Arbitration Law – Section 11(6) – Judicial Review – High Court, having appointed arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the A&C Act, later reviewed and dismissed the same petition on ground of invalidity of Clause 25 – Held: Such review impermissible – Section 11(6) does not confer any revisional or appellate power to re-adjudicate issues already settled – High Court became functus officio after appointment – Review jurisdiction wrongly invoked to revisit settled interpretation [Paras 11.1–11.15]

Arbitration Agreement – Existence and Validity – Clause 25 of contract between parties provided for dispute resolution through arbitration with a specific appointment procedure – Held: Clause 25 satisfied the requirements of Section 7 of the A&C Act – Arbitration agreement valid and binding – Prior arbitration between same parties under same clause further established existence of valid arbitration mechanism – Subsequent dispute over extended period arbitrable under same clause [Paras 12.1–12.8, 12.17]

Unilateral Appointment Clause – Validity and Severability – Clause 25 vested appointment power solely in Managing Director and stated arbitration would not proceed if appointment not made – Held: Such unilateral clause violates principles of neutrality, equality and Article 14 – Portion of clause disabling arbitration to be severed – Doctrine of severability invoked – Core arbitration agreement preserved, appointment process corrected under Section 11(6) [Paras 12.9–12.16]

Section 29A Extension – Waiver by Conduct – Respondents joined in multiple applications under Section 29A to extend mandate of arbitrator – Held: Though Section 12(5) requires express post-dispute written waiver, participation and joint applications under Section 29A amount to waiver under Section 4 – Respondents estopped from challenging arbitrator’s mandate after years of participation [Paras 13.1–13.13]

Precedential Value – Dismissal of SLP – High Court relied on earlier case (Kashish Developers) said to be “affirmed” by SC due to SLP dismissal – Held: Dismissal of SLP without reasons does not amount to law declared under Article 141 – Does not bind other benches – Reliance on such dismissal misplaced – Precedent value confined to that case alone [Paras 14–14.3]

Public Contracts – Model Litigant Conduct – Respondent PSU delayed appointment, resisted arbitration after years of participation – Held: Conduct unjustified – State entities must act fairly and promptly – Warning issued to Managing Director – Caution against future recurrence of administrative apathy in contractual obligations [Paras 19–19.2]

Relief – Appeal Allowed – Impugned judgment set aside – High Court directed to appoint substitute arbitrator within two weeks – Proceedings to resume from stage at which they were interrupted – De novo hearing avoided in interest of efficiency and fairness [Paras 18, 20]

Negotiable Instruments – Jurisdiction – Territorial jurisdiction under Section 142(2)(a) NI Act – Complaint under Section 138 is triable only in court where payee maintains the account – Explanation to Section 142(2)(a) creates legal fiction deeming cheque delivered at any branch as delivered at home branch – Held: Jurisdiction cannot be fixed at the place of cheque deposit for collection if different from payee’s bank branch where account is maintained – Ensures uniformity and clarity in trial jurisdiction post-amendment [Paras 54-58, 76]

Interpretation of Statute – Explanation to Section 142(2)(a) – Legal fiction – Deeming provision clarifies that delivery for collection at any bank branch shall be deemed delivery to payee’s home branch – Prevents forum shopping – Held: Interpretation must avoid circumvention of jurisdictional safeguards and uphold purpose of statutory reform under 2015 amendment [Paras 68-70, 73]

Precedent – Yogesh Upadhyay v. Atlanta Ltd. – Overruled – Yogesh Upadhyay interpreted Section 142(2)(a) to prioritise the place of cheque deposit – Court held such interpretation overlooks the Explanation and statutory fiction – Declared per incuriam – Clarified that delivery for collection is legally deemed to occur at home branch, not place of physical deposit – Reaffirmed Bridgestone India and distinguished reasoning in Sendhur Agro Industries [Paras 65, 67, 75]

Transfer of Pending Case – Section 145(2) NI Act – Complaint was originally filed before MM, Kolkata – Proceedings had reached stage of recording complainant's evidence before return of complaint for lack of jurisdiction post-amendment – Held: In line with Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod, complaints which reached evidence stage prior to amendment must remain with existing court to avoid prejudice – Re-transfer to MM, Kolkata directed to resume from pre-return stage [Paras 77-80]

Statutory Interpretation – Harmonious construction – Explanation must clarify, not override or distort main provision – Court emphasised that Section 142(2)(a) must be interpreted as per legislative purpose to provide specific jurisdiction and prevent jurisdictional misuse – Held: Statement of Objects and Reasons cannot override plain language of Explanation – Interpretation in Yogesh Upadhyay disregards Explanation and allows jurisdictional manipulation [Para 70(i)-(ii)]

Jurisdiction Post-Amendment – Conflict between pre-amendment judgments and amended law resolved – Court explained that 2015 Amendment intended to overcome accused-centric interpretation in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod – However, intention was not to reintroduce misuse potential under Bhaskaran – Held: Legislative design balances convenience of payee with fairness to accused through deeming fiction [Paras 39, 56-58, 70]

Doctrine of Per Incuriam – Applied to Yogesh Upadhyay – Judgment declared per incuriam for failing to consider binding Explanation to Section 142(2)(a) and misreading legislative intent – Clarified that subsequent courts are not bound by decisions that overlook express statutory provisions [Paras 75, 68]

Decision: Petition allowed – Complaint and all related proceedings under Section 138 NI Act transferred back to Metropolitan Magistrate, Kolkata – Proceedings to resume from stage prior to return order dated 28.07.2016 – All connected transfer petitions also disposed of accordingly.

Insolvency Law – IBC - Moratorium under Section 14 – Scope – Corporate debtor (developer) failed to commence or complete redevelopment project despite multiple extensions – Society terminated the Development Agreement and executed new agreement with another developer prior to initiation of second CIRP – Held: Section 14 does not protect development rights already terminated before CIRP – Such terminated contractual rights do not constitute “assets” under IBC [Paras 16.4–16.12, 21(ii)]

Termination of Development Agreement – Legality – Agreement dated 16.10.2005 and Supplementary Agreements of 2005 and 2014 terminated by society citing prolonged defaults in performance, including failure to pay rent, non-demolition and non-construction – Termination effected by notices in 2019 and 2021 – Held: Termination was lawful, not related to insolvency, and fell outside NCLT jurisdiction under Section 60(5)(c) – IBC cannot protect commercial indolence in projects of public welfare [Paras 15–15.14, 21(i)]

Urban Redevelopment – Nature of Rights – Developer under slum redevelopment does not acquire possessory or proprietary interest unless stipulated – Held: Appellant was a mere licensee, had no physical possession – Development rights were conditional and executory – Not enforceable assets under Section 3(27) IBC – Moratorium under Section 14(1)(d) not attracted [Paras 15.10–15.13, 16.6–16.9]

Writ Jurisdiction – Maintainability during CIRP – High Court passed directions under Article 226 to statutory authorities to process redevelopment approvals for new developer – Held: Constitutional courts’ jurisdiction not ousted by IBC – Public law remedies can coexist with CIRP where no interference in NCLT domain – High Court rightly ensured statutory duties were discharged [Paras 17.1–17.8, 21(iii)]

Natural Justice – Allegation of Procedural Violation – Appellants alleged denial of fair opportunity before High Court – Held: Appellants were represented by counsel, no adjournment sought, no prejudice shown – Writ petition did not seek direct relief against appellants – Directions were procedural and administrative – No breach of audi alteram partem rule [Paras 18–18.10, 21(iv)]

Redevelopment and Social Welfare – Balancing of Equities – Developer’s delay and inaction caused hardship to lower-income society members awaiting rehabilitation – Held: IBC moratorium cannot be used to frustrate urban renewal or delay housing projects – Social welfare of citizens must prevail over defunct contractual claims – Constitutional promise of dignified housing must be honoured [Paras 23–23.3]

Precedents – Gujarat Urja, TCS Ltd., Embassy Property, Rajendra Bhutta – Considered – Held: Moratorium protects only existing, subsisting and enforceable rights – NCLT jurisdiction confined to cases where contract is central to corporate survival and termination is linked to insolvency – In present case, contract was not central and was terminated for cause [Paras 15.5–15.8, 16.6–16.9, 17.2]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Termination of developer agreement upheld – Development rights not protected under IBC – High Court’s direction to authorities affirmed – Redevelopment to proceed as per directions – Appellants at liberty to pursue remedies for expenditure claims.

Civil Law - Order 38 Civil Procedure Code (CPC) – Attachment Before Judgment – Fraudulent Transfer – Registered sale deed executed prior to institution of suit – Held: Attachment before judgment under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC cannot extend to property already transferred before the suit – Attachment is a protective mechanism, not a tool to defeat completed transactions – Claim petition under Order XXXVIII Rule 8 CPC is maintainable in such circumstances – Courts below erred in treating the attachment proceeding as a trial under Section 53 of the T.P. Act [Paras 11.1, 13, 20(a)-(d), 21]

Transfer of Property – Section 53 T.P. Act – Burden of Proving Fraud – The burden to prove fraudulent intent lies on the party alleging fraud – Mere suspicion, partial cash payments or prior dealings do not suffice – Bona fide purchaser for consideration is protected under the proviso to Section 53 – Sale deed supported by prior agreement, registered documentation, and delivery of possession – No material to prove collusion or intent to defraud [Paras 14-16]

Equitable Principles – Prior Agreement to Sell – Rights of Attaching Creditor – Agreement dated 10.05.2002 followed by registered sale deed on 28.06.2004 – Property no longer vested in judgment debtor at time of suit – Attachment cannot override contractual obligations created by prior agreement – Consideration partly adjusted against existing debts valid under Section 25 of the Contract Act [Paras 16-17]

Adjudicatory Limits – Order XXXVIII Rule 8 and Order XXI Rule 58 CPC – Scope – Proceedings under Rule 8 CPC incorporate Rule 58 of Order XXI – These are procedural and intended to safeguard third-party rights – Cannot substitute a substantive adjudication under Section 53 T.P. Act – Courts below erred in exceeding this scope by declaring the transfer fraudulent in claim proceedings [Paras 11.2, 13, 20(d)]

Binding Precedents – Applicability – Supreme Court reiterated principles from Hamda Ammal v. Avadiappa Pathar, Vannarakkal Kallalathil Sreedharan v. Chandramaath Balakrishnan, and Rajender Singh v. Ramdhar Singh – Held: Attachment cannot prevail over a prior registered sale deed – Title of bona fide purchaser not affected by post-transfer attachment [Paras 17-19]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Sale deed dated 28.06.2004 declared valid – Attachment before judgment held inapplicable – Orders of trial court and High Court set aside – Claim petition under Order XXXVIII Rule 8 CPC allowed

Criminal Law – Dowry Death – Cancellation of Bail – Respondent No. 1 (husband) accused of poisoning wife within four months of marriage after dowry harassment – Post-mortem showed ante-mortem abrasion and FSL confirmed aluminium phosphide poisoning – Dying declaration made to family members disclosed forcible administration of toxic substance – Held: High Court erred in granting bail without considering statutory presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act and gravity of offence – Bail order found to be perverse and legally unsustainable – Annulled by Supreme Court [Paras 1, 5–6, 12–17, 22–24].

Presumption under Section 113B Evidence Act – Applicability – Marriage took place on 22.02.2023, death occurred on 05.06.2023 – Evidence indicated cruelty and harassment soon before death – Prosecution’s burden to establish proximity and causal link satisfied – Statutory presumption of dowry death against accused attracted – High Court failed to apply mandatory presumption under Section 113B – Interference justified [Paras 17–20].

Bail Jurisprudence – Distinction between Grant and Cancellation – Annulment permissible where bail granted ignoring material facts or settled principles – Appellate court may interfere even without post-bail misconduct – Law laid down in State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan, Puran v. Rambilas and Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. followed – Personal liberty cannot override societal interest in serious offences like dowry death [Paras 11, 18].

Maintainability – Complainant’s Right to Challenge Bail – Appellant (father of deceased) held to have locus standi – Cited precedents R. Rathinam v. State and Brij Nandan Jaiswal v. Munna Jaiswal – Victim’s family may seek cancellation of bail even in absence of state appeal – Appeal maintainable [Paras 10–10.3].

Dowry Death – Societal Impact – Observations on the rising menace of dowry-related violence – Court noted misuse of marriage as a transactional arrangement and emphasized deterrent response to such gender-based offences – Judiciary cannot remain passive or lenient in face of institutional violence against women [Paras 25–25.3].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Bail granted to Respondent No. 1 by High Court cancelled – Respondent No. 1 directed to surrender forthwith – Trial to proceed independently and uninfluenced by this judgment.

Criminal Law – Bail – Parity – Scope and Limit – Grant of bail to accused Rajveer on the sole ground of parity with co-accused Suresh Pal – High Court failed to assess role, gravity, or impact of offence – Supreme Court reiterates that parity must be grounded in similarity of role, not just involvement in same offence – Held: Grant of bail solely on parity is erroneous [Paras 6–12, 14–15].

Criminal Law – Role-Based Bail Analysis – Appellant alleged that Rajveer instigated shooting of deceased Sonveer – FIR disclosed active participation and instigation – Role of Rajveer distinct from Suresh Pal, who was merely part of armed group – Held: No basis for equating both on parity – Orders granting bail quashed [Paras 3, 15].

Bail Jurisprudence – Requirements for Grant – Bail order must reflect judicial application of mind – Parity cannot override factors like role, gravity, antecedents, and potential to influence trial – High Court erred in granting bail without recording reasons or distinguishing roles – Held: Orders bereft of reasoning violate principles of natural justice [Paras 10–13, 20].

Judicial Discipline – Precedents on Parity – Supreme Court surveys decisions from various High Courts and apex court confirming that parity is not an absolute ground for bail – Must be examined with full context, role, and factual similarity – Uniform view against mechanical grant of bail on parity alone [Paras 13.1–13.7].

Criminal Law – Grant of Bail to Prince – Co-accused Prince granted bail by High Court without assigning reasons – No analysis of role, gravity, or applicability of cited precedents – Held: Such non-speaking order violates settled principles – Matter remanded for fresh consideration [Paras 17–20].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Bail granted to accused Rajveer and Prince set aside – Rajveer directed to surrender within two weeks – Matter of Prince remanded to High Court for reconsideration as per law.

Wildlife Law – Translocation of Captive Deer – Ecological and Welfare Standards – DDA’s decision to translocate approximately 600 spotted deer from A.N. Jha Deer Park, New Delhi, to Rajasthan and Asola Bhatti Wildlife Sanctuary upheld by the High Court – Petitioner (NGO) alleged violations of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and IUCN guidelines – Supreme Court found chronic managerial lapses, expired zoo licence, and overcrowding at Deer Park but noted prima facie irregularities in translocation including transfer of pregnant and juvenile deer, overcrowded transport, lack of tagging, and absence of habitat feasibility study – Held: Translocation violated CZA and IUCN protocols – Independent scientific assessment required before further action [Paras 17–21].

Animal Welfare – Captive Management – Welfare safeguards under Section 38H of the Wild Life Act and National Zoo Policy, 1998 – Record revealed absence of sterilisation, inadequate veterinary infrastructure, and overcrowding leading to distress among deer – Held: Continued retention of all deer in park contrary to animal welfare; however, future relocation must be scientific and humane under CZA supervision [Paras 18–19].

Administrative Lapses – Failure of Oversight – Central Zoo Authority’s repeated extensions despite DDA’s non-compliance noted – Absence of pre-translocation genetic screening, veterinary certification, and post-release monitoring – Held: Authorities failed to apply due diligence; need for oversight by Central Empowered Committee (CEC) under Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 [Paras 20–21].

Constitutional Law – Articles 48A, 51A(g), and 21 – Environmental protection and compassion for living creatures form part of constitutional duty – Held: Wildlife management must reflect ecological prudence, dignity of life, and intergenerational equity; conservation cannot be treated as administrative expediency [Paras 23–24].

Directions – Supreme Court directed:

(i) CEC to conduct on-ground survey of Deer Park and Rajasthan reserves (Ramgarh Vishdhari & Mukundra Hills Tiger Reserves) within 8 weeks and report on deer numbers, habitat suitability, and compliance with CZA/IUCN norms;

(ii) DDA to furnish land-use report and refrain from commercial use of park premises;

(iii) No further translocation of deer till further orders [Paras 22(A–G)].

Decision: Matter listed for monitoring; further translocation stayed; CEC and DDA to file compliance reports by March 2026 [Para 25].

Criminal Law – Bail – Cancellation and Modification – Judicial Discipline – Finality of Orders – Appellant (accused in a murder case) sought modification of condition restricting him to city limits of Kolkata – Co-applicant sought cancellation of his bail alleging intimidation of witnesses and political interference – Court held that no breach of bail terms shown; cancellation unwarranted – Repeated modification petitions after earlier rejection viewed as forum-shopping – Held: Judicial orders must attain finality; bail conditions once upheld cannot be relaxed absent significant change in circumstances – Judicial discipline and certainty of verdicts must prevail [Paras 45–52].

Bail – Condition of Restricted Movement – Reasonableness under Article 21 – Restriction confining accused to Kolkata while on bail not unreasonable – Condition justified considering his influence, prior attempts to derail trial, and ongoing witness protection concerns – Held: Restriction serves public interest and fair-trial objective; liberty under Article 21 subject to procedural and societal safeguards [Paras 50–52].

Criminal Procedure – Cancellation of Bail – Political Patronage and Witness Intimidation Allegations – Complainant’s brother alleged that accused misused political clout, caused witnesses to turn hostile, and obtained undue police protection – Court observed irregularities in State conduct but found no conclusive evidence linking accused to witness tampering – Held: Mere apprehension insufficient; cancellation must rest on proof of breach or misuse of liberty [Paras 42–43].

Judicial Ethics – Finality of Verdicts – Consistency in Supreme Court Decisions – Court deprecated growing trend of reopening settled issues before differently constituted Benches – Emphasized that finality of decisions under Article 141 essential to preserve judicial authority and prevent endless litigation – Held: Later benches should defer to prior coordinate decisions unless glaring error warrants review or curative process [Paras 47–49].

Trial Practice – Role of Public Prosecutor – Sessions Court Criticism Quashed – Sessions Court’s remarks against Special Public Prosecutor for alleged laxity termed uncalled for and unjustified – Supreme Court expunged comments and reference to Legal Remembrancer – Directed prosecutor to continue trial with fairness and diligence – Held: Judicial officers must exercise restraint and avoid demoralizing remarks against prosecution unless warranted by record [Paras 61–67].

Directions: Application for cancellation of bail rejected – Application for modification of bail condition rejected – Adverse observations by Sessions Court against Special Public Prosecutor set aside – Sessions Court directed to conclude trial expeditiously but without undue haste or prejudice. [Paras 43, 52, 65–69].

Decision: Applications dismissed – Restriction on movement of accused to continue – Proceedings before Sessions Court to continue in accordance with law – Trial Court’s reference to Legal Remembrancer quashed.

Civil Law – Execution Sale – Order XXI Rule 64 and 66 CPC – Executing court is under a statutory obligation to consider whether sale of a part of the property would satisfy the decree – High Court erred in invalidating the auction sale solely on the ground that such consideration was absent without examining if the ground was raised earlier – Held: Judgment debtors, having had full notice and opportunity, failed to raise the issue of partial sale before the sale proclamation – Hence, barred by Order XXI Rule 90(3) CPC from raising it post-sale [Paras 9, 10, 17-19] – High Court judgment set aside – Auction sale held on 12.09.2002 restored.

Execution Proceedings – Judgment Debtor’s Conduct – Repeated opportunities were granted and judgment debtors were aware of ongoing reduction of upset price – They chose not to contest the sale terms at relevant stages – Held: Once due notice was given and participation made, failure to raise objections amounts to acquiescence – Belated challenge under Rule 90 CPC is barred [Paras 13, 18].

Interpretation of CPC – Rule 90(3) – Bar against post-sale objections on pre-sale grounds – Judgment debtor cannot challenge sale on a ground that could have been taken before the proclamation of sale – High Court’s assumption that this bar does not affect the duty of executing court under Rule 64 CPC is erroneous – Held: Bar under Rule 90(3) is applicable in present facts [Paras 17-19].

Judicial Precedents – Ambati Narasayya and Takkaseela Pedda Subba Reddi – Held to apply to pre-1976 cases – In post-1976 cases, Desh Bandhu Gupta case applies – Absence of notice is crucial to invalidate sale – But if notice was given and judgment debtor took no action, Rule 90(3) bars challenge – Present case involved full notice and failure to act – Hence, bar under Rule 90(3) applies [Paras 11-13, 15, 17].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s order dated 10.02.2009 set aside – Orders of Executing Court dated 15.10.2004 and Appellate Court dated 13.07.2007 restored – Auction sale dated 12.09.2002 declared valid.