Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34 and Section 37 – Scope of Interference – Limited Judicial Review – Cross Appeals – Arbitral Award partly set aside by Single Judge – Held: Courts do not sit in appeal over arbitral awards and interference is permissible only on grounds of patent illegality or conflict with public policy – Interpretation of contract lies within the domain of the arbitrator if the view taken is plausible – Appellate jurisdiction under Section 37 is co-extensive with and no wider than Section 34 [Paras 59–66].

Contract Interpretation – Global Rights Agreement – Obligation to Provide International Cricket – Minimum 27 Days per Cricket Season – 135 Days over Five-Year Term – Effect of BCCI Agreement – Appellant contended obligation required proportionate reduction as agreement commenced mid-season – Arbitrator held Global Rights Agreement to be independent of the BCCI Agreement and declined to import definition of “Cricket Season” – Held: Arbitrator’s view that 135 days of international cricket were assured is a reasonable and possible interpretation and does not amount to rewriting the contract [Paras 67–72].

Cricketing Events – Inclusion of India–Australia–New Zealand Triangular Series – Annexure-A only a Proposed Schedule – Arbitrator excluded 10 days of triangular series while simultaneously holding schedule non-binding – Single Judge held exclusion patently illegal – Held: Findings of arbitrator were contradictory and introduced new contractual conditions – Inclusion of triangular series justified – Shortfall reduced from 17 days to 7 days [Paras 74–77].

Arbitral Award – Partial Setting Aside – Severability – Quantification of Surviving Claim – Single Judge set aside award only to the extent of 10 days – Remaining 7 days held severable and enforceable – Pro-rata reduction mechanically calculable from the award itself – Held: Partial setting aside permissible where valid and invalid portions are clearly separable [Paras 100–104].

Quantification of Consideration – International Matches – Pro-rata Reduction – Appellant argued consideration covered both domestic and international cricket – Clause 9.4.2 provided reduction of entire consideration if fewer international matches were played – Held: Entire consideration contractually attributable to international matches – Arbitrator’s valuation upheld [Paras 78–79].

Interest – Award of 18% per annum – Appellant challenged rate as excessive and unsupported by reasons – Appellant itself claimed interest at same rate – No specific challenge raised under Section 34 – Held: No violation of public policy – Doctrine of approbation and reprobation applies – Award of interest upheld [Paras 79–80].

Counter Claim No. 1 – Delayed Payment – Claim for Interest/Damages – Amount deposited in Court prior to due date pursuant to judicial orders – Bank guarantees invoked subsequently – Arbitrator found no loss suffered by appellant – Held: Rejection based on factual appreciation and not perverse – No interference warranted [Paras 82–85].

Counter Claim No. 2 – Domestic Broadcast of Highlights – Delay – Limitation – Abandonment – Appellant failed to pursue arbitration despite interim relief – Counter claim raised belatedly – Held: Claim barred by limitation and rightly rejected [Paras 86–88].

Counter Claim No. 3 – Internet Streaming Rights – Constructive Res Judicata – Appellant aware of alleged breach during earlier arbitration but failed to raise claim – Earlier proceedings upheld respondent’s multimedia rights – Held: Claim barred by constructive res judicata and estoppel [Paras 89–91].

Decision: Cross appeals dismissed – Impugned order of the learned Single Judge upheld – Arbitral award sustained to the extent of 7 days’ shortfall on a pro-rata basis – No order as to costs [Paras 105–107].

Bail – Murder and allied offences – Sections 191, 103, 329 BNS – Accused sought bail under Section 483 BNSS – Prosecution alleged brutal group assault resulting in death – Offences punishable with death or life imprisonment – Held: Gravity of offence alone not decisive for denial of bail when similarly placed co-accused have been enlarged on bail [Paras 3–6].

Bail – Principle of Parity – Co-accused already granted bail – Accused Nos.1 to 3 granted bail by High Court despite specific overt acts involving deadly weapons – Petitioners accused of assault with wooden repiece and crowbar – Held: Overt acts attributed to petitioners are similar in nature to those attributed to co-accused already on bail – Petitioners entitled to bail on ground of parity [Paras 3, 6].

Bail – Considerations – Custody period – Number of witnesses – Petitioners in judicial custody since 30.11.2024 – Charge sheet cites 79 witnesses – Trial likely to take considerable time – No criminal antecedents – Petitioners undertook not to tamper with evidence – Held: Continued incarceration not warranted – Bail granted with stringent conditions [Paras 6–7].

Criminal Procedure – Bail Conditions – Safeguards – Petitioners directed to execute personal bonds and sureties – Attendance before trial court mandated – Liberty reserved to prosecution to seek cancellation of bail in case of misuse – Held: Conditions sufficient to balance liberty of accused and interest of prosecution [Para 7].

Decision: Criminal Petition allowed – Petitioners/Accused Nos.5, 7 and 11 granted bail in S.C. No.105/2025 arising out of Crime No.415/2024 of Bharamasagar Police Station, subject to conditions imposed by the Court.

Criminal Law – Murder – Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Conviction Confirmed – Prosecution established motive, preparation, recovery of the dead body, and medical/scientific evidence forming a complete chain of circumstantial evidence against the accused for the murder of a 3.5-year-old child – The accused harbored hatred towards the child's mother and grandmother for scolding him over his misconduct and stealing habits – This motive was consistently proved by multiple prosecution witnesses (PW1, PW2, PW4, PW5, PW11, PW15) – The Court found the motive for committing murder duly proved by the prosecution [Paras 56-66, 68].

Criminal Law – Preparation to Commit Murder – Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Proved – Accused's preparation for the murder was established by evidence of purchasing Clonazepam 0.5 mg tablets from a medical shop (PW9) based on a prescription – The seizure of these tablets (MO3) from the accused's suitcase, as documented in the mahazar (Ex.P22), was supported by panch witnesses (PW7, PW8) and the medical shop owner (PW9) – The Court concluded that the prosecution successfully proved the accused's preparation for the offence [Paras 69-71].

Criminal Law – Discovery of Fact – Section 27, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Applicable – The dead body of the child was recovered at the instance of the accused from an isolated stream, a fact disclosed in his voluntary statement (Ex.P46(a)) – This recovery was corroborated by panch witness (PW3) and the Investigating Officer (PW21) – The location of recovery was an isolated area, surrounded by trees, not visible from the Mutt, and not an open public space as contended by the defense – The Court held that the conditions for applicability of Section 27 of the Evidence Act were fulfilled, and the recovery evidence was trustworthy [Paras 72-81, 84-85, 91].

Criminal Law – Medical and Scientific Evidence – Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Cause of Death Established – Medical Officer (PW14) conducted the post-mortem and concluded death was due to Clonazepam poisoning and asphyxia from drowning, based on chemical analysis report (Ex.P38) – Scientific Officer (PW18, FSL) confirmed Clonazepam in the deceased child's body (organs) and in the seized sambar – Deputy Director (PW19, FSL) found diatoms in the child's organs, indicating drowning while unconscious – The Court found the medical and scientific evidence consistent and conclusive, establishing the homicidal nature of death [Paras 25, 29-30, 45-48, 52-54, 75-78, 86-89].

Criminal Law – Kidnapping – Section 364, Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Conviction Not Confirmed – The Trial Court did not convict the accused for kidnapping due to insufficient material evidence in this regard – The High Court upheld this finding, stating there was no ground to interfere [Para 94].

Criminal Law – Sentence – Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Modification of Sentence – The Trial Court imposed a sentence of life imprisonment until natural death – The High Court, relying on Apex Court precedents, held that Sessions Courts are not competent to impose life imprisonment without remission or until natural death, as this power is reserved for Constitutional Courts (Supreme Court and High Courts) – The sentence was modified from life imprisonment until natural death to simple life imprisonment [Paras 96-98].

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – Conviction under Section 302 IPC confirmed – Sentence modified from life imprisonment until natural death to life imprisonment – Conviction under Section 364 IPC not confirmed [Paras 94, 99].

Civil Law – Rejection of Plaint – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Limitation – Suit for partition and injunction based on inheritance – Defendant sought rejection of amended plaint alleging challenge to Will barred by limitation – Plaintiff pleaded lack of knowledge of alleged Will of 2008 until much later – Held: When plaintiff asserts knowledge of essential facts at a later stage, plea of limitation becomes a mixed question of law and fact and cannot be decided at threshold – Rejection of plaint is a drastic power to be exercised sparingly – Application dismissed [Paras 7, 12–14, 18–19].

Pleadings – Amended Plaint – Alleged contradiction between original and amended pleadings – Defendant contended inconsistent stands on date of knowledge of Will – Held: Entire plaint must be read meaningfully as a whole – Alleged inconsistencies and truthfulness of pleadings are matters for trial and evidence and cannot be adjudicated under Order VII Rule 11 CPC [Paras 9–10, 19].

Civil Procedure – Order X Rule 2 CPC – Scope and object – Defendant sought examination of plaintiff to test veracity of pleadings – Held: Order X Rule 2 is an enabling provision to seek clarification of pleadings and cannot substitute cross-examination or be used to test truthfulness – Court cannot assume role of counsel for a party – Provision not meant for roving enquiry before framing of issues [Paras 11, 14–17].

Succession Law – Will – Attesting Witness – Knowledge of contents – Section 63(c), Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Defendant argued that plaintiff, being attesting witness, must be deemed to have knowledge of contents of Will – Held: Law only requires witness to see testator sign the Will – Attesting witness need not know contents of Will – No presumption of knowledge can be drawn solely from attestation [Paras 20].

Partition Suit – Inheritance Dispute – Alleged fraudulent Will – Threat of alienation – Cause of action – Plaintiff pleaded joint ownership upon death of mother and subsequent coercion by defendants – Held: Plaint discloses triable issues and cannot be termed vexatious or illusory at threshold [Paras 2–4, 14, 19, 21].

Decision: Application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Order X Rule 2 CPC dismissed – Suit to proceed – Matter listed before Joint Registrar on 15.04.2026.

Bail – Murder Case – Section 483 BNSS – Prolonged Custody – Grant of Bail – Petitioner sought regular bail in FIR alleging murder by firearm pursuant to criminal conspiracy – Prosecution case based primarily on two eye-witnesses – One eye-witness (PW-6) turned hostile and did not support prosecution even after cross-examination – Other eye-witness (PW-5) identified accused in examination-in-chief but took a diametrically opposite stand in cross-examination stating assailants had covered faces – Identification of accused rendered doubtful at bail stage – Held: Contradictory and unreliable eye-witness testimony tilts balance in favour of petitioner for bail [Paras 17–21].

Evidence – Electronic Evidence – CCTV Footage – Limited Evidentiary Value – CCTV footage relied upon by prosecution was from camera installed at school gate – Status report itself recorded that crime scene was outside camera range – Footage only showed movement of vehicles and not commission of offence – Held: CCTV footage not of substantive assistance to prosecution case at this stage [Para 22].

Evidence – Mobile Phone – FSL Examination – Inconclusive – Mobile phone of PW-6 could not be examined by FSL as it could not be charged or turned on – Returned unexamined – Held: Such electronic evidence of no avail to prosecution [Para 22].

Bail – Long Incarceration – Right to Speedy Trial – Petitioner in custody for over 6 years and 9 months – Only 6 out of 44 prosecution witnesses examined – Trial not likely to conclude in near future despite directions for expeditious trial – Held: Accused cannot be kept in custody for indefinite period pending trial [Paras 21, 23].

Bail – Criminal Antecedents – Not Sole Ground for Rejection – Petitioner involved in other cases but already on bail therein – Pendency of other cases alone not sufficient to deny bail – Jail conduct satisfactory – Presence during trial can be secured by conditions – Bail granted with stringent conditions [Paras 24–27].

Decision: Bail Application allowed – Petitioner admitted to regular bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety – Subject to conditions relating to movement, contact with witnesses, reporting to IO, and non-tampering with evidence – Clarified that observations are limited to bail consideration and shall not affect trial merits [Paras 27–29].

Partition Suit – Interim Injunction – Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC – Co-owner’s right to access joint property – Plaintiff sought restraint against obstruction to his access to a specific room in the suit property – Earlier order of status quo regarding title and possession subsisting since 11.02.2019 – Held: Status quo order continues to operate and plaintiff cannot be forcibly denied access to the portion earlier used by him – Interim protection warranted [Paras 1, 10, 17].

Co-ownership – Possession of specific portion – Occasional user by non-resident co-sharer – Plaintiff residing abroad but visiting India intermittently – Defendants contended plaintiff never in possession – Held: Occasional residence does not extinguish possessory rights of a co-sharer, particularly when suit for partition is pending and status quo order is in force [Paras 5–7, 16–18].

Criminal Proceedings – Forged mutation documents – Relevance in civil injunction proceedings – Defendant relied on Will to deny plaintiff’s rights – Trial Court judgment convicting Defendant No.4 for using forged NOC to mutate property brought on record – Held: Conviction lends credence to plaintiff’s apprehension and disentitles defendants from asserting exclusive rights at interim stage [Paras 8, 18].

Interim Relief – Balance of Convenience – Separate access to portion claimed – Site plan showed independent entry to room claimed by plaintiff – No interference with other occupants – Held: Plaintiff permitted to access room marked in red colour, subject to safeguards to prevent disturbance to other co-owners [Paras 21–22].

Equitable Relief – Safeguards imposed – Plaintiff residing abroad – Possibility of misuse by permitting third parties – Held: Plaintiff restricted from allowing any other person to use the room in his absence – Access limited to plaintiff and his immediate family during his stay in Delhi [Paras 20, 22].

Decision: Application disposed of – Plaintiff permitted to access and use the room marked in red colour on the ground floor of the suit property during his stay in Delhi, subject to conditions – Matter listed before Joint Registrar on 24.02.2026.

Disability Pension – Armed Forces Tribunal – Judicial Review – Medical Board Opinion – Constitutional and Lifestyle Diseases – Union of India challenged a batch of orders of the Armed Forces Tribunal granting disability pension to Army and Navy personnel suffering from diseases such as diabetes mellitus, primary hypertension, dyslipidemia, obesity, leukemia, panic disorder, hearing loss and other ailments – Union of India contended that opinion of Invaliding/Release Medical Board declaring such diseases as constitutional or lifestyle-related is final and binding under Pension Entitlement Rules, 2008 and Navy Pension Regulations – Held: Opinion of Medical Board is not sacrosanct and is amenable to judicial scrutiny – Tribunal has jurisdiction to examine whether Medical Board opinion is reasoned, consistent with service records and statutory rules – Mere branding of disease as “constitutional” or “lifestyle” is not sufficient to deny disability pension [Paras 7, 14–18].

Pension Entitlement Rules, 2008 – Interpretation – No Restrictive Departure from 1982 Rules – Contention that Rules of 2008 introduced a stricter regime and diluted presumptions in favour of servicemen rejected – Held: Rules of 2008 expand and clarify entitlement and do not curtail benefits available under pre-2008 regime – Provisions relating to causal connection, manifestation of disease and aggravation are to be applied in a liberal and purposive manner – Rule 5 stating that mere manifestation of disease during service does not per se establish attributability does not negate presumption where service conditions show contribution or aggravation [Paras 10–11, 18].

Attributability and Aggravation – Presumption in Favour of Military Personnel – Burden of Proof – Where no disease is noted at the time of entry into service, presumption is that the serviceman was in sound physical condition – Subsequent deterioration in health during service raises presumption of service-related aggravation – Onus lies on employer to establish that disease is wholly unrelated to service – Serviceman not required to prove exact causation of diseases like hypertension or diabetes – Benefit of reasonable doubt must go to the serviceman [Paras 15, 17].

Medical Board – Requirement of Reasons – Transparency and Fairness – Medical Board must record clear, cogent and intelligible reasons while opining on attributability or aggravation – A bald or mechanical opinion that disease is constitutional or not connected with service, without reasons, vitiates denial of disability pension – Absence of reasons renders decision arbitrary and unsustainable – Tribunal and High Court entitled to interfere in such cases [Paras 14, 16].

Service Records – Evidentiary Value – Operational and Stressful Postings – Service records showing long tenure, postings in field/high altitude/operational areas and exposure to stress have substantial evidentiary value – Diseases arising or worsening during or after such service conditions can reasonably be linked to military service – Tribunal justified in relying upon service records and surrounding circumstances to hold aggravation [Paras 2–3, 13–14].

Low Medical Category – Superannuation / Premature Retirement – Entitlement to Disability Pension – Disability pension not confined only to cases of invalidation – Personnel retiring on superannuation, premature retirement or completion of tenure in low medical category are entitled to disability pension if disability is attributable to or aggravated by service and assessed at 20% or more – Regulations 173 (Army, 1961) and 37 (Army, 2008) affirm such entitlement [Paras 2, 12].

Scope of Interference under Article 226 – High Court will interfere with Tribunal’s orders only if findings are perverse, based on irrelevant material or ignore vital evidence – No perversity or legal infirmity found in Tribunal’s reasoning – Tribunal applied settled principles and beneficial interpretation of pension laws correctly [Paras 18–19].

Decision: All writ petitions dismissed – Orders of Armed Forces Tribunal granting disability pension upheld – Interim orders vacated.

Specific Performance – Proof of Agreement to Sell – Suspicious Circumstances – Plaintiff relied upon two Agreements to Sell dated 21.11.2005 and 16.12.2005 for same property, same parties, same consideration – No plausible explanation for execution of two agreements – Explanation that first was handwritten and second typed found unconvincing – Held: Multiple unexplained agreements for same transaction cast serious doubt on genuineness of contract [Paras 12].

Agreement on Pre-Signed / Blank Papers – Evidentiary Inference – Typed Agreement dated 16.12.2005 showed abnormal narrow gaps in last lines – Thumb impressions only on last page – Admissions by plaintiff that signatures were obtained at village Nihalpura, Rajasthan and attestation done later at Gurgaon – Stamp papers purchased by plaintiff – Held: Strong inference that thumb impressions were obtained on blank papers and agreement typed subsequently – Agreement surrounded by suspicious circumstances [Paras 13–15].

Admissions in Evidence Contradicting Pleadings – Plaintiff denied in replication that agreement was executed at Nihalpura – In cross-examination admitted execution/signatures obtained at Nihalpura and attestation elsewhere – Held: Plaintiff took false stand in pleadings – Such inconsistencies materially affect credibility and proof of contract [Paras 14, 17].

Sale Consideration – Contradictions between Agreement and Sale Deed – Agreement mentioned total consideration of ₹2,00,000/- – Sale Deed prepared by plaintiff mentioned ₹1,50,000/- as full consideration – No pleading or proof as to payment of balance ₹50,000/- – Stamp papers purchased and Sale Deed prepared prior to target date without explanation – Held: Serious discrepancies go to root of transaction and render agreement unreliable [Paras 15, 18].

Readiness and Willingness – Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act – Mere affidavits of attendance before Sub-Registrar insufficient – Plaintiff failed to prove availability of balance consideration – Failed to plead or prove when and how remaining amount was paid – Held: Mandatory requirement of readiness and willingness not satisfied [Para 18].

Burden of Proof – Fraud and Execution – Onus lies first on plaintiff to prove execution of agreement beyond doubt – Only thereafter burden shifts to defendant to prove fraud – Trial Court correctly applied burden of proof – First Appellate Court wrongly shifted burden on defendant merely on admission of thumb impressions [Paras 17, 19].

First Appellate Court – Duty under Order XLI Rule 31 CPC – Judgment of First Appellate Court reversed detailed trial court findings without framing points for determination or discussing evidence – Cryptic reasoning ignoring material discrepancies and trial court analysis – Held: Judgment suffers from patent illegality and non-compliance with Order XLI Rule 31 CPC [Paras 19–21].

Specific Performance – Discretionary Relief – Relief cannot be granted on shaky, inconsistent and suspicious evidence – Courts must examine intention of vendor from attendant circumstances – Grant of specific performance by First Appellate Court held perverse and unsustainable [Paras 15, 22–23].

Second Appeal – Section 100 CPC – Interference Justified – Though scope is limited, interference warranted where findings are perverse, based on no evidence, or ignore mandatory legal requirements – Present case falls within exception – High Court entitled to restore trial court decree [Para 23].

Decision: Regular Second Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree dated 24.12.2011 of First Appellate Court set aside – Judgment and decree dated 03.12.2010 of Trial Court restored – Suit for specific performance dismissed, decree for recovery of ₹50,000/- upheld.

Negotiable Instruments Act – Cheque Dishonour – Interim Compensation – Section 143-A – Trial court directed accused to pay 20% of cheque amount as interim compensation – Accused denied issuance of cheque, denied signature and existence of bank account – Held: Power under Section 143-A is discretionary and can be exercised only upon prima facie satisfaction of ingredients of Section 138 NI Act [Paras 16–18].

Cheque Dishonour – Prima Facie Case – Burden of Proof – Though statutory presumption arises once execution of cheque is admitted – In present case accused specifically denied issuance and signature on cheque – Bank Manager (PW2) testified that cheque account belonged to a third person and not to accused – Defence found prima facie plausible – Interim compensation not warranted at this stage [Paras 22–25].

Evidence – Bank Testimony – Account Not of Accused – PW2, Branch Manager of concerned bank, stated that cheque account was in name of another individual – Supports defence that accused had no account in concerned bank – Serious disputed questions of fact requiring full trial – Grant of interim compensation held imprudent [Paras 23–25].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Interference Justified – While revisional powers are limited – Interference permissible where trial court fails to properly apply statutory parameters under Section 143-A – Impugned order granting interim compensation set aside as not based on correct prima facie evaluation [Paras 20, 25–26].

Criminal Proceedings – Expeditious Trial – Cheque bounce case pending since 2021 – Trial court requested to endeavour to complete trial expeditiously considering pendency and nature of dispute [Para 27].

Decision: Criminal Revision allowed – Order dated 26/09/2023 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalbari directing payment of interim compensation of 20% of cheque amount quashed and set aside – Trial to proceed on merits expeditiously [Paras 26–28].