Arbitration Law – Contract Interpretation – Rebate for Damaged Buses – Petitioner claimed rebate for 966 damaged buses – Held: The contract was for the "fleet" of buses available, not necessarily buses actually plying. Clause 1.1.1 of Schedule-VI specifically stated that 100% of buses may not be on road due to maintenance and no claims could be raised. The Arbitrator's interpretation that no rebate was contractually due is a plausible view and does not warrant interference under Section 34. [Paras 30-33]

Arbitration Law – Public Policy – Interest on Interest – Respondent claimed interest on delayed payment charges – Held: The contract provided for delayed payment charges (which are essentially penal interest). Awarding further 18% interest on these charges amounts to "interest on interest" and is ambiguous/confusing under the contract terms. Such an award is contrary to the fundamental policy of Indian law and is set aside. [Paras 44-47]

Contract Law – Penalty vs. Reasonable Compensation – Defacement Charges – Section 74 Contract Act – Respondent claimed penalty of Rs. 1000/day/bus for non-removal of ads – Held: The stipulated amount was a penalty. The Respondent failed to prove actual loss or expenditure incurred for removing advertisements. Awarding the entire penalty amount without proof of loss violates Section 74 of the Contract Act and the ratio in Kailash Nath Associates. Award set aside on this count. [Paras 60-63]

Decision: Petition partly allowed. Award modified: Counter-claims for interest on delayed payments and defacement charges set aside. Award for RTO fees confirmed. Costs reduced. [Para 67]

Criminal Law – Appeal against Acquittal – Appreciation of Evidence – Prosecution alleged accused abused complainant by caste and assaulted him – Held: There were material contradictions in the testimonies of the complainant and eye-witnesses regarding the presence of accused and the weapon used. The FIR did not name the first accused. Prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Acquittal upheld. [Paras 8.1-8.3, 10]

Criminal Law – SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act – Section 3(1)(10) – Insult/Intimidation – Held: Every insult or intimidation does not amount to an offence under the Atrocities Act unless it is directed at the victim because they are a member of a Scheduled Caste or Tribe. Mere utterance of indecent words without the specific intent related to caste does not constitute the offence. [Para 8.4-8.5]

Decision: Appeal dismissed. Acquittal confirmed. [Para 18]

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Corruption/Misappropriation of Public Funds – MGNREGA Scheme – Petitioners (vendors) accused of conspiring with officials to divert funds meant for chicken coops, wells, and cattle sheds by falsifying records – Total misappropriation approx. Rs. 2 Crores – Held: In serious offences involving corruption and misappropriation of public funds, anticipatory bail is granted only in exceptional circumstances. Custodial interrogation is necessary to trace the money trail and recover misappropriated amounts. Granting pre-arrest bail would hamper the investigation. [Paras 33-34]

Criminal Law – Re-transfer of Misappropriated Money – Effect on Bail – One accused argued he re-transferred money to the prime accused, showing bonafides – Held: Re-transferring money to the prime accused indicates continuation of the conspiracy and sharing of proceeds, rather than innocence. It is an aggravating factor. [Para 31]

Decision: Bail applications dismissed. Petitioners directed to surrender. [Para 35]

Civil Law – Interim Injunction – Prima Facie Case – Plaintiff sought injunction to restrain defendants from raising construction on agricultural land allegedly belonging to his ancestors – Claimed defendants obtained revenue entries fraudulently during consolidation – Courts below rejected injunction holding no prima facie title established and possession with defendants – Held: In absence of conclusive documents and pending challenge before Consolidation Officer, no prima facie case made out – Interlocutory relief rightly denied [Paras 1–7, 13–14]

Land Law – Consolidation Proceedings – Revenue Entries – Plaintiff challenged validity of consolidation allotment and mutation in separate proceedings – Until such challenge is resolved, existing entries hold the field – Courts held that long-standing entries in Jamabandi and possession support respondents – Mere allegation of forgery insufficient to disturb settled possession at interim stage [Paras 5, 8, 14–15]

Civil Procedure – Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope – Plaintiff failed to show any jurisdictional error or material irregularity in concurrent findings – High Court held that re-appreciation of facts not permissible in revision under Section 115 CPC – No ground for interference made out [Paras 16–17]

Decision: Revision petition dismissed – No merit in challenge to concurrent orders rejecting temporary injunction – All pending miscellaneous applications also disposed of [Paras 17–18]

Constitutional Law – Writ of Quo Warranto – Disqualification of Member of Parliament – Effect of Stay of Conviction – Petitioner sought Quo Warranto against Respondent No. 1 (Rahul Gandhi) on the ground of disqualification under Article 102 r/w Section 8(3) of the RP Act due to conviction in a defamation case – Held: Once the conviction is stayed by the Appellate Court (Supreme Court in this case), the disqualification arising out of such conviction ceases to operate from the date of the stay order. The conviction becomes non-operative, and the bar under Section 8(3) does not apply during the pendency of the appeal. – Writ Petition dismissed. [Paras 13, 16-17]

Election Law – Disqualification upon Conviction – Distinction between Stay of Sentence and Stay of Conviction – Held: There is a fundamental distinction between the stay of execution of sentence and the stay of conviction. Mere stay of sentence/bail does not wipe out the disqualification. However, when the conviction itself is stayed by the High Court or Supreme Court under Section 389 CrPC or inherent powers, the disqualification is kept in abeyance and the individual is not debarred from holding public office. [Para 13]

Decision: The writ petition is dismissed. [Para 20]

Education Law – Maintainability of Writ Petition – Jurisdiction of Tribunal – Appellant challenged Director's order rejecting claim for promotion to 7th post of Lecturer in Physics – Learned Single Judge dismissed writ petition holding that statutory remedy under Section 24-B of Odisha Education Act was available before the Tribunal – Held: Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction over disputes involving eligibility and entitlement linked with grant-in-aid – Writ Court rightly declined to entertain the writ petition in light of specific statutory forum [Paras 1-6, 18-22]

Statutory Interpretation – Scope of Section 24-B of the O.E. Act – Dispute whether Tribunal’s jurisdiction is confined only to “grant-in-aid” or extends to eligibility and entitlement for post approval and salary – Held: Legislative intent behind insertion of Section 24-B makes it clear that Tribunal’s power includes disputes concerning approval of posts, eligibility of appointment, and salary where such claims are related to grant-in-aid – Punctuation such as commas not decisive in interpreting statutory scope – Interpretation must serve purpose of amendment [Paras 7-18]

Constitutional Law – Article 226 – Availability of Statutory Remedy – Although High Court’s power under Article 226 is not ousted, writ jurisdiction may not be exercised where efficacious alternative remedy exists – Appellant previously approached Tribunal and cannot bypass it now – Forum shopping deprecated – Tribunal is competent forum to adjudicate disputes arising from administrative directions on post approval and salary [Paras 19-22]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No error in learned Single Judge’s order relegating appellant to Odisha Education Tribunal – Tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate challenge to rejection order dated 27.03.2025.

Taxation Law - International Taxation – Service Permanent Establishment (PE) – Calculation of Threshold Period – Article 5(6)(a) of India-Singapore DTAA – Assessee, a Singapore legal firm, had employees present in India for 120 days – Assessee claimed exclusion of vacation days (36), business development days (35), and common days (5) – Held: To constitute a Service PE, services must be "furnished within" the contracting state. Vacation days where no work is performed, and business development days where no billable services are rendered to clients, must be excluded from the threshold calculation. Excluding these, the period was 84 days, falling below the 90-day threshold. No Service PE constituted. [Paras 38-40]

International Taxation – Virtual Service PE – Interpretation of Treaty – Revenue argued for "Virtual Service PE" due to remote services provided from outside India – Held: The concept of "Virtual Service PE" is not expressly provided in the India-Singapore DTAA. Article 5(6) requires services to be furnished "within" India "through employees present". Courts cannot read new concepts into the treaty which are not explicitly included. Until the treaty is renegotiated to include virtual services, existing provisions must be strictly interpreted. [Paras 42-46, 49]

Decision: Appeals dismissed. Questions of law answered in favour of the Assessee. [Para 62]

Criminal Law – Rape – Age of Victim Not Proven – Acquittal – Prosecution failed to establish that the victim was a “child” as defined under Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act – Birth certificate (Exhibit P8) obtained on court order shortly before complaint, with no production of the court order or supporting documents under Section 13(3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act – No school admission register or SSLC marks card produced – Medical officer failed to conduct ossification test or comply with Section 164A CrPC – Parents of victim admitted ignorance of her birth date – Held: Age determination failed statutory standards under Section 94 of Juvenile Justice Act and Supreme Court guidance in P. Yuvaprakash v. State – Adverse inference drawn under Section 114(g) of Evidence Act [Paras 12–19].

Criminal Law – Rape – Consent – Delay in Filing Complaint – Alleged repeated intercourse on promise of marriage – Complaint lodged after two-year delay – Medical report confirmed absence of signs of recent assault – Victim's own statement indicated consensual relationship – Held: No evidence of force or coercion – Ingredients of Section 375 IPC not satisfied – Conviction under Section 376(2)(i)(n) IPC not sustainable [Paras 20–21].

Criminal Procedure – Fair Trial – Investigation Lapses – Investigating Officer failed to follow procedures for determining age or gathering admissible evidence – No application filed under Section 173(8) CrPC for additional documents post-charge sheet – Held: Prosecution failed to prove case beyond reasonable doubt – Trial court’s conviction based on inadequate appreciation of evidence set aside [Paras 16–19, 21].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 376(2)(i)(n) IPC and Sections 4 & 6 POCSO Act set aside – Appellant acquitted – To be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

Criminal Law – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Matrimonial Dispute – Attempt to Murder – Petitioner-husband sought quashing of Sessions Case No.20 of 2024 under Sections 324, 326, 307 IPC on the basis of compromise deed with wife (Respondent No.3), the complainant – Allegations related to physical assault with knife – Chargesheet filed, but during trial parties amicably settled the matter through mediation and executed compromise on 11.08.2025 – Held: Though offence under Section 307 IPC is serious and non-compoundable, Court may exercise inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC where parties settle disputes of personal nature voluntarily – No public interest involved – Allegations arose from domestic quarrel with no premeditated intent – Proceedings quashed to secure ends of justice and restore peace between spouses [Paras 2–4, 7–11].

Criminal Procedure – Section 482 CrPC – Scope – Offences of personal nature – Reliance placed on Gyan Singh v. State of Punjab (2013) 10 SCC 303 and Naushey Ali v. State of U.P. (2025) 4 SCC 78 – Court noted that many domestic disputes are wrongly escalated under Section 307 IPC – In the present case, compromise was genuine, voluntary and aimed at rebuilding marital relationship – Continuation of proceedings would be counterproductive – Held: High Court's inherent power can be exercised to prevent abuse of process and secure justice [Paras 9–11].

Decision: Sessions Case No. 20 of 2024 under Sections 324/326/307 IPC pending before the District and Sessions Judge, Shillong, quashed – Criminal petition allowed [Paras 12–13].