Constitution of India – High Court Administration – Territorial Allocation of Business – Rule 3A Appellate Side Rules – Dispute arose in Kolhapur; Appeal decided in Pune; Writ filed in Mumbai – Rule 3A mandates matters "arising in" Kolhapur district "shall" be heard at Kolhapur Circuit Bench – Held: Rule 3A is mandatory – The Chief Justice is the Master of the Roster – Litigants cannot choose the Bench – Petition must be heard at Kolhapur – [Paras 14, 15, 24].

Constitution of India – Article 227 – Situs of Dispute – Petitioner argued doctrine of merger (Appellate order at Pune) gave jurisdiction to Mumbai/Pune – Held: For internal allocation of work within the same High Court, the situs of the original authority/cause of action (Kolhapur) determines the Bench – Doctrine of merger does not override administrative rules of allocation – [Paras 18, 19, 20].

Judicial Discipline – Master of Roster – Held: Judges sitting at Principal Seat cannot assume jurisdiction over matters assigned to Circuit Benches by the Chief Justice via Rules/Roster – [Para 23].

Decision: Petition to be transmitted to the Circuit Bench at Kolhapur for disposal.

Banking Law - SARFAESI Act – Auction Sale – Rights of Auction Purchaser – Petitioner declared highest bidder and deposited entire bid amount including 25% earnest money – Sale could not be confirmed due to DRT order directing status quo and restraining confirmation of sale – Held: Mere participation in auction and deposit of bid amount does not create any vested right in favour of auction purchaser unless sale is confirmed and sale certificate is issued [Paras 9–11, 30–31].

SARFAESI Act – Section 13(8) – Right of Redemption – Borrower’s right to redeem secured asset prior to confirmation of sale – In pre-amendment regime (prior to 2016), borrower entitled to redeem till sale is confirmed – Held: Since sale was never confirmed owing to DRT’s restraint order, borrower validly exercised right of redemption under Section 13(8) by settling dues with the Bank [Paras 15–18, 25, 33–37].

Debt Recovery Tribunal – Interim Order – Effect – DRT permitted bank to proceed with auction but restrained confirmation of sale – Held: Such restraint preserved borrower’s statutory right of redemption and bank was legally justified in not confirming the sale in favour of auction purchaser [Paras 19, 22, 25].

Bank – Compromise / One Time Settlement – Powers of Secured Creditor – Settlement entered with borrower during pendency of SARFAESI proceedings and accepted by Tribunal – Held: In absence of any statutory bar or restraint order prohibiting settlement, bank’s decision to accept compromise cannot be termed illegal or arbitrary [Paras 31–32, 34].

Impleadment – Auction Purchaser – Necessity of Party – Auction purchaser sought impleadment in SARFAESI proceedings – DRT rejected application – Held: Auction purchaser not a necessary party where sale itself was not confirmed and borrower’s redemption right subsisted [Paras 15, 24–25].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Article 227 – Scope – High Court cannot act as a fact-finding authority to adjudicate disputed questions such as receipt of cheques or postal communications – Limited to examining legality and propriety of orders of Tribunal [Paras 40–41].

Refund – Auction Purchaser – Equity – Though auction purchaser had no enforceable right to confirmation of sale, bank admittedly retained earnest money – Held: Bank directed to refund Rs.17.50 lakhs with interest at 5% per annum, failing which enhanced interest at 8% per annum payable [Paras 38, 42–43].

Decision: Revisional application partly allowed – Impugned order of DRAT not interfered with insofar as refusal to confirm sale – UCO Bank directed to refund earnest money of Rs.17.50 lakhs with interest – Borrower directed to pay costs of Rs.50,000/- to State Legal Services Authority – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law – Rape/POCSO – Appreciation of Evidence – Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix – Grandfather accused of raping minor granddaughter – FIR lodged after 21 days delay – Victim claimed she was threatened but did not disclose this in Section 164 statement – Incident allegedly occurred in daylight in a populated area, yet no alarm raised – Held: While conviction can be based on sole testimony, it must be of sterling quality – Here, the conduct of the victim (silence for 19 days, delay in FIR) was unnatural and improbable – Testimony failed to inspire confidence – Acquitted.[Paras 22, 28, 29, 35].

Criminal Law – Delay in FIR – Sexual Offences – 21 days delay in lodging FIR – Explanation of threat not consistent across statements – Held: While delay is not always fatal in rape cases, unexplained delay coupled with lack of immediate complaint to parents or friends creates serious doubt on the prosecution case – [Paras 32, 34].

Criminal Law – Medical Evidence – Corroboration – Victim alleged multiple incidents of rape – Medical examination showed no external or internal injuries – Held: Medical evidence did not corroborate the prosecution story, further weakening the case – [Para 30].

Juvenile Justice – Age Determination – Section 94 JJ Act – Discrepancies in birth date between oral testimony (11.11.2006) and school records (28.02.2006/29.02.2006) – School record entries found manipulated after case registration – Held: Prosecution failed to prove the age of the victim conclusively as less than 18 years due to manipulated and contradictory documents – [Paras 20, 21].

Decision: Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted.

Service Law – Dismissal of Civil Defence Volunteers – Nature of Dismissal – Stigmatic vs. Simpliciter – Dismissals under Section 6(2) held to be stigmatic in substance – Petitioners dismissed from Civil Defence Corps without reasons or inquiry – Court finds dismissals cloaked as simpliciter but actually punitive due to non-joining of COVID-19 duty and alleged misconduct connected to NGO involvement – Held: Real foundation of dismissal was misconduct and stigma – Authority acted in violation of Section 6(1) by bypassing inquiry and hearing requirements [Paras 55–58].

Natural Justice – Right to Hearing – Opportunity must be afforded if dismissal is stigmatic – Petitioners not given opportunity to respond to allegations or material forming basis of termination – Appellate authority also failed to cure procedural defects – Held: Orders vitiated by failure to follow audi alteram partem – Dismissal orders quashed and matter remanded for reconsideration under Section 6(1) with hearing [Paras 58.4, 78–79].

Constitutional Law – Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 – No violation found in case of genuine dismissal simpliciter of CDVs – Court upholds validity of Section 6(2) when exercised in true spirit for voluntary and honorary service roles – Dismissal simpliciter does not create stigma or civil consequences if not founded on misconduct – Held: Section 6(2) is not unconstitutional per se – However, misusing it to evade inquiry amounts to abuse of power [Paras 60–64, 77].

Judicial Review – Validity of Section 14(1) of the Civil Defence Act – Provision read down – Court holds Section 14(1) cannot oust judicial review of legality – Section 14(1) protects administrative discretion but cannot shield illegal or unconstitutional orders – Held: High Court retains jurisdiction under Article 226 to review dismissal orders violating statutory safeguards or fundamental rights – Bar on proprietary review upheld, but not on legality or constitutionality [Paras 71–76].

Volunteer Services – Nature of Civil Defence Corps – Not regular employment – Reinstatement not available – CDVs held to be honorary volunteers, not entitled to regularisation or reinstatement as of right – Services not constituting public employment or profession under Article 19(1)(g) – Held: No vested right in service, but dismissal must still conform to fairness and legality [Paras 50–53, 67–68, 80].

Decision: Writ Petitions partly allowed – Dismissal orders under Section 6(2) quashed as being stigmatic and passed without hearing – Authorities directed to reconsider dismissal under Section 6(1) after affording opportunity to petitioners – Reinstatement not granted due to discontinuation of CDVs as per Circular dated 31.10.2023 – Respondents to give petitioners preference in future appointments when services resume – No costs [Paras 79–81].

Arbitration Law – Section 34 – Scope of Interference – Insurance Claim Dispute – Insurer challenged arbitral award granting compensation for fire damage under Industrial All Risk Policy – High Court reiterated that re-appreciation of evidence and substitution of arbitral view with court’s view is impermissible under Section 34 – Held: Award neither perverse nor suffering from patent illegality or conflict with public policy [Paras 14, 29, 34].

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 26 – Appointment of Expert – Arbitral Tribunal appointed independent expert suo motu to assist on technical issues relating to loss assessment – Objection that expert acted as “second surveyor” rejected – Held: Appointment of expert under Section 26 is distinct from appointment of surveyor under Insurance Act and is within arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction [Paras 16–18].

Insurance Law – Section 64-UM, Insurance Act, 1938 – Surveyor’s Report – Evidentiary Value – Surveyor’s assessment recommending only 20% loss held to be ad-hoc, perfunctory and unsupported by cogent reasons – Reiterated that surveyor’s report is recommendatory and not binding on insurer, insured or arbitral tribunal – Tribunal justified in departing from surveyor’s findings for recorded reasons [Paras 21, 25].

Expert Evidence – Weight and Appreciation – Expert appointed by tribunal suggested 25% loss of Hydraulic Oil and Thermic Fluid – Tribunal disagreed after detailed reasoning – Held: Expert opinion is advisory and not binding – Tribunal entitled to accept or reject expert view with reasons – No illegality in awarding 70% loss based on overall material, circumstances and documentary evidence [Paras 22–24, 29].

Assessment of Damages – Rough and Ready Method – Guess Work Permissible – Tribunal relied on proved purchase of Hydraulic Oil and Thermic Fluid for restart of plant and delay/lapses in surveyor’s inspections – Held: Arbitral tribunal entitled to apply broad evaluation and reasonable estimation of loss where precise quantification is impracticable – Such approach does not constitute patent illegality [Paras 25–26].

Insurance Claim – Fire Loss – Hydraulic Oil and Thermic Fluid – Tribunal awarded 70% of claimed loss rejecting 20% and 25% assessments – Extensive fire, high temperature and delay in surveyor’s inspection justified higher assessment – Held: Findings based on evidence and probabilities – No ground for interference under Section 34 [Paras 20–29].

Insurance Claim – Platens – Acceptance of Expert Opinion – Surveyor inspected only two out of six damaged platens and rejected claim without technical tests – Expert opined that fire could damage platens – Tribunal accepted expert opinion and allowed claim – Held: Findings neither perverse nor unsupported by record [Paras 30–31].

Insurance Claim – VFD AC Drive and Pressure Transducer – Tribunal’s Findings – Claims allowed based on evidence – Insurer did not seriously press challenge – Held: No warrant for interference [Paras 32–33].

Public Policy – Patent Illegality – Test Applied – Award tested on parameters laid down in Ssangyong Engineering and PSA SICAL Terminals – Held: Award does not violate fundamental policy of Indian law nor suffer from patent illegality [Paras 7, 29, 34].

Decision: Arbitration Petition dismissed – Arbitral Award dated 20.09.2022 upheld – No interference warranted under Section 34 – Interim Application disposed of – No further costs awarded [Para 35].

Criminal Law – Magistrate’s Direction to Register FIR – Revision – The revisionists challenged the order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras directing the police to register an FIR under Section 156(3) CrPC – High Court held that such an order is interlocutory in nature and not open to revision at the instance of a person against whom neither cognizance has been taken nor process issued – Held: Revision not maintainable in light of Full Bench ruling in Father Thomas vs. State of U.P. [Paras 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10].

Criminal Procedure – Interlocutory Orders – Section 156(3) CrPC – Order passed by Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC directing police to investigate is an interlocutory order – Bar under Section 397(2) CrPC applies – No revision lies against such order – Held: Present revision dismissed as not maintainable [Paras 5, 8, 9, 10, 11].

Binding Precedent – Full Bench Decision – Father Thomas Case – Full Bench held that a direction under Section 156(3) CrPC is not revisable by proposed accused and is interlocutory – Any view contrary to this, including that in Ajay Malviya vs. State of U.P., not good law – Held: Court bound by Full Bench ruling – Present revision not entertainable [Paras 7, 8, 9].

Decision: Criminal revision dismissed – Order under Section 156(3) CrPC directing registration of FIR is interlocutory and not revisable at the instance of proposed accused – No merits found in revision petition [Paras 10, 11].

Criminal Law – Quashing - Forgery – Submission of Tampered Bank Statements – Applicant challenged summoning order under Section 466 IPC alleging lack of mens rea and wrongful gain – Court found material discrepancies between ICICI bank statement submitted before Maintenance Court and original statement obtained by police – Entries reflecting significant transactions were omitted – Held: Prima facie, the statement filed was a false document within meaning of Sections 463 and 464 IPC, intended to mislead judicial proceedings [Paras 15–30]

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of Proceedings – Scope of Section 482 CrPC – Court reiterated that at summoning stage, only a prima facie case needs to be made out – Detailed appreciation of evidence not required – Magistrate’s satisfaction on existence of grounds sufficient – Application under Section 482 CrPC found devoid of merit as FIR, charge sheet, and supporting materials disclosed adequate basis for prosecution [Paras 31–32]

Evidence – Fraud and Misrepresentation – Court relied on test laid down in Vimla v. Delhi Administration (AIR 1963 SC 1572) and Indian Bank v. Satyam Fibres (1996) 5 SCC 550 – Held: Injury need not be economic; harm to reputation, mind, or judicial process sufficient to constitute fraud – Suppression of high-value transactions while claiming financial hardship in court deemed an attempt to deceive the court and distort justice [Paras 24–28]

Judicial Ethics – Misleading the Court – Filing falsified documents – Court emphasized duty of litigants to approach court with clean hands – Attempt to tamper evidence or mislead the judiciary is a serious breach of legal ethics and trust – Prima facie forgery in official judicial proceeding justified invocation of Section 466 IPC [Paras 20, 30]

Summoning Order – Validity – Allegation of Non-Application of Mind – Court rejected challenge to the format of the summoning order – Held: As case had been argued on merits before the High Court, and sufficient grounds for issuance of process were made out, remand to lower court not necessary [Para 33]

Decision: Application under Section 482 CrPC dismissed – Summoning order dated 17.10.2019 upheld – Criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 5043 of 2019 to continue – Court held prima facie case made out under Section 466 IPC and clarified that detailed evaluation of evidence shall be undertaken at trial stage.

Domestic Violence Law – Right of Residence vs. Senior Citizens’ Rights – Section 17 PWDV Act – Held: The right of residence under Section 17 is a protective right, not an indefeasible right of ownership or a license to indefinitely occupy premises owned by in-laws when such occupation causes demonstrable harm to senior citizens. Where cohabitation becomes unworkable and detrimental to the health of the parents-in-law (one suffering from Parkinson’s), the daughter-in-law can be directed to vacate subject to provision of alternate accommodation. [Paras 18.2-18.6, 21.1].

Civil Procedure – Interim Mandatory Injunction – Eviction at Interlocutory Stage – Held: An interim mandatory injunction for eviction can be granted in exceptional circumstances to prevent irreparable harm. The "toxic" atmosphere in the household, confirmed by counsellor reports, and the deteriorating health of the senior citizen owner constituted irreparable injury justifying the restoration of the parents' peaceful possession pending trial. [Paras 20.1-20.3].

Domestic Violence Law – Alternate Accommodation – Section 19(1)(f) PWDV Act – Held: The Appellant’s rights were sufficiently safeguarded by the direction to the Respondents to provide alternate accommodation at a rental cap of Rs. 2.50 Lakhs/month, plus ancillary charges and school fees. This arrangement strikes a balance between the daughter-in-law’s statutory protection and the senior citizens’ right to dignity. [Paras 19.1-19.4].

Family Law – Welfare of Minor Children – Held: The eviction order does not prejudice the minor children where the alternate accommodation is in the same vicinity (Gurugram), ensuring continuity of schooling at Pathways School, and where the environment in the suit property had become hostile and adverse to their well-being. [Paras 23.1-23.3].

Decision: Appeal dismissed. Interim arrangement for alternate accommodation and eviction upheld. Compliance period to count from 01.01.2026. [Paras 27-29].

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Scope of Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Held: The power to reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 is circumscribed by the averments in the plaint alone. The Court cannot embark upon a fact-finding exercise, look at the defense, or rely on external material at this stage. The Single Judge erred in recording a factual finding that the ancestor (Horam) never constituted a Joint Hindu Family (JHF) and that the property was self-acquired, which are matters for trial. [Paras 21-25].

Civil Procedure – Partial Rejection of Plaint – Held: A plaint cannot be rejected in part. Where the plaintiff asserted possession over a portion of the suit property and sought a permanent injunction, the rejection of the plaint without examining this prayer independently was contrary to settled legal principles. [Para 33].

Hindu Law – Coparcenary – Burden of Proof at Threshold Stage – Held: The Single Judge’s requirement for the plaintiff to produce documents showing contribution to reconstruction or to file affidavits regarding employment at the Order VII Rule 11 stage amounted to an impermissible appreciation of evidence. Issues regarding blending of property and existence of a JHF nucleus require trial. [Paras 26-27].

Decision: Appeal allowed. Impugned Judgment set aside. Suit restored to original number. [Para 34].