Arbitration – Scope of Judicial Interference – Award upholding investor’s claim for indemnity from CDSL under Section 16 of Depositories Act – Tribunal held DP (BRH) acted negligently and fraudulently while transferring and pledging investor’s shares – Court held findings plausible, reasoned, and not perverse – Petition under Section 34 dismissed [Paras 1, 75–78].

Depository Liability – Negligence by DP – BRH, acting as DP of CDSL, fraudulently transferred investor’s shares using Power of Attorney and pledged them to HDFC Bank – Held: Since BRH acted at least partly as DP, CDSL liable to indemnify under Section 16 – CDSL cannot escape liability by attributing acts solely to role of broker [Paras 20–24, 36–47].

Power of Attorney Misuse – Composite Fraud – No underlying trades justified share transfers – Transfers effected solely to engineer fraudulent pledge – Tribunal found Petitioner liable for permitting DP to transfer and pledge shares of 9493 clients – Held: Entire transaction was composite fraud facilitated by CDSL’s DP, attracting vicarious liability [Paras 40–44, 48–50].

Investor Protection – SEBI Regulatory Framework – SEBI Circulars (pre- and post-incident) required adequate monitoring, early warning mechanisms, and supervisory oversight – CDSL failed to prevent DP’s misuse of POA – Court held that investor compensation is independent of specific regulatory violations; Section 16 creates strict liability on depository for DP’s negligent acts [Paras 53–62].

SEBI Circular of 25.07.2023 – No Bar to Depository’s Liability – Circular cannot override statutory liability under Section 16 – Tribunal correctly held that responsibility for DP’s misconduct lies with CDSL and not with NSE – Attempt to shift burden to NSE rejected [Paras 63–70].

Equity Jurisdiction – Tribunal Not Acting as Amiable Compositeur – Though Tribunal used terms like ‘ends of justice’, award was based on findings of statutory negligence – Tribunal did not invoke equity jurisdiction under Section 28(2) of Arbitration Act – No illegality found [Paras 73–74].

Decision: Arbitration Petition dismissed – Arbitral Award upheld – CDSL held liable to indemnify Respondent No.1 for value of lost shares (Rs. 86,02,768/-) – No costs awarded – Interim Application also disposed of [Paras 75–79].

Petroleum Dealership – Eligibility Criteria – Joint Land Ownership – Lease Deed Requirement – IOCL Brochure Clause 4(vi)(a) mandates that on the date of application, lease deed must be executed by all co-owners; failure renders application invalid – Petitioner submitted lease from only one co-sharer and relied on preliminary decree of partition – Held: Preliminary decree is insufficient; only final decree separating shares by metes and bounds establishes exclusive title – Rejection of application upheld [Paras 8–14, 20]

Partition of Land – Preliminary vs. Final Decree – Under Sections 116–117 of U.P. Revenue Code and Rules 108–109, preliminary decree merely declares shares; final decree alone identifies exact land allotted to each co-sharer – At stage of preliminary decree location of allotted land may change – Applicant must furnish final decree if relying on partition in joint property – Petitioner lacked final decree on date of application [Paras 12–14]

Administrative Law – Commercial Decision of IOCL – Judicial Review – Selection for retail outlet dealership is contractual and commercial – Writ Court will not interfere unless action is arbitrary or irrational – IOCL acted as per Brochure; decision neither arbitrary nor unreasonable – No ground for interference under Article 226 [Paras 17, 20–21]

Precedents – Identical Issues – Earlier judgments in Rahul Singh (Writ C 7354/2024, decided 06.03.2024) and Amarjeet (Writ C 11586/2024, decided 06.05.2024) applied – Both held that in joint ownership cases absence of lease from all co-owners on date of application is fatal – Applied squarely to present case [Paras 15–19]

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – No infirmity in IOCL’s rejection order; no relief granted – No order as to costs [Paras 20–21].

Criminal Law - FEMA – Summons – Section 37 FEMA – Applicability of Section 160 CrPC – Petitioner, a woman, challenged personal summons under Section 37 FEMA, citing protection under Section 160(1) CrPC exempting women from appearing outside their residence – Held: Section 160 CrPC not applicable to proceedings under Section 37 FEMA, which are civil-regulatory in nature and governed by procedural powers under Section 131 of the Income Tax Act – Personal appearance before ED office is validly required [Paras 27–30, 36–43].

FEMA – Nature of Proceedings – Civil vs Criminal – Court clarified that FEMA proceedings are civil and administrative, unlike PMLA which involves criminal prosecution – Section 37 FEMA does not invoke CrPC safeguards for criminal inquiries but provides powers analogous to civil procedure under Section 131 of the Income Tax Act – Held: No violation of Article 21 or procedural rights by issuance of summons under FEMA [Paras 31–41].

Code of Civil Procedure – Applicability under FEMA – Section 131 of the IT Act incorporated by Section 37 FEMA vests ED officials with powers akin to civil courts for enforcing attendance and document production – Held: Proceedings are governed by CPC, not CrPC – No right to demand recording of statement at residence under CPC analogous to Section 160 CrPC [Paras 33–38].

PMLA vs FEMA – Distinction in Legal Framework – Court distinguished FEMA from PMLA – PMLA involves criminal prosecution and special powers under Section 50 overriding CrPC protections, whereas FEMA is civil-regulatory – Held: Reliance on PMLA jurisprudence misplaced in FEMA context [Paras 41–42].

Right to Fair Investigation – Articles 20 & 21 – Petitioner argued denial of documents and summons infringed constitutional rights – Held: Mere issuance of summons does not violate rights under Articles 20 or 21 – ED not required to provide entire material at preliminary stage under FEMA – Petitioner free to cooperate and present documents in person [Paras 19–21, 43].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Summons issued under Section 37 FEMA are valid – Section 160 CrPC not applicable to civil-regulatory proceedings under FEMA – Petitioner required to appear personally as directed – No violation of constitutional or procedural safeguards found [Paras 44–45].

NDPS Act – Bail – Commercial Quantity – Section 37 – Mandatory Twin Conditions Ignored – Bail Orders Cancelled – Accused persons Akash, Shilpa, and Seema were granted bail by the trial court despite seizure of 472.55 grams of heroin in a single raid forming a continuous transaction – Trial court failed to apply or even mention Section 37 NDPS Act – High Court held that when commercial quantity is involved, bail cannot be granted without satisfaction of twin statutory conditions – Orders termed illegal and perverse – Bail cancelled and respondents directed to surrender [Paras 1, 6–7, 24–26, 30–31].

Clubbing of Recoveries – Section 29 NDPS – Joint Operation and Common Intent – Aggregation Justified – Court held that recoveries from Akash, Seema, and Shilpa were not isolated but formed part of a single raid from same premises – Total recovery treated as commercial quantity – Reliance placed on Awadhesh Yadav v. State and principles of clubbing when conspiracy or joint possession is alleged – Section 29 rightly invoked [Paras 3–6, 19–22].

Bail Jurisprudence – Non-Compliance with Section 37 – Per Se Invalid – Trial court mischaracterised the recoveries as intermediate quantity and overlooked the statutory embargo on bail in commercial quantity cases – Cited Supreme Court judgments including Ajay Kumar Singh @ Pappu, State of Kerala v. Rajesh – Held: No bail can be granted unless court records satisfaction that accused is not guilty and will not reoffend – Omission is not a mere irregularity but a fatal legal flaw [Paras 24–25, 28].

Recovery Proceedings – Presence of Female Constable and Absence of Public Witnesses – Not Fatal – Court rejected contention that recovery was doubtful due to female constable’s presence or lack of public witnesses – Held: Female officer’s presence complied with Section 50(4) NDPS – Non-joining of public witnesses not fatal when official testimony is reliable – Cited Ajmer Singh v. State of Haryana [Paras 26–27].

Criminal Antecedents – Relevant to Bail – Ignored by Trial Court – Accused Seema had 12 previous cases, including 7 under NDPS – Prior involvements of all accused ignored by trial court – High Court held that antecedents go to the heart of second condition under Section 37 – Held: Non-consideration of material renders bail orders perverse [Paras 11, 28].

Legal Position – Cancellation of Bail – Perversity in Order Justifies Intervention – Trial court granted bail without applying statutory safeguards, ignored relevant facts, and indulged in premature evaluation of evidence – High Court set aside bail orders relying on Puran v. Rambilas and Union of India v. Rattan Malik – Held: Bail granted contrary to law liable to be cancelled [Paras 12, 29–30].

Decision: Petitions allowed – Bail orders dated 15.06.2024, 25.06.2024, and 12.07.2024 granting bail to Seema, Shilpa, and Akash respectively set aside – Respondents directed to surrender before Superintendent Jail within three days [Para 30–31].

Service Law – Equal Pay for Equal Work – Assam Rifles – Petition Dismissed – Petitioner Association sought parity in pay, pension and emoluments with Indian Army, citing similarity in duties and historical role – Held: Assam Rifles operates under dual control of MHA and MoD, unlike Army – Nature of duties, retirement age, and structural differences validly justify distinct treatment – Equal pay claim rejected [Paras 1, 4-5, 12, 25-26]

Administrative Law – Dual Control Mechanism – Parliamentary Committee Recommendations – No Mandamus – Parliamentary Standing Committee Report recommended ending dual control of Assam Rifles – Held: Such recommendations are not binding and do not mandate parity in salary or service conditions – Policy decision lies within Executive domain – Court cannot issue directions under Article 226 for pay fixation [Paras 11, 24, 27]

Service Conditions – Discrimination – SFF/ICG Comparison – Not Applicable – Petitioner compared service with Special Frontier Force and Indian Coast Guard – Held: SFF and ICG operate under different administrative structure and duties, under direct PMO supervision – Parity claim unjustified – Kerala High Court’s ruling on ECHS benefits not applicable for pay/emoluments parity [Paras 9, 16, 22-23]

Constitutional Law – Article 14 – No Violation – Petitioner alleged breach of equality under Article 14 due to different pay scales from Indian Army – Held: Distinction in retirement age, service tenure, and nature of duties is reasonable – Classification not arbitrary – No violation of Article 14 established [Paras 6, 19, 25-26]

Judicial Review – Scope under Article 226 – Policy Matters – Limited Interference – Court held it cannot interfere in matters of pay fixation or emoluments, which fall exclusively within domain of the Central Government – Direction issued to consider fresh representation [Paras 27, 29]

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – No direction for pay parity – Petitioner allowed to submit fresh representation, to be decided within 3 months [Paras 30]

Electricity Law – Theft of Electricity – Section 135 of the Electricity Act – Accused allegedly hooked electricity directly from low-tension overhead lines – Appellant seized materials and lodged FIR – Respondent paid part of provisional assessment amount – Trial court found that prosecution failed to prove theft beyond reasonable doubt – No independent witnesses examined – No conclusive identification of accused – Held: Evidence insufficient – Acquittal upheld [Paras 2–12].

Criminal Procedure – Appellate Jurisdiction – Scope of Interference – High Court held that appellate courts must be cautious in interfering with orders of acquittal – Unless judgment is perverse or legally flawed, presumption of innocence prevails – Trial court’s view not found to be implausible – Appeal dismissed [Para 11].

Electricity Law – Refund of Amount Paid Towards Provisional Assessment – Trial court directed refund of Rs. 1,32,556 paid by accused during pendency of criminal case – Appellant argued special court lacks power to issue refund – Held: Under Section 154(6) of Electricity Act, special court may direct refund if amount deposited exceeds liability or if no liability arises due to acquittal – Refund order legally sustainable – Appeal on this ground also dismissed [Paras 13–18].

Assessment Proceedings – Civil Liability vs. Criminal Liability – Court clarified that Section 135 deals with criminal offence of theft, while Section 126 pertains to unauthorised use – Since acquittal was recorded, no civil liability remains – Special court rightly directed refund – Refuted argument that refund mechanism is unavailable to electricity authority [Paras 15–19].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment of acquittal by Special Court affirmed – Direction to refund Rs. 1,32,556 upheld as lawful under Section 154(6) of Electricity Act – No grounds for interference found.

Criminal Law – Robbery – Conviction under Section 397 IPC – Reversed – Appellant convicted for robbery and stabbing under Sections 394/34 and 397 IPC – Trial court sentenced him to concurrent imprisonment of 3 years and 7 years – Complainant identified appellant at police station, but no Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted – Held: Dock identification in absence of prior TIP, where accused is a stranger, is weak and unreliable – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 13–18].

Evidence – Identification – TIP Not Conducted – Fatal Flaw – Accused was a stranger to the complainant – Identification first made at police station – No judicial TIP held – Supreme Court precedents reaffirmed that TIP is crucial investigative tool in such cases – Dock identification alone cannot form basis of conviction without prior TIP – Held: TIP omission vitiates prosecution case [Paras 15–16].

Witness Testimony – Improvement and Contradictions – Complainant made material improvements in Court testimony including number of knives, request for matchbox, and additional items allegedly robbed (power bank, headphone) – MLC did not mention all injuries as per final testimony – CCTV footage failed to capture incident – Held: Inconsistent narrative weakens prosecution case [Paras 9, 17].

Recovery of Stolen Items – Inconsistent Prosecution Case – Power bank recovered from appellant marked as robbed item despite no mention in original complaint or initial witness accounts – Mobile phone recovered from co-accused – Questionable chain of custody and post-arrest introduction of evidence – Held: Serious doubt cast on credibility of recovery [Paras 11, 14].

Benefit of Doubt – Acquittal – Serious gaps in prosecution case including absence of independent eye-witnesses, contradictory testimonies, and flawed identification – Court held that guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt – Appellant entitled to benefit of doubt [Paras 18–19].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted – Ordered to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.

Criminal Law – Representation of Company – Section 305 CrPC – Trial court directed petitioner to represent company (Accused No. 23) despite his resignation from directorship prior to initiation of proceedings – Held: A company being a juristic person must appoint its own representative for trial under Section 305 CrPC – Neither the complainant nor the court can compel an unwilling individual, even a former director, to represent the company – Summons must be served at the company’s registered office – Petitioner cannot be forced to represent the company without valid authorization [Paras 1, 22, 26, 28–30].

Corporate Criminal Liability – Section 70 PMLA – Scope – Company and persons in charge at the time of offence may both be liable under Section 70 – However, representation under Section 305 CrPC is separate from liability under Section 70 – Subsequent resignation from company does not absolve individual from criminal liability under PMLA, but does relieve him of obligation to represent the company unless duly authorized [Paras 18–20, 28].

Special Law vs General Law – Harmonious Interpretation – Argument by ED that Section 70 of PMLA overrides Section 305 CrPC rejected – Held: PMLA does not conflict with CrPC provisions on representation of juristic persons – Prosecution under special statute does not allow bypassing procedural safeguards regarding company representation – Trial cannot proceed without proper representation of the company in accordance with Section 305 CrPC [Paras 14, 26–28].

Judicial Discretion – Improper Exercise – Trial court erred by postponing decision on company representation to later stage under Section 207 CrPC – Held: Representation issue must be settled prior to continuation of proceedings – Trial court failed to apply its mind to settled legal position – Order set aside and direction issued to summon company at its registered office and proceed under Section 305(4) CrPC if no representative is appointed [Paras 21, 26, 30].

Decision: Petition allowed – Impugned order of trial court dated 03/11/2022 set aside – Magistrate directed to serve fresh summons on accused company (Accused No. 23) at its registered address and proceed under Section 305(4) CrPC if company fails to nominate representative – Entire process to be completed within 60 days from receipt of this order [Paras 29–30].

Criminal Law – Rape – Quashing of Proceedings – Allegation of sexual exploitation over three years disbelieved – De facto complainant alleged repeated sexual abuse and coercion by petitioner between 2011 and 2014 – Petitioner produced documents showing ongoing cordial relationship till 2017 and pending civil litigation regarding monetary disputes – Court found inconsistencies in complainant's version and noted that FIR followed closely after petitioner initiated civil and criminal proceedings against her – Held: Allegations inherently improbable and motivated – Proceedings quashed [Paras 1, 5–7]

Criminal Procedure – Quashment of Charges – Exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC – Legal test – Court held that continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law – Evident from record that FIR was lodged as a retaliatory move after petitioner initiated legal actions – No prima facie case made out warranting trial – Held: Proceedings against accused under Sections 376(f)(n) IPC and 66E IT Act liable to be quashed [Paras 6–7]

Evidence – Delay and Prior Relationship – Long delay in lodging complaint coupled with friendly relationship undermines credibility – Complainant gave sworn statement in 2017 describing petitioner as a close family friend despite alleging prior prolonged abuse – Court noted improbability of continued relationship and non-disclosure of alleged abuse for years by educated complainant – Held: Circumstances indicate false implication [Paras 6–7]

Decision: Criminal Miscellaneous Case allowed – Proceedings against petitioner in S.C. No.108/2019 (arising from Crime No.1142/2018 of Erattupetta Police Station) quashed.