Arbitration – Section 9 – Interim Protection – Attachment of Cargo – Demurrage Claim – Maintainability – Petitioner (shipowner) sought attachment of 1600 MT rice cargo and security of USD 296,326.74 for demurrage under a charter party with 1st respondent – Cargo carried from Kakinada to Ho Chi Minh City under fixture note dated 12.03.2021 – Delay at discharge port allegedly caused by respondent – Invoice for demurrage raised on 23.06.2021, followed by demand notice and updated invoice in April 2024 – Held: Claim for demurrage, being in nature of liquidated damages, does not create a “debt” until liability is adjudicated – Unless damages determined by arbitral award, no actionable claim arises – Interim attachment cannot be granted merely to secure unadjudicated liquidated damages [Paras 22–24].

Section 9, Arbitration Act – Interim Measures – Application of Order 38 Rule 5 CPC – Preconditions – Power under Section 9(1)(ii)(b) read with Order 38 Rule 5 CPC is extraordinary and to be exercised sparingly – Applicant must establish (i) strong prima facie case; (ii) balance of convenience; (iii) reasonable expedition; and (iv) attempt by respondent to remove or dispose assets to defeat award – Mere bald assertions of risk of dissipation insufficient – No material produced to show respondents’ intention to defeat possible award – Interim attachment cannot be used to convert unsecured claim into secured debt [Paras 14–19, 30–31].

Liquidated Damages – Distinction from Debt – Section 74, Contract Act – Demurrage under charter party is a form of liquidated damages; under Indian law, no pecuniary liability arises until determination of breach and assessment of reasonable compensation – Reliance placed on Union of India v. Raman Iron Foundry (1974) 2 SCC 231 – Hence, claim for demurrage remains contingent until adjudicated by arbitral tribunal [Para 22].

Delay and Laches – Reasonable Expedition – Section 9 Proceedings – Petitioner remained silent for nearly three years (July 2021–April 2024) before filing Section 9 petition – No immediate legal steps taken despite contractual arbitration clause – Delay fatal to claim for urgent interim protection – Balance of convenience lies against petitioner [Paras 25–26].

Attachment Before Judgment – Vague Pleadings – Order 38 Rule 5 CPC – Mere apprehension of sale or encumbrance of goods insufficient – No concrete allegation or evidence that respondent disposed assets to defeat claim – Allegations in petition general and speculative – Attachment of respondent’s stock-in-trade (rice cargo) unjustified [Paras 28–30].

Decision: Petitioner failed to satisfy the preconditions for interim protection under Section 9 and Order 38 Rule 5 CPC—No material to show intent by respondents to defeat award—Claim for demurrage yet to be adjudicated by arbitrator—Delay of nearly three years unexplained— Held: Interim attachment dated 23.04.2024 vacated—Application dismissed—Registry directed to return security amount of USD 296,326.74 deposited by 1st respondent—No costs [Para 31].

Family Law – Custody of Minor Children – Visitation and Parental Access – Welfare Principle – Family Court granted father custody of minor children on second Saturday and Sunday of every month and during half of vacations – Mother appealed – Held: Welfare of children is paramount; while mother retains permanent custody, father’s right to maintain regular contact cannot be denied – However, overnight custody not appropriate presently due to children’s age, emotional comfort, and father’s distance from their residence – Order modified to allow daytime custody twice a month [Paras 6–7].

Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 – Section 25 – Scope – Even where one parent retains permanent custody, the other parent has legitimate right to visitation and interaction – Such access fosters emotional and psychological well-being of minors and preserves parental bond – Court must balance both parents’ rights with child’s welfare [Paras 5–7].

Child Welfare – Paramount Consideration – Allegations of misconduct or strained relationship between parents insufficient to deny contact unless proven detrimental to child – Contact with both parents essential for child’s balanced development [Paras 6–7].

Custody Arrangement – Modification – Directions – Custody to father every 2nd and 4th Sunday of each month between 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.; exchange to take place in Family Court premises – Provision for electronic communication and future modification based on changed circumstances [Paras 7–8].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Family Court’s order modified – Permanent custody to continue with mother – Father granted daytime custody twice a month (2nd and 4th Sundays, 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.) – Exchange at Family Court, Thrissur – Either party may seek future modification before Family Court in case of change of circumstances [Paras 7–8].

Specific Performance – Agreement to Sell – Limitation – Mixed Question of Fact and Law – Plaintiff sought enforcement of agreement dated 15.05.1972 after prolonged litigation involving title of land – Trial Court dismissed suit as time-barred without permitting plaintiff to lead evidence on delay being attributable to State litigation and mutation finalisation – Held: Courts below erred in rejecting suit without determining factual aspects affecting limitation – Cause of action arose only upon refusal after mutation in 2009 – Matter remanded to trial court for decision on merits after framing issues and allowing evidence [Paras 4–15]

Civil Procedure – Compromise – Withdrawal of Statement – Validity – Appellant relied on compromise dated 14.03.2011 and statement dated 16.03.2011 for decree – Respondent-defendant later withdrew statement citing lack of understanding – Courts below rejected compromise as invalid due to absence of proper representation and relationship of attorney with plaintiff – Held: Courts rightly rejected compromise as unproven but exceeded jurisdiction by non-suiting plaintiff without examining limitation issue through trial [Paras 10–11]

Limitation – Article 54 of Limitation Act – No Time Fixed for Performance – When Limitation Begins – In cases where no time for performance is fixed, limitation begins from date of refusal – Reference made to Supreme Court rulings in Gunwantbhai Mulchand Shah and T. Arivandandam – Held: Where cause of action depends on multiple facts, limitation cannot be decided without trial – Summary dismissal of suit erroneous [Paras 13–15]

Appeal – Scope of Second Appeal – Punjab Courts Act – In Punjab and Haryana, second appeals lie under Section 41 of Punjab Courts Act, not Section 100 CPC – Substantial question of law not required to be framed – Reference made to Pankajakshi v. Chandrika, Kirodi v. Ram Parkash, and Satender v. Saroj [Para 9]

Decision:  Appeal allowed – Judgments and decrees of Trial Court and First Appellate Court set aside – Suit restored to original position – Matter remanded to Civil Judge for fresh decision on merits after framing of relevant issues and affording opportunity to lead evidence.

Criminal Law - SC/ST Act – Recommendation for FIR – Jurisdiction of Commission – Order dated 05.01.2018 passed by Member of National Commission for Scheduled Castes recommending registration of FIR under SC/ST Act against DDA official (Karamvir Narwal) and restoring vendor’s permission challenged – Held: NCSC is empowered to recommend enquiry but cannot direct FIR registration – The impugned order is merely recommendatory and not binding – No mandatory direction for FIR found [Paras 33-36].

Street Vendors Act – Right to Vend – Respondent street vendor had valid permission which was later withdrawn by DDA – Subsequent Writ Petition quashed revocation order – Vendor allegedly harassed and caste-abused by DDA official – Held: Grievance essentially related to vending rights and withdrawal of permission – No evidence of specific incident of caste abuse noted – Omnibus allegations insufficient to justify FIR [Paras 32-34].

Writ Jurisdiction – Maintainability – Petition filed by DDA challenging recommendation of NCSC – Held: Petition maintainable to clarify that NCSC’s order was only advisory in nature – Police not bound to register FIR solely on Commission’s recommendation – Enquiry may be conducted in accordance with law [Paras 35-36].

Decision: Writ Petition disposed of – Clarified that impugned order of NCSC dated 05.01.2018 is recommendatory and not mandatory – No direction to register FIR – Police free to proceed with enquiry under law [Paras 36-37].

Criminal Law – Assault on Child – Section 323 IPC – Conviction Upheld – Section 8(2) Goa Children’s Act – Set Aside – Evidence of PW1 (injured child) found wholly reliable – Ocular testimony consistent and unshaken – Medical certificate not proved but ocular evidence given primacy – Incident held isolated and lacking ingredients of “child abuse” under Section 2(m); no deliberate cruelty or sustained maltreatment – Held: Conviction under Section 323 IPC sustainable; conviction under Section 8(2) Goa Children’s Act unsustainable [Paras 18-25, 29, 38-40].

Evidence Law – Injured Witness – High Evidentiary Value – PW1’s testimony inspires confidence – No material contradictions – Defence plea of enmity rejected – Law reiterated that injured witness has inbuilt guarantee of presence; cannot be disbelieved without compelling reasons [Paras 20, 24, 27].

Ocular vs. Medical Evidence – Primacy of Ocular Testimony – Medical certificate not proved as doctor not examined – However, ocular version corroborated by PW2 and not challenged in cross-examination – Medical evidence need not prevail unless it rules out prosecution case entirely – Conviction can rest on reliable ocular testimony [Paras 25-26].

Investigation – Panchanama – Non-examination of Panch Witness Not Fatal – Scene of offence panchanama proved through Investigating Officer – Law reiterated that recovery/panchanama can be proved by IO even if pancha turns hostile or is not examined [Paras 30-32].

Criminal Law – Goa Children’s Act – Scope of “Child Abuse” – Isolated Incident – Not Every Assault Amounts to Child Abuse – Supreme Court in Santosh Khajnekar followed – Abuse must involve cruelty, exploitation, deliberate ill-treatment or intent to cause serious harm – Mere assault during quarrel does not constitute child abuse under Section 8(2) – Conviction under Goa Children’s Act set aside [Paras 37-39].

Probation of Offenders Act – Applicability Mandatory for Offence under Section 323 IPC – Court must consider probation for offences punishable with less than life imprisonment – Matter remanded to Trial Court for determining grant of probation after obtaining Probation Officer’s report – Law reiterated that courts must assess probation for first-time offenders unless excluded by statute [Paras 41-46].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Conviction under Section 323 IPC Confirmed – Conviction under Section 8(2) Goa Children’s Act Set Aside – Matter Remanded on Probation Issue – Fine to be refunded [Para 47].

Arbitration – Judicial Interference – Limited Scope under Section 37 – Appeal against judgment upholding arbitral award awarding contractor Rs.6.66 lakhs with interest – Held: Interference under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration Act is narrowly circumscribed – Court cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own view for that of the arbitrator – Award found to be reasoned and based on plausible interpretation – No patent illegality or perversity demonstrated – Appeal dismissed [Paras 10–13, 33–35]

Contract Law – Delay in Execution – Time as Essence – Though the contract originally required completion by 03.07.1992, time was extended until 31.05.1993 – Arbitral Tribunal found delays attributable to Railways’ conduct – Contract rescission held unjustified – Tribunal’s findings on delay and liability upheld as based on evidence and within arbitral jurisdiction [Paras 2(iii)–(v), 31]

Arbitration – Interpretation of Contract – Pricing and Claims – Claims 6 and 7 challenged as contrary to contractual pricing – Tribunal interpreted contract clauses and ISI specifications governing waterproofing and bitumen application – Held: Pricing interpretation was reasonable and within bounds of contract – No ground to interfere on reappraisal of evidence [Paras 32]

Public Policy and Patent Illegality – No Violation – No violation of public policy, fundamental policy of Indian law, or basic morality demonstrated – No fraud, corruption, or procedural impropriety found – Tribunal applied proper reasoning and considered all relevant material – Award immune from curial interference [Paras 13, 27–30, 33]

Arbitration – Interest on Award – Permissibility – Arbitrator awarded 12% interest p.a. on claims and cost of arbitration – Held: Grant of interest in consonance with Section 31(7) of the A&C Act – Contractual bar not absolute – No legal infirmity in award of interest [Para 7]

Judicial Precedents – Conformity with Supreme Court Guidance – High Court reiterates principles from MMTC v. Vedanta, PSA Sical Terminals, Associate Builders, DMRC, and Reliance Infrastructure – Emphasises minimal interference, deference to arbitrator’s findings, and narrow scope of review under Sections 34/37 [Paras 14–26]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No interference warranted with the arbitral award or the District Judge’s judgment upholding it – Award found legally sound, reasoned, and within jurisdiction – No costs imposed – Interim orders vacated [Paras 34–36]

Mines and Minerals – Quarry Lease – Renewal – Delay – Interpretation of Expiry Date – Application for renewal of quarry lease rejected as being filed after expiry of lease term – Lease expired on 29.12.2013 (a Sunday) – Application filed on 30.12.2013 – Held: By operation of Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, where the last day falls on a holiday, act done on the next working day is valid – Application held to be within time – Rejection order unsustainable [Paras 10, 15–17]

Service of Orders – Communication Requirement – Limitation for Revision – Revision petition under Rule 53(1) of 1994 Rules rejected as delayed by more than six years – Petitioner claimed order of rejection dated 18.01.2014 was never communicated and came to know only in 2019 through RTI – Held: No material to show rejection order was ever communicated – Limitation would run from date of communication – Matter remanded for reconsideration [Paras 18–19]

Quarry Lease – Penalty for Delayed Renewal – Acceptance of Application with Fee – Application filed with two demand drafts for renewal fee and security deposit – Prima facie shows compliance with payment requirement – Issue of absence of arrears clearance certificate not sufficient ground for rejection in absence of notice or opportunity – Revisional authority to re-examine [Para 20]

General Clauses Act – Applicability to Lease Renewals – Provisions of Section 10 applicable to statutory time limits for filing applications under mining rules – Sunday falling on last day of lease term entitled petitioner to file application on next working day – Similar approach adopted by High Court in Robo Silicon Ltd. case affirmed [Paras 12–13, 16]

Decision: Impugned order set aside – Matter remanded to Revisional Authority for reconsideration – Petition disposed of with liberty to parties to raise all contentions afresh [Paras 21–22]

Domestic Violence – Delay in Proceedings – Pendency of Case Since 2018 – Petitioner-wife filed complaint under Section 12 of the DV Act on 06.11.2018 – Despite service of notice on 28.05.2019, respondent failed to appear – Trial proceeded ex parte – Respondent appeared only in January 2021 – Interim maintenance of ₹15,000/month awarded but reduced to ₹10,000/month by revisional court – Maintenance never paid despite salary of ₹1.10 lakh/month – Total arrears of ₹4.55 lakh accrued – High Court observed inordinate delay and systemic apathy in enforcement of maintenance orders [Paras 2-6]

Non-Compliance with Judicial Directions – Supreme Court and High Court Precedents Ignored – Neither trial court nor revisional court directed respondent to file affidavit of assets and liabilities as mandated in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324 and Parul Tyagi v. Gaurav Tyagi, 2023 SCC OnLine All 2684 – Prior directive in Rajesh Babu Saxena v. State of U.P., 2024 SCC OnLine All 2260 for recovery from salary also disregarded – Court expressed concern over indifference by trial courts to binding precedents, warning of loss of public confidence [Paras 7-8]

Judicial Accountability – Explanations Called from Magistrate and Revisional Court – Magistrate directed to furnish explanation for failure to seek affidavit of assets/liabilities – Revisional Court to explain basis for reducing maintenance from ₹15,000 to ₹10,000/month – Failure to provide satisfactory reasons may invite administrative action – Registrar (Compliance) directed to communicate order – Registrar General to collect responses before next hearing [Paras 8-9]

Decision: Magistrate and Revisional Court directed to submit explanations through Registrar General – Next hearing fixed for 14.10.2025 – Warning issued that evasive replies may attract administrative action.

Army Law – Disobedience of Lawful Command – Section 41(2) of the Army Act – Punishment of Severe Reprimand – Legality of Summary Trial – Judicial Review under Article 226 – Scope and Limitations – Petitioner, a Subedar in EME Corps, challenged disciplinary action and discharge alleging that Movement Order was never served and enquiry was held ex parte – Record revealed that Petitioner was ordered to report to HQ Technical Group, EME, Delhi Cantt., but refused to comply – Summary trial conducted under Army Rules 22–26 after due opportunity – Eight prosecution and eight defence witnesses examined – Petitioner cross-examined witnesses but refused to sign proceedings – Held: Proceedings conducted in accordance with Army Act and Rules – No violation of natural justice or procedural irregularity – High Court cannot reappreciate evidence under certiorari jurisdiction – Findings supported by rational evidence – Punishment of “Severe Reprimand” not disproportionate [Paras 25–31].

Army Law – Discharge from Service – Extension of Service – Effect of Punishment of Severe Reprimand – Annexure-I to Appendix “A” of Army HQ Letter dated 21.09.1998 – Held: Personnel punished under Section 41(1) or (2) of the Army Act ineligible for extension for three years – Discharge validly ordered on completion of terms of engagement – No infirmity in discharge order [Paras 13–14, 31].

Judicial Review – Certiorari – Limits of High Court Interference – Finding of Fact – Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan, 1963 SCC OnLine SC 24 – Union of India v. Major A. Hussain, (1998) 1 SCC 357 – Court not to act as appellate forum in military discipline matters – Review limited to jurisdictional errors, perversity, or procedural unfairness [Paras 19–21].

Service Law – Pension – Right to Pension – Deferred Wages – Direction to Facilitate Pension Processing – Court observed that though punishment and discharge are valid, pension cannot be denied – Directed respondents to furnish pension papers to petitioner within six weeks and process pension from date of superannuation within four months thereafter [Para 32].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Punishment and discharge upheld – Respondents directed to process and release pension upon completion of formalities by petitioner [Paras 32–33].