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].

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.

Review – Scope and Maintainability – Non-consideration of Relief Clauses – Review application filed against judgment dated 03.08.2023 on the ground that relief clauses (f) and (h) though noticed were not adjudicated – Held, review is maintainable where material reliefs have escaped consideration resulting in miscarriage of justice – Review jurisdiction can be exercised to correct inadvertent omission of Court [Paras 19–20].

Absorption of Surplus Employees – Interpretation of Rule 3(1) of 2011 Rules – U.P. Absorption of Surplus Employees of Uptron India Ltd. in Government Service Rules, 2011 framed as a rehabilitative and beneficial scheme – Rule 3(1) gives overriding effect over existing service rules to the extent of inconsistency – Government Order dated 20.12.2011 issued under Rule 3(1) governs manner and conditions of absorption [Paras 21–23].

Government Order dated 20.12.2011 – Meaning of “Treating as Working in the Department” – Expression “उस विभाग में कार्यरत मानते हुए समायोजित करने के लिए” cannot be read narrowly – Absorption requires meaningful integration of employees into absorbing department – Beneficial legislation to receive purposive and liberal interpretation [Paras 23–25].

Absorption – Concept and Legal Effect – Upon absorption, employee becomes part and parcel of absorbing department subject to statutory conditions – Absorption distinct from regularisation – Service rendered prior to absorption by way of regular employment and adjustment against sanctioned posts cannot be ignored for pay fixation unless expressly excluded [Paras 25–26].

Pay Fixation and Consequential Service Benefits – Regular service rendered in Uptron India Ltd. and service rendered by way of adjustment in U.P. Civil Secretariat prior to absorption required to be considered for fixation and re-fixation of pay under Government Order dated 20.12.2011 – Reliefs relate to pay protection and consequential service benefits, not automatic grant of pension [Paras 26–27, 30–31].

Pensionary Benefits – Distinction Maintained – Claim for counting past service for pension governed strictly by statutory rules – Judgment clarifies that pensionary benefits, if any, shall be governed by applicable statutory provisions and binding precedents – No automatic conversion of non-pensionable service into pensionable service [Paras 27, 31(iii)].

Discrimination – Articles 14 and 16 – Petitioners alleged discrimination vis-à-vis similarly situated Uptron employees absorbed earlier with protection of last pay drawn – No rational basis shown by State for differential treatment under same policy – Held, absence of intelligible differentia violates Articles 14 and 16 [Paras 28–29].

Distinguishing Precedents Relied Upon by State – Full Bench judgment in Anukul Prakash confined to pensionary benefits – Does not bar consideration of past service for pay fixation – Decisions in Pooran Singh Manral and S.C. Chandra held inapplicable on facts and statutory framework [Paras 27(i)–(iii)].

Decision – Review allowed – Judgment dated 03.08.2023 modified – Directions issued for re-fixation of pay by considering prior regular service and service rendered by adjustment – Consequential service benefits to be extended within three months – No order as to costs [Paras 31–32].

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)].

Criminal Law – Discharge – Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction – Section 397 CrPC – Revision petition filed against order refusing discharge of accused in a case alleging financial fraud by office-bearers of a Co-operative Society – Held: At the stage of discharge, Court is only required to see whether a prima facie case is made out – Revisional court cannot assess probative value or admissibility of evidence in detail – No perversity or illegality in the Magistrate’s order declining discharge [Paras 6, 15].

Cheating – Section 420 IPC – Concealment of True Consideration – Conveyance of Society Property – Accused, as President and Secretary of Society, allegedly entered into agreement granting right of way to builder by suppressing actual consideration of ₹1.70 crores and showing only ₹35 lakhs – Society induced to part with valuable property on false representation – Held: Dishonest concealment of material facts causing wrongful loss to Society and wrongful gain to accused squarely attracts offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC [Paras 8–10].

Forgery – Section 468 IPC – False Document – Agreement Executed Without True Authority – Agreement executed by accused showing false consideration amount and misrepresenting approval of Society – Held: Document executed by suppressing true facts and without informed consent of Society constitutes a “false document” – Forgery committed for the purpose of cheating – Section 468 IPC prima facie attracted [Paras 11–12].

Falsification of Accounts – Section 477A IPC – False Entries in Society Records – Accused alleged to have made false entries in Minutes Book and registers of Society regarding consideration received – Held: Being officers of the Society, making false entries with intent to defraud the Society attracts Section 477A IPC [Para 13].

Criminal Breach of Trust – Section 406 IPC – Entrustment – Amount paid by builder to accused not amounting to entrustment as defined under Section 405 IPC – Held: Section 406 IPC may not be attracted – However, existence of one unsustainable charge is not a ground to discharge accused when other offences are prima facie made out [Para 14].

Evidence at Discharge Stage – Statements of Witnesses and Income Tax Records – Prosecution relying on statements of builder’s officials, brokers and Income Tax officers to show payment of actual consideration – Held: Evaluation of credibility and admissibility of such evidence is a matter for trial – Cannot be examined in revision against refusal of discharge [Para 15].

Decision: Criminal Revision Petition dismissed – Order of Magistrate refusing discharge upheld – Prosecution to proceed for offences under Sections 420, 468 and 477A IPC – No ground for interference under revisional jurisdiction.

Hindu Law – Adoption – Effect of Valid Adoption – Severance from Biological Family – Adopted Son Acquiring Exclusive Rights in Adoptive Mother’s Property – Plea of Joint Hindu Family Rejected – Once adoption is not challenged and stands valid, adopted son ceases to be member of biological family and cannot be treated as coparcener with biological father and brother – Property of adoptive mother cannot become joint family property of biological family [Paras 23–26, 35–37].

Partition Suit – Unity of Title and Unity of Possession – Essential Requirements – Failure to Prove – Plaintiff claiming possession of only two rooms and not joint possession of entire property – Held: Mere residence or permissive occupation does not establish unity of title or joint possession – Suit for partition not maintainable in absence of joint ownership [Paras 29–31, 36].

Agreement Relied for Throwing Property into Joint Family – Proof and Credibility – Agreement dated 23.12.1948 (Ext.-9) Found Forged and Unreliable – Mention of municipal holding number not in existence on date of alleged execution – Plaintiff’s contradictory testimony regarding execution and knowledge of agreement – Held: Agreement not genuine and cannot confer any right or create joint family property [Paras 27–28, 33].

Adoption Deed – Challenge to Validity – Limitation – Plaintiff neither challenged adoption nor could do so after long lapse of time – Registered deed of adoption carries statutory presumption of validity – Consequences under Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act must follow [Paras 23–24].

Prior Litigation and Compromise Decree – Effect – Property of adoptive mother allotted to adopted son under compromise in First Appeal – Schedule ‘B’ property became exclusive property of adopted son during lifetime of adoptive mother – Plaintiff claiming through neither adoptive mother nor compromise – No independent right established [Paras 26, 32–35].

Permissive Possession – Nature and Effect – Plaintiff occupying two rooms without asserting hostile title or specifying date of entry – Held: Possession permissive and not indicative of ownership or joint title – Payment of municipal taxes after institution of suit does not create title [Paras 30–31].

Civil Procedure – Abatement – Death of One of Substituted Legal Heirs – Estate Sufficiently Represented – Appeal Not Abated – Distinction between non-substitution of party and non-substitution of one heir – No possibility of conflicting decrees – Appeal to proceed on merits [Paras 16–22].

Second Appeal – Scope – Findings of Fact by First Appellate Court – No Perversity – High Court not to reappreciate evidence – Substantial questions of law answered against appellant [Paras 36–38].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of First Appellate Court affirmed – Plaintiff not entitled to any share in Schedule ‘B’ property – No order as to costs.

Defamation – Cyber / Online Defamation – Territorial Jurisdiction – Section 19 CPC – Suit filed alleging reputational harm due to allegedly defamatory content in a web series streamed nationwide – Plaintiff pleaded accessibility and effect of content across India including Delhi – Held: In cases of online defamation, “wrong done” occurs where defamatory content is accessed and consumed by third parties who know the plaintiff and in whose esteem his reputation is lowered – Mere nationwide accessibility of online content does not confer jurisdiction everywhere [Paras 16–21].

Civil Procedure – Section 19 CPC – “Wrong Done” – Includes Effect and Consequences – Expression “wrong done” includes not only the act of defamation but also its effect and consequences – However, such effect must be real and not speculative – Jurisdiction cannot be founded on a mere possibility or tendency of harm [Paras 29, 63].

Defamation Jurisdiction – Natural Forum and Unnatural Forum – Ordinarily, reputation of an individual is presumed at place of residence and of a corporation at its registered office – These constitute “natural forums” where specific pleadings of third-party perception may not be required – When suing at an “unnatural forum”, plaintiff must plead specific facts showing reputational harm in the eyes of persons at that place [Paras 30–31].

Cyber Defamation – Merger Rule (Tejpal Principle) – Where the place where the wrong is done coincides with the place where the defendant resides or carries on business, plaintiff has no option and must sue only at that place – Plaintiff cannot rely on the fact that wrong was also done elsewhere to institute proceedings in another forum – Section 19 CPC gives an option only when the place of wrong and defendant’s residence are different [Paras 33–36, 66.2(c)].

Cyber Defamation – Maximum Wrong Rule – In cases where wrong is done in multiple jurisdictions and not at the place of defendant’s residence, suit must ordinarily be filed where maximum harm is caused, usually the plaintiff’s place of residence or registered office – Departure permissible only if pleaded and shown that harm at the natural forum is minuscule compared to another place [Paras 38–39, 66.2(d)].

Forum Shopping – Clever Drafting – Jurisdiction – Courts must read plaint meaningfully and not formally – Clever drafting to create illusion of jurisdiction, including impleadment of unnecessary or improperly described parties, cannot confer territorial jurisdiction – Jurisdiction cannot be engineered to bypass binding precedent [Paras 51–54, 65].

Impleadment of Parties – Abuse of Process – Defendant impleaded only to create jurisdictional nexus held to be neither proper nor necessary – Misdescription and absence of pleaded role in alleged defamation disentitled reliance on such impleadment for jurisdiction [Para 65].

Application of Tejpal Decision – Binding Precedent – Principles laid down in Escorts Ltd. v. Tejpal Singh Sisodia reaffirmed and explained – Coordinate Bench decisions are binding and cannot be bypassed unless referred to a larger Bench – Merger Rule and Maximum Wrong Rule evolved to prevent libel tourism and forum shopping [Paras 34–49].

Maintainability – Lack of Territorial Jurisdiction – Plaintiff and main contesting defendants were residents of Mumbai – As per plaintiff’s own pleadings, alleged defamatory content was published and its effect felt across India including Mumbai – Held: Wrong was done at Mumbai where defendants reside – Merger Rule squarely applies – Delhi High Court lacks territorial jurisdiction [Paras 64–66].

Decision: Plaint returned under Order VII Rule 10 CPC for presentation before competent court – Liberty granted to plaintiff to seek appropriate directions under Order VII Rule 10A CPC – Pending applications disposed of.

Civil Suit – Recovery of Money – Friendly Loan – Promissory Notes – Plaintiff claimed recovery of ₹50 lakhs advanced as interest-free friendly loan to deceased borrower – Two promissory notes executed for consolidated amounts of ₹45 lakhs and ₹5 lakhs – Defendants denied loan and alleged forgery – Held: Promissory notes valid in law – Signatures of executant not specifically denied in pleadings – Minor discrepancies immaterial – Plaintiff entitled to decree for recovery [Paras 18–19, 24].

Negotiable Instruments – Undated Cheques – Evidentiary Value – Five undated cheques with blank payee name issued by deceased borrower – Cheques not constituting bills of exchange – However total amount matched promissory notes – Held: Though unenforceable as cheques, documents had corroborative value supporting existence of debt [Paras 11(i), 20].

Evidence – Proof of Signatures and Handwriting – Burden of Proof – Plaintiff summoned bank witness to prove signatures on cheques – Defendants neither denied signatures specifically nor produced counterfoils or specimen signatures – No evidence led to disprove handwriting – Held: Initial onus discharged by plaintiff – Defendants failed to rebut – Preponderance of probabilities favoured plaintiff [Paras 21–24].

Civil Trial – Pleadings – Effect of Absence of Specific Denial – Written statement did not specifically plead that signatures or handwriting on promissory notes were forged – No steps taken for expert comparison – Held: Defendants could not be permitted to challenge execution at stage of arguments [Paras 19, 23].

Standard of Proof – Civil Proceedings – Civil suits decided on balance of probabilities – Trial Court correctly appreciated oral and documentary evidence – No perversity or infirmity found in decree for principal amount [Para 24].

Interest – Pendente Lite Interest – Section 34 CPC Principles – Trial Court granted future interest but denied pendente lite interest without reasons – Held: Successful plaintiff entitled to pendente lite interest even if promissory notes did not stipulate interest – Interest awarded @ 9% per annum from date of suit till decree [Paras 25–27].

Costs – Award of Costs – Successful Party – Trial Court failed to award costs despite plaintiff succeeding – Earlier order recorded that Local Commissioner’s fee to be recovered as costs – Held: Plaintiff entitled to full costs including remuneration of Local Commissioner [Para 28].

Appellate Jurisdiction – Section 96 CPC – No error in appreciation of evidence by Trial Court – Money decree upheld – Cross-objections partly allowed on interest and costs [Paras 29–30].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Decree for ₹50 lakhs upheld – Cross-objections allowed – Pendente lite interest @ 9% p.a. granted – Costs awarded – Registry directed to release balance deposited amount with accrued interest to plaintiff [Paras 29–31].

Customs and Excise – Export Oriented Unit (EOU) – De-bonding – Final Date of Exit – Suo Motu De-bonding Order – Appellant EOU engaged in manufacture of silk fabrics sought exit from EOU scheme – Dispute regarding duty liability on capital goods and raw materials on de-bonding – Deputy Development Commissioner clarified vide letter dated 10.05.2019 that suo motu de-bonding order dated 08.08.2006 is to be treated as final date of exit – Held: Said clarification is material and goes to the root of determination of duty liability and applicability of concessional provisions [Paras 8–9, 13].

EOU – Condition No.10 of Standard Conditions – Applicability on De-bonding – Condition No.10 provides for levy of customs duty on depreciated value of capital goods and specified treatment of raw materials and excisable goods upon de-bonding after export obligation period – Held: Authorities were required to examine applicability of Condition No.10 in light of final exit date of 08.08.2006 – Failure to do so vitiates the impugned orders [Paras 8–10, 12].

Appellate Jurisdiction – Remand – Duty to Decide on Merits – CESTAT earlier remanded the matter directing de novo consideration – Commissioner (Appeals) erroneously held that earlier assessment had attained finality and that he had no power to revisit the issue – Held: Once matter is remanded for de novo consideration, appellate authority is duty-bound to examine entire matter on merits – Such refusal amounts to jurisdictional error [Paras 10–11].

Quasi-Judicial Authorities – Requirement of Reasoned Orders – Failure to Apply Mind – Commissioner (Appeals) and CESTAT failed to consider core contention regarding status of appellant as 100% EOU till 08.08.2006 and effect of clarification dated 10.05.2019 – CESTAT merely extracted findings of Commissioner (Appeals) without independent reasoning – Held: Orders suffer from non-application of mind and are unsustainable in law [Paras 11–12].

Judicial Review – Substantial Question of Law – Interference Justified – Substantial question of law framed as to whether CESTAT decided appeal without considering issues directed to be examined earlier – Held: Question answered in favour of appellant – Impugned orders liable to be set aside and matter remanded for fresh adjudication [Paras 3, 12–14].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Final Order No.A/31463/2017 dated 11.09.2017 passed by CESTAT and Order-in-Appeal No.4 of 2004 (T) Cus dated 10.08.2004 set aside – Matter remanded to Commissioner (Appeals) for de novo consideration in accordance with law, taking into account clarification letter dated 10.05.2019 – No order as to costs – Pending miscellaneous petitions closed.