Arbitration – Appointment of Arbitrator – Section 11(5), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Non-signatories bound by Arbitration Clause – Petition for appointment of Justice T.S. Thakur as arbitrator – Held: Non-signatories can be bound by an arbitration agreement if they actively participated in the contract's performance and had a substantial role in the agreement's subject matter – The respondents were bound by the arbitration clause based on their conduct and involvement under the MoS and related Share Purchase Agreements [Paras 23-30].

Group of Companies Doctrine – Application to Non-Signatories – Group Companies Doctrine extended to bind non-signatories to arbitration – Respondents were connected through ownership and management, giving rise to obligations under the MoS – Held: Non-signatories can be made parties to arbitral proceedings under the doctrine if they are involved in the agreement’s performance and benefit directly from the transactions [Paras 33-35].

Consolidation of Arbitral Proceedings – Power to Consolidate – Indian Arbitration Act – The Court found no express prohibition or allowance for consolidation of separate arbitration proceedings – Reference made to international arbitration rules (ICC, SIAC) to suggest that consolidation could be permissible under Indian law as long as it does not violate party autonomy [Paras 37-39].

Implied Consent to Arbitration – Binding Nature of MoS – Respondents' Role – Implied consent inferred through the conduct and obligations of respondents under the MoS and SPAs – Held: Despite not being formal signatories, their involvement in the underlying agreements subjected them to arbitration proceedings [Paras 79-85].

Decision – Arbitration Reference Allowed – The Court appointed Justice T.S. Thakur, Former Chief Justice of India, as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes, including claims against non-signatories under the MoS – Objections of non-signatories dismissed – The arbitration was allowed to proceed, and applications under Section 16 were left for the arbitrator to decide [Paras 66-72].

Criminal Law – NDPS Act – Conviction under Section 15-C – Appeal – Procedural Violations – Acquittal Granted – Procedural Lapses – Conviction Under Section 15-C of NDPS Act Set Aside – Appellant Avtar Singh’s appeal against conviction allowed due to non-compliance with mandatory procedures under the NDPS Act – Trial Court had sentenced the appellant to 15 years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹1,50,000/-; an additional one-year rigorous imprisonment in default of fine payment – High Court found significant procedural lapses including lack of homogeneous mixing, absence of proper inventory procedures under Section 52-A, and issues with sample handling and FSL reporting – Held: Prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to these procedural deficiencies [Paras 28-38].

Homogeneous Mixing of Contraband – Incomplete Compliance – Benefit of Doubt – Acquittal - High Court noted the absence of homogeneous mixing of the poppy husk seized, stored in 40 separate bags – No evidence provided to confirm that the bags were mixed prior to sampling, which is crucial to ensure a representative sample for testing – The Court observed that non-compliance with this requirement left room for doubt as to the validity of the sample tested [Paras 29, 31(i)].

Section 52-A NDPS Act – Inventory and Magistrate Certification – Failure in Mandatory Procedure - No inventory prepared as required under Section 52-A(2) detailing the narcotics’ description, quantity, packing mode, or identification marks – No application submitted to a Magistrate to certify the inventory or allow sample extraction in their presence – Court emphasized that compliance with Section 52-A is essential to uphold the evidentiary value of seized contraband – Held: Procedural non-compliance undercuts the prosecution's case and entitles the appellant to benefit of doubt [Paras 30, 31(ii)].

Sample Handling and FSL Reporting – Procedural Discrepancies - Discrepancies noted in the FSL report, which lacked details of sample seals or seal impressions on cloth parcels, raising doubts on sample integrity – Constable Ramesh Kumar (PW-5) stated samples were bulk-tied in cloth, while the FSL report lacked mention of seals or impressions, weakening the reliability of the forensic findings [Paras 21, 31(iii), 31(iv)].

Non-Presentation of Residual Bulk Samples in Court – Evidentiary Gap – Acquittal - Failure to present the residue from the bulk poppy husk seizure during trial along with the FSL report – Court observed this as a major gap in evidentiary procedure, which precluded proper verification of whether the tested samples were truly representative of the entire seizure – Held: Non-production of residual samples in court creates sufficient doubt to warrant acquittal [Paras 31(v)].

Decision: Appeal Allowed – Conviction Set Aside - Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 15-C of NDPS Act are set aside – Appellant acquitted and directed to be released if not wanted in any other case – Any fine paid to be refunded as per law – Case property to be disposed of in line with legal procedure after the appeal period expires [Paras 32-38].

Criminal Law – Rash and Negligent Driving – Conviction Quashed – The applicant, a bus driver, was convicted under Sections 279 and 304-A of the IPC for causing the death of a pedestrian in a road accident – He was sentenced to three months of simple imprisonment and fined Rs.1,000 – Held: The conviction was not sustainable as there was no evidence of rash or negligent driving – The testimony of the sole eyewitness (PW-1) did not indicate that the applicant was driving at high speed or negligently – The absence of brake marks, and no testimony suggesting signal-breaking or emergency braking further weakened the prosecution's case – Conviction set aside, and applicant acquitted [Paras 10-17].

Contributory Negligence – Criminal Jurisprudence – Applicability – The Court noted that the principle of contributory negligence, though typically a civil law doctrine, may apply in criminal cases involving road accidents – The deceased's possible negligence in attempting to cross the road at the time of the accident could not be ruled out – Both lower courts failed to consider the aspect of contributory negligence [Paras 12-16].

Revision Jurisdiction – Powers of the Court – The Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the CrPC, emphasized its duty to correct procedural errors or miscarriages of justice – It held that the judgments of the lower courts were not based on a proper appreciation of evidence and that the applicant’s conviction was unwarranted [Paras 9, 17].

Decision – Conviction under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC was quashed – The applicant was acquitted, and bail bonds discharged – If the applicant was suspended or dismissed from service, he was to be reinstated with full back wages, or if retired, his retirement benefits were to be disbursed [Paras 17-19].

Criminal Law - Section 498-A IPC – Acquittal - Cruelty – Mental and Physical Harassment – Dowry Demand – The appellants were convicted by the Trial Court under Section 498-A IPC for allegedly subjecting the deceased to cruelty through dowry demands and taunting her character – The appellants challenged the conviction, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt – Held: The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were vague and inconsistent, and no substantial evidence of dowry harassment was provided – The appellate court noted discrepancies in the witnesses' statements and found that the demand for dowry, including a refrigerator and television, was introduced late during the trial, lacking credibility [Paras 10-14].

Dowry Harassment – Lack of Evidence – Witness Credibility – The court observed that key prosecution witnesses contradicted each other, and the allegations of dowry harassment were not substantiated by any independent evidence – Furthermore, the deceased’s Ward Punch had not received any complaint of dowry demand, weakening the prosecution’s case – Held: The learned Trial Court erred in convicting the appellants based on uncorroborated and exaggerated claims [Paras 15-19].

Appellate Review – Reversal of Conviction – The court found that the appellants were wrongly convicted under Section 498-A IPC, as the prosecution failed to establish continuous harassment or cruelty related to dowry demands – Held: The appellants are acquitted, and the judgment of the Trial Court is set aside [Para 20].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The appellants are acquitted of the charges under Section 498-A IPC, and their personal bonds are to be furnished in compliance with Section 437-A of the CrPC [Para 22].

Motor Vehicle Accident – Rash and Negligent Driving – The prosecution alleged that the respondent, driving a tipper, failed to notice the turn signal given by the deceased bicyclist and caused a fatal accident – The trial court convicted the respondent for rash and negligent driving under Sections 279 and 304-A of the IPC – The appellate court, however, acquitted the respondent, holding that the accident occurred on a busy national highway, and the deceased could have avoided the collision by exercising caution while crossing the road – Held: The appellate court's view was reasonable as the deceased was turning at a road junction and the evidence, including skid marks, suggested that the respondent had attempted to stop the vehicle [Paras 6-8].

Road Safety Regulations – Duty of Driver and Bicyclist – Under Rule 8 of the Rules of the Road Regulation, 1989, drivers must slow down at road junctions to ensure safety – The court observed that both the deceased and the driver had duties under the law, and in this case, the deceased's negligence in entering the junction was a contributing factor – The appellate court's finding that the deceased bicyclist should have exercised caution was upheld [Paras 10-12].

Appellate Review – Scope of Interference in Acquittal – The court reaffirmed the principle that an acquittal should not be overturned unless the findings are perverse or unreasonable – In this case, the appellate court's decision to acquit the respondent was found to be a plausible view based on the evidence, and no interference was warranted [Paras 15-18].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – The appellate court's judgment acquitting the respondent is upheld as the view taken was reasonable and supported by the evidence [Para 18].

Criminal Law – Impleading Additional Accused – Power under Section 319 CrPC – High Threshold of Evidence Required – Petition filed to challenge rejection of application under Section 319 CrPC to add Smt. Shanthi Roache (wife of existing accused) as an additional accused, on grounds she had knowledge of the spurious liquor activities conducted by her husband – Trial court dismissed the application, and subsequent revision was also denied by the Sessions Court – Held: Power under Section 319 CrPC, an extraordinary measure, must be used sparingly, requiring evidence at a higher threshold than mere suspicion; court must be convinced that unrebutted evidence would likely lead to conviction – Allegations did not meet the requisite standard of strong, cogent evidence for summoning the respondent as an accused; mere spousal residence without direct involvement insufficient – Petition dismissed [Paras 13, 17].

Spousal Relationship and Presumed Knowledge in Criminal Offenses – Insufficiency for Summoning Under Section 319 CrPC – Court emphasized that co-residence or marital ties alone do not substantiate complicity in criminal activity without direct evidence – Held: In absence of proof linking the respondent to the offense, merely being the spouse of an accused cannot justify summoning under Section 319 CrPC, especially in pre-trial stage – Trial court and Sessions Court orders upheld [Paras 18-20].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Court found no grounds to interfere with the orders of the lower courts, which had correctly applied the law under Section 319 CrPC in rejecting the application to implead Smt. Shanthi Roache as an accused – Petition lacking in merit [Para 20].
 

Excise Law – Exemption Notification – Rebate Claim on Exported Goods – The petitioner challenged the rejection of their rebate claim on biscuits exported out of India – The petitioner had voluntarily paid excise duty on the goods exported, arguing that since the biscuits did not bear a retail sale price in rupees, they were not covered by the exemption notification – Held: Goods exported without a retail sale price in rupees are not eligible for exemption under Notification No. 3/2006 – The petitioner was entitled to pay duty and claim a rebate under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 [Paras 13-14, 20].

Article 265 of the Constitution – Retention of Duty Paid Without Authority of Law – The revenue contended that the goods were exempt under Notification No. 3/2006 and that the petitioner was not required to pay duty, thereby not entitled to a rebate – The Court held that if goods were exempt, retaining the duty paid without the authority of law would violate Article 265 of the Constitution – The Court rejected the revenue’s argument, emphasizing that duty paid without legal obligation cannot be retained [Paras 15-16].

Cenvat Credit and Tribunal Decision – Consistency in Rebate Claims – The petitioner’s earlier rebate claims had been allowed by appellate authorities and accepted by the revenue – The Court noted that the revenue could not take a contrary position after accepting similar claims in the past – The tribunal’s order allowing the petitioner’s appeal was also accepted by the revenue, further supporting the petitioner’s claim for a rebate [Paras 17-19, 23-24].

Decision – The petitioner’s claim for a rebate of excise duty paid on exported biscuits was allowed – The order of the Revisional Authority was quashed – The respondents were directed to grant the rebate claims [Paras 30-31].

Anticipatory Bail – Non-Bailable Warrant and Proceedings under Section 82 CrPC – Exceptional Circumstances for Granting Bail – The applicant sought anticipatory bail after non-bailable warrants and proclamation under Section 82 CrPC were issued against him in a fraud case involving the sale of government land. Citing precedents from the Supreme Court, the Court held that there is no absolute bar on granting anticipatory bail after issuance of a proclamation if exceptional circumstances warrant it. Considering that the applicant was not in possession of the disputed land and had initiated civil proceedings for cancellation of the sale, the Court granted anticipatory bail – Held: Anticipatory bail granted in the interest of justice, subject to conditions [Paras 19-25].

Fraud in Land Sale – Victim of Fraud – Anticipatory Bail Granted – The applicant was alleged to have been involved in a fraudulent transaction concerning government land. However, the Court found that the applicant had paid part of the sale consideration and initiated proceedings for cancellation of the fraudulent sale agreement. The co-accused, including the seller, had already been granted bail. In light of these facts, the applicant was deemed to be a victim of the fraud, and anticipatory bail was granted – Held: Anticipatory bail granted [Paras 22-24].

Conditions for Anticipatory Bail – The Court imposed several conditions for the grant of anticipatory bail, including regular appearance before the trial court, non-interference with the investigation, and not leaving the country without permission. The Court emphasized that the anticipatory bail was subject to compliance with these conditions – Held: Bail granted with conditions [Paras 26].

Decision: The application for anticipatory bail was allowed, subject to conditions to ensure the applicant’s cooperation with the investigation and compliance with court orders [Paras 25-26].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Appeal Against Conviction – Deposit of 20% Fine Under Section 148 N.I. Act – Exceptional Circumstances – The petitioner challenged the order of the Additional Sessions Judge directing him to deposit 20% of the fine amount as a condition for admitting the appeal against his conviction under Section 138 N.I. Act – Held: The deposit of 20% of the fine is not an absolute rule, and courts may consider exceptional circumstances where the deposit may be waived – The petitioner cited his resignation from the company before the issuance of cheques, his unemployment, and the liquidation of the company as exceptional circumstances – The impugned order was set aside to allow the petitioner an opportunity to present his exceptional circumstances before the trial court for reconsideration [Paras 9-13].

Judicial Precedents – Applicability of Section 148 N.I. Act – Scope of Waiver in Special Circumstances – Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Surender Singh Deswal v. Virender Gandhi and Jamboo Bhandari v. M.P. SIDC Ltd., the Court emphasized that while Section 148 requires the deposit of 20% of the fine amount, it is not mandatory in all cases – Courts must assess whether the imposition of such a condition would deprive the appellant of the right to appeal, especially in cases of financial incapacity or other exceptional reasons [Paras 10-12].

Exceptional Circumstances – Financial Hardship – Resignation from Company – The petitioner argued that he had resigned as a director before the issuance of the cheques and had no control over the company's affairs at the relevant time – Additionally, he had been unemployed since 2018 and the company was under liquidation, making it difficult for him to pay the 20% deposit – Held: These exceptional circumstances may justify a waiver of the deposit, and the petitioner should be given an opportunity to present his case before the trial court [Paras 4-5, 13].

Decision: The Court set aside the order directing the petitioner to deposit 20% of the fine amount and remanded the matter to the Additional Sessions Judge to reconsider the deposit requirement in light of the petitioner’s exceptional circumstances. The petitions were allowed, and the petitioner was granted an opportunity to present his case for exemption from the deposit of the fine [Paras 13-14].