Labour Law – Legal Representation – Section 36(4) ID Act – Employer’s Right to Counsel – Applicant, a small laundry employing 4–5 persons, sought leave to engage an Advocate for cross-examination in Reference proceedings – Labour Court rejected request solely on objection of workman – Held: Refusal was mechanical and contrary to settled law – Court must exercise discretion to prevent prejudice and ensure fairness – Impugned order set aside [Paras 6, 11–13, 17–18].

Industrial Adjudication – Fair Trial – Principles of Natural Justice – Petitioner was unskilled in legal procedure and unable to cross-examine or present evidence effectively – Denial of legal aid to such a party violates Articles 14 and 21 – Right to fair hearing includes reasonable opportunity to defend with appropriate representation – Leave under Section 36(4) must be interpreted liberally in such cases [Paras 15–16].

Statutory Interpretation – Consent and Leave under Section 36(4) – Twin conditions of opposite party’s consent and Court’s leave are mandatory – However, Court must scrutinise mala fide or arbitrary denial of consent – Labour Court has power to override such refusal in interest of justice – Consent cannot be used to exploit or disadvantage the other party [Paras 9–10, 14].

Legal Framework – Special Law vs. General Law – Advocates Act vs. ID Act – Section 30 of Advocates Act does not override Section 36 of ID Act – ID Act being special legislation governs representation before Labour Courts – Special law prevails over general law – Labour Court’s discretion remains intact [Paras 9, 23–24].

Judicial Precedents – Court relies on Bangalore Water Supply, Paradip Port Trust, T.K. Varghese, Thyssen Krupp Industries, and Yeshwant Harichandra Gharat to reaffirm that denial of representation must not result in inequality or miscarriage of justice – Representation must be allowed where required for effective participation [Paras 4.1–4.4, 14].

Decision: Civil Revision Application allowed – Labour Court's order dated 01.12.2023 quashed – Applicant permitted to engage Advocate of choice – Labour Court to proceed on merits – Appreciation recorded for Legal Aid Counsel Mr. Shailesh Pathak [Paras 18–20].

Criminal Law - NDPS Act – Commercial Quantity – Conviction Confirmed – Appellants found in possession of 550 kg of ganja concealed in oil tanker – Trial court convicted all accused under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29 of the NDPS Act – High Court upheld conviction, finding that prosecution proved compliance with procedural requirements and guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Delay in certification not fatal – All procedures substantially followed [Paras 1–11, 44–45].

Search and Seizure – Section 42 vs Section 43 NDPS Act – Plea of non-compliance with Section 42 rejected – Court held oil tanker is a public utility vehicle and falls under ‘public conveyance’ – Hence, Section 43 applicable and no prior written intimation required – Ownership immaterial for applicability of Section 43 [Paras 31–33].

Evidentiary Value – Non-examination of Seizure Witnesses – Validity – Non-examination of two independent seizure witnesses held not fatal – Seizure list contained signatures of accused, witnesses and officials – Seizing officer (PW-4) proved the seizure and sampling process – No prejudice caused to defence [Paras 34–36].

Section 52A NDPS Act – Substantial Compliance – Validity of Sampling and Certification – Though certification of samples by Magistrate delayed, court held that sampling was done in presence of accused and duly sealed – Samples produced in court and sent to FSL with test memo – Inventory, photographs and resamples proved – Court held substantial compliance with Section 52A [Paras 38–39, 44].

Admissibility of Evidence – Procedural Irregularities – High Court followed Supreme Court ruling in Kashif, Bharat Aambale and Pooran Mal – Held that mere procedural lapses in sampling or certification under Section 52A do not render evidence inadmissible unless serious prejudice shown – Accused failed to establish any such prejudice [Paras 40–42].

Presumption under Section 54 NDPS Act – Court held statutory presumption of conscious possession applicable – Defence failed to rebut presumption or establish procedural bias – Accused found in vehicle carrying commercial quantity of ganja, admitted presence and signatures on documents [Paras 36, 44].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Conviction under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29 NDPS Act upheld – Sentences of 20 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of ₹2,00,000 each to continue – Procedural safeguards substantially complied with – No merit found in grounds of challenge [Paras 44–45].

NDPS Act – Bail – Disclosure Statement of Co-Accused – Weak Evidentiary Value – Petitioner implicated only based on co-accused’s disclosure; no recovery from petitioner; Court holds disclosure statement without corroboration cannot be sole basis for implication; evidentiary value to be tested at trial – Raises serious doubts regarding fairness of investigation [Paras 3, 6].

Custody & Delay – Long Incarceration Dilutes Rigour of Section 37 NDPS Act – Petitioner in custody since 12.06.2023; challan filed 07.12.2023; 28 witnesses cited but none examined – Delay not attributable to petitioner – Prolonged incarceration of 2 years 3 months 15 days violates Article 21; thus rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act stand diluted [Paras 6, 6.3–6.4].

Section 37 NDPS Act – Twin Conditions – Principles Summarised – Court reiterates jurisprudence:

• Twin conditions are cumulative, not alternative;

• Bail Court may look at defence material;

• “Not likely to commit offence while on bail” requires demonstrable probability, not theoretical presumption;

• Antecedents alone cannot justify rejection when case on merits is made out [Paras 6.2–6.6].**

Right to Speedy Trial – Article 21 – Reiterated – Cites line of Supreme Court precedents (Hussainara Khatoon; Antulay; Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain; Chitta Biswas; Nitish Adhikary) – Overcrowded dockets and systemic delay cannot justify prolonged incarceration; pre-trial detention cannot turn into punitive imprisonment [Paras 6.5–6.6].

Antecedents – Not Sole Ground to Deny Bail – Petitioner involved in two other cases per custody certificate – Court holds antecedents relevant but not determinative when prosecution case in present FIR itself is weak and delay substantial [Para 6.6].

Decision: Petition allowed – Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail subject to strict conditions including: no misuse of liberty, no tampering with evidence, appearance at trial dates, deposit of passport, maintaining same mobile number, monthly affidavit regarding non-involvement in offence – State given liberty to seek cancellation upon breach [Paras 7–9].

Civil Law – Revenue Proceedings – Timely Disposal – Section 116 U.P. Revenue Code – Petitioner sought direction for early disposal of partition suit pending since 2022 – Held: Rule 109(10) mandates an endeavour to decide such suits within six months. The Presiding Officer is directed to decide the case within six months. [Para 9]

Legal Ethics – Lawyers' Strike – Contempt of Court – Held: Continuous strikes by Bar Associations causing delay in judicial proceedings affect the public, especially poor litigants. If a case is adjourned due to a strike, the office bearers of the concerned Bar Association will be liable for contempt of Court for violating the directions in Daya Shankar v. State of U.P.. Litigants are at liberty to file contempt proceedings against such office bearers. [Para 10]

Decision: Petition disposed of with directions. [Para 11]

Criminal Law – Rape – Quashing of Proceedings – Allegation of sexual exploitation over three years disbelieved – De facto complainant alleged repeated sexual abuse and coercion by petitioner between 2011 and 2014 – Petitioner produced documents showing ongoing cordial relationship till 2017 and pending civil litigation regarding monetary disputes – Court found inconsistencies in complainant's version and noted that FIR followed closely after petitioner initiated civil and criminal proceedings against her – Held: Allegations inherently improbable and motivated – Proceedings quashed [Paras 1, 5–7]

Criminal Procedure – Quashment of Charges – Exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC – Legal test – Court held that continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law – Evident from record that FIR was lodged as a retaliatory move after petitioner initiated legal actions – No prima facie case made out warranting trial – Held: Proceedings against accused under Sections 376(f)(n) IPC and 66E IT Act liable to be quashed [Paras 6–7]

Evidence – Delay and Prior Relationship – Long delay in lodging complaint coupled with friendly relationship undermines credibility – Complainant gave sworn statement in 2017 describing petitioner as a close family friend despite alleging prior prolonged abuse – Court noted improbability of continued relationship and non-disclosure of alleged abuse for years by educated complainant – Held: Circumstances indicate false implication [Paras 6–7]

Decision: Criminal Miscellaneous Case allowed – Proceedings against petitioner in S.C. No.108/2019 (arising from Crime No.1142/2018 of Erattupetta Police Station) quashed.

Criminal Law – Robbery – Conviction under Section 397 IPC – Reversed – Appellant convicted for robbery and stabbing under Sections 394/34 and 397 IPC – Trial court sentenced him to concurrent imprisonment of 3 years and 7 years – Complainant identified appellant at police station, but no Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted – Held: Dock identification in absence of prior TIP, where accused is a stranger, is weak and unreliable – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 13–18].

Evidence – Identification – TIP Not Conducted – Fatal Flaw – Accused was a stranger to the complainant – Identification first made at police station – No judicial TIP held – Supreme Court precedents reaffirmed that TIP is crucial investigative tool in such cases – Dock identification alone cannot form basis of conviction without prior TIP – Held: TIP omission vitiates prosecution case [Paras 15–16].

Witness Testimony – Improvement and Contradictions – Complainant made material improvements in Court testimony including number of knives, request for matchbox, and additional items allegedly robbed (power bank, headphone) – MLC did not mention all injuries as per final testimony – CCTV footage failed to capture incident – Held: Inconsistent narrative weakens prosecution case [Paras 9, 17].

Recovery of Stolen Items – Inconsistent Prosecution Case – Power bank recovered from appellant marked as robbed item despite no mention in original complaint or initial witness accounts – Mobile phone recovered from co-accused – Questionable chain of custody and post-arrest introduction of evidence – Held: Serious doubt cast on credibility of recovery [Paras 11, 14].

Benefit of Doubt – Acquittal – Serious gaps in prosecution case including absence of independent eye-witnesses, contradictory testimonies, and flawed identification – Court held that guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt – Appellant entitled to benefit of doubt [Paras 18–19].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted – Ordered to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.

Arbitration – Scope of Judicial Interference – Award upholding investor’s claim for indemnity from CDSL under Section 16 of Depositories Act – Tribunal held DP (BRH) acted negligently and fraudulently while transferring and pledging investor’s shares – Court held findings plausible, reasoned, and not perverse – Petition under Section 34 dismissed [Paras 1, 75–78].

Depository Liability – Negligence by DP – BRH, acting as DP of CDSL, fraudulently transferred investor’s shares using Power of Attorney and pledged them to HDFC Bank – Held: Since BRH acted at least partly as DP, CDSL liable to indemnify under Section 16 – CDSL cannot escape liability by attributing acts solely to role of broker [Paras 20–24, 36–47].

Power of Attorney Misuse – Composite Fraud – No underlying trades justified share transfers – Transfers effected solely to engineer fraudulent pledge – Tribunal found Petitioner liable for permitting DP to transfer and pledge shares of 9493 clients – Held: Entire transaction was composite fraud facilitated by CDSL’s DP, attracting vicarious liability [Paras 40–44, 48–50].

Investor Protection – SEBI Regulatory Framework – SEBI Circulars (pre- and post-incident) required adequate monitoring, early warning mechanisms, and supervisory oversight – CDSL failed to prevent DP’s misuse of POA – Court held that investor compensation is independent of specific regulatory violations; Section 16 creates strict liability on depository for DP’s negligent acts [Paras 53–62].

SEBI Circular of 25.07.2023 – No Bar to Depository’s Liability – Circular cannot override statutory liability under Section 16 – Tribunal correctly held that responsibility for DP’s misconduct lies with CDSL and not with NSE – Attempt to shift burden to NSE rejected [Paras 63–70].

Equity Jurisdiction – Tribunal Not Acting as Amiable Compositeur – Though Tribunal used terms like ‘ends of justice’, award was based on findings of statutory negligence – Tribunal did not invoke equity jurisdiction under Section 28(2) of Arbitration Act – No illegality found [Paras 73–74].

Decision: Arbitration Petition dismissed – Arbitral Award upheld – CDSL held liable to indemnify Respondent No.1 for value of lost shares (Rs. 86,02,768/-) – No costs awarded – Interim Application also disposed of [Paras 75–79].

Petroleum Dealership – Eligibility Criteria – Joint Land Ownership – Lease Deed Requirement – IOCL Brochure Clause 4(vi)(a) mandates that on the date of application, lease deed must be executed by all co-owners; failure renders application invalid – Petitioner submitted lease from only one co-sharer and relied on preliminary decree of partition – Held: Preliminary decree is insufficient; only final decree separating shares by metes and bounds establishes exclusive title – Rejection of application upheld [Paras 8–14, 20]

Partition of Land – Preliminary vs. Final Decree – Under Sections 116–117 of U.P. Revenue Code and Rules 108–109, preliminary decree merely declares shares; final decree alone identifies exact land allotted to each co-sharer – At stage of preliminary decree location of allotted land may change – Applicant must furnish final decree if relying on partition in joint property – Petitioner lacked final decree on date of application [Paras 12–14]

Administrative Law – Commercial Decision of IOCL – Judicial Review – Selection for retail outlet dealership is contractual and commercial – Writ Court will not interfere unless action is arbitrary or irrational – IOCL acted as per Brochure; decision neither arbitrary nor unreasonable – No ground for interference under Article 226 [Paras 17, 20–21]

Precedents – Identical Issues – Earlier judgments in Rahul Singh (Writ C 7354/2024, decided 06.03.2024) and Amarjeet (Writ C 11586/2024, decided 06.05.2024) applied – Both held that in joint ownership cases absence of lease from all co-owners on date of application is fatal – Applied squarely to present case [Paras 15–19]

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – No infirmity in IOCL’s rejection order; no relief granted – No order as to costs [Paras 20–21].

Family Law – Custody and Visitation – Maintainability of Injunction Suit by One Parent Against the Other – Family Court Suit – Respondent-mother filed a suit seeking permanent injunction restraining the petitioner-father from contacting the child or school staff – Petitioner-father filed application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of plaint – Family Court dismissed the application – High Court held that such a suit, though labeled as permanent injunction, essentially seeks custody-related reliefs which fall within Family Court jurisdiction under Section 7 of Family Courts Act – Mere use of “injunction” terminology does not oust Family Court’s jurisdiction [Paras 8–11].

Civil Procedure – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Rejection of Plaint – Scope – Plaintiff’s pleadings alone to be considered – Defence or merits not to be weighed – High Court reiterated that so long as the plaint discloses a cause of action and falls within court jurisdiction, rejection under Order VII Rule 11 not warranted – Held: Family Court rightly refused to reject plaint [Paras 12–14].

Jurisdiction – Family Court – Custody and Visitation Rights – Even if framed as civil suit for injunction, underlying dispute concerns parental rights and child welfare – Such matters fall squarely within jurisdiction of Family Court under Section 7 of Family Courts Act – Held: Proper remedy is for father to seek visitation under Section 26 of Hindu Marriage Act or Guardians and Wards Act, not by resisting injunction suit as non-maintainable [Paras 11, 15–18].

Pleadings – Cause of Action – Sufficiency – Court reiterated that only averments in the plaint are relevant for examining maintainability under Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Plaintiff alleged threats, school disruption, and psychological impact on minor – These constitute cause of action for seeking relief – Held: Contentions of petitioner on truth or sufficiency of those facts not relevant at this stage [Paras 13–14].

Decision: Revision Petition dismissed – No interference with Family Court’s order – Petitioner permitted to pursue appropriate remedies under law for visitation or custody.