Arbitration – Section 34 – Inordinate Delay in Pronouncement of Award – Effect on Validity – Arbitral award reserved on 06.03.2021 and pronounced on 06.03.2023 – Delay of about two years after reserving the award – Held: Delay by itself is not a ground to set aside an award, but where such delay is unexplained and adversely reflects on the findings, the award stands vitiated as being in conflict with public policy of India and suffering from patent illegality [Paras 6–7, 13, 18].

Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal – Arbitration Clause Restricting Disputes – Arbitration clause permitted reference only where liability was admitted and dispute related solely to quantum – Insurer disputed existence of arbitral dispute after full and final settlement – Tribunal decided only the voluntariness of settlement but failed to adequately address whether an arbitrable dispute survived in view of the restrictive clause – Held: Issue went to the root of jurisdiction and was adversely impacted due to delay in pronouncement [Paras 8–12, 18–19].

Delay and Impact on Consideration of Arguments – Human Memory and Fairness – Long gap between conclusion of arguments and pronouncement of award shakes confidence of parties as to whether submissions were effectively weighed – Written submissions cannot substitute oral arguments – Held: Justice must not only be done but must appear to have been done – Delay created avoidable speculation and suspicion [Paras 13–15].

COVID-19 as Justification for Delay – Rejection – Tribunal attributed delay to COVID-19 till last quarter of 2022 – Supreme Court orders excluded period only till 28.02.2022 – Even after exclusion, delay of nearly one year remained unexplained – Reason that Tribunal members could not meet after reserving award indicated lack of deliberation – Held: Explanation for delay not acceptable [Paras 16–17].

Section 29A – Legislative Intent of Speedy Arbitration – Though Section 29A not applicable to pending proceedings, it crystallises legislative intent of expeditious resolution – Arbitration proceedings spanning nearly a decade with two-year delay in pronouncement defeated the object of arbitration [Paras 14–15].

Public Policy of India – Patent Illegality – Inordinate and unexplained delay affecting jurisdictional findings brings award within ambit of Section 34(2)(b)(ii) and Section 34(2A) – Award held patently illegal and unsustainable [Paras 6, 18].

Decision: Petition allowed – Arbitral award dated 06.03.2023 set aside – Court refrained from examining merits of claims as jurisdictional issue itself vitiated by delay – All pending applications disposed of.

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Allegation of Civil Dispute – Pendency of Civil Suits – Held: Mere availability or pendency of civil remedy does not bar criminal investigation where allegations disclose prima facie cognizable offences [Paras 9–11].

Forgery and Impersonation – Large Scale Property Fraud – Detailed complaint alleging impersonation of landowner, fabrication of sale deeds, gift deeds, GPA, JDA, forged Will and misappropriation of compensation – Allegations not peripheral but central to criminal conspiracy – Investigation cannot be interdicted at threshold [Paras 3–8, 12–13].

Inherent Jurisdiction – Section 528 BNSS, 2023 – Scope and Limitations – Court not to assess truth or otherwise of allegations at investigation stage – Interference permissible only in rare cases where no offence is disclosed – Present case discloses serious cognizable offences warranting full investigation [Paras 10–11, 15].

Civil and Criminal Remedies – Coexistence – Same set of facts may give rise to civil as well as criminal liability – Criminal law not eclipsed merely because civil suits for cancellation of documents are pending – Principle reiterated through Supreme Court precedents [Paras 9–11].

Impersonation Before Public Authorities – Abuse of Judicial and Registration Process – Allegations of forged appearances before Sub-Registrar, fraudulent mutation entries, false court proceedings and Letters of Administration – Matters requiring thorough investigation by police [Paras 12–13].

Reliance on Precedents – Distinguishing Case Law – Judgment relied upon by petitioner held inapplicable on facts – Present case saturated with allegations of fraud, impersonation and forgery unlike mere contractual or civil disputes [Paras 14].

Decision: Criminal Petition dismissed – Interim order vacated – Investigation in Crime No.446 of 2025 to proceed in accordance with law – I.A. No.1 of 2026 disposed of [Para 15].

Land Acquisition – Mega Market by APMC – Challenge by Public Charitable Trust – Multiple acquisition notifications relating to two sets of lands (Subject ‘A’ and Subject ‘B’) – Common dismissal of writ petitions by Single Judge upheld – Appeals dismissed [Paras 1, 16, 66].

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 6 Proviso (ii) – Limitation of one year for final notification – Computation of period – Date of publication in Village Chavadi relevant – Period during which acquisition proceedings stayed by Court to be excluded – Final notification within time – No violation of Section 6 in respect of Subject ‘A’ property [Paras 34–37].

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 11A – Alleged lapse for non-passing of award within two years – Effect of interim stay orders – Period of stay to be excluded – Draft award and subsequent award not invalid – No lapse of acquisition proceedings [Paras 38–44].

Urgency Clause – Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act – Dispensation of enquiry under Section 5A – Subjective satisfaction of Government – Proposal by APMC, deliberations in departmental and Single Window Committee meetings – Adequate application of mind – No mala fides or non-application of mind established – Invocation of urgency upheld [Paras 45–48].

Urgency Acquisition – Section 17(3A) – Requirement of tender/payment of 80% compensation – Beneficiary APMC deposited substantial amounts with State – Partial disbursement to Trust – Withholding of balance justified due to pending land ceiling proceedings under Section 66 of Karnataka Land Reforms Act – No invalidation of acquisition on ground of non-payment [Paras 49–52].

Possession – Mode of taking possession – Drawing of mahazar/panchnama sufficient – Official Memorandum evidencing taking over of possession and handing over to beneficiary – Interim orders prevented further steps – Possession validly taken – Land vested in State free from encumbrances [Paras 53–54].

RFCTLARR Act, 2013 – Section 24(2) – Earlier finding of lapse set aside by Supreme Court – Post-remand consideration limited – Acquisition not lapsed once award passed and possession taken – Non-payment of full compensation does not result in lapse, only interest payable [Paras 15, 56, 61].

Acceptance of Compensation – Acquiescence – Trust participated in meetings fixing compensation, accepted substantial amounts, executed indemnity bonds, sought enhancement under Section 18 – Subsequent refund after adverse orders does not undo acquiescence – Doctrine of approbate and reprobate applied – Writ challenge not maintainable after acceptance of compensation [Paras 62–65].

Public Purpose – Acquisition of Trust Property – Charitable nature of Trust not a bar to acquisition – Establishment of APMC market yard a valid public purpose – Power of eminent domain upheld [Paras 59–60].

Decision: Writ Appeals dismissed – Order dated 03.02.2025 passed by learned Single Judge dismissing WP Nos. 3884/1999 and 37140/2000 affirmed – Acquisition proceedings upheld – No costs [Paras 66–67].

Criminal Law – Section 295A IPC – Sanction under Section 196 Cr.P.C. – Stage of applicability – Petition seeking quashing of FIR on the ground that prior sanction under Section 196 Cr.P.C. was not obtained – Held: Statutory bar under Section 196 Cr.P.C. operates only at the stage of taking cognizance by the Court and not at the stage of registration of FIR or investigation – Police are competent to register FIR and conduct investigation without prior sanction – Sanction becomes mandatory only when the Court proposes to take cognizance upon filing of the final report [Paras 7–8].

Criminal Procedure – FIR and Investigation – Scope of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – High Court cautioned against premature interdiction of investigation at an incipient stage – Interference at investigation stage permissible only when complaint does not disclose any offence or proceedings are manifestly abusive – Held: Investigation in present case cannot be stifled when allegations disclose serious offence affecting communal harmony [Paras 8, 10].

Penal Code – Section 295A IPC – Deliberate and malicious intention – Prima facie satisfaction – Allegations relating to circulation of extraordinarily obscene, demeaning and profane images of Hindu deities in a WhatsApp group – Material on record demonstrating tendency to outrage religious feelings and disturb communal harmony – Held: Ingredients of Section 295A IPC prima facie satisfied – Question of mens rea, extent of petitioner’s role and liability of other administrators are matters for investigation and trial [Paras 9–10].

Information Technology Act – Section 67 – Obscene electronic content – Online dissemination – Circulation of obscene images through WhatsApp group involving large number of participants – Electronic material seized and examined during investigation – Held: Allegations disclose offence under Section 67 IT Act warranting continuation of investigation [Paras 2, 10].

Freedom of Speech – Article 19(1)(a) – Reasonable restrictions – Religious offence – Reliance placed on Ramji Lal Modi, Amish Devgan and other precedents – Held: Section 295A penalises only aggravated forms of insult with deliberate and malicious intent – Content having propensity to disrupt public order falls within reasonable restriction under Article 19(2) – Free speech cannot be a shield for obscene and malicious religious insult [Paras 9–9.4].

Investigation – Selective prosecution – Role of administrators – Court noted concern that investigating agency appeared not to have proceeded uniformly against all group administrators – However, such aspect held to be within domain of investigation – Direction issued to conclude investigation expeditiously and proceed against all persons found culpable [Para 10–11].

Decision:Criminal Petition dismissed – FIR and investigation in Crime No.4/2021 upheld – Interim orders vacated – Investigating Officer directed to complete investigation expeditiously – I.A. No.2 of 2024 disposed.

Land Acquisition – Compensation – MMRDA Act, 1974 – Grant of TDR instead of monetary compensation – Illegality – Land of petitioners acquired for Santacruz–Chembur Link Road project – Competent Authority unilaterally awarded compensation in the form of TDR without determining monetary compensation under Section 35 – Statutory scheme under Section 35 mandates determination of “amount” payable – Held: Compensation under the MMRDA Act must be monetary and cannot be substituted by TDR unilaterally – Award dated 15.12.2012 held arbitrary and unsustainable [Paras 28–35].

Statutory Interpretation – Section 35, MMRDA Act – Step-wise procedure mandatory – Section 35 provides a complete code for determination of compensation – Requires attempt at agreement under Section 35(2) and, failing that, determination of compensation based on net average monthly income – No provision permitting unilateral grant of TDR – Any deviation from statutory mechanism violates authority of law under Article 300A [Paras 23–29, 34–35].

Transferrable Development Rights (TDR) – Consent of land owner – Requirement of consensus – Even where statute contemplates TDR (as under MRTP Act), grant must be by consensus – Applying Full Bench decision in Shree Vinayak Builders and Developers – Under MMRDA Act, which does not expressly provide for TDR, unilateral imposition of TDR is impermissible – Petitioners on stronger footing [Paras 30–34].

Alternative Remedy – Tribunal under Section 35(6) – Not efficacious – Tribunal’s jurisdiction confined to disputes regarding quantum of monetary compensation based on net average monthly income – Tribunal cannot adjudicate legality of grant of TDR in lieu of monetary compensation – Objection of alternative remedy rejected [Paras 36–37].

Delay and Laches – Continuing violation of Article 300A – Acquisition completed in 2011–2012, writ petition filed in 2024 – Held: Forcible deprivation of property without lawful compensation constitutes continuing wrong – State cannot defeat constitutional right to property on ground of delay – Reliance placed on Sukh Dutt Ratra, Vidya Devi, and Kolkata Municipal Corporation v. Bimal Kumar Shah [Paras 38–45].

Constitutional Law – Right to Property – Article 300A – Deprivation of property must be by authority of law and accompanied by just, fair and reasonable compensation – Compensation is integral to lawful acquisition – Unilateral grant of TDR amounts to taking possession without authority of law – Violates constitutional and human right to property [Paras 39–44].

Relief – Quashing of Award – Direction to determine monetary compensation – Impugned award dated 15.12.2012 and communication dated 01.04.2024 quashed – Respondents directed to determine monetary compensation strictly in accordance with Section 35(2) to 35(5) of the MMRDA Act – Exercise to be completed within six months – Writ petition allowed [Paras 49–51].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Impugned award and communication set aside – Respondents directed to determine and pay monetary compensation as per Section 35 of the MMRDA Act within six months.

Civil Law – Amendment of Plaint – Withdrawal or Explanation of Admission – Permissibility – Plaintiffs originally pleaded that predecessor-in-title Udharani Dasi was absolute owner of suit property – By amendment sought to plead that Udharani had only limited interest under prevailing law and lacked authority to alienate property between 1911–1933 – Defendants contended amendment impermissible as it withdraws admission and changes nature of suit – Held: Admission does not create title and is not conclusive – Admission may be explained or clarified if facts justify – Amendment explaining legal nature of predecessor’s title not mutually destructive of original pleading [Paras 13, 18–19, 22].

Order VI Rule 17 CPC – Amendment After Framing of Issues – Due Diligence – Application for amendment filed after framing of issues and at stage of evidence – Objection that proviso to Order VI Rule 17 attracted – Held: Mere delay not a ground to refuse amendment – Dominant test is whether amendment is necessary to decide real controversy between parties – Belated amendment can be allowed if prejudice can be compensated by costs or opportunity to file additional written statement [Paras 20–21].

Cause of Action – Nature and Character of Suit – No Fundamental Change – Original suit for declaration of joint ownership and partition – Proposed amendment did not seek additional relief nor introduce a new cause of action – Core controversy remained determination of title and succession – Held: Amendment neither changes nature nor character of suit nor substitutes a new and inconsistent case [Paras 17–19, 21, 23].

Amendment of Pleadings – Real Controversy Test – Court must not examine correctness or falsity of amended plea at amendment stage – Real controversy test to be applied – Amendment necessary to adjudicate whether Udharani had transferable title under law prevailing at relevant time – Held: Trial court rightly allowed amendment to enable complete and effective adjudication [Paras 16–18].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 – Limited Interference – Order allowing amendment discretionary and procedural – No perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error found – Held: High Court will not interfere under Article 227 merely because another view is possible [Paras 24–25].

Decision: Civil Revisional Application dismissed – Order dated 20.02.2024 allowing amendment of plaint affirmed – No interference warranted under Article 227 – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law – Transfer of Criminal Case – Scope of Power of Sessions Judge under Section 408 Cr.P.C./Section 448 BNSS – Petition filed seeking transfer of complaint case alleging defamation on grounds of bias of the Presiding Magistrate, advanced age and medical condition of accused, and inconvenience due to distance – Sessions Judge dismissed transfer application holding that mere apprehension is insufficient – High Court examined parameters governing transfer jurisdiction – Held: Power of transfer is discretionary and to be exercised sparingly and only when expedient for the ends of justice – Mere allegations, conjectures or dissatisfaction with trial proceedings do not justify transfer – Apprehension must be reasonable, bona fide and supported by cogent material – No perversity or illegality found in impugned order declining transfer [Paras 6–12, 16].

Fair Trial – Reasonable Apprehension of Bias – Article 21 of Constitution – Right to fair trial is a facet of Article 21 – However, judicial error or adverse orders are not synonymous with judicial bias – Bald allegations against Presiding Officer or opposing counsel without substantiation amount to abuse of process – Courts must guard against forum shopping and erosion of judicial independence – Held: Petitioner failed to establish any credible material giving rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias or denial of fair trial [Paras 10–14, 16.2].

Transfer Applications – Abuse of Process – Forum Shopping – Increasing tendency of litigants to seek transfer on unfounded allegations deprecated – Transfer jurisdiction cannot be invoked as a tool to browbeat judicial officers or delay proceedings – Courts must respond firmly to frivolous and vexatious transfer pleas – Costs may be imposed to curb misuse of process – Though petitioner was of advanced age, conduct in casting aspersions on Court and counsel was deprecated [Paras 11–14, 16.2].

Delay in Trial – Age and Health of Accused – Pendency of complaint since 2019 and advanced age of accused by themselves do not constitute exceptional circumstances warranting transfer – Delay not solely attributable to trial Court or complainant – Appropriate remedies lie elsewhere under law and not by seeking transfer without adequate grounds [Paras 15–16].

Decision – Petition dismissed – Order of Sessions Judge rejecting transfer application upheld – Costs of ₹50,000 imposed on petitioner, partly payable to Haryana State Legal Services Authority and partly to complainant’s counsel – Directions issued for recovery of costs in case of default – Trial Court directed to proceed expeditiously and uninfluenced by observations made [Paras 17(i)–(iv)].

Service Law – Selection Process – Fair Price Shop Dealer – Allocation of Marks for Interview – Judicial Restraint on Finalisation of Selection – Non-est Selection – Notification issued inviting applications for appointment of Fair Price Shop dealer providing 50 marks for written test and 50 marks for oral interview – Appellant secured full marks in written test but was unsuccessful in interview – Selection challenged on ground of excessive weightage to interview and violation of constitutional principles – Learned Single Judge dismissed writ petition applying doctrine of estoppel on ground that appellant participated in selection process – Held: Though ordinarily a candidate who participates in a selection process is estopped from challenging it, such principle cannot apply where the selection itself is conducted in violation of binding judicial directions – Selection continued and finalised despite specific direction in W.P. No.3553 of 2012 & batch restraining finalisation till revision of guidelines – Entire selection process rendered non-est in law – Court cannot uphold an appointment made in defiance of directions issued by a constitutional court – Judgment of Single Judge set aside – Fresh selection directed in accordance with revised criteria pursuant to judgment in W.P. No.7022 of 2013 & batch quashing G.O.Ms.No.4 of 2011 – Appeal allowed [Paras 12–14].

Administrative Law – Doctrine of Estoppel – Participation in Selection Process – Exception – Participation in selection ordinarily bars subsequent challenge – However, estoppel has no application where selection is vitiated by illegality and conducted contrary to express judicial आदेश – Rule of estoppel cannot legitimise an act that is void in law [Paras 12–13].

Constitutional Law – Judicial Discipline – Binding Nature of Court Directions – Authorities bound to comply with interim and final directions issued by High Court – Any action taken in contravention thereof is void and unenforceable – Courts exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot sustain such actions [Paras 9, 13].

Decision: Writ Appeal allowed – Judgment dated 19.06.2014 in W.P. No.6463 of 2012 set aside – Respondents directed to initiate fresh selection process by fixing interview marks in accordance with criteria laid down pursuant to judgment dated 04.04.2013 in W.P. No.7022 of 2013 & batch – No costs – Connected miscellaneous applications closed.

Criminal Law – Corruption Case – Second Bail Application – Parity with Co-accused – Temporary Bail Granted – Applicant, a Sub-Inspector, accused of extorting ₹50 lakhs during election code period – First bail application rejected considering recovery of ₹30 lakhs from applicant and gravity of offence – Co-accused Prince Srivastava subsequently granted bail by Supreme Court on ground of long incarceration and non-framing of charges – Delay in trial attributable to protective orders obtained by other co-accused – Held: On parity with co-accused and prolonged custody since 09.04.2024, applicant entitled to temporary bail for four months with strict conditions – Bail granted subject to surrender after four months [Paras 40–45].

Bail – Delay in Trial – Attribution of Delay – Protective Orders to Co-accused – Trial not progressed due to non-appearance of co-accused enjoying “no coercive action” orders under Section 528 BNSS – Prosecution not at fault for non-framing of charges – Court nevertheless considers prolonged incarceration of applicant already in custody – Held: Delay factor relevant but balanced by limited-duration bail [Paras 41–42].

Criminal Procedure – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Interference with Investigation – Application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. – Applicant sought direction to collect CCTV footage and CDR/GPS data of police officials – Earlier identical application rejected by trial court and attained finality – Second application filed without disclosure of earlier rejection amounts to concealment – Reliance on State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi – Accused not entitled to invoke Section 91 Cr.P.C. at pre-trial stage for defence material – Held: No interference warranted – Application dismissed [Paras 19–27].

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of Proceedings – Section 528 BNSS – Scope and Limits – Co-accused Vishal Tiwari and Prachand Pratap Singh sought quashing of charge-sheet and cognizance – Not named in FIR but specifically named in statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. with assigned roles – No recovery from them but prima facie material exists – Court cannot conduct mini trial or assess defence at quashing stage – Principles of Neeharika Infrastructure and four-step test in Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani applied – Held: No ground for quashing – Applications dismissed [Paras 28–37].

Evidence – Confessional Statement – Section 25 Evidence Act – At Quashing Stage – Argument that only confessional statements exist against co-accused rejected – Statements of informant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. constitute independent material – Admissibility and weight of evidence matters for trial – Held: Cannot be examined at Section 482/528 stage [Paras 29–36].

Directions – Expeditious Trial – Interim protections vacated – Trial court directed to proceed expeditiously without granting undue adjournments – Applicant on bail directed to cooperate and surrender after four months [Paras 38–47].