Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 9 – Ad-interim Mandatory Injunction – “Status quo ante” direction restoring earlier state of affairs – Special Judge directed parties to “maintain status quo ante as on the date of filing of Section 9 petition” without recording reasons – Held: such ad-interim mandatory injunction cannot be granted lightly and must be supported by justifiable reasons and prima facie finding that status quo was altered and justice demands restoration – Impugned non-speaking order unsustainable and liable to be set aside [Paras 25-33, 47].

Injunctions – Status quo and Status quo ante – Meaning – “Status quo” means existing state of affairs at the relevant time – “Status quo ante” means state of affairs prior to the existing state and necessarily involves disturbing present position to restore the previous one – Held: order to maintain “status quo ante” operates as mandatory direction and therefore requires higher scrutiny and reasons [Paras 27-31].

Judicial Orders – Reasons – Necessity – “Reasons are the life of law” – Orders must disclose application of mind – Litigant entitled to know why relief is granted/declined – Held: absence of reasons vitiates judicial order; reasons cannot be substituted later through arguments/affidavits [Paras 32-35, 39-40].

Administrative/Statutory Law Principles – Validity of order must stand on reasons contained in the order – Supplementation barred – Held: order can be judged only on reasons stated therein; fresh reasons cannot be supplied subsequently (Mohinder Singh Gill principle) – Therefore, respondent’s attempt to justify “status quo ante” order on alleged violation of prior directions/lease terms rejected at appellate stage [Paras 38-40].

Commercial Appeals – Maintainability – Appeal against ad-interim order during pendency of Section 9 petition – Registry objection as to maintainability overruled and appeal held maintainable [Para 24].

Lease Dispute – Possession controversy – Appellants claimed possession taken pursuant to lease termination and re-entry clauses and Section 68, Major Port Authorities Act, 2021 – Respondent asserted possession not taken as per lease and statutory procedure – Held: such contested factual/legal issues should be examined by Special Judge in pending Section 9 petitions; appellate court confines itself to legality of impugned ad-interim order [Paras 36-44].

Precedent – Bank Guarantee principles not applicable – Reliance on (2025) 10 SCC 176 (Jindal Steel and Power Ltd.) distinguished as it related to restraint on invocation of bank guarantee when Section 9 matter ripe for hearing – Present case concerns ad-interim mandatory “status quo ante” direction and hence no benefit to respondent [Paras 48-49].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Impugned ad-interim “status quo ante” order dated 19.12.2025 (extended subsequently) set aside (judgment records setting aside at Para 51) – Special Judge directed to decide CAOP Nos.37 & 38 of 2025 under Section 9 of the 1996 Act on the date already fixed (27.01.2026) in accordance with law – No order as to costs – Miscellaneous applications, if any, closed [Paras 51-53].

NDPS Act – Suspension of Sentence Pending Appeal – Commercial Quantity – Appellants convicted for recovery of 81.303 kgs of ganja sought suspension of sentence during pendency of appeal – Long period of custody (more than 2 years and 10 months) and arguable infirmities in prosecution case considered – Held: Appellants made out a prima facie case warranting suspension of sentence and bail [Paras 12, 17–20].

Search and Seizure – Section 50 NDPS Act – Applicability – Prosecution case that contraband recovered from secret chamber of vehicle – Trial Court held Section 50 inapplicable as no recovery from personal search – Appellate Court noted that both personal search and vehicle search were conducted – Gazetted Officer allegedly present but not examined – Absence of examination of Gazetted Officer raises serious doubt at prima facie stage [Paras 16–17].

Sampling and Seizure – Violation of Standing Order No. 1 of 1989 – 80 packets of contraband allegedly seized – Before Magistrate, contraband produced in two nylon sacks with mixed contents – Only samples from mixed bulk drawn – No material showing when, how or under whose authority 80 packets were mixed – Such mixing contrary to mandatory sampling procedure – Serious procedural irregularity affecting prosecution case [Paras 14–15, 17].

Section 52-A NDPS Act – Inventory and Certification – Certificate issued by Judicial Magistrate referred only to two nylon sacks and not to individual packets – Magistrate who issued certificate not examined as witness – Prima facie infirmity in proving sanctity of inventory and sampling process [Paras 14–15, 17].

Independent Witnesses – Hostility – Evidentiary Value – Independent witnesses turned hostile though admitting signatures on seizure list – While official witnesses can be relied upon, procedural lapses in seizure and sampling diluted prosecution case at this stage [Paras 13–15].

Rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act – Not an Absolute Bar – Where material on record discloses prima facie infirmities and arguable points in appeal, rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act do not stand in the way of suspension of sentence – Bail granted subject to strict conditions [Para 18].

Decision: CRAN 2 of 2025 allowed – Sentence and fine imposed by judgment dated 25.04.2025 in NDPS Case No. 08 of 2023 suspended during pendency of appeal – Appellants released on bail with conditions restricting movement and ensuring appearance – Observations prima facie in nature.

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].

Prevention of Corruption Act – Demand and Acceptance – Lawful Remuneration vs Illegal Gratification – Appellant Patwari admitted receipt of ₹500/- but contended amount represented legal fees for supply of mutation copies – Prosecution’s own document (Roznamcha Rapat No. 491 dated 01.07.2002) showed lawful fees quantified at ₹480/- prior to alleged trap – Held: Mere receipt of money not sufficient to establish offence in absence of proof of illegal demand [Paras 6–9].

Prevention of Corruption Act – Presumption under Section 20 – Rebuttal – Statutory presumption is rebuttable – Accused successfully rebutted presumption by producing contemporaneous official record prepared prior to trap proceedings – Once probable defence established, burden shifts back to prosecution – Prosecution failed to disprove lawful explanation – Held: Presumption stood rebutted [Paras 14–15].

Evidence Appreciation – Documentary Evidence – Official Records – Roznamcha Rapat proved by prosecution witness carried presumption of correctness – No evidence of fabrication, interpolation or ante-dating – Trial court erred in discarding official record on conjectures – Held: Documentary evidence outweighed recovery evidence [Paras 7–9].

Trap Cases – Recovery and Phenolphthalein Test – Evidentiary Value – Recovery of tainted money and positive phenolphthalein test not conclusive where explanation for receipt is plausible and supported by record – Demand of bribe must be proved beyond reasonable doubt – Held: Recovery alone cannot sustain conviction [Para 14].

Witness Testimony – Independent Witness – Senior Revenue Officer (Tehsildar) corroborated defence version that amount was towards legal fees – Defence witness (Office Kanungo) proved official rate of fees – Trial court erred in discarding defence evidence without cogent reasons [Paras 10–11].

Sanction for Prosecution – Validity – Sanction order did not reflect due application of mind – Sanctioning authority failed to show consideration of defence material and official records – Held: Defective sanction further weakened prosecution case [Para 17].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Benefit of Doubt – Two Views Possible – Where defence version more probable and supported by documentary evidence, accused entitled to benefit of doubt – Held: Conviction unsustainable [Paras 18–20].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 set aside – Appellant acquitted – Bail bonds discharged – Fine, if any, to be refunded.

Writ Jurisdiction – Locus Standi – Shareholders of Allottee Company – Petitioners claiming inchoate rights based on alleged 50% shareholding sought to challenge actions of KIADB permitting sub-lease – Held: Shareholders have no proprietary right over assets of the company – No enforceable legal right shown – Petitioners not “persons aggrieved” for invoking Article 226 [Paras 9, 15–16].

Public Law Remedy – Private Commercial Dispute – Petitioners’ grievance stemmed from investment and shareholding dispute of 2004 pending before Commercial Court – Attempt to cloak private dispute as public law issue impermissible – Extraordinary writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to settle personal scores or gain leverage in commercial negotiations [Paras 5, 11, 21, 32].

KIAD Act – Sub-Lease Permission – Sections 34 and 34-B – KIADB granted permission to sub-lease 25 acres pursuant to enquiry ordered by Division Bench – Sub-lease permitted under Clause 11(a) of Lease-cum-Sale Agreement – Petitioners having no statutory role in KIADB’s decision-making cannot assail such permission [Paras 3.3, 6, 13].

Judicial Discipline – Binding Nature of Coordinate Bench Decisions – Earlier Single Bench view on locus diluted by Division Bench – Subsequent Coordinate Bench categorically held petitioners lack locus – Held: Subsequent Bench bound by coordinate Bench judgment unless stayed or set aside – Entertaining petitions would violate settled principles of judicial discipline [Paras 13–14].

Precedent – Ratio Decidendi – Coordinate Bench Authority – Reliance placed on Dr. Shah Faesal v. Union of India – Coordinate Bench decisions binding on Benches of equal strength – Remedy, if any, lies before Division Bench and not by re-agitating identical issues before Single Judge [Paras 14–15].

Writ of Certiorari / Mandamus – Threshold Bar – Absence of Locus – Once petitioners fail on locus, Court cannot examine merits of impugned permission or sub-lease deed – Held: Petitions liable to be rejected at threshold [Paras 15–16].

Decision: Writ Petition Nos. 25744 of 2025 and 25894 of 2025 dismissed – Petitioners held to have no locus standi to challenge permission granted by KIADB or sub-lease executed between respondents – All interim orders vacated.

Motor Accident Compensation – Review of Appellate Judgment – Error Apparent on Face of Record – Review sought of judgment dated 27.07.2017 enhancing compensation marginally – Material evidence regarding employment and income of deceased driver overlooked by Tribunal as well as appellate court – Inquest report and salary certificate established regular government employment – Held: Non-consideration of material evidence constitutes error apparent warranting review [Paras 21–22, 25].

Review Jurisdiction – Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC – Scope – Review not an appeal in disguise – Permissible where manifest error, misapplication of law or overlooking of vital evidence results in miscarriage of justice – Doctrine of actus curiae neminem gravabit applied – Review justified to correct palpable injustice in award of compensation [Paras 14–17, 22].

Additional Evidence – Order XLI Rule 27 CPC – Impermissibility at Review Stage – Application to receive additional evidence after disposal of appeal and while seeking review held impermissible – Additional evidence cannot be the foundation for reopening a concluded appeal – Application dismissed [Paras 10–11].

Enhancement of Claim Amount – Redundancy at Review Stage – Claimants sought enhancement of claim from Rs.15,00,000/- to Rs.26,53,560/- after disposal of appeal – Held: Tribunal/Court empowered to award just compensation even beyond claim – Separate application for enhancement at review stage unnecessary and not maintainable – Application dismissed [Paras 12–13].

Assessment of Income – Government Employee – Salary Certificate and Oral Evidence – Deceased proved to be Government driver with net income of Rs.6,335/- per month – Wife competent witness to speak about earnings – Absence of effective cross-examination – Income accepted with addition of 30% future prospects as per Pranay Sethi [Paras 18–20, 25].

Future Prospects – Multiplier – Standardisation by Supreme Court – Applied principles laid down in Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi – Multiplier of 14 applied for age group 41–45 – Deduction of 1/3rd for personal expenses – Loss of dependency recalculated accordingly [Paras 23–25].

Consortium – Spousal and Parental Consortium – Compensation for consortium awarded to wife and children at Rs.40,000/- each following Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram – Conventional heads applied uniformly [Paras 23, 26].

Just Compensation – Duty of Court – Court emphasised that technicalities should not defeat just compensation – Reliance on Nagappa and Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh – Award must be just, fair and reasonable even if it exceeds original claim [Paras 24–25].

Decision: Review Application allowed – Judgment dated 27.07.2017 modified – Compensation enhanced from Rs.2,30,200/- to Rs.11,52,432/- with interest @ 6% per annum from date of petition – Respondent–Insurance Company directed to satisfy award – Apportionment ordered – Applications for additional evidence and enhancement dismissed – No order as to costs.

Consolidation Proceedings – Restoration of Revision – Powers of Deputy Director of Consolidation – Section 44-A U.P.C.H. Act – Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed restoration application filed by a non-impleaded interested tenure-holder and set aside earlier remand and consequential order passed by Consolidation Officer – Held, superior authority is empowered to exercise powers of subordinate authority and recall orders passed without hearing necessary parties – Restoration justified to ensure adjudication on merits after impleadment of affected party [Paras 8, 11].

Consolidation of Holdings – Section 12 Proceedings – Recording of Vendee’s Name – Effect of Prior Adjudication under Section 9-A(2) – Earlier final determination that vendor had no title over Khata No. 99Aa – Subsequent orders recording names of vendees without impleading recorded tenure-holder held improper – Held, consolidation authorities must consider binding effect of earlier proceedings while deciding subsequent applications under Section 12 [Paras 10, 12].

Delay Condonation – Restoration Application – Natural Justice – Respondent, though not impleaded in subsequent proceedings, was party in earlier consolidation litigation – Orders affecting her rights passed without notice – Held, delay condonation and restoration warranted to prevent miscarriage of justice [Paras 8, 11].

Jurisdiction under Article 226 – Interference with Interlocutory Orders – Restoration and Remand – Writ Court declined interference where restoration only revives revisions for fresh decision on merits – No perversity or jurisdictional error found in impugned order – Writ petition dismissed [Paras 12, 13, 14].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Order dated 14.03.2013 restoring revisions upheld – Deputy Director of Consolidation directed to decide revisions afresh after impleading respondent no.2, expeditiously, preferably within three months.

Civil Procedure – Temporary Injunction – Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC – Scope of Appellate Interference – Appellate court can interfere only when discretion exercised by trial court is arbitrary, capricious, perverse or contrary to settled principles – If the view taken by trial court is a possible view, appellate court cannot substitute its own view [Paras 66–68, 75].

Contract – Memorandum of Understanding for Development of Immovable Property – MOU not signed by all co-owners – No power of attorney in favour of signatory co-owner – Held: MOU not binding or enforceable against non-signatory owners – No prima facie enforceable right created in favour of builder [Paras 16–17, 26–27, 69].

Stamp Act & Registration Act – Unstamped and Unregistered MOU – Clauses creating ownership rights in immovable property – MOU providing for transfer of 42% ownership in land and superstructure – Held: Document compulsorily registrable and chargeable with stamp duty – Unstamped and unregistered MOU inadmissible in evidence and incapable of conferring legal rights unless defect cured [Paras 18–19, 39–46, 70].

Specific Relief – Suit for Permanent Injunction – Absence of Prayer for Specific Performance or Declaration – Plaintiff seeking to restrain true owners from dealing with property – Held: Suit for injunction simpliciter not maintainable when equally efficacious remedy of specific performance available – Bar under Section 41(h) of Specific Relief Act attracted [Paras 47–51, 72].

Possession – Builder Claiming Possession under MOU – Clause showing possession as mere licence for construction – No transfer of possession or interest – Held: Builder not in settled or lawful possession – Injunction cannot be granted against true owners [Paras 19, 52–54, 71].

Arbitration Clause – Effect on Civil Court Jurisdiction – Mere existence of arbitration clause does not bar civil suit – No application under Section 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act filed – Parties waived arbitration – Trial court’s finding on lack of jurisdiction held erroneous but not affecting final outcome [Paras 55–61, 74].

Equitable Relief – Injunction – Discretionary Nature – Plaintiff capable of being compensated by damages – MOU containing penal clauses for monetary compensation – Held: No irreparable injury made out – Balance of convenience not in favour of plaintiffs [Paras 64–65, 75].

Decision: Appeal dismissed with costs – Order rejecting ad-interim injunction affirmed – Interim status quo order vacated – Trial court directed to decide suit expeditiously – Observations confined to appeal and not to prejudice trial [Paras 76–79].

Criminal Law – Murder of Minor – Circumstantial Evidence – Last Seen Theory – Appellant convicted for murder of 10-year-old boy and for causing disappearance of evidence – Child last seen alive in company of appellant who took him on cycle on pretext of showing exhibition – Deceased later found dead near canal in another district – Medical evidence proved death by strangulation – Chain of circumstances complete and consistent only with guilt of appellant – Conviction upheld [Paras 27–33].

Evidence – Child Witness – Credibility – Deceased last seen with appellant by his younger brother aged about 7 years at time of deposition – Trial Court satisfied about child’s competency – Testimony corroborated by independent witnesses from neighbourhood and other places – Held: Evidence of child witness reliable and admissible when corroborated [Paras 13–16].

Evidence – Last Seen Together – Independent Witnesses – Appellant seen with deceased by neighbour tailor, at railway station and later at village in Sultanpur late night – Witnesses independent and having no animus – Absence of Test Identification Parade immaterial as accused well known to witnesses – Held: Last seen circumstance firmly established [Paras 16–19].

Circumstantial Evidence – Motive – Importance – Appellant had monetary dispute with mother of deceased – Though motive alone not decisive, existence of motive lends support to prosecution case – Absence of recovery not fatal when medical and circumstantial evidence conclusive [Paras 15, 29–31].

Medical Evidence – Cause of Death – Strangulation – Post-mortem proved death due to asphyxia caused by compression of neck – Injuries consistent with manual strangulation – Time of death matching prosecution timeline – Medical evidence corroborated ocular and circumstantial evidence [Paras 7, 25–26].

Criminal Trial – Appreciation of Evidence – Five Golden Principles – Prosecution proved complete chain of circumstances excluding every hypothesis of innocence – No perversity or illegality in findings of Trial Court – Held: Conviction justified [Paras 27–33].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302 and 201 IPC affirmed – Appellant directed to surrender to serve remaining sentence.