Criminal Law - Money Laundering – Discharge under Section 227 CrPC – Scheduled Offence – Section 467 IPC included as scheduled offence w.e.f. 01.06.2009 – Accused discharged by Special PMLA Court on ground that alleged predicate offence was committed prior to inclusion of Section 467 IPC in Schedule – Held: Approach erroneous – Offence under Section 3 PMLA is independent and concerned with process or activity connected with proceeds of crime – Date of commission of scheduled offence not determinative if laundering activity continues after enforcement of Act or amendment – Money laundering is a continuing offence so long as proceeds of crime are possessed, used or projected as untainted property [Paras 19–29, 34].

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Retrospective Application – Article 20(1) of Constitution – Special Court held PMLA has no retrospective operation – High Court held that proceedings were not based on retrospective criminalisation of predicate offence – Penal consequence attaches to continuing laundering activity post-amendment – Application of PMLA in such circumstances does not violate Article 20(1) [Paras 26, 29].

Scheduled Offence – Necessity and Scope – Existence of scheduled offence is sine qua non for PMLA proceedings – Conviction in predicate offence not mandatory at stage of charge – Material indicating derivation of property from criminal activity relating to scheduled offence sufficient to proceed – Discharge at threshold held unsustainable [Paras 28–32].

Attachment of Property – Section 5(1) PMLA – Nature of Proceedings – Special Court set aside attachment treating proceedings as penal – Held: Attachment and confiscation proceedings are civil and preventive in nature – Not invalid merely because predicate offence predates amendment, so long as proceeds of crime subsist and are traceable [Paras 30–31].

Precedent – Binding Nature – Reliance placed by accused on Obulapuram Mining Company case – Held: Not persuasive as judgment under challenge and cannot override authoritative pronouncement in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary – Supreme Court decision binding and squarely applicable [Paras 33–34].

Decision: Criminal Revision allowed – Order of discharge dated 15.12.2017 set aside – Trial Court directed to proceed with trial in accordance with law – Interim orders vacated [Paras 35–36].

Arbitration Law – MSME Award – Section 34 Challenge – Limitation – Preliminary Objection – Jurisdictional Issue – Award passed by MSME Facilitation Council on 27.09.2023 – Section 34 petition filed on 16.01.2024 – Commercial Court rejected preliminary objection on limitation relying on Munsarim report and alleged High Court indulgence – Held: Limitation under Section 34(3) is jurisdictional – Commercial Court misread Division Bench order which merely relegated party to alternate remedy – No automatic condonation of delay – Order rejecting objection on limitation held perverse and unsustainable – Matter remitted for fresh decision on limitation by a reasoned order [Paras 43–72].

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34(3) – “But Not Thereafter” – Scope of Condonation – Delay beyond three months but within further thirty days can be condoned only upon judicial satisfaction – Mere filing within 120 days does not ipso facto justify condonation – Court must examine pleadings and reasons for delay – Absence of proper consideration vitiates order [Paras 59–62].

Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 14 – Exclusion of Time – Applicability to Section 34 Proceedings – Section 14 applicable to Section 34 proceedings – Conditions for benefit reiterated – Party must plead and establish due diligence, good faith and prosecution before wrong forum – Commercial Court failed to examine statutory conditions – Remand warranted [Paras 56–58, 71–72].

Article 227 – Supervisory Jurisdiction – Interference with Orders of Commercial Court – High Court to interfere sparingly – However, where Commercial Court ignores jurisdictional issue of limitation and proceeds on manifestly erroneous premise, interference justified – Order suffers from non-application of mind and arbitrariness [Paras 41–42, 70–72].

MSMED Act, 2006 – Section 19 – Mandatory Pre-Deposit of 75% – Release of Amount Pending Challenge – Pre-deposit mandatory for entertaining Section 34 petition – Proviso empowers court to release such percentage of deposited amount to supplier as deemed reasonable – Commercial Court justified in releasing 75% deposit to supplier subject to indemnity and interest – Direction to secure remaining 25% upheld [Paras 79–88].

Money Decree / Arbitral Award – Stay – General Principle – Money decree or award ordinarily not stayed – Court may balance equities by securing amount and releasing part thereof – No patent fraud shown – Commercial Court’s approach held in consonance with law [Paras 86–88].

Appropriation and Reprobation – Plea of Limitation – Mere participation in proceedings or insistence on statutory pre-deposit does not amount to waiver of limitation objection – Doctrine of approbate and reprobate held inapplicable to jurisdictional issue of limitation [Paras 68, 71].

Decision – Petition No. 3886 of 2024 partly allowed – Order dated 20.06.2024 set aside to the extent it rejected objection on limitation – Commercial Court directed to decide limitation afresh within four weeks – Petition No. 5145 of 2024 dismissed – Order dated 27.09.2024 releasing deposited amount and directing security for balance upheld – No order as to costs [Paras 72–90].

Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act – Section 17(2) – Custody of Rescued Minor – Mother Allegedly Complicit in Prostitution – Child Welfare Committee Has Primacy – Petition Rejected – Victim girl (aged 17 years at time of rescue) was rescued from a prostitution racket in Crime No.395/2025 and placed in a Child Welfare Home – Mother filed application under Section 17(2) seeking custody claiming daughter had attained 18 years – However, investigation revealed that the mother had earlier also been involved in a similar crime (Cr.No.332/2024) and had again placed her daughter in the prostitution racket after her prior release – Held: When prima facie material shows the mother used her daughter for prostitution, the child cannot be handed over to the custody of such mother – Relying on Delhi High Court in Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee vs. Union of India, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 4101 and Division Bench of Bombay High Court in Prerana vs. State of Maharashtra, 2002 SCC OnLine Bom 984, held that notwithstanding Section 17 and Section 17A of the IT Act, by virtue of Sections 31(1) and 39(3) of the JJ Act, it is only the Child Welfare Committee which has final authority in respect of custody and restoration of a child victim – Petition dismissed [Paras 9-12]

Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act vs. Juvenile Justice Act – JJ Act Has Primacy for Persons Under 18 Years – A person under 18 years rescued from a prostitution racket under Sections 15 and 16 of the IT Act must be treated as a "child in need of care and protection" under the JJ Act and not as a "juvenile in conflict with law" – If produced before a Magistrate and found to be under 18 years, the Magistrate must forthwith transfer the case to the Child Welfare Committee – JJ Act being a later and special enactment for children prevails over the general provisions of the IT Act – Bombay High Court in Prerana directed that any juvenile rescued from a brothel should be released only to a parent/guardian found fit by the Child Welfare Committee; if found unfit, rehabilitation procedure under the JJ Act must be followed [Paras 11-12]

Decision: Criminal Petition dismissed – Order dated 15.11.2025 rejecting custody application upheld – Child not to be handed over to mother who is prima facie alleged to have used the daughter in the prostitution racket.

Criminal Law – Quashing – Section 528 BNSS – Scope – Applicants sought quashing of charge-sheet and proceedings for offences under Section 69 BNS and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act on plea of consensual relationship and false implication – High Court held that at the stage of consideration under Section 528 BNSS, only prima facie satisfaction is required and disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated – Held: No case made out for quashing [Paras 8–10, 16].

Sexual Offences – Minor Victim – Consent – Legal Position – Victim’s matriculation certificate showed date of birth as 01.01.2008 – Applicant admitted sexual relationship – Held: Consent of a minor is no consent in the eye of law – Sexual intercourse with a girl below 18 years squarely attracts penal consequences irrespective of alleged consent [Paras 6, 10, 13].

Section 69 BNS – Sexual Intercourse on False Promise of Marriage – Applicability – Provision introduced under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sexual intercourse induced by deceitful means including false promise of marriage punishable even if not amounting to rape – Allegations and admissions disclosed prima facie offence under Section 69 BNS [Paras 11–14].

Rape – Statutory Rape – Section 63 BNS – Even though charge-sheet not filed for rape, Court observed that sexual intercourse with a girl under 18 years falls within definition of rape irrespective of consent – Prima facie applicability of aggravated penal provisions noted [Para 13].

Age Determination – Evidentiary Value – Matriculation Certificate – Argument that victim was major rejected – Held: Matriculation certificate carries primacy for determination of age at preliminary stage – Claim of “certificate age” without material evidence unsustainable [Para 10].

Admissions by Accused – Evidentiary Relevance – Applicants admitted physical relationship with victim in affidavit – Such admission strengthened prosecution case at threshold and negated plea of false implication at quashing stage [Para 7].

False Promise of Marriage – Distinction – Breach vs. Deceit – Reliance placed on Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra – False promise made without intention to marry attracts criminal liability – Allegations indicated promise was false since inception [Para 14].

Section 175(3) BNSS – Complaint Proceedings – Effect of Withdrawal – Earlier complaint withdrawn at pre-cognizance stage after registration of FIR – Revision dismissed as infructuous – Held: Section 233 BNSS (bar against parallel proceedings) not attracted – No illegality in continuation of prosecution [Para 15].

POCSO Act – Prima Facie Case – Continuous sexual exploitation of minor alleged – Investigation resulted in charge-sheet – Held: Serious allegations involving protection of child cannot be scuttled at threshold [Paras 9–10, 16].

Decision: Application dismissed – No ground made out for quashing of charge-sheet, summoning order or criminal proceedings – Trial to proceed in accordance with law [Para 16].

Public Employment – Recruitment by Public Service Commission – Mandatory Timelines – Submission of Documents – Cut-off Date – Advertisement No. 17/2022 for Assistant Professor (Botany) – Petitioner provisionally selected in written examination but failed to submit verification documents within stipulated time and even within extended periods granted with late fees – Subsequent representation citing illness rejected – Held: Conditions of advertisement and Appendix-1 regarding timelines are mandatory and binding – Non-compliance results in automatic cancellation of candidature – Commission becomes functus officio after expiry of final cut-off date – No relaxation permissible in absence of enabling provision [Paras 11–16, 22–24].

Service Law – Vigilance Expected from Candidates – Obligation to Monitor Official Website – Advertisement clauses casting duty on candidates to regularly check Commission’s website for updates – Disclaimer of responsibility for individual communication – Held: Responsibility to remain vigilant lies solely on candidate – Plea of ignorance or non-checking of website cannot be accepted [Paras 11–13, 22].

Service Law – Relaxation of Conditions – Medical Grounds – Equitable Considerations – Petitioner pleaded illness (Mixed Connective Tissue Disease) as reason for delay – No contemporaneous medical proof produced for relevant period – Advertisement did not provide for relaxation on medical or personal grounds – Held: In absence of statutory or advertised power of relaxation, no equity or sympathy can override mandatory recruitment conditions – Grant of individual relaxation would violate Articles 14 and 16 [Paras 17–18, 23–24].

Service Law – Interim Orders – Participation in Selection Process – No Vested Right – Petitioner permitted to appear in interview pursuant to interim order with result kept in sealed cover – Held: Participation under interim protection does not confer any vested or enforceable right – Candidate participates at own risk – On dismissal of petition, interim order stands merged with final decision [Paras 19, 25].

Judicial Review – Scope under Article 226 – Recruitment Matters – Concluded Selection Process – Interference at Belated Stage – Selection process finalized and recommendations already forwarded to State – Held: Court should not unsettle a concluded selection process in absence of illegality or arbitrariness – Interference would prejudice rights of duly selected candidates and undermine certainty in public recruitment [Paras 21, 24].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – No direction to accept documents beyond cut-off date – Interim order dated 16/12/2024 stands vacated – No relief granted to petitioner.

Commercial Law – Lease of Immovable Property – Jurisdiction of Commercial Court – Suit for recovery of mesne profits arising out of lease of immovable property used exclusively for commercial purposes – Property situated in commercial complex (Ansal Bhawan) and consistently used for commercial activities – Dispute squarely covered under Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of Commercial Courts Act – Mere involvement of Government as lessee does not oust jurisdiction – Held: Commercial Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit [Paras 23–28].

SAFEMA – Bar of Civil Jurisdiction – Scope of Sections 14 and 23 – Property earlier forfeited under SAFEMA – Forfeiture proceedings subsequently quashed by High Court for lack of jurisdiction – Civil suit did not challenge forfeiture but sought mesne profits for unauthorised occupation – Section 14 SAFEMA does not bar independent civil claims for damages/mesne profits once forfeiture proceedings are annulled – Section 23 protection unavailable where continued occupation lacks bona fides after quashing of forfeiture – Held: Suit not barred by SAFEMA [Paras 29–35].

Government as Tenant – Liability for Mesne Profits – Government continued in possession without payment of rent after forfeiture order and even after quashing thereof – Continued occupation without authority or payment held unjustified – Government liable to compensate owners for unauthorised use and occupation [Paras 35, 37].

Civil Procedure – Abatement – Death of Plaintiff – One of the plaintiffs died during pendency of suit – Legal representative brought on record – Right to sue survived as suit concerned joint ownership and monetary relief – No abatement of suit – Objection held technical and meritless [Para 36].

Mesne Profits – Limitation – Continuing Wrong and Recurring Cause of Action – Claim for mesne profits governed by Article 51 of Limitation Act – Each month of unauthorised occupation gives rise to recurring cause of action – Plaintiffs bona fide pursued writ remedy for possession and arrears – Limitation cannot be applied mechanically to defeat substantive justice [Paras 38–42].

Limitation Act – Section 14 – Exclusion of Time Spent in Writ Proceedings – Time spent in prosecuting writ petition for restoration of possession liable to be excluded – Writ proceedings treated as “civil proceedings” prosecuted in good faith – Plaintiffs entitled to exclusion till possession restored – Consequently, mesne profits restricted to three years prior to institution of writ petition [Paras 43–49].

Assessment of Mesne Profits – Methodology – Market rent determined on basis of contemporaneous lease deeds of comparable properties – Rate per sq. ft. applied to area of suit property – Method adopted by Single Judge upheld as sound and reasonable – However, recalculation required due to limitation [Paras 50–52].

Decision – Partial Allowance of Appeal – Decree for mesne profits upheld on merits but modified on limitation – Plaintiffs entitled to mesne profits only for period 23.09.2016 to 02.07.2020 – Amount recalculated at ₹67,13,340/- with interest @ 6% p.a. – Appeal partly allowed to limited extent – Impugned judgment otherwise affirmed [Paras 53–54].

Specific Performance – Second Appeal – Scope under Section 100 CPC – High Court reiterated that interference in second appeal is permissible only when findings of the First Appellate Court are perverse, based on no evidence, inadmissible evidence, or contrary to settled principles of law – Reappreciation of evidence not permissible [Paras 16, 31].

Specific Performance of Contract – Registered Possessory Agreement of Sale – Agreement of sale dated 09.03.1979 duly registered – Entire sale consideration paid and possession delivered on date of agreement – Certified copy admissible where original lost in cyclone – Execution of agreement not disputed by executant’s legal representatives – Decree for specific performance upheld [Paras 19, 22, 24].

Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 16(c) – Readiness and Willingness – Plaintiff proved oral demand for execution of sale deed during vendor’s lifetime and thereafter from legal representatives – Defendants 1 and 2 remained ex parte and did not dispute readiness and willingness – Requirement of notice held satisfied on facts [Paras 18–21].

Locus Standi – Third Party to Contract – Defendant No.3 not a party to the agreement of sale – Held, such defendant has no locus to challenge decree of specific performance granted against vendors’ legal representatives – Decree having attained finality as defendants 1 and 2 did not appeal [Paras 17, 22, 30].

Possession – Permissive Possession vs. Tenancy – Defendant No.3 claimed tenancy under original owner but failed to establish tenancy by evidence – Plaintiff proved permissive occupation after borrowing of money – Permissive possessor liable to vacate upon termination of permission [Paras 25, 29, 30].

Evidence – Conduct of Parties – Adverse Inference – Legal representatives of executant neither contested nor entered witness box – Presumption drawn against denial of execution and obligation to execute sale deed [Paras 20, 21].

Eviction – Consequential Relief – Once plaintiff held entitled to specific performance and execution of sale deed, permissive occupant/defendant No.3 liable to be evicted from suit schedule property [Paras 30].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court confirmed – No substantial question of law involved – Parties directed to bear their own costs

Bail – UAPA – Section 43D(5) – Prima Facie True Test – At the stage of bail, Court is required to assess material on broad probabilities and not conduct a detailed trial – Documents and investigation material to be taken as they are, without testing admissibility or reliability – Held: Accusation against the appellant found prima facie true on cumulative assessment of material [Paras 17–18].

Criminal Conspiracy – Proof – Circumstantial Evidence – Conspiracy need not be proved by direct evidence – Meeting of minds can be inferred from conduct, communications, and surrounding circumstances – Absence from some meetings not decisive – Held: Appellant’s conduct before and after the incident indicates participation in conspiracy [Paras 14–15.1].

Social Media Messages – Instigation – Intention – Appellant circulated screenshot of deceased’s post with provocative and inflammatory message after altering mobile number to reveal identity – Message capable of provoking violence in communally sensitive atmosphere – Relevant under Section 14 Evidence Act to infer intention and state of mind – Held: Prima facie instigation and motive established [Paras 6–10].

Terrorist Act – UAPA – Formation of Terrorist Gang – Material indicates organised plan to avenge perceived insult to faith and to strike terror in society – Killing of deceased as part of wider design – Held: Prima facie applicability of Sections 16, 18 and 20 UAPA [Paras 12–13, 18].

Extra-Judicial Confession – Evidentiary Value – Confession of co-accused not substantive evidence by itself – However, when supported by independent circumstantial material, it can lend corroboration – Held: Even dehors extra-judicial confessions, sufficient prima facie material exists against appellant [Paras 15–17].

Bail – Length of Custody – Article 21 – Though prolonged incarceration is a relevant factor, it cannot override statutory embargo under UAPA when accusations are prima facie true and evidence is of sufficient probative value – Held: Continued detention justified in view of gravity and nature of offence [Paras 18–18.1].

Precedents – Applicability – Vernon v. State of Maharashtra and Pancho v. State of Haryana distinguished on facts – Case governed by principles laid down in NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali and Union of India v. Barakathullah – Held: Bail rightly denied [Paras 16–17.3].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Order of Special Judge rejecting bail confirmed – Court holds that there are reasonable grounds to believe that accusations against the appellant are prima facie true – Statutory bar under UAPA attracted – No case for grant of bail made out.

Service Law – Lecturers in Government Polytechnics – Career Advancement Scheme – Academic Grade Pay (AGP) – Petitioners appointed as Lecturers between 1989–1999 and promoted to Selection Grade with AGP ₹9,000 – Junior Lecturers possessing Ph.D. granted AGP ₹10,000 – Petitioners challenged prescription of Ph.D. qualification as discriminatory – Held: No vested right to higher AGP in absence of prescribed qualification [Paras 3–5, 23–25].

Academic Policy – Prescription of Qualifications – Role of AICTE – AICTE, a statutory expert body under the AICTE Act, empowered to prescribe qualifications, service conditions and pay structures – Introduction of Ph.D. requirement for AGP ₹10,000 under Clarification dated 04.01.2016 held within statutory competence – Courts must defer to expert bodies in academic matters unless decision shown to be arbitrary or mala fide [Paras 7–10, 17–21].

Equality Clause – Articles 14 & 16 – Reasonable Classification – Classification between Ph.D. and non-Ph.D. Lecturers for grant of higher AGP based on higher academic attainment – Classification held intelligible and having rational nexus with object of improving academic standards and incentivising research – No violation of Articles 14 or 16 established [Paras 18–23].

Career Advancement – Incentive for Higher Qualification – Prescription of Ph.D. qualification intended to encourage faculty to acquire higher academic credentials – Policy decision aimed at enhancing quality of technical education – Such differentiation permissible in service jurisprudence [Paras 19–21].

Judicial Review – Limits in Academic and Policy Matters – Courts not equipped to substitute their views for those of statutory expert bodies on academic standards – Interference warranted only if decision is patently arbitrary, irrational or illegal – Reliance placed on Supreme Court precedents emphasising restraint in judicial review [Paras 17, 20–21].

Clarification vs. Amendment – Retrospective Effect – AICTE Clarification dated 04.01.2016 held to operate prospectively in governing eligibility for higher AGP – Does not divest any vested or accrued right of Petitioners – Distinction from cases involving retrospective alteration of service conditions [Paras 22–23].

Tribunal Orders – Validity – Central Administrative Tribunal correctly applied statutory framework and principles governing academic policy – Impugned orders dismissing Original Applications upheld – No perversity or illegality found [Paras 26–27].

Decision – Writ petitions dismissed – Prescription of Ph.D. qualification for grant of AGP ₹10,000 upheld as valid – No interference warranted with AICTE Regulations or Tribunal’s orders – Pending applications dismissed [Paras 27–28].