Contract Law – Rescission of Railway Contract – Forfeiture of Security Deposit – Petitioner awarded contract for re-spacing of SC sleepers under N.F. Railway – Work halted due to technical variation – Petitioner submitted multiple representations seeking approval of variation and extension of time – Railway issued show-cause notices under Clause 62 of General Conditions of Contract without specifying exact default – Contract rescinded and guarantee forfeited immediately after petitioner informed about readiness to resume work – Held: Authorities acted arbitrarily and failed to consider representations – Principles of natural justice violated – Termination notice and forfeiture orders set aside – Respondents directed to refund security deposit and performance guarantee [Paras 5-7, 16-18].

Natural Justice – Hearing Before Termination – Petitioner’s letters dated 22.11.2021, 29.11.2021 and 19.01.2022 were not responded to – No speaking order passed showing consideration of replies – Held: Decision to rescind contract without addressing representations amounts to violation of natural justice [Paras 16-18].

Alternative Remedy – Arbitration Clause – Clause 64 of Railway Contract provides arbitration except for matters under Clause 62 – Held: Termination under Clause 62 is an “excepted matter” – Court has jurisdiction to entertain writ – Further, violation of natural justice justifies invoking Article 226 despite alternate remedy [Paras 14-16].

Administrative Law – Arbitrary Action – Failure of Railway to consider contractor’s request for variation approval and intent to complete work – No finding recorded on replies – Decision to terminate appears predetermined and one-sided – Held arbitrary and unsustainable in law [Paras 16-18].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Termination notices dated 16.11.2021, 25.11.2021 and rescission order dated 20.01.2022 set aside – Respondents directed to refund the security deposit and performance guarantee within two months [Para 18-19].

Bail – Murder – Organised Crime – Rejection – Petitioners (Accused Nos.6 and 7) sought bail in case involving murder committed by organised crime syndicate under KCOCA – Alleged direct participation in assault on deceased with deadly weapons – Held: Serious overt acts attributed, offence punishable with death or life imprisonment – Bail not justified [Paras 10–15].

Criminal Law – Karnataka Control of Organised Crime Act – Applicability – Prosecution alleged formation of organised crime syndicate by Accused No.3 and participation of petitioners with intent to earn money through illegal means – Confessional statements recorded before Deputy Commissioner of Police admissible under Section 19 KCOCA – Prima facie material sufficient to invoke KCOCA [Paras 11–12].

Evidence – Eye Witness – Credibility at Bail Stage – CW.2, eye witness, named petitioners in statement under Section 161 CrPC and reiterated same under Section 164 CrPC – Witness saw petitioners assault deceased with machete and knife on vital parts – Held: At bail stage, Court cannot discard consistent eyewitness account supported by medical evidence [Paras 3, 8, 14].

Medical Evidence – Multiple Injuries – Gravity of Offence – Post-mortem report revealed 31 external injuries – Cause of death due to multiple injuries – Held: Nature and number of injuries demonstrate brutal assault, militating against grant of bail [Paras 8, 14].

Parity – Bail to Co-accused – Distinction – Petitioners relied on bail granted to Accused No.10 – Court held Accused No.10 was not an assailant and did not actively participate – Held: Parity not applicable where role of petitioners is materially different [Paras 3, 13].

Bail Jurisprudence – “Bail is Rule” – Limitation – Reliance placed on Supreme Court decision reiterating bail as rule – Held: Principle not absolute – In cases involving organised crime, direct participation, threat to witnesses and severe punishment, bail can be denied despite youth or lack of antecedents [Paras 4–5, 14–15].

Threat to Witnesses – Consideration – Prosecution apprehended threat to CW.2 and other witnesses if petitioners released on bail – Held: Likelihood of intimidation a relevant factor in denying bail [Paras 8, 14].

Decision: Criminal Petition dismissed – Petitioners not entitled to bail in Spl.C.C. No. 2055 of 2024 arising out of Crime No. 353 of 2024 – Bail refused considering gravity of offence, prima facie evidence and threat to witnesses.

Civil Procedure – Counter-Claim – Reply to Counter-Claim – Failure to File – Plaintiff failed to file reply to counter-claim and replication to written statement within prescribed time – Trial Court struck off defence – Revision petition filed challenging curtailment of right [Paras 1-2].

Counter-Claim – Nature – Treated as Plaint – Applicability of CPC – Counter-claim to be treated as plaint and provisions of CPC applicable as in a regular suit – Plaintiff required to file reply within 30 days, extendable up to 90 days and beyond on sufficient cause [Para 4].

Limitation for Filing Reply – Order VIII Rule 1 CPC – Period of 90 Days Not Mandatory – Court empowered to permit filing beyond 90 days on showing of sufficient cause – However, party must disclose cogent and convincing reasons for delay [Paras 4-5].

Judicial Order – Jurisdictional Error – Order Passed by Wrong Forum – Order curtailing defence passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class instead of Civil Judge having jurisdiction – Such procedural irregularity noted by High Court [Para 5].

Equitable Relief – Interest of Justice – One Opportunity Granted – Though petitioner failed to justify delay, prejudice caused by striking off defence and jurisdictional lapse warranted indulgence – One opportunity granted to file reply and replication subject to heavy costs [Paras 5-6].

Costs – Deterrent Measure – Rs. 50,000/- imposed – Rs. 20,000/- to be deposited with District Legal Services Authority, Panipat and Rs. 30,000/- payable to respondents – Condition precedent for filing reply [Para 6].

Decision: Civil Revision disposed of – Impugned order modified – Petitioner granted one opportunity to file reply to counter-claim and replication subject to payment of costs of Rs. 50,000/- – Directions issued in interest of justice.

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Bail – Section 37 NDPS Act – Prolonged Incarceration – Article 21 Constitution of India – Bail application rejected where commercial quantity of Heroin and Charas were recovered from a vehicle linked to the applicant, and bank transactions indicated involvement in drug trafficking – Applicant sought bail citing prolonged pre-trial detention (over three and a half years) as a violation of the right to speedy trial under Article 21, relying on Supreme Court precedents like Union of India v. K. A. Najeeb and Rabi Prakash v. The State of Odisha – Court noted that the co-accused, Bashir Ahmed, was granted bail by the trial court despite similar allegations – Prosecution argued that the applicant was involved in criminal conspiracy, acted as a courier for Bashir Ahmed, and had significant bank transactions related to drug trade – Court found sufficient evidence of prima facie involvement in illicit traffic of commercial quantity contraband – Held that the statutory bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act applies, and the applicant failed to satisfy the twin conditions for bail, particularly regarding non-involvement in the offence – The plea of prolonged incarceration was rejected in light of the nature and gravity of the offences and their impact on society – Bail application dismissed. [Paras 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17]

Criminal Procedure – Bail – Speedy Trial – Article 21 Constitution of India – Section 37 NDPS Act – While prolonged incarceration can be a ground for bail, especially under Article 21, this principle is not absolute and must be harmonized with statutory restrictions in special statutes like the NDPS Act – The Supreme Court in Union of India v. K. A. Najeeb held that Section 43D(5) of UAPA (analogous to Section 37 NDPS Act) does not oust the ability of Constitutional Courts to grant bail on grounds of Article 21 violation, particularly when there is no likelihood of trial completion within a reasonable time and incarceration has exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed sentence – However, the present case involves commercial quantity of contraband, triggering the rigors of Section 37 NDPS Act – The Court, relying on Union of India v. Vigin K. Varghese, emphasized that a finding of non-guilt based on prolonged incarceration must be supported by a careful appraisal of material and cannot be a casual observation – In the absence of material to satisfy the twin conditions of Section 37, the plea of prolonged incarceration alone is insufficient to grant bail, especially given the gravity and societal impact of drug trafficking offences – The application for bail was dismissed. [Paras 3, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Bail application dismissed along with connected application(s) – [Paras 17, 18].

Arbitration Law – Enforcement of Foreign Award – Objections under Section 48 – Respondent challenged enforcement on grounds of limitation, absence of concluded contract and arbitration clause, and non-confirmation of award under Texas law – Held: Petition filed on 16.05.2024 not barred by limitation as period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 excluded due to COVID-19 – Limitation to be counted from 16.09.2020 (date of Vedanta judgment) – Application within time [Paras 13–15.2]

Foreign Award – Binding Nature – Section 48(2)(a) – Commercial Court decree declaring arbitration award null and void not binding on foreign award enforcement – Held: Foreign award can only be set aside by court of the country where or under whose law it was made – Indian court lacks jurisdiction to annul a foreign award – Decree passed by Indian Commercial Court cannot override enforceability under Section 48 [Paras 16–17.5]

Arbitration Law – Confirmation Requirement under Foreign Law – Respondent argued that award unenforceable without confirmation under Texas Civil Code – Held: Section 171.087 of Texas Code mandates confirmation unless objection grounds exist – No requirement of confirmation in absence of objection – Award enforceable as it became binding under arbitration clause and SMA Rules – Absence of confirmation does not defeat enforcement under Indian law [Paras 18–19.4]

Foreign Award – Public Policy and Judicial Review – Scope of Objections – Court reaffirms narrow grounds under Section 48 and principle of minimal judicial interference – Foreign award passed under SMA Rules in New York cannot be invalidated by an Indian court unless objections under Section 48 are strictly satisfied – Enforcement bias and comity of courts to be respected [Paras 17.3–17.5, 19.3]

Judicial Discipline – Risk of Conflicting Decisions – Court noted pendency of first appeal (FA No. 604/2024) before Division Bench challenging Commercial Court decree – To avoid conflict, registry directed to place both matters before Chief Justice for allocation to one Bench [Paras 21–22]

Decision: I.A. Nos. 7505/2024 and 8151/2024 rejected – Objections to enforcement under Section 48 overruled – Order dated 15.07.2024 made final – Registry directed to place AC No. 60/2024 and FA No. 604/2024 before Chief Justice for assignment to same Bench to avoid conflicting decisions.

Lease – Eviction – Expiry of Lease by Efflux of Time – Registered lease deed dated 02.09.2002 executed for fifteen years – Lease period admittedly expired on 01.09.2017 – Plaintiff sought eviction on ground of expiry and non-renewal – Defendants contended renewal clause in lease deed – Held: Lease stood terminated by efflux of time and defendants became unauthorised occupants thereafter [Paras 6, 17–21].

Lease – Renewal Clause – Mandatory Conditions – Clause providing renewal for further fifteen years subject to lessee issuing three months’ prior notice and execution of fresh registered lease deed on mutual terms – No evidence produced to show issuance of mandatory notice or consensus ad idem for renewal – Mere existence of renewal clause does not amount to automatic extension – Held: Renewal not established and tenancy not continued [Paras 18–20].

Specific Performance – Renewal of Lease – Prior Suit – Appellant had earlier filed suit for specific performance seeking renewal of lease – Said suit dismissed and findings attained finality – Held: Appellant cannot indirectly claim renewal in eviction proceedings contrary to binding findings [Para 21].

Second Appeal – Scope – Section 100 CPC – Concurrent Findings of Fact – Trial Court and First Appellate Court concurrently held lease expired and no renewal proved – No perversity, illegality or misreading of evidence shown – Held: High Court cannot reappreciate evidence or interfere with concurrent findings in absence of substantial question of law [Paras 14–16, 22–23].

Substantial Question of Law – Absence – Questions raised pertained to appreciation of evidence and interpretation of contractual terms already settled by courts below – Not open, debatable or unsettled questions of law – Held: No substantial question of law arises warranting admission of second appeal [Paras 22–23].

Equitable Relief – Time to Vacate – Though second appeal dismissed, Court granted six months’ time to appellant to vacate premises considering nature of occupation – No order as to costs [Para 24].

Decision: Second appeal dismissed at admission stage – Concurrent judgments and decrees of Trial Court and First Appellate Court confirmed – Appellant granted six months’ time to vacate suit schedule premises – No costs – Pending applications closed.

Specific Relief – Specific Performance – Concurrent Findings – Second Appeal – Plaintiff sought enforcement of agreement of sale dated 17.09.1998 – Trial Court decreed suit and First Appellate Court confirmed decree – Defendant admitted execution of agreement but pleaded it was nominal and executed for loan – High Court held that execution of agreement and receipt of advance were proved and defence of nominal document not established – Held: No ground to interfere with concurrent findings [Paras 1–11, 27–34].

Civil Procedure – Section 100 CPC – Scope of Second Appeal – High Court reiterated that interference is permissible only where findings are perverse, based on no evidence, or contrary to settled law – Reappreciation of evidence impermissible – Held: No substantial question of law arose for consideration [Paras 14, 33–34].

Order XLI Rule 31 CPC – Compliance by First Appellate Court – Appellant contended that appellate judgment was vitiated for failure to frame multiple points for determination – Court held that First Appellate Court discussed evidence, gave reasons and substantially complied with Rule 31 – Mere absence of multiple points does not vitiate judgment [Paras 15–24].

Specific Relief Act – Section 20 – Discretionary Relief – Appellant contended that courts below failed to consider hardship and conduct of parties – High Court held that discretion was exercised judiciously after considering conduct, admissions of defendant, readiness and willingness of plaintiff – Mere rise in property value does not disentitle plaintiff from relief [Paras 25–32].

Evidence – Admission – Effect – Defendant admitted execution of agreement of sale and that attesting witnesses were her own family members – Failure to examine attestors to support plea of nominal agreement – Held: Adverse inference justified against defendant [Paras 21, 27–29].

Equitable Relief – Delay and Hardship – Consideration – Plaintiff issued legal notice within contractual period and filed suit without delay – Defendant enjoyed advance amount for decades – Held: No inequity or hardship warranting refusal of specific performance [Paras 28–32].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 26.07.2011 in A.S. No. 18 of 2007 confirming decree dated 08.05.2007 in O.S. No. 161 of 2001 upheld – No substantial question of law involved – Parties to bear their own costs.

Criminal Law – Murder – Common Intention – Evidence of Eye-witnesses – Conviction Upheld – Appellants convicted under Sections 302/34, 324/34, and 325/34 IPC for murdering a 13-year-old boy and grievously injuring his father and other family members – Trial Court convicted 3 out of 8 accused – High Court found that all three convicted accused acted with common intention and came armed to assault the deceased and others – Medical and ocular evidence corroborated each other – Minor inconsistencies in testimonies did not affect core of prosecution’s case – Held: Conviction justified and supported by credible eye-witnesses including injured witnesses [Paras 3, 39-41, 48-49]

Criminal Law – Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC – Not Attracted – Sudden Fight – Premeditation – Defense Plea Rejected – Appellants argued that the incident occurred due to a sudden quarrel arising from a dispute over cattle – Held: Evidence revealed prior threats, premeditated attack, and targeted killing – Deceased was chased, dragged from hiding, and fatally attacked – Injured witnesses consistently testified to intent and brutality – Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC not applicable – Conviction under Section 302 IPC upheld [Paras 42-47]

Witness Testimony – Family Members as Eye-Witnesses – Credibility – PW.1 (mother), PW.4 & PW.8 (sisters), and PW.11 (father) were injured eye-witnesses – Testimonies corroborated and supported by VDP Secretary (PW.3) and others – Held: Relationship with the deceased does not discredit testimony if otherwise credible and consistent – No reason to disbelieve their statements [Paras 36, 39-41]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302/34, 324/34, and 325/34 IPC confirmed – No grounds for interference.

Bail – Financial Fraud – International Transactions – Allegation of misappropriation of USD 1,25,000/- by petitioner while working as Finance and Admin Manager of informant company – FIR alleging opening of fraudulent company in Zambia, diversion of company funds, illegal withdrawals, and transfer of money to Indian bank accounts – Charge-sheet submitted and petitioner in custody since 15.05.2025 – Trial commenced but stayed – Held: Considering length of custody, nature of offences triable by Magistrate, recovery of incriminating articles, and no further custodial interrogation required, petitioner entitled to bail [Paras 1–4, 8].

Territorial Jurisdiction – Offences Committed Outside India – Section 208 BNSS – Indian citizen alleged to have committed offences partly in Zambia – Legal position reiterated that offences committed outside India by an Indian citizen can be tried in India as if committed within India, subject to prior sanction of Central Government – Court refrains from conclusively deciding jurisdiction at bail stage but notes prima facie commission of offences within India [Paras 4–5].

Sanction of Central Government – Mandatory Requirement – Proviso to Section 208 BNSS – Trial in respect of acts committed outside India cannot proceed without prior sanction of Central Government – Magistrate can proceed only in respect of offences allegedly committed within India until such sanction is obtained – Principle applied relying upon Supreme Court precedent [Paras 4, 7–8].

Double Jeopardy – Parallel Proceedings in Foreign Jurisdiction – FIR and arrest warrant issued in Zambia for theft by servant – Mere registration of criminal case abroad does not attract bar of double jeopardy – Protection under Article 20(2) of Constitution and Section 337 BNSS applicable only after conviction or acquittal by a competent court – Held: No bar to prosecution in India at present stage [Paras 5–6].

Continuing Offence – Transactions in Multiple Jurisdictions – Alleged acts partly in Zambia and partly in India including deposit of funds in Indian bank accounts and possession of stolen company assets – Held: In case of continuing offences, Indian courts have jurisdiction to proceed for acts committed in India, subject to statutory limitations regarding acts outside India [Paras 5, 7].

Bail Conditions – Safeguards – High bail bond imposed – Monthly police reporting – Restriction on committing similar offences – Obligation to inform residence and contact details – Condition imposed to secure presence of petitioner in view of arrest warrant issued by Zambian court – Bail allowed without expressing opinion on merits [Paras 8–9].

Decision: Bail application allowed – Petitioner released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.5,00,000/- with two solvent sureties – Subject to stringent conditions including monthly police attendance and compliance with legal process in Zambia – Bail application disposed of.