Arbitration Award – Evidence and Perverse Findings – The appellant challenged an arbitral award of Rs. 60,00,000/- granted to the respondent for damage to cement bags due to waterlogging. The tribunal relied solely on the respondent’s letter (Exhibit ‘T’) dated January 7, 2005, while discarding two survey reports – one by the insurer’s surveyor and another by a court-appointed independent surveyor. The court found the tribunal’s reliance on the letter to be baseless and perverse as it lacked sufficient evidence to substantiate the claim [Paras 1-32].

Unilateral Claim – Lack of Proof – The tribunal’s decision to base the award on the respondent’s unilateral claim letter, which was vague and contradictory, was deemed arbitrary. No evidence was provided to verify the exact number of damaged cement bags or the amount of cement. The court emphasized that a unilateral claim cannot be considered proof without supporting evidence [Paras 22-32].

Rejection of Survey Reports – Justification – The arbitral tribunal rejected the insurer’s surveyor’s report for not being proved in evidence and the court-appointed surveyor’s report for lacking authenticity and sufficient justification. The court upheld these rejections as sound and based on valid reasoning [Paras 16-21].

Misapplication of Case Law – The tribunal’s reliance on Gambhirmull Mahabirprasad v. The Indian Bank Ltd. (AIR 1963 Cal 163) was found to be misplaced. The case involved scenarios where damages could not be accurately quantified, unlike the present case where the claim was fully quantifiable but lacked foundational evidence [Paras 28-29].

Decision: The application under Section 34 was allowed, setting aside the arbitral award dated February 2, 2011. The petitioner was granted leave to withdraw the secured sum of Rs. 97,46,400/- along with accrued interest [Paras 33-35].

Construction Permission – Building Permit – KPBR 2011 and KPBR 2019 – Petitioners challenged permissions for the construction of a new church granted by government and local authorities – Contention that permissions were granted without proper adherence to statutory requirements under KPBR 2011 and KPBR 2019, and without valid NOC from the District Collector as mandated prior to amendments – Court analyzed the application of both KPBR 2011 and KPBR 2019, and subsequent amendments removing the need for District Collector’s NOC – Found that while initial permissions lacked adherence, subsequent amendments rectified the statutory framework – Writ petitions dismissed [Paras 1-23].

Application of Amendments – Retroactive Application – Court evaluated the retroactive application of KPBR 2019 amendments removing the need for District Collector’s NOC – Upheld that the amendments applied to pending permissions, making the new church construction compliant with current legal requirements – Court emphasized that the purpose of amendments was to streamline permissions and reduce bureaucratic delays [Paras 16-20].

Judicial Discretion under Article 226 – Exercise of Writ Jurisdiction – Court deliberated on the appropriateness of exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 given the changes in statutory requirements – Concluded that exercising discretion to interfere was unwarranted as the amendments to KPBR 2019 addressed the procedural lapses and ensured compliance – Writ petitions not entertained to avoid issuing futile writs [Paras 21-23].

Decision: Writ petitions dismissed – Permissions and building permits granted upheld as per amended KPBR 2019 – No further action required by Panchayat or District Collector under previous rules.
 

Contract Law – Revival of Terminated Contract – Petition challenging the revival of a contract that had been terminated by the awardee – The High Court held that a contract, once terminated after due process, cannot be revived by the awardee or any authority other than the Appellate Authority or the Court – Directions issued for fresh tender process [Paras 1-96].

Administrative Law – Powers of Chairman – The Court ruled that the Chairman or any other authority not being the Appellate Authority has no jurisdiction to order the revival of an already terminated contract – Emphasized the importance of transparency and fairness in the actions of state instrumentalities [Paras 49-92].

Judicial Review – Scope under Article 226 – Affirmed that the High Court can interfere in contractual matters under Article 226 of the Constitution when the action is arbitrary or illegal – Reiterated principles of judicial review in contractual disputes involving state instrumentalities [Paras 61-74].

Decision:
(i)    The writ petition filed by PMP Infratech Pvt. Ltd. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 200/2024) is allowed.
(ii)    The writ petition filed by Adhunik Khanan Va Parivahan Theka Sahkari Samiti (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 416/2024) stands disposed of.
(iii)    The impugned order dated December 26, 2023, is quashed and set aside. RSMML is directed to initiate a fresh tender process forthwith.
(iv)    The respondent RSMML may get the subject work done through any of the parties as deemed expedient until the fresh tender process is finalized [Paras 93-98].
 

Property Law – Declaration and Permanent Injunction – Suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction against defendants obstructing possession – Plaintiff traced title through sale deeds dating back to 1952 – Defendants contended joint ownership and lack of partition among family members – Both lower courts ruled in favor of plaintiff based on continuous possession and lack of evidence supporting defendants’ claims – Second Appeal dismissed confirming lower court judgments [Paras 1-19].

Substantial Questions of Law – Consideration of Joint Ownership and Partition – Courts examined whether plaintiff’s title was only to 1/3rd share and if joint family property was sold improperly – Found no partition and no substantial evidence of joint ownership by defendants – Defendants’ reliance on joint patta found insufficient – Held plaintiff had clear title and possession over entire suit property [Paras 9-18].

Procedure under Section 100 of CPC – Scope of Second Appeal – Substantial questions of law identified regarding title and joint ownership – Both lower courts’ findings upheld due to proper appreciation of evidence and legal principles – No misappreciation or perverse findings – Appeal found meritless and dismissed [Paras 18-19].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, if any, is closed.

Criminal Law – Quashment of Proceedings – Settlement Not a Ground for Quashment in Serious Offences – Petitioner sought quashment of proceedings based on an affidavit by the victim, now of majority, stating no grievance at present. The court held that for serious offences such as rape, quashment on the basis of settlement cannot be entertained. High Court emphasized that serious offences involving moral turpitude cannot be settled privately due to their impact on society. Settlement in such cases would send a wrong signal and possibly benefit unscrupulous offenders. Quashment was denied despite the victim’s affidavit [Paras 1-10].

Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Jurisdiction – Serious Offences – High Court reiterated its power to quash proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even in non-compoundable offences, but underscored the necessity to avoid quashing in cases of serious and heinous nature which affect societal interest. The court referred to various precedents underscoring the principle that settlement cannot be a basis for quashment in cases involving serious crimes like rape [Paras 8-10].

Decision – Criminal Miscellaneous Case Dismissed – Held that the allegations in the prosecution are serious and the case must be decided on merits. The prayer for quashment was denied and the interim stay vacated. The Special Court for trial of offences under the PoCSO Act, Cherthala, was directed to proceed with the trial [Para 10].
 

Maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Revision against Family Court order – Respondent wife and son filed application for maintenance alleging dowry harassment, cruelty, and non-consensual acts – Family Court directed revisionist to pay 25,000/- to wife and 20,000/- per month to son – Revision dismissed, upholding Family Court’s order [Paras 1-9, 26-29].

Cruelty and Non-consensual Acts – Allegations of dowry harassment and forced anal intercourse by husband – Revisionist argued anal sex not an offense post-Navtej Singh Johar ruling – Court held wife’s refusal valid due to physical incapacity and injuries – Mental cruelty claim by husband not substantiated [Paras 10-25].

Legal Precedents – Refers to principles in Navtej Singh Johar vs. Union of India (2018) and Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh (2007) – Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC does not apply to Section 377 IPC for married couples – Physical incapacity due to injuries justifies wife’s refusal for non-consensual acts [Paras 10-15, 22-25].

Decision: Criminal revision dismissed – No interference in the Family Court’s order directing maintenance – Court finds wife’s allegations of cruelty substantiated and husband’s claims unproven [Paras 28-29].

No-confidence Motion – Special Meeting – Appeal from interim order staying special meeting convened to consider no-confidence motion against Up-Pramukh – Appeal and writ petition disposed together – Up-Pramukh contended no valid grounds for no-confidence – Court directed special meeting to proceed on specified date [Paras 1-9].

Panchayat Raj – Sections 69(2), 70(4)(i), 70(4)(ii), 70(4)(iv) – No-confidence motion against Up-Pramukh – Court held delegation of duties by Adhyaksh not necessary for no-confidence motion against Up-Pramukh – Special meeting to consider motion must proceed without Court evaluating the grounds [Paras 5-7].

Sindhu Devi Case – Distinguished – Court found prior case related to Act of 1993, requiring reasons in motion – Current Act requires reasons specified in notice but does not permit Court to assess validity of reasons [Paras 6-7].

Decision – Interim Order Set Aside – Appeal allowed – Writ petition rejected – Special meeting directed to be convened on specified date to consider no-confidence motion – Up-Pramukh prohibited from performing functions till special meeting [Para 9].
 

Jurisdiction – UK Court’s Jurisdiction – Appellant contested jurisdiction of the UK Court over claims based on two Personal Guarantees – UK Court’s jurisdiction affirmed due to service of process under Section 1140 of the English Companies Act, using the appellant’s registered address for service in UK – High Court of Delhi held UK Court had jurisdiction and judgment was enforceable in India under Section 44A of CPC [Paras 8-30].

Application of Foreign Law – Default Rule – UK Court applied UK law by default as appellant failed to plead or establish application of DIFC or Singapore law as stipulated in the Personal Guarantees – High Court of Delhi upheld this application of law under principles governing asymmetrical jurisdictional clauses [Paras 31-33].

Conclusive Judgment – Ex parte Judgments – UK Court’s summary judgment based on merits of evidence and principles similar to Order XIII-A of CPC – High Court of Delhi ruled such ex parte judgments are conclusive under Section 13 of CPC if decided on merits [Paras 34-40].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Held – Judgment of UK Court enforceable in India – Dismissal of objections to enforcement – High Court of Delhi emphasized the importance of compliance with statutory requirements and recognized the legitimacy of summary judgments given on merits by competent foreign courts [Para 41-42].

Criminal Law – Bail Application in Dowry Death Case – Petitioner, husband of the deceased Rekha @ Mamta, sought bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., contending her death resulted from an accidental fall. The petitioner argued that the injuries were minor and attributed the death to cardiac arrest. He claimed innocence and asserted the case was falsely foisted on him, lacking concrete evidence linking him directly to the crime [Paras 1-4].

Prima Facie Evidence and Gravity of Offense – The court found substantial prima facie evidence indicating an unnatural death. It noted discrepancies in the investigation, particularly the Investigating Officer’s assumption of an accidental fall, which was not supported by witness statements or medical reports. The court emphasized the seriousness and gravity of the allegations under Section 304-B, IPC, and the necessity of maintaining high accuracy in such investigations [Paras 5-8].

Decision: Bail Application Rejected – Bail application dismissed due to the serious nature of the allegations and the evidence on record. The court highlighted the investigative shortcomings and ordered that a copy of the judgment be sent to the Director General of Police, Rajasthan, and the Superintendent of Police concerned for necessary action [Paras 9-10].