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 – Compromise after Conviction – Non-Compoundable Offences – Sections 324, 148, 149 IPC – Accused convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment up to two years – During pendency of appeal parties entered into voluntary compromise – Trial Court verified compromise and reported it to be genuine and without coercion – Held: High Court can quash proceedings and set aside conviction in exercise of inherent powers to secure ends of justice even in non-compoundable offences [Paras 4–8, 14–17].

Criminal Procedure – Section 482 CrPC – Scope – Distinction between Compounding and Quashing – Though offences are not compoundable under Section 320 CrPC, inherent jurisdiction of High Court not barred – Power under Section 482 can be exercised to prevent abuse of process and to promote peace and harmony where dispute is predominantly private in nature [Paras 8–12].

Offences against Society – Test of Public Interest – FIR involved offences under Sections 307 and 326 IPC but appellants already acquitted of those charges – Remaining offences under Sections 324/148/149 IPC arose from village dispute – Held: Incident did not affect public peace, moral turpitude or public policy – Continuation of proceedings would serve no fruitful purpose [Paras 7–8, 16].

Settlement – Post-Conviction Stage – Pendency of Appeals – Compromise permissible even after conviction where offence is non-heinous and private in nature – Object of criminal jurisprudence is reformatory and to restore peace – Rejection of compromise may perpetuate hostility [Paras 7, 14–16].

Effect of Death of Accused – Abatement – One appellant (Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi) expired during pendency of appeals – Appeal abated qua deceased accused – Remaining appellants entitled to benefit of compromise [Para 5, 18].

Decision: Appeals by accused allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant-convicts acquitted – Appeal filed by State dismissed in view of compromise – Proceedings abated qua deceased accused – Bail bonds discharged – All pending applications closed [Paras 17–18].

Election Law – Panchayat Elections – Corrupt Practice – Disqualification – Declaration of Returned Candidate as Void – Declaration of Another Candidate as Elected – Non-disclosure of criminal antecedents by returned candidate amounts to corrupt practice and election liable to be declared void – However, declaration of an unelected candidate as elected can be made only if statutory conditions are fulfilled – In absence of allegation or finding that but for corrupt votes the election petitioner would have secured majority of valid votes, declaration of another candidate as elected is impermissible – Tribunal erred in law in declaring respondent No.4 as elected [Paras 11–13].

Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 – Sections 89 and 90 – Distinction Between Disqualification and Corrupt Practice – Section 89(1)(a) relates to disqualification existing on date of election – Section 89(1)(b) concerns corrupt practices affecting election – In cases of disqualification, votes polled by disqualified candidate cannot automatically be treated as “thrown away” – Law does not permit presumption as to voting pattern had the disqualified candidate not contested – Ratio reiterated from Supreme Court precedents [Paras 10–12].

Election Tribunal – Procedural Lapses – Mandatory Duty to Follow CPC Procedure – Election petition decided without framing issues, without calling for written response and without recording evidence – Tribunal devised its own procedure ignoring mandatory statutory framework – Election petitions are akin to civil trials and strict adherence to procedure under CPC is mandatory – Failure to frame issues and conduct trial vitiates entire proceedings [Paras 14–15].

Framing of Issues – Importance – Democratic Rights at Stake – Settlement of issues is foundational stage of election trial – Issues determine scope of evidence and adjudication – Tribunal’s casual approach in deciding election petition without issues reflects non-application of mind – Election disputes affect fate of constituency and democratic process, hence require strict procedural compliance [Paras 14–15].

Supervisory and Appellate Interference – Election Matters – High Court justified in setting aside Tribunal’s order where it suffers from patent illegality and procedural impropriety – Tribunal’s order held unsustainable both in law and procedure – Matter remanded for fresh adjudication in accordance with law [Paras 15–16].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned order dated 06.03.2025 passed by Election Tribunal, Sri Muktsar Sahib set aside – Matter remanded to Tribunal for fresh decision after framing issues and recording evidence – Tribunal directed to decide election petition expeditiously, preferably on or before 30.06.2026.

Criminal Law – Dishonour of Cheque – Directors’ Liability – Quashing of Complaint – Petitioners sought quashing of criminal proceedings initiated under Sections 138/141 of the NI Act on ground that no specific role was attributed to them in the complaint – Held: Mere reproduction of statutory language not sufficient – Complaint must aver how each director was in charge of or responsible for the conduct of business at the relevant time – Failure to do so is fatal – Petitioners Nos. 1 and 4 had resigned prior to the alleged offence and such resignation was accepted as per Form-32 – Continuation of proceedings against them is an abuse of process [Paras 9, 10, 11, 15, 17, 18]

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Reason for Dishonour – ‘Other Reasons’ – Held: Dishonour for “other reasons” does not constitute an offence under Section 138 NI Act, which requires dishonour for insufficiency of funds or exceeding arrangement – Complaint unsustainable on this ground alone [Para 10]

Company Law – Winding Up Order – Effect – Company under liquidation – Order for winding up passed prior to the institution of the complaint – Held: No proceedings can be continued against company once Official Liquidator is appointed – Complaint against company and its directors not maintainable in such scenario [Para 16]

Vicarious Liability – Directors – Specific Averments Mandatory – Multiple Supreme Court precedents reiterated that vicarious liability of directors under Section 141 NI Act cannot arise without clear and specific averments about their role – A director is not deemed liable solely because of designation – Liability must be based on factual assertions [Paras 11–14]

Decision: CRR allowed – Complaint Case No. C-824 of 2011 pending before the Learned 4th Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta is quashed – Proceedings against petitioners under Sections 138/141 NI Act set aside [Paras 20–21]

Criminal Law – Appeal against Acquittal – Scope of Interference – State challenged acquittal of respondents for offences under Sections 323/427/308/506/34 IPC – High Court reiterated that interference with acquittal is permissible only when findings are perverse or manifestly illegal – Trial Court’s view found to be a plausible view based on evidence – Held: No ground made out to interfere with acquittal [Paras 20, 52, 60–61].

Criminal Trial – Identity of Accused – Doubtful Identification – Incident occurred at night and complainant and eye-witness were under the influence of alcohol – Names of assailants not known immediately and disclosed only subsequently on suggestion of third person – DD entry recorded assault by 4–5 persons whereas FIR named only two accused – Serious doubt regarding identity of assailants – Benefit of doubt rightly extended to accused [Paras 41–52].

Evidence – Testimony of Injured and Eye-witness – Contradictions and Inconsistencies – PW-3 and PW-4 gave inconsistent versions regarding arrest of accused, preparation of documents, and presence at spot – Arrest memos did not bear signatures of eye-witnesses – Site plan not signed by complainant – Prosecution version rendered unreliable on material particulars [Paras 30, 53–55].

Investigation – Non-Examination of Material Witnesses – PCR officials were first to reach the spot and allegedly apprehended one accused – PCR officials neither cited nor examined as prosecution witnesses – Failure to examine best available witnesses caused serious dent in prosecution case [Paras 39–40].

Medical Evidence – MLC – Limited Corroborative Value – MLC recorded history of “assault” without naming assailants or specifying number of attackers – Smell of alcohol noted on injured – Medical evidence did not corroborate prosecution case regarding identity of accused [Paras 47–48, 54].

Recovery of Weapon – Doubtful Seizure – Injured claimed to have kept alleged weapons of offence and handed them over to police next day – No seizure effected from spot despite immediate police presence – Recovery found unnatural and suspicious – Use of alleged weapons not proved beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 56–57].

Investigation Lapses – Seizure and Removal of Vehicle – Damaged vehicle removed from spot without any contemporaneous record – IO unable to explain who drove vehicle to police station or how it was secured – Absence of evidence regarding removal and seizure weakened prosecution case [Paras 58–59].

Effect of Death of Co-Accused – Abatement – During pendency of appeal, Respondent No.1 died – Appeal survived only against Respondent No.2 – Acquittal of surviving respondent upheld on merits [Paras 32–33].

Decision: Leave to Appeal granted – Criminal Appeal dismissed – Judgment of acquittal dated 15.12.2016 upheld – No perversity or illegality found in appreciation of evidence by Trial Court – Appeal dismissed.

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.

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.

Writ Jurisdiction – Direction for Registration of FIR – Housing Project Dispute – Petitioners sought directions under Article 226 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for investigation by CVC/CBI and registration of FIR against NBCC and its joint venture partner for alleged violations of statutory directions, poor construction, misappropriation of funds and cheating – Held: High Court in writ jurisdiction does not ordinarily direct registration of FIR, particularly where allegations arise out of contractual and commercial disputes requiring factual adjudication [Paras 1, 31–33].

Criminal Law – Distinction between Civil Disputes and Criminal Offences – Allegations primarily related to delay in construction, quality of construction, lack of amenities, maintenance issues, non-formation of RWA and unilateral levy of charges – Such issues held to be essentially civil in nature arising from contractual obligations between builder and allottees – Criminal colour cannot be imparted merely by alleging cheating or fraud without clear prima facie criminal intent [Paras 28–30].

Writ Jurisdiction – Article 226 – Disputed Questions of Fact – Petition involved disputed factual issues concerning compliance with NOCs, construction standards, environmental norms and maintenance obligations – Held: Such disputed questions cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings and require evidence – Writ petition not maintainable [Paras 29–30].

Alternate Remedies – Availability under Statutory Law – Court held that Petitioners have efficacious alternate remedies under Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate for alleged cognizable offences and before civil courts, consumer fora or regulatory authorities for grievances relating to construction defects, delay, amenities and maintenance – Writ jurisdiction declined [Para 32].

Direction to Investigating Agencies – Limits of Judicial Review – Prayer for court-monitored investigation by CBI/CVC rejected – Held: Extraordinary writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to bypass statutory remedies or convert civil disputes into criminal proceedings [Paras 31–33].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – No direction for registration of FIR or investigation issued – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 33–34].

Real Estate – RERA Registration – Ongoing vs. Completed Project – Completion Certificate Issued Pre-RERA – Appellant’s project had received a valid completion certificate on 17 March 2015 – Tribunal wrongly held project as ongoing due to absence of fire safety certificate – Held: Under Regulation 67 of BDA Regulations, fire NOC suffices at completion stage – Completion certificate valid – Project not registrable under RERA [Paras 10–19]

Statutory Interpretation – Completion Certificate vs. Occupancy Certificate – Occupancy certificate (Sec. 2(zf)) and completion certificate (Sec. 2(q)) have distinct legal purposes – RERA registration depends on completion certificate – Absence of occupancy certificate does not render a project ongoing under the Act [Paras 12–13]

Fire Safety – Compliance Requirements – Regulation 67 of BDA Regulations requires fire NOC, not fire safety certificate, for completion – Fire safety certificate required only at occupancy stage – Tribunal’s reliance on fire safety certificate to invalidate completion certificate is legally incorrect – Project completed before Fire Safety Rules came into force [Paras 14–19]

Binding Effect of BDA Determination – BDA’s 2022 order confirming no need for fresh completion certificate after revised plan was final – Not challenged – Tribunal erred in disregarding binding decision of competent authority under Section 2(p) RERA – Project to be treated as complete [Paras 18–19]

Applicability of RERA – Retroactivity – Supreme Court in Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. clarified that RERA applies only to ongoing and future projects – Project completed before 1 May 2017 falls outside the purview of the Act – Tribunal misapplied settled law [Paras 10, 14, 20]

Decision: Appeals allowed – Orders of the OREAT dated 27 September 2024 in Appeal Nos. 96 and 97 of 2023 and review orders dated 13 November 2024 in Review Petition Nos. 15 and 16 of 2024 are set aside – Project held to be completed prior to commencement of RERA – Complaints held non-maintainable – No order as to costs.