Civil Law – Arbitration – Interim Measures – In the case of Shanghai Electric Group Co. Ltd. Versus Reliance Infrastructure Ltd., the Delhi High Court examined the issue of granting interim measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in the context of an international commercial arbitration. The Court considered the enforceability of a foreign arbitral award and the interim protection of assets for securing the award amount. [Para 1-87]

Interim Measures for Foreign Arbitral Awards – Upheld – The Court held that interim measures can be sought under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act even after the making of an arbitral award, until it is enforced in accordance with Section 36 for domestic awards and Sections 44 to 49 for foreign awards. This was to ensure that the assets against which the award is to be enforced are preserved. [Para 74-81]

Jurisdiction – Determination – The Court found that it had jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act based on the location of assets in Delhi. It was determined that the situs of the assets was a key factor for maintaining a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, even in cases of international commercial arbitration. [Para 24-37]

Financial Condition of Respondent – Consideration – The Court considered the financial condition of Reliance Infrastructure and the previous assurances given to the court regarding the preservation of assets. It was observed that the Respondent’s failure to provide a satisfactory assurance regarding the availability of assets to satisfy the arbitral award necessitated the grant of interim measures. [Para 67-70, 72-73]

Order – Restraint on Asset Alienation – The High Court ordered Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. To refrain from selling, alienating, transferring, or encumbering its assets amounting to US$ 135,320,728.42, ensuring the enforceability of the arbitral award. The restraint was subject to any existing charge on the assets created in favor of banks or financial institutions. [Para 85-86]

Decision – Dismissal of Cross Objections – The cross objections raised by Reliance Infrastructure concerning jurisdiction and the applicability of Section 9 of the Arbitration Act were dismissed by the Court. [Para 87]

Defamation and Damages Claim – Social Media Allegations – Suit filed by the plaintiff, a charitable trust, against defamatory statements made by the defendant on YouTube regarding alleged involvement in a murder – Plaintiff claims reputational harm and seeks monetary compensation. [Paras 1-2, 5-6]

Evidence and Testimonies – Plaintiff's evidence substantiated by witness testimonies and exhibits (Ex.P1 to Ex.P9) including a compact disc with 65B certificate – No denial or counter-argument by the defendant, who remained ex parte. [Paras 3, 5]

Monetary Compensation Granted – Court awards Rs.50,00,000/- as damages to the plaintiff for reputational harm caused by defendant's false allegations – Emphasis on the malicious and defamatory nature of statements against the plaintiff. [Para 6]

Permanent Injunction and Freedom of Expression – Court decrees permanent injunction against the defendant from making defamatory posts and comments on social media platforms – Remarks on misuse of freedom of expression and need to discourage blackmail via social media. [Paras 7-8]

Decision – Suit decreed in favor of the plaintiff with damages of Rs.50 lakhs and costs, interest at 7.5% if not paid within one month, and permanent injunction granted. [Para 8]

Transfer of Investigation – Law and Principles – In cases involving high officials of State authorities, accusations against top officials of the investigating agency, or where the investigation is prima facie tainted/biased, the Court may exercise its constitutional power to transfer the investigation to CBI. This aligns with the Supreme Court's directives in "State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights" and other precedents. [Para 7, 11, 14-15]

Specific Case Analysis – Enforcement Directorate v. State of West Bengal – The Enforcement Directorate's appeals for transferring investigation from the State Police to CBI in FIR Nos. 8 and 9 of 2024 at Nazat Police Station and FIR 18 of 2024 at Bongaon Police Station, granted. The court found substantial grounds for mistrust in State Police's investigation, evidenced by the delay in registering FIRs, biased approach in FIR No. 7 of 2024, underplaying serious offenses, and reluctance to pursue politically influential accused. [Para 13-17]

Directions Issued – Transfer to CBI – Investigation in the stated FIRs transferred to the CBI for unbiased and fair investigation. The custody of the accused Sk. Shahjahan to be immediately transferred to the CBI, ensuring swift and impartial justice. [Para 18]

Writ Law - Challenge to Answer Key – Judicial Services Exam – Correctness of Question No. 154 – Petitioner challenged the Answer Key of DJS Preliminary Examination 2023 regarding Question No. 154. The petitioner sought additional marks, claiming the correct answer as 'Option (1)', while the key indicated 'Option (2)'. [Para 1]

Examination and Merits of Options – Examination of Section 91 Cr.P.C. and relevant case laws to ascertain the correctness of 'Option (2)' in the Answer Key. The court found 'Option (2)' to be more appropriate, recognizing that while ordinarily the accused might not invoke Section 91 at the stage of charge, the court could summon documents subject to satisfaction. [Paras 17-22]

Finality of Exam Conducting Authority’s Decision – The Court emphasized that objections to the answer key were considered by the exam authority, and unless demonstrably wrong, the court should not interfere. The challenge to the answer key didn’t meet the criteria for court intervention. [Paras 24-26]

Petition Dismissed – The High Court found no merit in the petition, dismissing it along with the pending application. [Para 28]

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Renewal of Driving License – Requirement of Competency Test – The Court deliberated on the legality of Ext.P9 Circular dated 15.10.2009 concerning the renewal of driving licenses under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The petitioner challenged the requirement of undergoing a competency test for renewing a driving license that had expired more than a year ago but less than five years. [Para 5-7, 11-13]

Interpretation of Sections 9(3) and 15(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Examined – The Court analyzed the provisions of Section 9(3), which waives the need for a competency test if the application does not exceed five years from the expiry date, and Section 15(4), which mandates a test if the renewal application is made over a year after the expiry. [Para 14-17]

Decision – Upholding of Ext.P9 Circular – The Court upheld the validity of Ext.P9 Circular, agreeing with its alignment with the 2019 amendments to the Motor Vehicles Act. It held that applicants seeking to renew their driving license more than one year after expiry must undergo a competency test. [Para 18-20]

Writ Petition – Dismissal – In view of the legal requirements under the Motor Vehicles Act, as amended, the Court dismissed the writ petition, allowing the respondents to proceed with Exts.P6 and P8 show-cause notices in accordance with the law. [Para 20]

FIR for Offences under IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act – Allegations of dowry demands, physical abuse, and mental cruelty by husband and in-laws – FIR lodged in Jabalpur, transferred to Bhopal for investigation, trial pending at Bhopal – Petitioner seeks transfer back to Jabalpur [Paras 1-2, 12].

Mental Cruelty and Jurisdiction – Continuation of mental cruelty in petitioner’s parental home in Jabalpur – Application of law in cases where psychological impact persists – Reliance on judgments of Ruhi Vs. Anees Ahmed and Rupali Devi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [Paras 7-10, 13-14].

Legal Interpretation – Section 179 of Cr.P.C. applied – Offence triable where act done or consequence ensues – Physical abuse in matrimonial home, mental cruelty in parental home – Jurisdiction lies with the court in parental home's location [Paras 10, 13-14].

Maintainability of Writ Petition – Challenged on grounds of alternative remedy under Section 407 of Cr.P.C. – Held, writ petition maintainable as there was no trial when filed, and police investigation transfer was without jurisdiction [Para 14].

Decision – Writ petition accepted – Transfer of investigation and trial from Bhopal to Jabalpur held legal and appropriate, considering the mental cruelty borne by the petitioner at her parental home in Jabalpur [Paras 15-17].

Incident and Initial Investigation – Incident on 26.07.2007 resulting in the death of three persons – FIR lodged by Shyam Singh (PW-1) – Chargesheet against five accused including appellants – Initially charged under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 504 IPC in Case Crime No. 412 of 2007 [Para 1].

Trial Proceedings – Examination of five prosecution witnesses including the eye-witnesses Shyam Singh (PW-1) and Rakesh Kumar (PW-2) – Inconsistent testimonies about the presence of deceased in the tractor or trolley and the presence of eyewitnesses at the scene [Paras 3, 5, 7, 9, 23].

Investigating Officer's Evidence – PW-5, the Investigating Officer, acknowledged not taking statements from certain key witnesses present at the crime scene, and inconsistencies in the recovery of evidence [Paras 13, 26].

Defence Witness – Guddu, allegedly the tractor driver, stated that the eyewitnesses were not present in the tractor trolley, contradicting the prosecution's claim [Para 16].

Acquittal and Reasoning – Appellants acquitted due to unreliable and contradictory testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, discrepancies in the prosecution’s story, and improper handling of evidence. Court found the prosecution unable to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants [Paras 24-27].

Juvenile Status of Appellants – Appellants Pravesh and Vipin declared juveniles post-conviction and released. Appellant Manoj to be released unless required in another case [Para 28].

Service Law - Promotion Claim to Law Officer – Rejection by Principal Secretary – Petitioner, Sandeep Kumar, working in clerical cadre, challenges the rejection of his promotion to Law Officer under Himachal Pradesh Department of Irrigation and Public Health Legal Assistants (Class-III Non-Gazetted) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1996 and subsequent amendments. Petitioner sought promotion from 7.9.2009 after completing LLB during service. [Para 1, 3-10]

Requisite Qualification and Service Length – Petitioner argued that he fulfilled the required qualification and had over 13 years of service, exceeding the 10-year service requirement for promotion as per amended R&P Rules. Respondents’ reliance on past judgments to justify rejection based on lack of minimum post-qualification service was contested. [Paras 11-14, 21-22]

Legal Interpretation of Service Length – Supreme Court precedents cited by petitioner to argue that service length should count from the date of acquiring essential qualification, not necessarily post-qualification. Reliance on Government instructions emphasizing promotion based on rules existing at the time of vacancy. [Paras 20-26]

High Court Decision – The court held that the petitioner was eligible for consideration for promotion to Law Officer as of 25.10.2010, the date of the Departmental Promotion Committee meeting. Directed respondents to consider his promotion from that date with all benefits and seniority, ruling that service length should include tenure prior to acquiring the LLB degree. [Paras 28-31]

NDPS – Appeal against Trial Court's Conviction – N.D.P.S. Act – Conviction under Section 22 for possession of 400 MICROLIT Tablets – High Court finds serious flaws in the investigation and trial process, leading to doubts about the prosecution's version – Judgment of conviction and order of sentence set aside, appellant acquitted. [Paras 7-14]

Fairness of Investigation – Analysis – Held – The investigation process lacked transparency, with discrepancies in FIR and recovery memos. The IO’s knowledge of the charging section before recovery raises doubts about the fairness of the investigation. The concealment of objections raised by the Forensic Lab further adds to the unfairness, violating the principle of a fair trial. [Para 9-10]

Investigative Irregularities – Significance – Emphasized – The concealment of objections by the Forensic Lab and lack of clarity in the investigation process undermine the integrity of the trial. The fairness of investigation and trial is crucial in cases involving narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. [Para 11]

Decision – Acquittal of the Appellant – The court finds the appeal meritorious due to significant flaws in the investigation and trial process. The conviction and sentence by the Trial Court are set aside, and the appellant is acquitted of the charges under Section 22 of the N.D.P.S. Act. [Para 13-14]