Arbitration – Termination of Mandate vs Termination of Proceedings – Withdrawal of Sole Arbitrator due to ill-health – Mandate terminated under Section 14 – No final award or order under Section 32 – Held, mere termination of mandate does not result in termination of arbitral proceedings – Reference continues and vacancy in tribunal must be filled under Section 15(2) – Arbitration agreement subsists [Paras 21–24, 26].

Substitution of Arbitrator – Section 15(2) – Same Rules Applicable – Court held that expression “shall be appointed according to the rules applicable to the appointment of the arbitrator being replaced” means rigours of Section 11, including limitation, apply equally to appointment of substitute arbitrator – Application under Section 11 maintainable upon failure of agreed procedure through BCCI [Paras 25, 31, 34].

Limitation – Section 11(6) Petition – Applicability of Article 137 – Supreme Court in M/s Arif Azim Co. Ltd. held Article 137 (three years) applies to Section 11(6) petitions – Right to apply accrues upon failure of other party/institution after invocation – Limitation applies equally to substitute arbitrator appointment – Technical plea that no limitation applies rejected [Paras 28–33].

Exclusion and Condonation – COVID Extension – Section 14 and Section 5 Limitation Act – Period excluded pursuant to Supreme Court’s suo motu orders in Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation – Further exclusion granted for bona fide prosecution of petitions under Sections 29A, 14 and 15 – Residual delay of 76 and 91 days – Held, delay condonable under Section 5 – Formal application not mandatory – Substantial justice requires continuation of arbitral reference [Paras 35–38].

Institutional Arbitration – Failure of Agreed Procedure – Applicants approached BCCI twice for substitution – No appointment made – Court observed that arbitration agreement does not come to an end due to expiry or withdrawal of arbitrator – In peculiar facts, technical objections cannot defeat adjudication of disputes on merits [Paras 25–27, 34].

Order:

(i) Delay in filing the Applications condoned –

(ii) Mr. Justice R. Y. Ganoo (Former Judge, Bombay High Court) appointed as substitute Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising from Dealership Agreements dated 26 December 2012 and 9 July 2013 –

(iii) Directions issued regarding disclosure under Section 11(8) read with Section 12(1), appearance before Arbitrator, fees as per Bombay High Court (Fee Payable to Arbitrators) Rules, 2018 –

(iv) All rights and contentions kept open – Applications allowed and disposed of [Para 40].

Criminal Law - Discharge – Disproportionate Assets – Scope under Section 239 Cr.P.C. – Petitioner challenged rejection of discharge application in vigilance case alleging accumulation of assets disproportionate to known sources of income during check period 01.05.1982 to 29.12.1995 – Alleged D.A. enhanced from Rs.8,72,624/- in FIR to Rs.14,38,435/- in charge-sheet – Held: At stage of discharge, Court is to see whether materials disclose a strong prima facie case and not to conduct meticulous evaluation or mini trial – Disputed questions relating to valuation, income sources and ownership to be adjudicated at trial [Paras 13–14, 18].

Limited Remand – Scope and Compliance – Earlier order dated 07.02.2024 set aside rejection of discharge and remitted matter for fresh consideration of specific documents forming part of charge-sheet – Remand not for re-appreciation of entire evidence – Petitioner attempted to re-argue entire case and sought detailed adjudication of each item of assets – Held: Trial Court not required to record findings on each document or conduct elaborate scrutiny at discharge stage – No non-compliance with remand directions found [Paras 15–17].

Prevention of Corruption Act – Section 13(1)(e) – Evaluation at Pre-Charge Stage – Issues regarding inclusion of wife’s assets, ancestral agricultural income, valuation of properties and computation methodology raised by accused – Held: Acceptability of explanations, correctness of computation and attribution of assets are matters for trial – Strong suspicion based on prosecution material sufficient for framing charge – Inherent jurisdiction not to be invoked to stifle prosecution at threshold [Paras 17–19].

Inherent Powers – Section 482 Cr.P.C. / Section 528 BNSS – Interference with Order Rejecting Discharge – Held: In absence of patent illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error, High Court ought not to interfere – Impugned order disclosed application of mind and prima facie satisfaction regarding ingredients of offence – Petition dismissed [Paras 19–21].

Expeditious Trial – Long Pendency – FIR registered on 08.01.1996 – Charge-sheet filed on 31.03.2011 – Trial pending for over 15 years – Held: Trial Court directed to conclude trial preferably within six months [Para 20].

Decision: CRLMC dismissed – Order dated 20.05.2024 rejecting discharge upheld – Trial Court directed to conclude trial expeditiously, preferably within six months.

Criminal Law – Murder – Conviction based on Sole Eye-Witness – Double homicide allegedly committed on suspicion of witchcraft – Trial Court convicted accused under Sections 148, 302/149 and 120-B/149 IPC relying primarily on testimony of informant (P.W.1) – High Court found material contradictions between FIR and deposition regarding manner of assault and presence of accused – Version of P.W.1 held unnatural and inconsistent with normal human conduct – No corroboration after rejection of T.I. Parade and recovery evidence – Held: Evidence not wholly reliable and unsafe to sustain conviction – Benefit of doubt extended – Conviction and sentence set aside [Paras 11, 13, 15, 16].

Evidence – Sole Witness – Appreciation of Testimony – Law permits conviction on basis of solitary witness if wholly reliable – Court classified oral testimony as wholly reliable, wholly unreliable, or neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable – In third category corroboration is necessary – P.W.1’s testimony found embellished and contradicted by FIR and I.O.’s evidence – Absence of mention of assault in FIR and improved version in Court created serious doubt – Conviction solely on such evidence impermissible [Paras 11–13].

Evidence – Contradictions and Improvements – Material omissions in FIR regarding assault and role of accused – Subsequent statement before Court inconsistent and confronted through I.O. – Conduct attributed to deceased in reopening door after attempted assault held inherently improbable – Trial Court failed to consider these material discrepancies – Prosecution case rendered doubtful [Paras 13, 15].

Criminal Conspiracy – Motive – Allegation of Witchcraft – Prosecution relied on P.W.2, P.W.3 and Gramarakhi (P.W.9) to establish motive – Evidence merely indicated vague discussion about witchcraft without nexus to definite intention to kill – Alleged village dispute stated to have been settled – Held: Motive not conclusively established and insufficient to corroborate doubtful eye-witness account [Para 14].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 148, 302/149 and 120-B/149 IPC set aside – Appellant No.2 (Jamadar @ Jayaprakash Laguri) and Appellant No.5 (Harish Laguri) acquitted – To be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

Local Governance – Special Grade Town Panchayat – Applicability of Statute – Karumandisellipalayam being a Special Grade Town Panchayat is governed by the District Municipalities Act and Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act and not by the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 – Arguments based on Panchayats Act held misconceived – Statutory framework under Urban Local Bodies Act applicable [Paras 41–46].

Burial Ground – Long Standing Usage – Revenue Classification as Cart Track – Evidence including 2000 Panchayat Resolution, Government Grant, Cash Book, Road/Street Ledger and Collector’s Report establish existence of burial ground at least from year 2000 and usage for over 70 years – Mere classification in ‘A’ register as cart track does not efface factual and customary use as burial ground – Court holds burial ground exists in S.Nos.621/3 & 628/8 [Paras 50–54].

Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998 – Section 172 – Registration and Licensing of Burial Grounds – Obligation of owner or person in control to register existing burial grounds – Council empowered to regulate and notify – Absence of notification prohibiting burial elsewhere renders plea for total prohibition untenable – Subjective satisfaction of Council required for ban under Section 172(3) [Paras 56–58].

Reclassification – Pending Resolution – Town Panchayat Resolution dated 14.10.2025 seeking measurement and reclassification as burial ground – Matter under consideration by Revenue Authorities – Court declines to interfere at this stage and rejects mandamus to prevent reclassification – Ongoing statutory process not to be interdicted [Para 60].

Right to Dignity – Dead Persons – Disturbance of Graves – Collector’s report reveals levelling of graves and disturbance of burial sites – Held: Right to dignity under Article 21 extends to dead – Temporal sanctity of grave violated – Authorities ought to have initiated criminal proceedings under BNSS/Section 297 IPC – State reminded of constitutional and statutory duty [Paras 62–65].

SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act – Access to Burial Grounds – Denial or destruction of burial sites of Scheduled Caste community amounts to violation of Article 17 and may attract penal consequences under SC/ST Act – District Collector empowered and obligated to act – Failure to protect burial rights deprecated [Para 66].

Municipal Duty – Constitutional Mandate – Article 243W read with XII Schedule mandates Town Panchayat to provide and maintain burial and cremation grounds – Section 172(4) obligates provision and maintenance within municipal limits – Local body directed to secure and maintain burial ground free from encroachment and garbage [Paras 61, 67].

Decision:

W.P.No.37501 of 2025 disposed of with directions –

(i) District Collector to ensure segregation and proper fencing of burial/cremation area in S.Nos.621/3 & 628/8 –

(ii) Town Panchayat to maintain burial ground free from encroachment and garbage –

(iii) Revenue authorities to act on resolution dated 14.10.2025 and exclude burial area from classification as cart track –

(iv) Collector to initiate action against persons responsible for levelling graves –

W.P.Nos.36402 of 2025 and 44377 of 2025 dismissed – No costs.

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Dismissal under Section 256 Cr.P.C. – Accused Never Appeared – Magistrate dismissed complaints on 29.09.2014 and recorded acquittal despite accused not appearing from 2012 onwards – Continuous issuance of summons and warrants – Held: Section 256 Cr.P.C. contemplates acquittal when case is fixed for appearance/hearing and accused is before Court – Acquittal of an accused who never faced trial is patently illegal and contrary to scheme of summons trial [Paras 52-54].

Section 256 Cr.P.C. – Scope and Object – Provision intended to protect accused from harassment when complainant defaults despite accused’s presence – Magistrate must consider whether complainant’s personal attendance was essential and whether adjournment justified – In present case, matter was not at hearing stage and accused never appeared – Invocation of Section 256 improper – Order dated 29.09.2014 illegal [Paras 46-49, 54].

Revision vs Appeal – Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. vis-à-vis Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. – Contention that remedy lay in appeal against acquittal rejected – Held: Where so-called acquittal is passed without trial and without evidence at post-cognizance stage, such order is grossly erroneous and amenable to revisional correction – Revisional court competent to set aside patently illegal order – No bar under Section 401(4) attracted in peculiar facts [Paras 56-57].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope – Sessions Court empowered to examine correctness, legality and propriety of order – Revisional interference justified where Magistrate exercised discretion arbitrarily and contrary to statutory scheme – Restoration of complaint by revisional court upheld [Paras 56-57].

Summons Trial – Scheme under Sections 251–255 Cr.P.C. – Presence of accused is foundational for framing substance of accusation and proceeding with evidence – Without accused’s appearance, trial cannot commence – Consequently, acquittal under Section 256 without accused facing trial unsustainable [Paras 50-53].

Section 204(4) Cr.P.C. – Dismissal for Non-payment of Process Fee – Record showed complainant continuously took steps for issuance of summons and warrants – Complaints not dismissed for default in process fee – Hence Section 204(4) not attracted [Paras 37-41].

Summoning Order – Challenge – Argument that cheque issued by company and company not impleaded – Complaint disclosed personal transaction and issuance of cheques by accused – No material to show cheques drawn on company account – Section 141 NI Act not attracted – Summoning order dated 25.02.2012 valid [Paras 31-32, 62].

Section 401(2) Cr.P.C. – Opportunity of Hearing – Allegation that accused not heard in revision – Record and conduct showed continuous evasion of process – No prejudice demonstrated warranting interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. [Paras 31, 56].

Expeditious Trial – Section 138 NI Act – Complaints pending since 2012 – Accused repeatedly avoided summons, bailable and non-bailable warrants – In light of Supreme Court directions in In Re: Expeditious Trial of Cases under Section 138 NI Act, trial court directed to expedite proceedings [Para 63].

Decision: All applications filed by accused under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed – Cumulative cost of Rs. 50,000/- imposed payable to complainant within stipulated time – Application filed by complainant allowed – Trial Court directed to expedite disposal of all connected complaints in accordance with law and Supreme Court guidelines [Para 63].

Remission – Premature Release – Section 432(2) CrPC – Competence of Presiding Judge – Life convict’s prayer for premature release recommended by State Sentence Review Board – Judicial Department rejected release based on negative opinion of Chief Judge, City Sessions Court as successor to convicting Bench which ceased to exist – Held: In absence of original presiding Judge, Chief Judge competent to render opinion under Section 432(2) by virtue of Section 5 of City Sessions Court Act and Section 35 CrPC – Provision cannot be rendered unworkable – Question answered in affirmative [Paras 31-39].

Remission – Opinion under Section 432(2) CrPC – Requirement of Reasons – Chief Judge’s opinion primarily reiterated gravity of offence without adequate consideration of post-conviction factors – Relevant parameters in Laxman Naskar and Ram Chander not properly addressed – Mechanical and stereotype reasoning insufficient – Opinion must consider potential for reformation, chance of recurrence, socio-economic condition and purpose of further incarceration – Held: Opinion legally deficient and non-compliant with statutory mandate [Paras 40-45].

Remission – Role of State Government – Whether Presiding Judge’s opinion binding – Judicial Secretary treated negative opinion as sine qua non and mechanically accepted it – Held: Though opinion under Section 432(2) is mandatory procedural safeguard, it is not binding – State must not mechanically follow judicial opinion and must independently assess compliance with statutory requirements – Impugned order unsustainable [Paras 46-49].

Administrative Directions – Effect of Earlier Writ Order directing consideration “in line with SSRB recommendation” – Whether binding mandate to grant release – Held: SSRB recommendation subject to approval of State Government – Earlier order required sincere consideration, not automatic release – Statutory scheme not supplanted – Judicial Secretary not precluded from independent decision [Paras 50-55].

Constitutional Jurisdiction – Power of High Court to Direct Premature Release – Scope under Article 226 – Though constitutional courts may in compelling circumstances grant remission directly, such power to be exercised sparingly – In present case insufficient material regarding reformation, conduct, and comparative parameters – Not appropriate to assume executive function at this stage – Matter remitted for fresh opinion and reconsideration [Paras 56-69].

Parity – Co-accused granted premature release – Whether automatic entitlement – Held: Parity not absolute right in remission matters – Must establish equivalence in behavioural and statutory parameters – Insufficient material regarding co-accused – Claim rejected [Para 70].

Decision: Impugned order dated 24.12.2024 set aside – Chief Judge, City Sessions Court directed to render fresh reasoned opinion under Section 432(2) CrPC within one month considering factors in Laxman Naskar, Ram Chander and Bilkis Yakub Rasool – State Government to take fresh decision within one month thereafter without mechanically relying on judicial opinion – Writ petition disposed of – No costs [Paras 73-75].

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Bar of Limitation – FIR under Section 304-A IPC – Alleged medical negligence leading to death during surgery – Incident dated 04.01.2015 – Challan filed in October 2019 – Offence punishable with maximum imprisonment up to two years – Petitioner contended cognizance barred under Section 468 Cr.P.C. as limitation period expired – Held that though challan filed beyond prescribed limitation, exclusion clause under Section 473 Cr.P.C. empowers Court to take cognizance after expiry if delay properly explained or required in interest of justice – Matter remitted to trial Court to consider plea of limitation before framing of charge – Petition disposed of with directions [Paras 5–14].

Limitation – Section 468 Cr.P.C. – Computation – For offences punishable with imprisonment not exceeding three years – Period of limitation three years – In present case offence under Section 304-A IPC punishable up to two years – Cognizance ordinarily barred after expiry of limitation – However subject to Section 473 Cr.P.C. [Paras 10–11].

Extension of Limitation – Section 473 Cr.P.C. – Scope – Court may condone delay if satisfied that delay properly explained or necessary in interest of justice – Investigating Agency cited delay in obtaining Medical Board opinion regarding cause of death – Trial Court yet to apply mind to explanation furnished in final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. – High Court declined to adjudicate issue at pre-cognizance stage – Appropriate course is to permit trial Court to decide question of limitation first [Paras 8, 12–13].

Inherent Jurisdiction – Exercise of Power – High Court held that at this stage it would not be appropriate to record findings on sufficiency of explanation under Section 473 Cr.P.C. – Parties granted liberty to avail remedies against order of trial Court, if aggrieved – No ground made out for quashing FIR at this stage [Paras 12–14].

Decision: Petition disposed of – Learned trial Court directed to hear parties on plea of limitation under Sections 468/473 Cr.P.C. before framing of charge and pass appropriate order in accordance with law.

Writ Jurisdiction – Hiring of Hotel for Protected Persons – Non-Payment of Verified Dues – Hotel hired by Divisional Commissioner and later by Deputy Commissioner for accommodation of protected political persons and security forces – Bills raised for boarding and lodging – Government constituted Bill Verification Committee which drastically reduced claim and released nominal amount – Held: Where hiring and occupation are admitted and premises remained under control of protectees and security forces, respondents cannot dispute liability at belated stage – Committee proceedings vitiated for violation of principles of natural justice – Petition allowed [Paras 21-23, 28-33].

Pleadings – Specific Denial – Admission by Non-Traverse – First Claim Period – Respondents failed to specifically deny hiring of petitioner Hotel for period w.e.f. 18.11.2020 to 05.10.2021 – In terms of Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC, absence of specific denial amounts to admission – Admission is substantive evidence and need not be proved in view of Section 58 Evidence Act – Held: Petitioner entitled to relief for first claim period [Paras 23-25].

Order XII Rule 6 CPC – Judgment on Admission – Court empowered to pass appropriate order where admission of fact is evident from pleadings or circumstances – Reliance placed on Charanjit Lal Mehra v. Kamal Saroj Mahajan, (2005) 11 SCC 279 – Held: Admitted hiring and occupation justify grant of relief [Para 24].

Contractual / Pecuniary Claim – Maintainability in Writ – Though writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not invoked for disputed contractual claims, where material facts regarding hiring, occupation and State control over premises are admitted and denial is arbitrary, writ court can intervene to prevent unjust withholding of legitimate dues [Paras 16-18, 28-32].

Bill Verification Committee – Distinction from Fact-Finding Committee – Principles of Natural Justice – Committee constituted months after de-hiring to verify bills – No opportunity afforded to petitioner to participate or justify claim – No indication of verification of petitioner’s occupancy records – Rejection/reduction of claim on ground of inflation without hearing violates audi alteram partem – Held: Ex parte report unsustainable and liable to be quashed [Paras 30-32].

Occupation and Control of Premises – Effect – Hotel premises guarded round the clock by security forces – Two rooms under continuous occupation of security personnel – Keys remained with protectees – Petitioner had no control or liberty to commercially exploit premises otherwise – Held: Respondents cannot later contend that rooms were not in actual occupation or deny liability after benefiting from exclusive reservation of accommodation [Paras 28-29, 32].

Delay in Constitution of Committee – Afterthought – Premises de-hired on 01.06.2022 – Committee constituted on 05.11.2022 and report submitted on 02.02.2023 – Held: Belated verification without associating petitioner and without examining whether accommodation was reserved exclusively for State protectees renders report arbitrary [Paras 30-32].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Order dated 05.11.2022 constituting Bill Verification Committee and ex parte report dated 10.02.2023 quashed – Respondents directed to liquidate petitioner’s claims within eight weeks – In default, interest @ 6% per annum payable.

Limitation – Condonation of Delay – Inordinate Delay of 450 Days – Explanation of inability to contact counsel found unsatisfactory – However, considering that appeal involved important questions of law and fact relating to adequacy of compensation, delay condoned subject to payment of costs – Application allowed with condition of deposit of Rs.11,000/- in Junior Advocates Welfare Fund [Paras 1-3].

Costs – Welfare Oriented Directions – Court directed deposit of costs in “Junior Advocates Welfare Fund for purchasing Law Books” – Recognizing financial hardships faced by first-generation and young lawyers – Costs utilized for purchase of law/online books to support junior advocates below 28 years of age having practice between 1 to 5 years [Paras 4-9, 15-16].

Judicial Directions – Institutional Support for Young Advocates – Court issued comprehensive directions to Rajasthan High Court Bar Association to create separate bank account in SBI High Court Branch – Disbursement mechanism of Rs.5,000/- per eligible junior advocate on first-come-first-serve basis – Compliance report directed [Paras 15, 19-20].

Policy Directions – Scheme for Aid to Purchase Law Books – State Government, Bar Council of Rajasthan and Bar Associations directed to frame “The Rajasthan Advocates (Aid to Purchase Law Books) Scheme” – Provision for constitution of Purchase Committee, recovery mechanism in case of misuse, inspection of library, and voluntary contribution by senior advocates – Fund to be utilized exclusively for welfare of junior advocates [Para 18].

Access to Justice – Strengthening Legal System – Court emphasized that supporting young advocates through financial aid, mentorship, seating facilities and welfare measures is essential for strengthening justice delivery system – Welfare measures not charity but necessity for institutional growth [Paras 4-14].

Decision: Delay of 450 days condoned subject to deposit of Rs.11,000/- in Junior Advocates Welfare Fund – Appeal to be restored upon production of receipt – Directions issued for creation and implementation of welfare scheme – Matter listed for compliance.