Criminal Law – Double Jeopardy – Section 300 Cr.P.C. – Article 20(2) of Constitution – Petitioner sought quashing of trial at Karera, Madhya Pradesh on ground that he had already been tried and acquitted in a connected case by courts in Rajasthan – Held: Protection against double jeopardy applies only when second prosecution is for the same offence and by a court of competent jurisdiction – Distinct FIRs registered in different States constitute separate causes of action – Bar under Section 300 Cr.P.C. not attracted [Paras 13, 18, 28–30].

Antiquities and Art Treasures Act – Theft and Trafficking of Idols – Multiple FIRs – Large-scale gang involved in stealing and exporting antiquities from different States – Each FIR relating to recovery of distinct stolen property gives rise to independent prosecution – Acquittal in one case does not immunize accused from prosecution in other cases involving separate offences and recoveries [Paras 21–28].

Territorial Jurisdiction – Sections 177–189 Cr.P.C. – Competency of Court – Only court within whose territorial jurisdiction offence was committed is competent to try the case – Proceedings before Jaipur Courts could not bar prosecution for offence committed within jurisdiction of Police Station Karera, District Shivpuri – Doctrine of autrefois acquit not applicable [Paras 18, 28].

Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Inherent Powers – Scope – Power to quash criminal proceedings to be exercised sparingly – No abuse of process or failure of justice demonstrated – Trial court and revisional court orders rejecting plea of double jeopardy found legal and proper – High Court declined interference [Paras 16, 30].

Acquittal on Benefit of Doubt – Effect – Acquittal by Rajasthan High Court was on benefit of doubt and not a clean acquittal on merits – Even otherwise, acquittal related to different FIRs and offences – Does not create statutory bar to continuation of trial in Madhya Pradesh [Paras 27–28].

Precedent – “Same Offence” Test – Supreme Court reiterated that for Article 20(2) to apply, offences must be identical in ingredients – Similarity of facts not sufficient – Reliance placed on State of Bombay v. S.L. Apte – Distinct offences cannot attract constitutional bar [Para 29].

Direction – Speedy Trial – Trial Court directed to conduct proceedings expeditiously, preferably on day-to-day basis – Clarified that no opinion expressed on merits of case [Paras 31–32].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Orders of Trial Court and Revisional Court affirmed – Plea of double jeopardy rejected – Criminal trial to proceed in accordance with law.

Arbitration Law – Section 34 – Scope of Interference – Insurance Claim Dispute – Insurer challenged arbitral award granting compensation for fire damage under Industrial All Risk Policy – High Court reiterated that re-appreciation of evidence and substitution of arbitral view with court’s view is impermissible under Section 34 – Held: Award neither perverse nor suffering from patent illegality or conflict with public policy [Paras 14, 29, 34].

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 26 – Appointment of Expert – Arbitral Tribunal appointed independent expert suo motu to assist on technical issues relating to loss assessment – Objection that expert acted as “second surveyor” rejected – Held: Appointment of expert under Section 26 is distinct from appointment of surveyor under Insurance Act and is within arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction [Paras 16–18].

Insurance Law – Section 64-UM, Insurance Act, 1938 – Surveyor’s Report – Evidentiary Value – Surveyor’s assessment recommending only 20% loss held to be ad-hoc, perfunctory and unsupported by cogent reasons – Reiterated that surveyor’s report is recommendatory and not binding on insurer, insured or arbitral tribunal – Tribunal justified in departing from surveyor’s findings for recorded reasons [Paras 21, 25].

Expert Evidence – Weight and Appreciation – Expert appointed by tribunal suggested 25% loss of Hydraulic Oil and Thermic Fluid – Tribunal disagreed after detailed reasoning – Held: Expert opinion is advisory and not binding – Tribunal entitled to accept or reject expert view with reasons – No illegality in awarding 70% loss based on overall material, circumstances and documentary evidence [Paras 22–24, 29].

Assessment of Damages – Rough and Ready Method – Guess Work Permissible – Tribunal relied on proved purchase of Hydraulic Oil and Thermic Fluid for restart of plant and delay/lapses in surveyor’s inspections – Held: Arbitral tribunal entitled to apply broad evaluation and reasonable estimation of loss where precise quantification is impracticable – Such approach does not constitute patent illegality [Paras 25–26].

Insurance Claim – Fire Loss – Hydraulic Oil and Thermic Fluid – Tribunal awarded 70% of claimed loss rejecting 20% and 25% assessments – Extensive fire, high temperature and delay in surveyor’s inspection justified higher assessment – Held: Findings based on evidence and probabilities – No ground for interference under Section 34 [Paras 20–29].

Insurance Claim – Platens – Acceptance of Expert Opinion – Surveyor inspected only two out of six damaged platens and rejected claim without technical tests – Expert opined that fire could damage platens – Tribunal accepted expert opinion and allowed claim – Held: Findings neither perverse nor unsupported by record [Paras 30–31].

Insurance Claim – VFD AC Drive and Pressure Transducer – Tribunal’s Findings – Claims allowed based on evidence – Insurer did not seriously press challenge – Held: No warrant for interference [Paras 32–33].

Public Policy – Patent Illegality – Test Applied – Award tested on parameters laid down in Ssangyong Engineering and PSA SICAL Terminals – Held: Award does not violate fundamental policy of Indian law nor suffer from patent illegality [Paras 7, 29, 34].

Decision: Arbitration Petition dismissed – Arbitral Award dated 20.09.2022 upheld – No interference warranted under Section 34 – Interim Application disposed of – No further costs awarded [Para 35].

Banking Law - SARFAESI Act – Auction Sale – Rights of Auction Purchaser – Petitioner declared highest bidder and deposited entire bid amount including 25% earnest money – Sale could not be confirmed due to DRT order directing status quo and restraining confirmation of sale – Held: Mere participation in auction and deposit of bid amount does not create any vested right in favour of auction purchaser unless sale is confirmed and sale certificate is issued [Paras 9–11, 30–31].

SARFAESI Act – Section 13(8) – Right of Redemption – Borrower’s right to redeem secured asset prior to confirmation of sale – In pre-amendment regime (prior to 2016), borrower entitled to redeem till sale is confirmed – Held: Since sale was never confirmed owing to DRT’s restraint order, borrower validly exercised right of redemption under Section 13(8) by settling dues with the Bank [Paras 15–18, 25, 33–37].

Debt Recovery Tribunal – Interim Order – Effect – DRT permitted bank to proceed with auction but restrained confirmation of sale – Held: Such restraint preserved borrower’s statutory right of redemption and bank was legally justified in not confirming the sale in favour of auction purchaser [Paras 19, 22, 25].

Bank – Compromise / One Time Settlement – Powers of Secured Creditor – Settlement entered with borrower during pendency of SARFAESI proceedings and accepted by Tribunal – Held: In absence of any statutory bar or restraint order prohibiting settlement, bank’s decision to accept compromise cannot be termed illegal or arbitrary [Paras 31–32, 34].

Impleadment – Auction Purchaser – Necessity of Party – Auction purchaser sought impleadment in SARFAESI proceedings – DRT rejected application – Held: Auction purchaser not a necessary party where sale itself was not confirmed and borrower’s redemption right subsisted [Paras 15, 24–25].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Article 227 – Scope – High Court cannot act as a fact-finding authority to adjudicate disputed questions such as receipt of cheques or postal communications – Limited to examining legality and propriety of orders of Tribunal [Paras 40–41].

Refund – Auction Purchaser – Equity – Though auction purchaser had no enforceable right to confirmation of sale, bank admittedly retained earnest money – Held: Bank directed to refund Rs.17.50 lakhs with interest at 5% per annum, failing which enhanced interest at 8% per annum payable [Paras 38, 42–43].

Decision: Revisional application partly allowed – Impugned order of DRAT not interfered with insofar as refusal to confirm sale – UCO Bank directed to refund earnest money of Rs.17.50 lakhs with interest – Borrower directed to pay costs of Rs.50,000/- to State Legal Services Authority – No order as to costs.

Civil Procedure – Impleadment – Necessary Party – Order I Rule 10(2) CPC – Suit filed for injunction with twofold prayer: (1) restraining defendants from interfering with plaintiff’s possession, and (2) restraining official defendants from altering Field Measurement Book (FMB) entries contrary to plaintiff’s sale deed – Revision Petitioner, who purchased property from 1st defendant before first hearing, sought to implead himself – Trial Court dismissed application, treating petitioner as pendente lite purchaser not necessary for injunction suit – Held: While plaintiff is dominus litis in an injunction suit, second prayer affects petitioner’s rights directly – Petitioner’s presence necessary to avoid prejudice and multiplicity of litigation [Paras 4, 9].

Injunction Suits – Dominus Litis Principle – Limitations – Though plaintiff controls who to sue in a bare injunction suit, when suit reliefs (e.g., FMB directions) affect third-party purchasers, such purchasers may be impleaded to protect their interests and ensure complete adjudication – Revision allowed [Paras 6, 9]

Constitution of India – Article 227 – Scope of Interference – High Court held that Trial Court failed to appreciate the implications of second relief sought and erred in dismissing impleadment plea – To ensure justice and avoid future litigation, High Court set aside Trial Court’s order and allowed impleadment [Paras 8–10].

Decision: Revision Petition allowed – Trial Court’s order rejecting impleadment set aside – Interlocutory Application under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC allowed – Petitioner to be impleaded as 7th defendant – No costs.

Criminal Law – Magistrate’s Direction to Register FIR – Revision – The revisionists challenged the order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras directing the police to register an FIR under Section 156(3) CrPC – High Court held that such an order is interlocutory in nature and not open to revision at the instance of a person against whom neither cognizance has been taken nor process issued – Held: Revision not maintainable in light of Full Bench ruling in Father Thomas vs. State of U.P. [Paras 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10].

Criminal Procedure – Interlocutory Orders – Section 156(3) CrPC – Order passed by Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC directing police to investigate is an interlocutory order – Bar under Section 397(2) CrPC applies – No revision lies against such order – Held: Present revision dismissed as not maintainable [Paras 5, 8, 9, 10, 11].

Binding Precedent – Full Bench Decision – Father Thomas Case – Full Bench held that a direction under Section 156(3) CrPC is not revisable by proposed accused and is interlocutory – Any view contrary to this, including that in Ajay Malviya vs. State of U.P., not good law – Held: Court bound by Full Bench ruling – Present revision not entertainable [Paras 7, 8, 9].

Decision: Criminal revision dismissed – Order under Section 156(3) CrPC directing registration of FIR is interlocutory and not revisable at the instance of proposed accused – No merits found in revision petition [Paras 10, 11].

Family Law – 125 CrPC - Maintenance – Assessment of Income – Reliance on ITR – Petitioner-husband claimed low income but his ITR for AY 2018-19 showed annual income of Rs. 5,18,268/- (approx. Rs. 43,189/- pm) – Petitioner claimed subsequent ITRs showed reduced income – Held: Family Court rightly relied on the ITR of AY 2018-19 as the most reliable indicator, rejecting subsequent lower ITRs and undated salary certificates as unreliable attempts to conceal income – [Paras 8, 9, 11].

Family Law – Maintenance – Quantum and Apportionment – Annurita Vohra Formula – Family Court awarded Rs. 25,000/- pm to wife out of husband's assessed income of Rs. 43,189/- pm – Held: Awarding more than half of the husband's income is excessive – Applying the principle of apportionment (2 shares for husband, 1 for wife), the wife is entitled to roughly 1/3rd of net income – Considering inflation and need for dignified living, maintenance modified to Rs. 17,000/- per month – [Paras 12, 13].

Criminal Procedure – Section 125 vs. Interim Order – Petitioner argued final maintenance cannot exceed interim maintenance without proof of changed circumstances under Section 127 Cr.P.C. – Held: Final determination under Section 125 is independent of the interim order and is based on evidence led during trial – It is not a modification under Section 127 Cr.P.C. – Family Court can enhance or reduce amount in final judgment based on evidence – [Para 10].

Decision: Petition disposed of. Impugned judgment modified; maintenance reduced from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 17,000/- per month.

Election Law – Writ of Quo Warranto - Reservation and Caste Certificate – Requirement for Reserved Posts – Appellant contested and won election for Zila Panchayat Member from a seat reserved for OBC category – Appellant submitted an affidavit claiming OBC status ("Pal Baghele") but admittedly did not possess a caste certificate – Held: A candidate contesting for a reserved post must possess a valid caste certificate as proof of belonging to that category – Self-declaration via affidavit is insufficient to contest an election for a reserved seat – The requirement is mandatory to ensure the benefit of reservation reaches the intended beneficiaries – [Paras 11, 14].

Constitutional Law – Writ of Quo Warranto – Maintainability after Election Petition Dismissal – Respondent No. 6 sought a writ of quo warranto challenging appellant's authority to hold office after his wife's election petition was dismissed on technical grounds – Appellant argued that the dismissal of the election petition barred the writ – Held: Dismissal of an election petition does not debar an independent voter/citizen from seeking a writ of quo warranto if the holder of the office lacks the fundamental eligibility (caste certificate) – No right can be conferred on an individual which they cannot possess under law – The writ is maintainable to prevent a usurper from holding public office – [Paras 8, 12, 13].

Constitution of India – Article 226 – Interference in Election Matters – Held: While Article 329(b) bars interference during the election process, the High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 after the election process is over if there is a violation of constitutional provisions or statutory eligibility criteria – Allowing a person ineligible for a reserved seat to continue in office would be a fraud on the Constitution – [Paras 13, 14].

Decision: Appeal dismissed - The order declaring the appellant ineligible to hold the post of Member, Zila Panchayat is upheld - [Para 15].

Service Law – Termination/Cancellation of Absorption – Principles of Natural Justice – University cancelled absorption of petitioners citing illegality in initial appointment by former In-charge VC, relying on an Enquiry Committee report – No notice or hearing given; report not supplied – Held: Even if appointments are alleged to be illegal, if facts (like existence of posts, advertisement) are disputed, adherence to natural justice is mandatory – Unilateral cancellation without hearing violates audi alteram partem – [Paras 34, 35, 37].

Administrative Law – Non-Speaking Order – Requirement of Reasons – Impugned order merely referred to Enquiry Report and Governor's letters without discussing individual cases or reasons – Held: Reasons are the heartbeat of an order – A non-speaking order having civil consequences (loss of job) is void – [Paras 38, 41, 42].

Service Law – Illegal vs. Irregular Appointments – Right to Hearing – University argued "illegal ab initio" appointments need no hearing – Held: Exceptions to natural justice are rare – Where petitioners worked for years and were absorbed by competent authority, they cannot be condemned unheard – "Useless formality" theory rejected as facts were not incontrovertible – [Paras 35, 36].

Decision: Writ petitions allowed. Impugned order quashed. Petitioners to be reinstated with consequential benefits. Liberty granted to University to proceed afresh in accordance with law.

Criminal Law – Quashing - Municipal Law – Octroi Evasion – Vicarious Liability – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Pune Municipal Corporation filed complaint alleging non-payment of octroi on import of gold bullions/coins by Bank – Summons issued against Bank and its senior officers including CEO, Deputy MD, Legal Officer and Branch Manager – Petitioners sought quashing on ground of absence of specific role attributed to individual officers – Held: Mere designation or official position insufficient to attract vicarious liability [Paras 1–6, 17].

Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 – Sections 398 and 401 – Ingredients of Offence – Section 398 requires import of goods liable to octroi, non-payment of octroi and intention to defraud Corporation – Section 401 creates vicarious liability only when specific role of director or officer is pleaded – In absence of averments demonstrating intention to defraud and active role of officers, prosecution against them unsustainable [Paras 9–11, 17].

Criminal Liability of Company Officials – Requirement of Specific Averments – Complaint contained only general and omnibus allegations against Petitioner Nos.2 to 5 – No pleading showing how or in what manner they were in charge of and responsible for conduct of business at relevant time – Held: Criminal prosecution against company officials cannot continue without specific and unambiguous allegations [Paras 6, 11, 17].

Interpretation of Vicarious Liability – Parity with Negotiable Instruments Act – Court held that principles governing vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are pari materia with Section 401 of the BPMC Act – Reliance placed on Supreme Court precedents holding that vicarious liability must be pleaded and proved and cannot be inferred merely from designation [Paras 12–16].

Criminal Process – Abuse of Process – Continuation of proceedings against officers without foundational pleadings amounts to abuse of process of law – Summons issued by JMFC based on conjectures and without prima facie material against officers – Liable to be quashed under writ jurisdiction [Paras 6, 17–19].

Partial Quashing – Distinction Between Company and Officers – Complaint and proceedings quashed only qua Petitioner Nos.2 to 5 – Proceedings against Petitioner No.1-Bank permitted to continue – All contentions left open before Trial Court insofar as Bank is concerned [Paras 19–21].

Decision: Criminal Writ Petition partly allowed – Complaint in Criminal Case No. 236 of 2009 and summons dated 20.11.2009 quashed and set aside against Petitioner Nos.2 to 5 – Complaint against Petitioner No.1-Bank to proceed – Rule made partially absolute [Paras 19–21].