Civil Writ - Natural Resources – Tender-cum-Auction – Quarry Lease for Dunite – Cancellation of Tender – Successful bidders challenged cancellation of tender-cum-auction after being declared highest bidders and payment of EMD – Authorities cancelled tender on finding serious discrepancies in fixation of upset price leading to substantial loss to State revenue – Held: Allocation of natural resources is not a mere commercial transaction but a matter of public trust requiring maximisation of public revenue – State entitled to cancel tender where fixation of upset price was fundamentally flawed and against public interest – No vested right accrues merely by being declared successful bidder [Paras 15–18].

Tender Process – Upset Price – Fixation – Judicial Review – Enquiry revealed that only seigniorage fee was taken as upset price without considering actual market value and net profit of Dunite mineral – Resulted in potential loss of hundreds of crores to State exchequer – Held: When tender conditions or calculations are misapplied resulting in depletion of public revenue, courts must uphold corrective action by the State – Cancellation justified to protect public interest and revenue [Paras 8–10, 15–18].

Public Trust Doctrine – Natural Resources – Revenue Maximisation – State as trustee of mineral wealth obligated to secure best value for public resources – Reliance placed on Natural Resources Allocation, In Re, Special Reference No.1 of 2012 and Subodh Kumar Singh Rathour v. CEO – Tender cancellation upheld in furtherance of constitutional obligation to protect public wealth [Paras 16–18].

Judicial Precedent – Supreme Court Guidance – Shanti Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Odisha – Principle reiterated that misinterpretation of tender conditions diminishing State revenue warrants judicial interference – Applied to uphold cancellation of tender involving mineral resources [Paras 17–18].

Refund – Earnest Money Deposit – Though writ petitions dismissed, petitioners entitled to refund of EMD with interest at 7.5% per annum from date of deposit till repayment – No direction for grant of lease [Para 19].

Environmental Protection – Mining Near Reserved Forest – Court directed that any future tender must strictly comply with Supreme Court directions prohibiting mining within one kilometre from reserved forest boundary as laid down in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India [Para 19].

Decision: Writ petitions dismissed – Cancellation of tender-cum-auction upheld – Respondents directed to refund EMD with interest – Liberty granted to State to issue fresh tender in accordance with law – Petitioners permitted to participate in fresh tender – No costs.

Arbitration – Enforcement of Domestic Award in International Commercial Arbitration – Jurisdiction – Special Appeal challenging Single Judge’s order rejecting objection to maintainability of execution application before High Court – Held: Award in question is domestic though arising from international commercial arbitration with seat in India – As per Section 2(1)(e)(ii) of the Arbitration Act, in absence of original civil jurisdiction, High Court having appellate jurisdiction over subordinate courts is competent to execute such award – District Commercial Court lacks jurisdiction in such cases [Paras 6–8, 22–28, 33–34, 44]

Arbitration – Definition of “Court” under Arbitration Act – Applicability of Section 2(1)(e) – High Court clarified that Section 2(1)(e)(ii) governs jurisdiction in international commercial arbitrations seated in India – Even if High Court lacks original civil jurisdiction, it qualifies as "Court" if it hears appeals from subordinate courts – Commercial Division of such High Court is appropriate forum for enforcement under Section 36 [Paras 24–26, 31–32]

Commercial Courts Act – Section 10 – Applicability – Section 10(1) provides that all applications arising from international commercial arbitration are to be heard by the Commercial Division of the High Court – Sections 10(2) and 10(3) relate only to domestic arbitration – No distinction based on whether arbitration is party-centric or place-centric – Statutory scheme supports exclusive jurisdiction of High Court for enforcement of such awards [Paras 13, 41–43]

Interpretation – No Overlap Between Parts I and II of Arbitration Act – Court rejects appellant’s contention that amendment in Section 47 (Part II) implying High Court jurisdiction for foreign awards would conversely imply District Court jurisdiction for domestic awards in international commercial arbitration – Part I (which includes Section 36) and Part II operate independently – High Court jurisdiction flows from Section 2(1)(e)(ii), not by exclusion from Section 47 [Paras 34–39]

Appeal – Maintainability of Special Appeal – Not barred under Chapter VIII Rule 5 as impugned order was passed in original jurisdiction under the Commercial Courts Act and Arbitration Act – Special Appeal held to be maintainable – However, dismissed on merits [Paras 3–6, 46]

Decision: Special Appeal dismissed – High Court (Commercial Division) held to be the proper forum for enforcement of a domestic arbitral award arising from international commercial arbitration – Objections to maintainability rightly rejected by Single Judge

Criminal Law – Negotiable Instruments – Dishonour of Cheques – Legally Enforceable Liability – Appellant convicted under Section 138 NI Act for dishonour of five cheques aggregating Rs.1,41,000/- issued towards commercial dues – Trial Court sentenced appellant to six months RI with fine – Appellant remained untraceable for over two decades – Counsel appointed through DHCLSC and Amicus Curiae for respondent due to non-appearance [Paras 1-4]

Cheque Dishonour – Presumption under Section 139 NI Act – Once cheque issuance and dishonour established, presumption of legal liability arises – Appellant’s defence that cheques were issued blank and no goods were supplied found unsubstantiated – Statement of account and bill proved by complainant – Evidence of bank officials confirmed dishonour due to insufficient funds and stop payment instructions – Appellant’s own Section 313 CrPC statement admitted stop payment and withdrawal of funds – Held: Defence failed to rebut statutory presumption under Section 139 [Paras 5-18]

Sentence – Mitigating Circumstances – Appellant aged over 83 years – Appeal pending for over 20 years – Already undergone 5 months in custody – Held: Conviction under Section 138 NI Act upheld – Sentence modified to period already undergone in light of mitigating factors and Section 138’s allowance of fine or sentence or both – Appeal partly allowed [Paras 20-22]

Decision: Conviction affirmed – Sentence reduced to period already undergone – Bail bonds and sureties discharged – Appeal disposed of [Paras 22-24]

Criminal Law – Kidnapping for Ransom – Identification – Conviction set aside – Accused-appellants convicted under Sections 364A and 120B IPC for alleged abduction of victim Anwar Khan and demand of ransom – Trial court sentenced all appellants to life imprisonment – On appeal, High Court found that prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt – Held: Identification of accused solely in court without prior Test Identification Parade (TIP) inadmissible – All accused allegedly unknown were seen at police station before identification – No material corroboration of in-court identification [Paras 34, 31.1, 31.2]

Electronic Evidence – Admissibility under Section 65B – Call Detail Records (CDRs) and mobile evidence – CDRs and CAFs relied upon by prosecution were unaccompanied by Section 65B certificate – Investigating Officer’s oral assertions on electronic data inadmissible – Held: Mandatory non-compliance with Section 65B renders CDRs and related electronic evidence legally inadmissible [Paras 30.6, 35]

Criminal Procedure – Violation of Section 313 CrPC – Accused not confronted with incriminating material during examination under Section 313 – High Court found this to be fatal – Serious prejudice caused to accused – Conviction based on evidence not properly put to accused is unsustainable in law [Paras 32.2, 32.3]

Circumstantial Evidence – Flaws in Investigation – No recovery of cot or rope – FIR not exhibited – Witness testimonies inconsistent and mostly hearsay – No independent public witness examined – Doctor (PW-8) found no visible injuries – Witnesses admitted to seeing accused at police station prior to trial – Allegations of ransom based on uncorroborated statements – Held: Prosecution failed to prove ingredients of Section 364A IPC or conspiracy under Section 120B IPC beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 30.1–30.9, 33–36]

Judgment – Appeals Allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 364A and 120B IPC set aside – Appellants in custody ordered to be released – Others already on bail – Held: Trial Court’s conviction unsustainable in law and facts – Failure of prosecution to establish guilt – Appreciation of evidence flawed [Paras 36–40]

Decision: Conviction and sentence set aside – All appeals allowed – Accused in custody to be released unless wanted in any other case – Bail bonds of appellants on bail discharged – Acknowledgement of pro bono service by Amicus Curiae Ms. Vaishnavi Singh [Paras 38–42]

Civil Law – Amendment of Pleadings – Order VI Rule 17 CPC – Due Diligence Test – Scope and Applicability – Proviso to Order VI Rule 17 inserted by 2002 Amendment does not have universal application to every amendment sought after commencement of trial – Court holds that applicability of due diligence test depends on nature of amendment sought and surrounding circumstances – Plain and rigid application of proviso would defeat main provision which retains phrase “at any stage of the proceedings” – Held: Proviso has limited role and cannot control main provision in all post-trial amendment applications [Paras 13–17, 29–31, 59–61].

Amendment After Commencement of Trial – Subsequent Events – Relief of Possession – Plaintiffs sought amendment 10 years after suit and post commencement of trial to plead dispossession during pendency of suit and seek possession – Such amendment based on subsequent events falls within recognised category where due diligence test need not strictly apply – Held: Amendment necessary to decide real controversy and avoid multiplicity of litigation [Paras 25(c), 25(d), 35–36].

Object of Order VI Rule 17 CPC – Avoidance of Multiplicity of Litigation – Main object of Rule 17 remains determination of real questions in controversy and avoidance of multiple proceedings – Proviso intended only to curb mala fide or dilatory amendments – Liberal construction still applies in deserving cases – Procedural law to be interpreted to advance justice [Paras 18–23, 31–33].

Delay in Seeking Amendment – Limitation – Delay of 10 years from filing of suit not fatal – Relevant test is whether relief sought by amendment is barred by limitation on date of application – Amendment seeking possession held within limitation under Articles 64 or 65 of Limitation Act – Mere length of delay cannot be sole ground for rejection [Paras 37–42].

Amendment Contrary to Admission – Effect – Amendment allegedly contrary to admission in cross-examination regarding date of dispossession – Court not required to examine merits or correctness of proposed amendment at amendment stage – Admission not conclusive and can be explained during trial – Amendment does not nullify admission; issue remains matter of evidence [Paras 43–49].

Nature of Suit – Change of Relief – Change from declaration and injunction to declaration and possession does not amount to change in nature of suit – Change in relief distinct from change in cause of action – Basic structure of suit remains intact – Amendment permissible even if relief changes, provided foundational facts remain same [Paras 50–56].

Inherent Powers – Section 151 CPC – Even where due diligence test not satisfied, Court can invoke inherent powers to permit amendment in interest of justice to prevent abuse of process – Procedural provisions cannot limit inherent powers of Court [Para 34].

Exercise of Supervisory Jurisdiction – Articles 226 and 227 – Trial Court erred in treating proviso as absolute bar and in rejecting amendment mechanically on ground of delay and commencement of trial – Interference warranted to correct jurisdictional error [Paras 62–63].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Impugned order dated 06.09.2025 rejecting amendment application set aside – Application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.7,000/- by plaintiffs – Defendants permitted to file additional written statement – Issue of date of dispossession left open to be decided on evidence.

Evidence Law – Secondary Evidence – Photocopy of Alleged Original Document – Admissibility Denied – Petitioners sought to lead secondary evidence of a family consent letter allegedly lost or in possession of defendants – Trial Court rejected application under Section 65 Evidence Act for want of foundational facts – Held: Mere assertion of loss and submission of photocopy without showing when, how and by whom it was made from the original does not satisfy requirements under Section 63(2) or (3) – Application rightly rejected [Paras 4–10]

Evidence Law – Secondary Evidence – Foundational Requirements – Not Optional – No pleading regarding how photocopy was obtained, date or process of copying, or comparison with original – Burden lies on party seeking secondary evidence to establish chain of custody, authenticity, and mechanical accuracy – Petitioners failed to discharge this burden [Paras 5, 9, 10]

Precedents – Secondary Evidence – Photocopies Admissible Only Under Strict Conditions – High Court relied on consistent precedents (Makhanlal v. Balaram, Ramrao Karuji Baghale v. Natthu, Anandram v. Gaura Bai, Aneeta Rajpoot v. Saraswati Gupta) holding that photocopies cannot be admitted without fulfilling statutory criteria – Secondary evidence is exception, not rule [Paras 11–12]

Civil Procedure – Delay in Filing – Equitable Relief Denied – Petition filed 8 months after rejection of application, and only when matter was fixed for final arguments – Delay undermined bona fides of petitioners – No interference warranted under Article 227 [Para 3]

Constitutional Law – Article 227 – Supervisory Jurisdiction – Limited Scope – High Court reiterates settled law that interference under Article 227 is justified only when there is grave miscarriage of justice – No error found in Trial Court’s view rejecting inadmissible secondary evidence – Petition dismissed [Para 13]

Decision: Petition dismissed – No case made out for interference under Article 227 – Trial Court rightly rejected secondary evidence application due to absence of factual foundation – Petitioners to bear costs.

Criminal Law – Dowry Death – Section 304B IPC – Conviction of Husband Affirmed – Appellant Vikas Kumar’s wife committed suicide within seven years of marriage – Consistent evidence from parents and corroborative suicide note established that Vikas repeatedly made dowry demands for a Santro car and ₹3–4 lakhs, tying resumption of cohabitation to fulfilment of such demands – Suicide note and diary entries corroborated emotional abandonment and dowry-linked pressure – Held: Prosecution established cruelty “soon before her death” and foundational facts under Section 304B IPC – Presumption under Section 113B of Evidence Act attracted – Defence failed to rebut the presumption [Paras 16–49]

Criminal Law – Cruelty by Husband – Section 498A IPC – Mental and Physical Cruelty – Marriage described by deceased as “only a label” due to husband’s alleged extramarital affair – Combined with evidence of beatings and economic pressure regarding dowry demands – Held: Pattern of rejection, emotional neglect, and conditional abandonment over time constituted cruelty within meaning of Section 498A – Conviction sustained [Paras 50–53]

Criminal Law – Acquittal of In-Laws – Section 304B/498A IPC – No Specific Role or Evidence – Allegations against husband’s elder brother and sister-in-law were vague, general, and uncorroborated – Visit of 10th June 2005, the only proximate event alleged, found to be a later improvement not mentioned in earliest statements – Suicide note contained only omnibus references to “in-laws” without specific attribution – Held: Prosecution failed to prove foundational facts necessary to attract presumption under Section 113B of Evidence Act – Conviction of Yogesh Kumar and Swati @ Savita under Sections 304B/498A IPC set aside [Paras 54–64]

Criminal Procedure – Presumption under Section 113B Evidence Act – Application Only to Specific Accused – Court reiterated that presumption under Section 113B arises only when cruelty or harassment is proved “soon before death” – Cannot be extended to collateral relatives in absence of specific, proximate evidence – Over-implication of family members cautioned against – Presumption not attracted in case of Yogesh Kumar and Swati @ Savita [Paras 55–59]

Decision: Appeal of Yogesh Kumar and Swati @ Savita allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 304B/498A/34 IPC set aside – Acquitted of all charges – Appeal of Vikas Kumar dismissed – Conviction under Sections 304B and 498A IPC affirmed – Directed to surrender forthwith [Paras 65–67]

Bail – Medical Grounds – UAPA Offences – Statutory Embargo under Section 43-D(5) – Appellant aged 77 sought bail citing multiple ailments including cardiac disease, pacemaker implantation, urological, ophthalmic and neurological conditions – Held: Bail on medical grounds can be granted only in exceptional cases where medical condition cannot be adequately treated in custody – Mere multiplicity of ailments or frequent hospital visits insufficient [Paras 17–22, 37].

Terrorism Offences – Murder of Advocate – Alleged Conspiracy with Terrorist Outfit – Influence of Accused – Investigation Transferred to SIA and Trial Shifted from Srinagar to Jammu due to threat perception – Held: Appellant’s influence and possibility of hampering free and fair trial weighs heavily against grant of bail [Paras 3–6, 23–24, 38].

Medical Treatment in Custody – Adequacy of Facilities – Pacemaker Implanted During Incarceration – Regular Follow-up with Multiple Specialties – Latest Medical Report Showing Stable Condition – Held: Record demonstrates that jail and State authorities have provided advanced and specialized medical care as and when required – No material to show inability of authorities to manage health condition [Paras 18–21, 33–35].

Palliative Care – Scope – Whether Independent Ground for Bail – Held: Palliative care is not an independent ground overriding medical grounds – Once bail on medical grounds is declined, plea for palliative care must also fail [Para 36].

Balancing Individual Liberty and Societal Interest – Article 21 – Right to Health vis-à-vis Right to Fair Trial – Held: In serious terrorism-related offences, Court must harmonize personal liberty with societal interest and right to free and fair trial – Enlargement on bail at this stage would prejudice prosecution and witnesses [Paras 24, 34, 38].

Precedents on Medical Bail – Distinguishable on Facts – Reliance on Manish Sisodia, Shoma Kanti Sen, Jalaluddin Khan, Varavara Rao and Others – Held: Judgments relied upon turned on distinct factual foundations including absence of prima facie case or lack of medical facilities – Not applicable where adequate treatment is being provided and prima facie case exists [Paras 25–32].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Order of trial court rejecting bail on medical grounds upheld – No illegality or perversity found – Bail declined [Para 39].

Employees Provident Fund – Wage Splitting – Artificial Structuring to Evade PF Liability – 7A Determination Upheld – Respondent institutions restructured salary components to cap Basic plus D.A. at ₹6,500 while paying higher gross wages – Provident Fund Authority found deliberate design to avoid statutory contributions – Tribunal erroneously set aside the order on the sole ground that declared basic wages were within the ceiling – Held: Authority rightly applied substance over form test and found long-standing, uniform pattern of artificial wage structuring – Statutory contributions are payable on actual wages and not on labels assigned by employer [Paras 8–14].

Welfare Legislation – Purpose of PF Act – Interpretation in Favour of Beneficiaries – EPF Act is a social welfare legislation to ensure security of employees – Deferred wages cannot be denied through creative salary structuring – Regular allowances shown as exclusions cannot defeat statutory mandate – Employer’s conduct must be judged by effect, not form [Paras 9–11].

Section 7A Inquiry – Validity – Record-Based Assessment – Authority relied on statutory documents like Form 11, challans, Form 16, salary registers – Found consistent pattern of wage splitting across years and employees – Detailed, account-wise and employee-wise calculations revealed suppression of PF liability – Held: Tribunal failed to consider this material and adopted a narrow, ceiling-based approach without examining wage structuring [Paras 12–14].

Judicial Review – Writ Jurisdiction – Interference with Reasoned Administrative Orders – High Court held that the Tribunal failed to apply binding precedents including Regional PF Commissioner v. Vivekanand Vidyamandir – Found that employer’s conduct amounted to evasion of statutory obligation – Restored well-reasoned 7A order [Paras 5, 15–18].

Decision: Writ Petitions allowed – Order of PF Appellate Tribunal dated 19.10.2016 set aside – Original order under Section 7A dated 30.10.2014 restored – PF dues of ₹2,91,765 upheld against respondent [Paras 16–18].