheme – Present FIR concerned subsequent acts of forgery and fabrication of documents including use of fake notarial seals to influence judicial proceedings – Held: The present FIR discloses distinct and independent offences, separate in time and character – Therefore, not barred by law [Paras 18–26]

Criminal Procedure – Registration under Section 156(3) CrPC – Present FIR registered pursuant to a Magistrate’s order under Section 156(3) after receipt of fresh materials indicating use of forged documents – Held: Judicial direction and new facts justify fresh registration – FIR is legally maintainable [Paras 13, 26]

Article 226 – Quashing of FIR – Principles restated – Court reiterated that quashing at pre-investigation stage is permissible only in exceptional cases where the allegations are manifestly false or malicious – Held: Allegations in FIR disclose cognizable offences and require investigation – No ground made out for quashing under Article 226 [Paras 16–17, 27–28]

Rule of Sameness – Distinction Between Earlier and Present FIR – Test of sameness not satisfied – While both FIRs relate to business dealings, the subject matter, legal injury, and nature of offences differ – First FIR dealt with cheating – Second FIR concerned forgery in legal process – Second FIR not hit by bar under T.T. Antony [Paras 20–25]

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – FIR upheld – Investigation to continue uninfluenced by any observation in the judgment

Criminal Law – Preparation to Commit Dacoity – Sentence Modified – Appellant convicted under Sections 399 and 402 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act for participating in armed planning to commit dacoity near Maruti Suzuki premises – Recovery of country-made pistol from the appellant – Trial court sentenced him to 7 years imprisonment – Held: Conviction upheld, but in view of prolonged 16-year pendency, young age of appellant (21 at time of offence), and reformative considerations, sentence reduced to period already undergone [Paras 1–4, 8, 12–13]

Sentencing – Reformative Approach – Prolonged Trial – Right to Speedy Trial – Appellant faced criminal proceedings for over 16 years since FIR in 2008 – Citing Supreme Court precedents including Deo Narain Mandal v. State of UP and Ravada Sasikala v. State of AP – Court emphasised principles of proportionality, deterrence, and opportunity for reformation – Held: Extended litigation itself serves punitive effect – Sentence reduced accordingly [Paras 9–12]

Judicial Discretion – Sentence Reduction without Interference in Conviction – Appellant did not challenge conviction on merits – Court affirmed guilt based on sound findings by trial court – However, modified sentence on grounds of mitigating circumstances including age, social status, financial hardship, and custodial period already undergone [Paras 5, 11–13]

Decision: Conviction under Sections 399 and 402 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act upheld – Sentence reduced to period already undergone (03 years 01 month 27 days) – Appellant on bail; need not surrender – Bail bonds discharged – Fine enhanced to ₹10,000 to be deposited within one month; in default, six months’ further imprisonment to follow.

Senior Citizens’ Rights – Eviction from Self-Acquired Property – Peaceful Living and Dignity – Appeal by daughter-in-law against decree directing her eviction from in-laws' property – Respondents, aged parents-in-law, pleaded mental distress and toxic cohabitation due to acrimonious matrimonial dispute – Held: Senior citizens, as undisputed owners of self-acquired property, are entitled to live peacefully with dignity and can seek eviction of daughter-in-law when alternate accommodation is offered under Section 19(1)(f) of PWDV Act – Right of residence is not an indefeasible right to remain in the same premises [Paras 1, 6–8, 24–27, 33–34, 39–40]

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act – Right of Residence – Shared Household – Appellant claimed suit property as her shared household under Section 2(s) PWDV Act and challenged decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC – Held: Right under Section 17 is not absolute or proprietary – Where senior citizens provide suitable alternate accommodation, eviction is permissible – Statutory right of residence does not override lawful ownership [Paras 28–31, 35–36]

Decree on Admission – Order XII Rule 6 CPC – Appellant admitted ownership of suit property – Sole defence was shared household status – Court held no real triable issue existed and decree was rightly passed on admission, considering offer of alternate residence [Paras 29–32]

Alternate Accommodation – Adequacy and Parity – Respondents offered rent-capped alternate residence with allied expenses covered – Appellant’s demand for equivalence in size and configuration rejected – Held: Purpose of alternate accommodation is to ensure safety and dignity, not parity in luxury – A two-bedroom flat in comparable locality deemed sufficient [Paras 34–38, 42]

Balance of Rights – PWDV Act vs. MWPSC Act – Court affirmed that both statutory protections must co-exist – Woman’s right to shelter must be balanced against senior citizens’ right to peaceful living – Civil suit not barred by prior proceedings under special statutes – Decree achieves just equilibrium [Paras 39–41, 44]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Directions of Single Judge upheld – Appellant to be provided two-bedroom alternate accommodation with rent up to Rs. 65,000/month and associated costs – Appellant to vacate suit property within two weeks of offer [Paras 42–45]

Criminal Law – Quashment – Section 188 IPC – Section 3 of Epidemic Diseases Act – Proceedings Quashed – Prosecution initiated for alleged disobedience of Government Order dated 13.06.2020 under Section 188 IPC and Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act – No valid order promulgated under the Act was in force on date of alleged offence – G.O.R.T.No.211 expired on 23.03.2020 – No complaint filed by concerned public servant as required under Section 195 CrPC – FIR and charge sheet filed by Sub-Inspector treated as police report and not a valid complaint – Magistrate not competent to take cognizance – Held: Entire proceedings vitiated and liable to be quashed [Paras 3, 24, 28, 31–33].

Procedural Law – Section 195 CrPC – Bar to Cognizance – Complaint by Public Servant Mandatory – Cognizance for offences under Section 188 IPC can only be taken on a written complaint by the concerned public servant – Filing of charge sheet by police officer does not satisfy requirement – Magistrate’s cognizance based on such charge sheet held without jurisdiction [Paras 7, 8, 29–31].

Interpretation – “Complaint” vs. “Police Report” – Police report under Section 173(2) CrPC cannot be treated as a complaint under Section 2(d) CrPC – Complaint must be filed with intention to set law in motion under Section 200 – Held: Charge sheet filed without authority was not a valid complaint under law [Paras 25–27].

Promulgation – Validity and Expiry – No Offence Can Be Attracted After Expiry of Underlying Order – No material to show existence of valid regulation/order under Epidemic Diseases Act on date of alleged offence – Held: Invocation of Section 3 of the Act is unsustainable [Paras 3, 32].

Cognizance – Guidelines on Section 188 IPC – Court reiterates law that police cannot register FIR under Section 188 IPC without complaint from public servant – Preventive action permissible under Section 41 CrPC but cognizance must follow procedure of Section 195 – Reliance placed on Jeevanandham v. State of Tamil Nadu and Kantamaneni Ravishankar v. State of A.P. [Paras 17–19].

Decision: Criminal petition allowed – Proceedings in C.C. No. 828 of 2020 on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Machilipatnam quashed for non-compliance with Section 195 CrPC and absence of valid order under Epidemic Diseases Act [Paras 31–33].

Civil Law – Fraudulent Decree – Family Settlement – Registration Requirement – Limitation – Concurrent findings upheld – Decree dated 01.04.1988 held fraudulent as Smt. Ram Bhuli never appeared, signed, or engaged counsel – No pre-existing right in appellant; decree compulsorily registerable – Unregistered consent decree conveys no title – Plaintiffs proved as natural heirs – Suit within limitation under Art. 65 – Fraud vitiates all proceedings – RSA dismissed [Paras 38–48].

Fraud – Proof and Effect – Decree obtained through deception – Evidence showed Smt. Ram Bhuli never appeared in Court, signed pleadings, verified written statement, or engaged counsel – Power of attorney and written statement bore no advocate’s endorsement or verification – Proceedings manipulated behind her back – Held: decree dated 01.04.1988 obtained by fraud; fraud vitiates even the most solemn proceedings – Applies Chengalvaraya Naidu principle [Paras 10, 39–41].

Consent Decree – Requirement of Registration – Where decree purports to transfer immovable property above ₹100 to a person having no pre-existing right, registration is mandatory under Section 17(1)(b) Registration Act – Appellant, a daughter-in-law of brother of Smt. Ram Bhuli, had no antecedent right – Decree operated as instrument of transfer – Being unregistered, conveyed no title – Bachan Singh and Dhian Singh distinguished as involving genuine family settlements between persons with pre-existing rights [Paras 16, 39–40, 42, 46].

Family Settlement – Non-existence – No pleadings or evidence of any family arrangement – Appellant had no pre-existing right; relationship too remote – Alleged settlement an afterthought – Cannot validate a fraudulent or unregistered decree [Paras 39–40].

Limitation – Date of Knowledge – Plaintiffs discovered decree only after death of Smt. Ram Bhuli in 1993 on approaching revenue authorities – Suit filed in 1995 within 12-year period under Article 65 – Void decree need not be cancelled under Article 59 – Follows Shanti Devi v. Jagan Devi, 2025 (SC) – Limitation correctly computed by courts below [Paras 12, 34, 43].

Estoppel – Mutation – No estoppel against statute or fraud – Mutation entries do not confer title – Fraudulent decree being void, all proceedings including mutation fall automatically – Estoppel plea rejected [Para 44].

Heirs – Locus Standi – Once decree found void and property remained vested in Smt. Ram Bhuli, her heirs were entitled to challenge fraudulent decree after her death – Cause of action arose upon gaining knowledge – Plaintiffs held rightful heirs based on oral and documentary evidence including mutation No. 2158 [Paras 9, 12, 45].

Concurrent Findings – Second Appeal – Findings of both courts based on proper appraisal of evidence; no perversity shown – RSA Court declines to interfere – Concurrent findings affirmed [Paras 38, 47–48].

Decision – Regular Second Appeal dismissed – Decree dated 01.04.1988 declared void, unlawful, unregistered; plaintiffs entitled to possession of 1/3rd share – Judgments of Trial Court & First Appellate Court upheld – Pending applications disposed [Paras 48–49].

Criminal Law – Cheating and Criminal Breach of Trust – Distinct Transactions – Simultaneous Invocation of Sections 406 and 420 IPC Not Mutually Destructive – Petitioner challenged FIR and charge sheet alleging both cheating and criminal breach of trust – Contended that offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC are mutually destructive when based on a single act – Court distinguished between the mental element (mens rea) in both offences – Held: Allegations pertain to three separate transactions—Two transactions relating to breach of trust under Section 406 IPC and one transaction involving inducement under Section 420 IPC – Therefore, simultaneous prosecution is legally sustainable [Paras 3, 18–22].

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of Charge Sheet – Ingredients of Offence Present – Investigation and Complaint Disclose Prima Facie Offence – Petitioner argued lack of application of mind by police and mechanical filing of charge sheet – Court held that complaint and charge sheet disclose prima facie ingredients of distinct offences – No grounds for quashing proceedings under Section 482 CrPC [Paras 5–8, 20–22].

Statutory Interpretation – Section 420 vs. Section 406 IPC – Distinction in Mens Rea and Timing of Dishonest Intent – Cheating under Section 420 IPC requires dishonest intention at the time of inducement – Criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC requires dishonest misappropriation after entrustment – Court applied this distinction to facts and held both offences made out in different contexts [Paras 16–18, 21].

Precedent – Delhi Race Club v. State of U.P. (2024) 10 SCC 690 – Not Applicable When Offences Arise from Separate Transactions – Apex Court had held that cheating and breach of trust cannot be alleged simultaneously for the same act – Court held that ratio does not apply when offences arise from separate and independent transactions, as in the present case [Para 18, 22].

Decision:

Writ petition dismissed – Simultaneous charges under Sections 406 and 420 IPC upheld in view of distinct transactions – Pending interlocutory applications also disposed of.

^{Service Law – Compassionate Appointment – Fiduciary and Moral Obligation – Maintenance of Dependents – Widow of deceased government employee appointed as LDC under the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment Rules, 1996, based on an affidavit undertaking to maintain her aged in-laws—subsequently abandoned them and began living separately—Petitioner, father of the deceased, sought deduction of 50% of her salary—Held: Compassionate appointment is not a vested right but an act of State benevolence intended for the entire family unit of the deceased, not an individual benefit—Respondent No.4 having derived employment solely on her solemn undertaking to support the petitioner cannot resile from that obligation—Her conduct amounts to breach of trust and frustration of the object of the 1996 Rules—Department directed to deduct ₹20,000/month from her salary for petitioner’s maintenance [Paras 9–15, 20–22].}

^{Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel – Enforcement of Undertakings in Welfare Schemes – Affidavit by respondent No.4 stating she would maintain her in-laws and not remarry formed the foundation of the compassionate appointment—Having accepted employment on that representation, she is estopped from disowning the obligation—Principle of promissory estoppel applies with full force even in administrative benevolence—Held: Respondent No.4’s repudiation of the undertaking constitutes moral and legal breach; authorities must ensure continued maintenance of the petitioner [Paras 12, 15, 21–22].}

^{Administrative Law – Object of Compassionate Scheme – Equity and Public Policy – Compassionate appointment is not a mode of regular employment but a social welfare measure to prevent destitution—Benefit extended to one dependent is in representative capacity for the entire family—Authorities failed to appreciate that the appointment was first offered to the petitioner and later transferred to his daughter-in-law in trust—State’s parens patriae role obliges it to ensure fairness and protection of all dependents—Court can issue equitable directions under Article 226 to uphold the humanitarian purpose of the scheme [Paras 13, 16–19].}

^{Remarriage – Effect on Compassionate Obligation – Though remarriage of respondent No.4 is a matter of personal liberty, her remarriage and abandonment of the deceased’s parents after obtaining employment on compassionate grounds underscores violation of her solemn undertaking and negates the moral basis of her appointment [Paras 12, 14, 21].}

^{Decision: Writ petition partly allowed – Respondent-department directed to deduct ₹20,000 per month from respondent No.4’s salary and deposit the same in the petitioner’s bank account from 01.11.2025 onwards towards his maintenance—To continue during petitioner’s lifetime or until modified by competent authority—Writ petition disposed of with observations [Para 22–23].}