Criminal Appeal – Anticipatory Bail – Denial of anticipatory bail by the High Court – Appellants sought anticipatory bail in three separate cases – Non-disclosure of relevant facts regarding initiation of proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C. – Interim protection granted but subsequently found that relevant facts were not disclosed – Appellants not entitled to pre-arrest bail – Appeals dismissed. [Para 2-4]

Non-disclosure of relevant facts – Failure to mention the issuance of process under Section 82, Cr.P.C., and dismissal of Revision Petition against the same – Appellants approaching the Court with no clean hands – Lack of entitlement to leniency or favor – Disentitlement to relief at this stage. [Para 4]

Family Dispute – Mediation – Resolution of matrimonial disputes – Multiple cases filed by both parties – Decree of divorce already passed – Agreement reached on permanent alimony and visiting rights for the child – Criminal and civil cases between parties – All civil cases withdrawn, and criminal proceedings quashed – Certificates to be returned to the respondent/wife – Parties urged to cooperate for the sake of the child. [Para 1-7]

Disability Assessment - Evaluation of disability claims by Medical Board - Reports issued by the Medical Board upholding the claim of petitioners as persons with disabilities - No further clarification deemed necessary - Petitioners' claims upheld. [Para 1-3]

Admission of Disabled Students - Direction to treat the petitioners as persons with disabilities and consider their applications for admission - Compliance with other admission parameters required - Writ Petitions allowed accordingly. [Para 2-3]

Review of Disability Assessments - Need for detailed evaluation and reasoning in disability assessments - Lack of reasoning in the reports issued by the Medical Board - Direction to provide clarificatory note with elaborate reasoning based on the evaluation conducted - Consideration of recent developments in medical sciences - Petitioners' conditions and potential aids to be assessed - Earmarking of seats for disabled candidates in the counseling process - Compliance with principles of merit in allocation - Concerns regarding the benchmark disability criteria under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - One size fits all norm and potential anomalies - Directive to the Union to consider steps to mitigate such issues and enable effective participation - Listing for further proceedings. [Para 7-14]

Family Law – Maintenance Section 125 Cr.P.C. - Modification of maintenance order - Appellant challenges the High Court's modification of maintenance granted to the respondent No. 1-wife and son - High Court modified the maintenance order to be payable from the date of filing the application for maintenance - Appellant contends that the maintenance granted is excessive and questions the starting date of payment - Appellant's concealed receipt of compensation amounts revealed during the proceedings - Maintenance ordered to be payable at different rates and from different dates based on the appellant's income and circumstances - Appeals partly allowed, and modified maintenance orders issued. [Para 3-8]

Criminal Appeal – Conviction under NDPS Act – Appeal against the judgment of the High Court – Appellants convicted for possession of contraband – Various grounds of appeal raised, including the admissibility of confession statements – Examination of evidence and procedural safeguards required under the NDPS Act – Credibility of independent witnesses questioned – Handling of case property and discrepancy in description – Defense version of false implication raised. Evaluation of evidence – Review of the appellant’s case – Conviction order of Satnam Singh upheld, while Balwinder Singh acquitted based on legal analysis and evidentiary considerations. [Para 1-5, 27]

Legal Burden of Proof – Standard of Proof – Higher degree of assurance required for prosecution in serious offences – Initial burden on prosecution to establish foundational facts beyond reasonable doubt – Shift of burden to accused – Lesser standard for accused to prove innocence by preponderance of probability. [Para 15-16]

Criminal Appeal – Interpretation of NDPS Act – Significance of Tofan Singh's Decision – Re-examination of Kanhaiyalal and Raj Kumar Karwal – Confessional statements made to officers under Section 53 of NDPS Act – officers invested with powers under Section 53 of the NDPS Act are "police officers" within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, rendering confessional statements made to them inadmissible - Constitutional guarantees – Overruling of previous judgments – Satnam Singh’s case – Conviction based on confessional statements – Effect of Tofan Singh’s verdict – Acquittal of Balwinder Singh [Para 6-13]

Possession of Contraband – Essential for conviction under NDPS Act – Recovery must adhere to Section 50 of the NDPS Act – Prosecution successfully proves foundational facts in Satnam Singh’s case. [Para 18-19]

Unreliable Defense – Defense witnesses not able to provide adequate corroboration or substantiate claims – Claims regarding Satnam Singh’s custody before the naka laid not substantiated – Inconsistent mobile phone bill evidence. [Para 22-26]

Independent Witnesses – Application of Section 100(4) Cr.P.C. – Context-specific provision for search of closed places – Irrelevant to the case of an open area naka – Testimony of Sonu8, an independent witness, upheld. [Para 24-26]

Decision – Satnam Singh5’s conviction upheld based on sufficient evidence – Balwinder Singh3 acquitted due to the absence of conclusive evidence connecting him to the offence. [Para 27]

Property Dispute – Agreement to Sell – Interpretation of the clauses in the Agreement – Onus of applying for permission and intimating the respondents about it within a specified time – Consequences of non-performance of duties cast upon appellants – Suit for specific performance barred by limitation due to lack of diligence on the part of respondents. [Para 10-12]

Limitation Act – The suit filed by respondents for specific performance of the Agreement to Sell was barred by limitation as they failed to take prompt action within the specified time frame, and there was no indication of their readiness and willingness to perform their obligations under the agreement. [Para 12-13]

Refund of Earnest Money – The respondents are entitled to a refund of the earnest money paid to the appellants in 1975, amounting to Rs.1,000, which has been quantified at Rs.1,50,000 due to the time elapsed, to be paid on/before 01.01.2024. [Para 14]

Arbitration - Validity of arbitral award - Dispute regarding delay in execution of a contract for a sewage water reclamation plant - Award allowed certain claims by Batliboi Environmental Engineers Limited (BEEL) for compensation - Arbitral award lacks detailed analysis and reasons for findings, especially concerning delay responsibility and computation of damages - Damages should be commensurate with the loss sustained - Method of computation depends on facts and circumstances of each case - Arbitrator has the discretion to determine the appropriate method - Whimsical and absurd computation should be avoided - Award fails to provide a reasonable basis for the damages awarded, and thus, requires further scrutiny. [Para 7-16]

Construction Contract – Calculation of Damages – Overheads and Profits – Arbitral Tribunal's Award – Challenge to the Award – Principles for Computation of Damages Under Hudson’s Formula – Application of Formula to Assess Loss of Overheads and Profits – Need for Justification and Care in Applying the Formula – Avoiding Double Recovery – Arbitral Tribunal's Failure to Adhere to Established Principles – Inflated Award of Damages – Overlapping Claims – Lack of Justification for Computed Loss – Failure to Apply Mitigation Principle – Award for Idle Machinery and Equipment – Lack of Reasoning for Award – Challenge to the Award Sustained. [Para 17-29]

Arbitration and Conciliation Act - Scope of Court's Power to Review Awards under Section 34 - Interpretation of "in conflict with the public policy of India" - Legislative amendments and judicial pronouncements - The need to interpret provisions as they existed at the time of filing objections to the award - Examination of amendments introduced by Act No. 3 of 2016 and judgments on the amended Section 34 not necessary. [Para 30]

Post-award interference and the role of courts under Section 34 of the A&C Act - Emphasis on party autonomy in arbitration - Arguments for and against post-award court interference - Balancing party autonomy with fundamental rights and due process - Courts' intervention justified when the award is unfair, arbitrary, perverse, or infirm in law. [Para 31]

Analysis of Section 34 of the A&C Act before and after the 2016 amendment - Grounds for setting aside an arbitral award - Examination of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 34 - Detailed discussion of the grounds for setting aside an award, including incapacity, invalid arbitration agreements, lack of proper notice, disputes beyond the scope of arbitration, and non-compliance with arbitration agreements. [Para 33-35]

Discussion of 'public policy' in Section 34 - Wide and narrow interpretations - Consideration of public interest, justice, morality, and legality - Impact of legislative changes and judicial decisions on the interpretation of 'public policy.' [Para 36-38]

Court's role in reviewing awards - Judicial approach, natural justice, and avoidance of irrationality - Principles governing interference with arbitral awards - Three fundamental principles constituting 'fundamental policy of Indian law' - Requirements for an award to be set aside, including irrationality, shock to the conscience, and patent illegality. [Para 41-43]

Dismissal of the appeal. [Para 45-46]

Civil Appeal – Redemption of Mortgage – Appellant, an auction purchaser, challenges High Court's order allowing borrowers to redeem the mortgage – Complex factual background involving loan default, auction proceedings, and redemption offer – Key issue of whether borrowers' offer to pay Rs. 129 crore for redemption is acceptable – Detailed analysis required. [Para 1-21]

SARFAESI Act – Interpretation of Amended Section 13(8) – The Telangana High Court's judgment in Amme Srisailam – Evaluation of the High Court's reasoning – Misplaced reliance on S. Karthik (supra) – Amendment to Section 13(8) subsequent to S. Karthik (supra) – Failure to consider the impact of the 2016 Amendment in S. Karthik (supra) – The High Court's misinterpretation of S. Karthik (supra) – Concern Readymix's misplaced relevance – Distinction between special enactment (SARFAESI Act) and general enactment (Act 1882) – Overriding clause under Section 35 of the SARFAESI Act – Impact of the 2016 Amendment on the inconsistency between Section 13(8) and Act 1882 – The necessity for a harmonious interpretation of Sections 35 and 37 of the SARFAESI Act – ejusdem generis principle – Interpretation of the expression "or any other law for the time being in force" in Section 37 – The significance of the change in the Joint Committee's proposal – Headings and marginal notes not determinative of a provision's substance – Ensuring sanctity and legal validity of auction processes under SARFAESI Act – Precluding borrowers from thwarting auctions by redeeming mortgages at the last moment – Preserving the SARFAESI Act's objective of timely recovery of dues by banks without court intervention. [Para 73-82]

Exercise of Extraordinary Jurisdiction by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in SARFAESI Matters – Examination of the need for High Court interference in the present case – Key facts:

(a) The appellant successfully bid Rs. 105.05 crore for a secured asset.

(b) The Bank confirmed the sale to the appellant on June 30, 2023.

(c) On July 27, 2023, the appellant paid the full bid amount of Rs. 105.05 crore to the Bank.

(d) Out of this amount, the Bank appropriated Rs. 63,50,45,000 against the Borrowers' dues.

(e) The Bank failed to issue the sale certificate to the appellant on July 27, 2023.

(f) The Borrowers invoked the Writ Jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court under Article 226, fearing their application in DRT might be denied.

(g) The Bombay High Court allowed the Writ Petition, citing a consent granted by the Bank to extend the Borrowers' repayment deadline until August 31, 2023.

Justification for entertaining the Writ Petition – High Court's rationale for entertaining the Writ Petition based on "peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case" and consensus between the Respondent Bank and the Petitioners – Analysis of High Court's decision – Conclusion that Writ Petition was not an abuse of process. [Para 91]

High Court's Exercise of Writ Jurisdiction – Reminder of High Courts not to entertain petitions under Article 226 if an effective remedy is available under the SARFAESI Act – Citing Satyawati Tondon case and emphasizing the need to exhaust statutory remedies before approaching the High Court – Discretion to entertain such petitions should be exercised cautiously. [Para 92]

Supreme Court's observations in Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal – Recognition of exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy – High Court's reluctance to entertain a writ petition when an effective alternative remedy exists is still valid – Reference to Thansingh Nathmal case, Titaghur Paper Mills case, and other similar judgments. [Para 93]

Supreme Court's observations in Phoenix ARC Private Limited v. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir & Ors. – Writ petition against a private financial institution (ARC) under Article 226 not maintainable – Borrowers must avail the remedy under the SARFAESI Act – Criticism of High Court's grant of stay orders – Filing of writ petitions by borrowers deemed an abuse of process. [Para 94]

Supreme Court's observations in Varimadugu OBI Reddy – Disapproval of High Courts entertaining writ applications under Article 226 without exhausting alternative statutory remedies – Criticism of adopting a circuitous route to avoid pre-deposit conditions under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act. [Para 95]

Continued concern about High Courts ignoring statutory remedies under the RDBFI Act and the SARFAESI Act despite repeated Supreme Court pronouncements – Need for High Courts to exercise discretion cautiously in such matters. [Para 96]

Conduct of the Bank – Identification of the root cause in the Bank's actions – Failure to issue a sale certificate to the auction purchaser despite full payment and redemption rights lapsing – Acceptance of the borrower's offer for redemption against the statutory provisions – Inconsistent actions by the Bank. [Para 97-100]

Bank's Duty to Follow the Law – Emphasis on the Bank adhering to the law as any other litigant – Mention of the Bank's duty to follow the SARFAESI Act's provisions – Criticism of the Bank's inconsistent actions and deviation from legal requirements. [Para 100-101]

Bank's Contrary Actions to Supreme Court Judgments – Highlighting the Bank's actions going against two specific Supreme Court judgments – Satyawati Tondon and Varimadugu OBI Reddy. [Para 101]

Supreme Court's Observations in National Spot Exchange Ltd. v. Anil Kohli – Emphasizing that when the law is clear and unambiguous, it must be followed – Equity cannot override the law – Reference to several Supreme Court judgments on this matter. [Para 102]

Conclusions:

(i) High Court's exercise of writ jurisdiction not justified when borrowers had alternative remedies under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.

(ii) Confirmation of sale by the Bank vested the auction purchaser with the right to obtain a sale certificate, per Rule 9(6) of the SARFAESI Act.

(iii) Borrower's right of redemption extinguished under the amended Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act upon publication of the auction notice under Rule 9(1).

(iv) Bank could not withhold the sale certificate and enter into a private arrangement with the borrower after confirming the sale.

(v) High Court could not apply equitable considerations to override statutory auction processes.

(vi) Criticism of certain High Court decisions that did not follow the correct legal position.

(vii) Bank ordered to refund the borrowers' deposit and issue the sale certificate, with the appellant making an additional payment.

(viii) Pending applications disposed of. [Para 105-109]

Appeal Allowed and setting aside the High Court's decision.

Criminal Appeal – Interpretation of FEMA and FERA – Prosecution for offences under Sections 56 and 57 of FERA after repeal – Validity of complaints filed by an Enforcement Officer – Sunset period provided under Section 49(3) of FEMA – Legal fiction preserving the application of FERA for prosecution purposes – Court's duty to adopt an interpretation making statutory provisions workable. [Para 5-12]

Repeal and Saving – Effect of repeal of FERA by FEMA – Preservation of rights, liabilities, penalties, and prosecutions under FERA – Application of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act – Prosecution for offences under FERA continued despite repeal – Reference to precedent in M/s. P.V. Mohammad Barmay Sons v. Director of Enforcement. [Para 13-14]

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Trial Court directed to prioritize the disposal of the complaint bearing CC.No.14/CW/2002. [Para 15]