Arbitration – Jurisdiction – Statutory Arbitration – National Highways Act – Section 3-G(5), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 42 – Petitioner NHAI contended that Section 34 petition filed by landowners challenging award of arbitrator should lie before District Judge, Mandi, as arbitrator was Divisional Commissioner, Mandi – Held: Notification under Section 3-G(5) merely specifies territorial jurisdiction of arbitrator and does not designate “seat” of arbitration – Office location or venue of hearings at Mandi does not ipso facto constitute seat of arbitration – Neither parties nor arbitrator fixed seat – In absence of designated seat, court where first application under Part I was filed (Bilaspur) would have exclusive jurisdiction under Section 42 – District Judge Bilaspur rightly retained jurisdiction [Paras 11–16, 22–23].

Arbitration – Seat vs Venue – Interpretation of “Place” under Section 20 – Juridical Seat – Mandi not fixed as seat – Mere fact that arbitrator holds office or conducts hearings in Mandi does not confer status of “seat” – Reference made to Bharat Aluminium Co. v. Kaiser Aluminium and BGS SGS SOMA JV v. NHPC – Held: Seat of arbitration is the legal anchor of arbitration, and once chosen, confers exclusive jurisdiction – In present case, no agreement or determination regarding seat made – Thus, “Mandi” was only the venue and not the seat of arbitration [Paras 12–16].

Arbitration – Section 42 – First Application Rule – Exclusive Jurisdiction – Where Section 34 petition filed first – Respondents (landowners) filed Section 34 petitions before District Judge, Bilaspur prior in time to petitions filed by NHAI before District Judge, Mandi – As per Section 42, once an application is made in a “court” under Part I of the Act, that court alone has jurisdiction for all subsequent applications – Held: Bilaspur court has exclusive jurisdiction – Petitions by NHAI seeking transfer to Mandi court are devoid of merit [Paras 17–23].

Arbitration – Court under Section 2(1)(e) – Principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction – Applicability of Section 42 – District Judge, Bilaspur is a “court” under Section 2(1)(e) – Once Section 34 application was validly filed there, no subsequent application could be filed before Mandi court – Petitioner’s Section 34 application before Mandi filed after respondents’ application in Bilaspur – Held: District Judge Bilaspur had valid and exclusive jurisdiction [Paras 21–23].

National Highways Act – Section 3-G Arbitration – Applicability of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 3-G(6) expressly applies Arbitration Act, 1996 to arbitrations under National Highways Act – Section 2(4) of Arbitration Act also deems statutory arbitrations under any enactment, including National Highways Act, to be governed by Part I of the Arbitration Act – Hence, Section 34 and Section 42 apply in full to such statutory arbitrations [Paras 2–7].

Decision: All petitions dismissed – Impugned order dated 28.06.2025 passed by District Judge, Bilaspur upheld – District Judge, Bilaspur has exclusive jurisdiction to entertain and decide all applications arising out of the arbitral proceedings – Mandi court has no jurisdiction in view of first application rule under Section 42 – Miscellaneous applications also dismissed. [Para 24]

Criminal Law – Food Adulteration – Misbranding – Reversal of Conviction – Accused prosecuted for selling misbranded soy sauce bottles lacking batch number and vegetarian symbol – Convicted by Trial Court under Section 16(1)(a)(i) PFA Act and sentenced to six months' simple imprisonment – First Appellate Court acquitted the accused – Held: Appellate Court rightly found that prosecution failed to prove misbranding at the time of sampling – No mention of missing label elements in Panchnama – Food Inspector failed to recall label details during trial – Independent witness did not corroborate prosecution case – Prosecution's reliance solely on Public Analyst report without establishing foundational facts created serious doubt about offence – Acquittal upheld – Appeal dismissed [Paras 13–16]

Appellate Review – Presumption of Innocence – Double Presumption – Appellate Court reiterated that once a trial court acquits an accused, presumption of innocence is reinforced – Appellate court must be slow in interfering unless acquittal is found perverse or unreasonable – No such perversity shown in the present case [Paras 9–11]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment of acquittal by First Appellate Court upheld – Accused acquitted – Bail bonds discharged.

Territorial Jurisdiction – Writ Petition under Article 226 – Challenge to Final Findings by Designated Authority recommending anti-dumping duty – Petitioner, a Kuwaiti exporter, claimed apprehended loss of business in Kolkata as part of cause of action – Held: Mere apprehension of injury to business or presence of customers in Kolkata is not sufficient to establish part of cause of action – The bundle of facts forming cause of action must have nexus to the lis involved, i.e., violation of procedural rights by Designated Authority – Petitioner’s claim of harm within West Bengal irrelevant to challenge based on procedural lapses – No integral or essential part of cause of action shown to arise in West Bengal – Writ not maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction [Paras 54–74]

Anti-Dumping Investigation – Principles of Natural Justice – Allegation of non-disclosure of essential facts and methodology by Designated Authority under Rule 16 of Anti-Dumping Rules – Petitioner claimed denial of right to fair hearing – Court refrained from examining due to lack of territorial jurisdiction – Observed that such questions may be appropriately addressed by CESTAT under statutory remedy [Paras 25–33, 73]

Alternative Remedy – Maintainability of Writ – Though questions of natural justice and procedural fairness raised, Court declined to adjudicate due to lack of territorial jurisdiction – Availability of statutory appeal under Section 9C also noted – Issue of maintainability on grounds of alternative remedy left open [Paras 25, 73]

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Court held it lacked territorial jurisdiction as no part of cause of action arose within West Bengal – No costs.

Criminal Law – Bail – Cancellation – Anticipatory bail granted by Sessions Judge and confirmed by ACJM in serious offence of abduction and murder – Opposite party, a WBCS officer, allegedly masterminded the act using official vehicle and position – High Court held that anticipatory bail was granted without considering gravity of offence and role of accused – Bail cancelled [Paras 12-17]

Criminal Procedure – Section 438 CrPC and Section 483 BNSS – Jurisdiction of Court – Objection raised by accused that the matter was not listed before the correct Bench – Held: Issue of cancellation of bail rightly referred to Court exercising powers under Section 439 CrPC, as anticipatory bail stands exhausted once the accused surrenders and is granted bail – Court competent to adjudicate [Paras 15-16]

Evidentiary Material – Ocular and Electronic Evidence – Case diary revealed multiple eyewitnesses identifying accused in act of abduction, assault, and concealment of body – CCTV footage and post-mortem report corroborate – Affidavit by injured eyewitness recorded under Section 164 CrPC – Role of accused held to be principal and premeditated [Paras 11-13]

Judicial Discretion – Exercise of Bail Jurisdiction – Sessions Court granted anticipatory bail solely on the ground that accused is a government officer – ACJM mechanically followed Sessions order without independent reasoning – Held: Bail orders passed without application of mind and in ignorance of relevant facts are perverse and liable to be set aside [Paras 14, 17]

Court Procedure – Affidavit Irregularity – Affidavit submitted by State was blank in material parts and still affirmed by Commissioner – Court imposed cost of ₹10,000 on Oath Commissioner for gross negligence – Registrar directed to recover the same [Para 18]

Decision: Impugned orders dated 26.11.2025 (Sessions Court) and 29.11.2025 (ACJM) set aside – Bail cancelled – Accused directed to surrender within 72 hours – Cost imposed on Oath Commissioner.

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Scope and Limits – Appellants sought quashing of FIR and summoning order at pre-trial stage – Court reiterated that inherent jurisdiction can be exercised only where allegations, taken at face value, do not disclose commission of any offence – High Court cannot conduct a mini trial or assess veracity of evidence at cognizance stage [Paras 18–21].

Cognizance – Order of Summoning – Judicial Restraint – Cognizance is taken of offence and not offender – At stage of taking cognizance, Magistrate only to see existence of prima facie material – Detailed reasoning or evaluation of evidence not required – Interference warranted only if order is perverse or based on no material [Paras 21–23].

Criminal Law – Contradictions and Improvements – Stage of Consideration – Alleged inconsistencies between FIR, additional complaint, Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement and supplementary statement – Court held that appreciation of contradictions, improvements and credibility of witnesses is matter for trial or stage of charge – Not a ground for quashing proceedings [Paras 19, 25].

SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act – Prima Facie Case – Public View and Knowledge of Caste – Allegations of casteist abuse made in additional complaint, Section 164 statement and supplementary statement – Presence of labourers and neighbours alleged – Prima facie ingredients disclosed – Issues regarding public view, intention to humiliate and applicability of specific clauses to be examined at trial [Paras 24–25].

Criminal Law – Section 308 IPC – Nature of Injury – Simple injury and intention to cause death – Court held that determination whether offence under Section 308 IPC is made out depends on evidence and surrounding circumstances – Such assessment impermissible at stage of quashing [Paras 6–7, 25].

Official Duty – Requirement of Sanction – Section 197 Cr.P.C. – Plea that acts were in discharge of official duty – Held: Whether acts complained of have reasonable nexus with official duty is a mixed question of fact and law – To be considered at appropriate stage and not at threshold [Paras 7, 25].

Cross FIR – Effect – Existence of counter FIR regarding same incident – Held: Cross cases reinforce need for full-fledged trial – Cannot be ground to quash proceedings at inception [Para 24].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Order dated 25.01.2024 taking cognizance upheld – FIR not quashed – Liberty granted to appellants to raise all pleas at stage of framing of charge – Trial Court to decide uninfluenced by observations made in judgment.

Civil Law - Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Rejection of plaint – Daughter claiming share in ancestral/urbanised land – Mutation entries and Section 50 DLR Act relied upon to non-suit plaintiff – Held: plaint disclosed triable cause of action – issues of coparcenary, succession, limitation and applicability of special law require evidence – rejection set aside – suit restored [Paras 11–32].

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Order VII Rule 11(a) & (d) CPC – Scope – Court to examine plaint averments alone and not conduct mini trial – Existence of cause of action to be tested on pleadings, not ultimate success – Where plaint discloses triable issues, rejection impermissible [Paras 12–15, 29–30].

Succession – Ancestral Property – Daughter’s rights – Section 6 Hindu Succession Act (as amended in 2005) – Plaintiff pleaded property as ancestral and unpartitioned – Detailed proof of creation of HUF or coparcenary not required at pleading stage – Whether property is ancestral or self-acquired is mixed question of law and fact to be decided at trial [Paras 19–20, 28–29].

Mutation – Revenue Records – Effect – Mutation entries neither create nor extinguish title – Only for fiscal purposes – Mutation in favour of sons after father’s death does not defeat substantive inheritance rights of other legal heirs – Reliance on mutation to deny cause of action held erroneous [Paras 15, 18].

Delhi Land Reforms Act – Section 50 – Applicability – Succession to bhumidhari rights – Plaintiff pleaded that land stood urbanised in 2006 – Applicability of DLR Act post-urbanisation doubtful and requires evidence – Special law cannot be conclusively applied at threshold under Order VII Rule 11 CPC [Paras 17–18, 27].

Hindu Succession Act – Section 4(2) (since omitted) – Effect – After omission of Section 4(2), succession governed by HSA even in respect of agricultural land – Plaintiff’s claim raised post-2005 – Whether DLR Act continues to govern succession requires adjudication on facts and law [Paras 17, 24–27].

Limitation – Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC – Mixed question of law and fact – Where plaint pleads continuing cause of action, fraud and later knowledge of alienations, limitation cannot be decided at threshold [Paras 22].

Order II Rule 2 CPC – Bar – Requires comparison of pleadings of previous suits – Such inquiry impermissible at stage of Order VII Rule 11 CPC [Para 21].

Precedents – Applicability – Judgments rejecting vague HUF claims distinguished – Where plaint contains categorical averments of ancestral property and subsisting joint status, rejection at threshold not justified [Paras 23, 28].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order dated 01.12.2022 set aside – Suit restored to original number – Parties directed to appear before learned Single Judge – All pending applications disposed of [Paras 31–34].

Service Law – Regularization – Clause 4(C) of Model Standing Orders – Industrial Court allowed complaints directing NMC to grant permanency to Safai Karmacharis who had completed 240 days' service annually – High Court held that Clause 4(C) does not confer automatic right to regularization in absence of sanctioned posts – Orders granting such relief without sanctioned posts are unsustainable [Paras 37–41].

Labour Law – Applicability of Model Standing Orders (MSO) – NMC argued that it had Certified Standing Orders and MSO was not applicable – Court rejected this objection, relying on NMC v. Ramchandra Sathe – However, held that even if MSO applies, right to permanency under Clause 4(C) cannot override statutory requirements under Municipal Acts regarding sanctioned posts [Paras 19, 35] –

Unfair Labour Practice – Item 6 & 9 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act – Industrial Court declared NMC guilty of unfair labour practice for continuing workers as daily wagers despite long service – High Court held that such a declaration cannot be sustained where appointments were not against sanctioned posts and regularization was not permissible under law – Declaration quashed [Paras 38, 40] –

Public Employment – Regularization and Creation of Posts – Citing Umadevi, Hari Nandan Prasad, Ilmo Devi, and others – Court reaffirmed that no right to regularization accrues without sanctioned post – Courts cannot create posts or mandate their creation – Merely working for years does not entitle regular status unless service was against sanctioned post [Paras 28–29, 32–35] –

Judicial Precedent – Conflicting View in Recent Judgments – Court noted judgments favoring regularization based on nature of work (e.g., Jaggoo, Shripal) did not reconcile with earlier binding precedents like MSRTC v. Casteribe and Tulsidas Bindhade – Held: Earlier Division Bench decisions are binding; newer views deviating from settled law are not to be followed [Paras 24–27, 36] –

Administrative Action – Regularization via Policy – NMC had already regularized complainants against 4407 supernumerary posts created by State Government – Their past service was not counted as per policy – Held: This does not violate MSO or amount to unfair labour practice – Policy decision upheld [Paras 39, 41] –

Decision: Writ Petitions allowed – Impugned Industrial Court judgments directing regularization/quasi-permanency on basis of Clause 4(C) MSO set aside – Complaints dismissed – Industrial Court erred in holding NMC guilty of unfair labour practice where no sanctioned post existed [Paras 42–43].

Criminal Law – Acid Attack – Conviction under Sections 326/34 and 304/34 IPC – Appeals against conviction – FIR held ante-timed – Effect of ante-timing – FIR shown to be registered at 6:30 a.m. but evidence established that informant returned from Delhi only around 7:45 a.m. and FIR was lodged after consultation around 9:00 a.m. – Held: FIR clearly ante-timed and belonging to category affecting prosecution case – Ante-timed FIR requires cautious scrutiny of prosecution evidence [Paras 32–38, 68–72].

Evidence Appreciation – Ocular Testimony – Injured Witness – PW-2 (injured son) gave detailed account but admitted at end of testimony that all were asleep and he did not know anything – Material self-contradiction going to root of prosecution case – Injured witness though generally accorded higher weight, testimony liable to be discarded if wholly unreliable – Held: Evidence of PW-2 not trustworthy [Paras 49–50, 59–60, 73].

Evidence Appreciation – Eye-witness Testimony – PW-3 (daughter of deceased) – Claimed to have witnessed acid attack while awake – Version found inherently improbable and self-contradictory – Contradictions regarding sequence of events, manner of assault, role of accused, and position of witnesses – Material inconsistencies with testimony of injured witness – Held: PW-3 not a reliable eye-witness [Paras 55–57, 65–67].

Contradictions in Prosecution Evidence – Material Discrepancies – Inconsistent accounts as to who poured acid on deceased – One witness attributing fatal act to Bablu, another to Anil – Discrepancies regarding resistance by victims, running to hydrant, physical scuffle – Not minor variations but contradictions on core incident – Held: Prosecution failed to present a coherent and consistent version [Paras 62–67, 74].

Motive – Double-edged Weapon – Prior conviction of two appellants for rape of informant’s daughter – Possible motive for accused to commit offence as well as for informant and family to falsely implicate – In blind crime with unreliable eyewitnesses, motive to falsely implicate assumes relevance – Held: Possibility of false implication could not be ruled out [Paras 17–22, 77–90].

Related and Interested Witnesses – Principles of Scrutiny – Evidence of close relatives requires careful and discerning scrutiny, especially where animosity exists – Court relied on Vadivelu Thevar, Raju @ Balachandran, Dalip Singh and other precedents – Held: Testimony of related witnesses failed to meet standard of credibility required for conviction [Paras 58–60, 83–86].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Burden of Proof – Benefit of Doubt – Prosecution required to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Ante-timed FIR coupled with unreliable, contradictory ocular evidence created grave doubt – Held: Prosecution failed to discharge burden – Accused entitled to benefit of doubt [Paras 92–94].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Acquittal of all appellants – Release directed forthwith unless required in any other case – Bonds under Section 481 BNSS / Section 437-A CrPC directed [Paras 95–96].

Criminal Law – Section 319 CrPC – Summoning of Additional Accused – Repeated Applications – Judicial Discipline – Revisionists, though named in FIR, were exculpated during investigation and not charge-sheeted – Multiple applications for summoning under Section 319 CrPC rejected at different stages including cognizance stage and after committal – Subsequent application allowed by Sessions Court in alleged haste – Held: Repeated invocation of Section 319 CrPC on the same material requires strict scrutiny and adherence to settled parameters [Paras 2–7, 15].

Section 319 CrPC – Effect of Earlier Rejection Orders – Requirement of Fresh and Strong Evidence – Earlier rejection of application under Section 319 CrPC, affirmed on merits, could not be lightly brushed aside – Evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 found to be identical to their Section 161 CrPC statements – No new incriminating material emerging from examination-in-chief or cross-examination – Power under Section 319 CrPC being extraordinary, could not be exercised casually [Paras 15, 28–31].

Section 319 CrPC – Cross-Examination – Mandatory Consideration – Supreme Court precedents mandate consideration of cross-examination where available – Sessions Court made only cursory reference to cross-examination without analysing contradictions and omissions – Held: Ignoring cross-examination vitiates satisfaction required under Section 319 CrPC [Paras 28–30].

Section 149 IPC – Unlawful Assembly – Limited Application at Section 319 Stage – Mere invocation of Section 149 IPC does not dilute the requirement of strong and cogent evidence against proposed accused – Presence and role of revisionists not established by independent or reliable evidence – Independent witnesses had denied their presence at the spot [Paras 15, 31].

Effect of Supreme Court Order – Clarificatory Dismissal of SLP – Supreme Court dismissed SLP against High Court’s remand order but expressly clarified that dismissal shall not be treated as expression on merits or alleged role of revisionists – Sessions Court failed to consider or await the Supreme Court’s order despite being informed – Held: Sessions Court acted in undue haste and in violation of judicial propriety [Paras 18–27].

Judicial Propriety – Undue Haste – Fair Trial – Sessions Court rushed to decide application on the last day of time limit fixed by High Court, despite being informed of Supreme Court’s order uploaded later the same day – Held: Time limit fixed by High Court could not justify hurried disposal ignoring higher judicial clarification – Such approach erodes faith in judicial process [Paras 24–27].

Remand – Fresh Consideration by Different Presiding Officer – In view of procedural impropriety and failure to consider entire material including cross-examination and Supreme Court clarification – Matter remanded for fresh decision by another Sessions Judge in accordance with law [Paras 32–34].

Decision: Criminal Revision allowed – Order dated 17.08.2024 summoning revisionists under Section 319 CrPC set aside – Sessions Court directed to reconsider the applications afresh, after hearing all parties, uninfluenced by earlier orders, and to pass a reasoned order on or before 31.03.2026.