Service Law — Navy Act, 1957 — Section 163 — Order for Retrial — Competent Authority — Petitioner contended that order for retrial dated 13.02.2024 was passed by a Captain and not by the Chief of Naval Staff (CNS) as mandated by Section 163 — Held: From the original review file produced by the respondents it was evident that the CNS personally reviewed and disposed of the review petition directing retrial; the memo dated 13.02.2024 was merely a communication of the CNS's order by a subordinate Captain — No violation of Section 163 proved [Paras 35, 45].

Service Law — Navy Act, 1957 — Retrial — Addition of Fresh Charges — After communication of retrial order and before commencement of retrial, petitioner allegedly committed four further naval offences under Section 3(13) of the Act — Respondents clubbed these additional charges with the original two charges in retrial proceeding — Held: Respondents justified in trying subsequent offences together with original charges in retrial; no miscarriage of justice warranting judicial interference [Paras 36, 42].

Service Law — Principles of Natural Justice — Summary Trial — Charges Read Out at Each Stage of Investigation — Regulations 22–27 prescribe procedure for investigation including reading of charges and opportunity to the accused — From original files it was evident that charges were read out to the petitioner at all stages of investigation prior to commencement of proceeding — Held: Principles of natural justice and fair play duly observed; allegation of non-supply of documents not substantiated [Paras 37, 43].

Service Law — Double Jeopardy — Article 20(2) — Petitioner alleged that his original rank was not restored before retrial, resulting in double jeopardy — Held: From the finding of the Commanding Officer it was clear that the punishment genform was cancelled and original rank restored before retrial; in absence of contrary material, factual finding of the competent authority cannot be disbelieved in judicial review — Contention of double jeopardy has no basis [Paras 38–40].

Service Law — Doctrine of Bias — Retrial Conducted by Different Officer — Petitioner alleged retrial was conducted by the same Executive Officer who conducted first round proceedings — Held: From original file it was evident that retrial was conducted by P. Sasi Kumar, Commodore, Commanding Officer, and not by Joydeep Chakraborty who conducted the first round — Allegation of bias factually incorrect [Para 41].

Service Law — Dismissal — Approval of CNS — Regulation 15 — Punishment of dismissal from naval service requires approval of the CNS — Held: From original file it was evident that CNS approved the punishment on 28.11.2024; no procedural irregularity in imposition of punishment — Judicial review not warranted [Paras 22, 46].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed — No order as to costs [Para 47].

Quashing of FIR – Criminal Conspiracy – Abuse of Process – Special Public Prosecutor – Petitioners, including advocates and police officers, sought quashing of CR No. 742 of 2024 and CR No. 46 of 2024 registered on complaints of the second respondent alleging forgery of appointment letters of Special Public Prosecutor and a conspiracy to implicate him in false criminal cases – Court found allegations vague, speculative, belated by over three years, and unsupported by material evidence – Police had filed 'C' Summary report in CR No. 46 of 2024 indicating no prima facie case – Held: Registration of FIRs is an abuse of the process of law; all criminal proceedings quashed [Paras 2–4, 22–25].

Appointment of Special Public Prosecutor – Presumption of Regularity – Validity – Second respondent alleged that Shekhar Jagtap appeared in multiple proceedings on the basis of a forged and non-existent appointment letter as Special Public Prosecutor – Court found appointment preceded by official recommendations dated 21st July 2021, formal appointment letter dated 29th July 2021, and subsequent notifications and government resolutions – Held: Maxim omnia praesumuntur rite esse acta applies; official acts are presumed to have been regularly performed; communication of Desk Officer regarding non-traceability of one appointment letter cannot outweigh a series of official communications affirming the appointment – Presumption under Section 114, Illustration (e) of the Evidence Act raised in favour of validity [Paras 9–12].

Misconduct of Advocate – Jurisdiction of Bar Council – Police Investigation Not Permissible – Alleged misconduct of an advocate in the conduct of court proceedings falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Bar Council and cannot be the subject matter of police investigation at the instance of a private complainant – Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa had already conducted a preliminary inquiry (No. 167 of 2023) on the same allegations and dismissed the complaint on 3rd September 2023 – Held: Any inquiry into such misconduct would impinge upon the powers of the Bar Council; police investigation into these allegations is impermissible in law [Paras 13–14].

Quashing of FIR – Delay in Lodging Complaint – Malafide – Allegations in both FIRs related to events that occurred in the presence of the second respondent between 2021 and 2022, yet complaints were lodged after an inordinate and unexplained delay of about three years – Court observed that second respondent is a habitual litigant with a long history of enmity against Shyamsundar Agarwal and others, and had previously withdrawn similar proceedings – Held: Unexplained delay is a crucial factor warranting quashing; criminal proceedings manifestly instituted with malafide intent and for wrecking vengeance on the accused are liable to be quashed [Paras 15–16, 19, 24–25].

Criminal Conspiracy – Essential Ingredients – Scope – Court reiterated principles governing the law of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-A IPC: there must be an agreement between two or more persons to do an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means; mere intention without agreement is insufficient; conspiracy is rarely provable by direct evidence and must be inferred from circumstances; each conspirator need not know the identity of all others; and cogent and convincing evidence is required against each accused [Para 18].

Decision: All Writ Petitions (Nos. 3839/2024, 722/2024, 737/2024, 750/2024, 4923/2024 and Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 19375/2024) and Criminal Application No. 1140/2024 allowed – CR No. 742 of 2024 and CR No. 46 of 2024 and all criminal proceedings arising therefrom quashed – All pending applications disposed of [Para 25].

Commercial Law – Summary Judgment – Order XIIIA CPC – Rejection by Commercial Court – Commercial Court rejected petitioner's application for summary judgment under Order XIIIA CPC without recording reasons as to why oral evidence was necessary for deciding the formulated points – Held: Commercial Court failed to exercise jurisdiction properly; impugned order set aside and application for summary judgment restored for fresh disposal with reasoned order [Paras 1-2, 44-55, 64, 68].

Summary Judgment – Procedure – Order XIIIA Rules 3, 4, 5 and 6 CPC – Court may give summary judgment if defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending the claim and there is no other compelling reason to record oral evidence – Application must disclose all material facts, identify points of law, and include documentary evidence; defendant's reply must identify further evidence to be produced at trial and reasons why summary judgment should not be granted – Order XIIIA only dispenses with oral evidence, not documentary evidence [Paras 19-36, 43-44, 49-50].

Conditional Order – Order XIIIA Rule 6(b) read with Rule 7 CPC – Duty to Assign Reasons – Where a party in possession of immovable property seeks protection under a lease deed, Commercial Court must assign reasons as to why a conditional order under Order XIIIA Rule 6(b) read with Rule 7 should not be passed – Duty to assign reasons arises even where Court is not inclined to pass a conditional order, by virtue of expression "makes any of the orders" in Rule 6(2) – Failure to do so frustrates the object of Order XIIIA [Paras 35, 51-54].

Lease – Forfeiture for Non-Payment of Rent – Force Majeure – Combined Notice – Covid-19 – Questions raised: (i) whether default in payment of rent during Covid-19 lockdown constitutes "material breach" under the lease deed; (ii) whether a combined notice calling upon lessee to remedy breach within time with simultaneous intimation of termination on failure is valid; (iii) whether Covid-19 pandemic triggers the Force Majeure clause in the lease deed – Held: All three issues are capable of determination on documentary evidence and construction of lease deed without recording oral evidence; left open for Commercial Court to decide [Paras 39-48].

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 114 – Relief Against Forfeiture – Expression "at the hearing" – Legal issue left open whether "at the hearing" in Section 114 would include "at the hearing of the application for summary judgment" in a commercial dispute – Issue not raised before Commercial Court, hence not decided; opposite party not disentitled to claim relief at appropriate stage [Paras 56-62].

Decision: Civil revision allowed – Impugned order rejecting summary judgment application set aside – Application under Order XIIIA CPC restored to Commercial Court for fresh disposal by reasoned order within twelve working weeks from receipt of server copy – Parties to be afforded opportunity to produce additional documentary evidence subject to Order XIIIA Rule 5 CPC – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law - Regular Bail - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 483 - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 420 406 467 468 471 and 120-B - Petitioner filed first regular bail petition in FIR No 169 - Allegations involve extraction of approximately Rs 28.5 lakhs from the complainant by promising to influence High Court Judges to secure service benefits for the complainant s father - Petitioner claimed he was merely a driver for the co-accused Mithun Kaushik and was falsely implicated due to association - Petitioner argued he was in custody for nearly one year and that the case was triable by a Magistrate - State resisted bail highlighting the petitioner s active role in collecting money on multiple occasions and extending false assurances to the complainant regarding the influence of the principal accused - Court found that the allegations prima facie disclose a systematic design to exploit litigants - Held - Considering the gravity of the offences and the petitioner s specific role in the execution of the scheme the Court is not inclined to grant bail - Petition dismissed - [Paras 1-18].

Criminal Law - Administration of Justice - Public Faith - Influence Peddling - Accused persons portrayed influence over judicial functioning for personal monetary gain - Court observed that such acts strike at the foundation of public faith in justice delivery - Held - Any attempt to exploit gullible litigants by falsely claiming access to Judges has the tendency to erode the sanctity and integrity of the judicial system and cannot be viewed lightly - [Paras 14-15].

Criminal Law - Bail Considerations - Gravity of Offence - Participation of Petitioner - Petitioner argued for bail based on the peripheral nature of his role as a driver - Court noted specific allegations of active participation in money collection and providing repeated assurances to the victim - Held - The magnitude of the extraction and the systematic design of the act reflect more than an isolated or innocuous incident - Bail denied - [Paras 16-17].

Decision: Petition dismissed – No merit found in the application for regular bail.

Matrimonial Law - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2006 - Section 3 - Quashing of Proceedings - Specific Allegations - Petitioner mother-in-law and father-in-law allegedly demanded articles during Pongal - Sisters-in-law allegedly taunted respondent and encouraged husband's unruly behavior and liquor consumption - Held - While dealing with an application to quash the Court must consider if averments disclose a cause against petitioners - Specific allegations of acts leading to emotional or physical distress attract the provisions of the Act - Revision dismissed - [Paras 6-7]

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2006 - Personal Appearance - Dispensation of Appearance - Senior citizen petitioners and sisters-in-law staying separately - Form VII of DV Rules - Held - Nature of proceedings permits appearance through an Advocate - Appearance of petitioners dispensed with for all non-essential hearings - Petitioners directed to appear only when specifically called upon by the Trial Judge or when their appearance is indispensable - [Paras 8-9]

Decision: Revision dismissed – Personal appearance of petitioners dispensed with for non-essential hearings subject to representation by counsel and appearance when specifically required by the Trial Court.

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Section 143A – Interim Compensation – Second Revision – Inherent Powers – Gross Injustice – Petition Dismissed with Costs – Respondent advanced a friendly loan of Rs.5,00,000/- to Petitioner and co-accused in several instalments – Cheque issued by Petitioner in discharge of liability was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds – Trial court directed Petitioner and co-accused to pay 20% of cheque amount as interim compensation under Section 143A – Revisional court upheld interim compensation but limited liability to the Petitioner alone as sole signatory of the cheque, following Supreme Court precedent – Petitioner challenged this order before the High Court – Held: Petition dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited with DHCLSC within one week [Paras 1, 4-5, 9].

Second Revision – Bar under Section 397(3) CrPC / Section 438(3) BNSS – Inherent Powers – Invocation Only in Cases of Gross Injustice – Section 397(3) CrPC [now Section 438(3) BNSS] prohibits institution of a second revision petition – What is explicitly prohibited by law cannot be given backdoor entry through invocation of inherent powers – However, where a case of gross injustice is established, the High Court is justified in invoking inherent jurisdiction in the nature of second revision – The threshold question is therefore whether gross injustice is made out on the facts [Paras 6-7].

Gross Injustice – Not Established – Petitioner's Admitted Defence – The sole argument advanced to demonstrate gross injustice was that the Petitioner received only Rs.50,000/- out of the total loan amount and therefore could not be held liable for the entire cheque amount – Held: Argument not convincing – If the Petitioner received only Rs.50,000/-, there was no reason for him to draw a cheque of Rs.5,00,000/- – The submission that he merely signed the cheque makes no difference in view of the admitted defence – This is not a case of gross injustice warranting exercise of inherent powers to circumvent the statutory bar [Para 8].

Decision: Petition dismissed as frivolous – Impugned order upheld – Petitioner directed to deposit costs of Rs.10,000/- with DHCLSC within one week – Copy of order to be sent to trial court for compliance.

Criminal Law – Bail – UAPA – Terrorist Conspiracy – Absence of Direct Recovery – Appellant nominated as accused on the basis of interrogation of co-accused Sehajpreet Singh @ Nirbair Singh – No independent recovery attributed to appellant – Appellant has extensive criminal antecedents spanning eight FIRs including offences under IPC, Arms Act, UAPA and NDPS Act – Held: Despite massive criminal history, evidence connecting appellant to the offence is confined to co-accused's disclosure; further pre-trial incarceration would cause grave injustice; bail granted [Paras 7-8, 14-16].

UAPA – Bail – Standard of Proof – Prima Facie Test – Twin-Prong Test – Section 43D(5) UAPA – Under UAPA, bail is the exception and jail is the rule; court must examine whether accusations prima facie make out an offence under Chapter IV or VI of UAPA from case diary and final report; if prima facie test not satisfied, court proceeds to apply tripod test of flight risk, witness tampering and evidence tampering – Constitutional courts retain power to grant bail where continued incarceration violates Article 21 despite statutory restrictions [Paras 9-13].

Bail – Conditions – Stringent Safeguards – National Security Cases – Appellant directed to abide by conditions laid down by Supreme Court in Gulfisha Fatima v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) including personal bond of Rs. 1 lakh, surrender of firearms and arms licence within fifteen days of release, no anti-India activity, restriction on speech beyond Article 19 limits, no tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, regular appearance before trial court and no unnecessary adjournments – Foundational condition imposed that bail liable to be revoked on commission of any non-bailable offence carrying imprisonment of more than three years [Paras 17-27].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned order of Additional Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar dated 14.01.2026 set aside – Appellant directed to be released on bail on furnishing bonds of Rs. 1 lakh to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court subject to stringent conditions including those prescribed in Gulfisha Fatima (supra) – Observations tentative and not to be treated as expression of opinion on merits – Bail order limited to captioned FIR only.

Land Acquisition – Compensation – Section 23(1A) – Statutory Benefit – 12% Per Annum Escalation – Petitioners' land acquired for construction of Grain Market vide notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act dated 10.02.1984 – Market value finally determined by Supreme Court at Rs. 7,25,000/- per acre in Civil Appeal Nos. 3279-3287 of 2013, applying 12% per annum appreciation for determination of market value component – Respondents raised objection in execution that since 12% escalation was already applied, petitioners were not entitled to additional statutory benefit under Section 23(1A) – Executing Court accepted objection and declined Section 23(1A) benefit – Held: 12% per annum appreciation was applied merely for final determination of the market value component and cannot be construed so as to deprive landowners of their separate statutory entitlement under Section 23(1A) – Impugned order set aside [Paras 3–7].

Scheme of Land Acquisition Act – Components of Compensation – The term "compensation" under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 comprises distinct components: (i) market value under Section 23(1); (ii) statutory additional amount under Section 23(1A); (iii) solatium under Section 23(2); and (iv) statutory interest under Sections 28 and 34 – These are independent statutory entitlements – Any escalation or increase applied by a court at the stage of determination of market value cannot be adjusted against or set off from the statutory benefit provided under Section 23(1A) – Executing Court failed to take into account this fundamental distinction [Para 7].

Execution – Objections by Judgment Debtors – Objections raised by respondents/judgment debtors that 12% escalation granted by Supreme Court disentitles petitioners from Section 23(1A) benefit are devoid of merit and dismissed – Matter remitted to Executing Court for compliance of Supreme Court decision dated 11.04.2013 specifically with regard to release of statutory benefits under Section 23(1A) in favour of petitioners-landowners [Paras 7–9].

Decision: Civil Revision allowed – Impugned order dated 01.09.2025 passed by Additional District Judge, Ferozepur set aside – Objections of respondents/judgment debtors dismissed – Matter remitted to Executing Court for compliance of Supreme Court decision with regard to Section 23(1A) benefits – Parties directed to appear before Executing Court on 29.05.2026 [Paras 8–11].

Public Procurement – Tender Disqualification – Blacklisting Disclosure – Article 226 of the Constitution of India – Writ Dismissed – Petitioner was disqualified from a Request for Empanelment (RFE) floated by NICSI for deployment of office support and project management resources on the ground that it had furnished an incorrect and incomplete declaration regarding its blacklisting status – Petitioner had been blacklisted by APEDA vide order dated 09.12.2025, received on 22.12.2025, which was stayed by this Court on 29.12.2025 – Bid was submitted on 30.12.2025 – Declaration-cum-undertaking signed on 22.12.2025 stated that the firm "has not been blacklisted or not under active blacklisting period/active debarred list" – Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC) found the declaration non-compliant – Representation rejected vide order dated 25.03.2026 – Held: Writ petition dismissed, impugned order upheld [Paras 1-2, 31-32].

Ambiguous Declaration – Non-Compliance with Tender Conditions – Clause 8.1(c) of RFE – The declaration submitted by the Petitioner did not constitute a clear and unequivocal assertion of compliance with either stipulated alternative, namely "not blacklisted" or "not under any active blacklisting/debarment" – The formulation used was capable of multiple interpretations and diluted the clarity and certainty required in an eligibility declaration – In matters of public procurement, strict adherence to the prescribed format of declarations assumes critical importance, particularly where the condition goes to the root of eligibility – Any ambiguity in a material declaration cannot be treated as a mere technical irregularity, especially where the tender conditions provide for summary rejection – Respondent was justified in treating the declaration as non-compliant [Paras 16-17, 21, 23].

Interim Stay of Blacklisting Order – Disclosure Obligation Not Extinguished – Duty of Candour in Public Procurement – The stay granted by this Court on 29.12.2025 may at best have eclipsed the operative effect of the blacklisting order during the pendency of proceedings, but did not obliterate the underlying factum that an order of blacklisting had been passed on 09.12.2025 – The Petitioner was at liberty to disclose the factum of blacklisting together with the interim order and leave it to the tendering authority to assess its effect – No such disclosure was made at the time of submission of bid – Tender conditions requiring disclosure are founded on the principle of utmost candour expected from bidders – A bidder cannot unilaterally assume that grant of interim protection dispenses with the obligation of disclosure – Held: Failure to make complete and candid disclosure justifies disqualification [Paras 18-20].

Judicial Review – Scope in Tender Matters – Limited to Decision-Making Process – Scope of judicial review in matters relating to tenders and contractual decisions is limited to examining the decision-making process and not the correctness of the decision itself – Court does not sit in appeal over decisions of tendering authorities and interference is warranted only where the process is arbitrary, mala fide or in violation of tender terms – Where two views are possible in matters of contractual evaluation, the Court would not substitute its own view for that of the tendering authority – No arbitrariness or perversity found in the conclusion of the TEC – Held: No ground for interference under Article 226 [Paras 14, 22-25, 27].

Natural Justice – Non-Speaking Order – Petitioner afforded adequate opportunity to submit a representation pursuant to order dated 10.03.2026, which was duly considered by the TEC – In matters of technical evaluation in tender processes, the decision of the evaluation committee is not required to be a detailed adjudicatory or quasi-judicial order – No further hearing was required at the stage of technical evaluation – Impugned order not liable to be set aside on grounds of violation of natural justice or being non-speaking [Paras 28-29].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed along with pending application – Impugned order dated 25.03.2026 upheld – Technical disqualification of Petitioner from NICSI empanelment process affirmed.