Tenancy Law — Rent Default — Striking Off Defence — Order XV Rule 5 CPC — Remand — Appellants/landlords filed eviction suit for recovery of arrears of rent from November 2020 to June 2021 (Rs. 2,00,000/-) after respondent/tenant defaulted despite revision of rent to Rs. 25,000/- per month — Trial Court struck off defence of tenant for non-compliance with Order XV Rule 5 CPC — High Court allowed revision, granted opportunity to deposit rent at Rs. 1,500/- per month, but subsequently extended time when respondent failed to comply within deadline — Supreme Court finds both courts failed to comprehensively address all relevant aspects — Matter remanded for fresh adjudication [Paras 2–28].

Order XV Rule 5 CPC — Nature of Power — Discretionary, Not Mechanical — Mandatory Provision vs. Judicial Discretion — Power to strike off defence, though couched in mandatory terms, is not to be exercised mechanically — Court must consider whether default is wilful or contumacious, whether there has been substantial compliance, and whether foundational aspects such as the "first date of hearing" have been conclusively determined before invoking penal consequences — Trial Court proceeded in mechanical manner without addressing these aspects [Paras 15–20, 24].

First Date of Hearing — Meaning and Significance — Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC, the "first date of hearing" is not a mere formal or procedural date but the date on which the Court applies its mind to the contentions in the pleadings for the purpose of framing issues — In absence of clear determination of such date, the very foundation for invoking Order XV Rule 5 CPC becomes uncertain — Trial Court failed to conclusively determine this threshold question [Paras 19–20].

Procedural Law — Handmaid of Justice — Extension of Time — Discretion of Court — High Court exercised discretion to extend time for compliance, taking into account the bona fide explanation that respondent's counsel had gone abroad — Delay of seven days found neither gross nor wholly unexplained — Procedural provisions must be construed to advance the cause of justice and not to defeat it — However, High Court erred in not reconciling its conditional earlier order with the subsequent indulgence granted [Paras 21–24].

Remand — Directions to Trial Court — Trial Court directed upon remand to: (i) determine the "first date of hearing" in accordance with law; (ii) examine whether there has been due or substantial compliance with Order XV Rule 5 CPC; (iii) consider whether the default, if any, is wilful or bona fide; and (iv) pass a reasoned order after affording adequate opportunity to both parties — Matter to be disposed of expeditiously, preferably within six months — No opinion expressed on merits [Paras 26–29].

Decision: Appeal disposed of — Impugned orders of the Allahabad High Court set aside — Matter remanded to the Trial Court for fresh adjudication of the application under Order XV Rule 5 CPC in light of observations made by the Supreme Court — Trial Court to dispose of the matter preferably within six months from receipt of order.

Taxation — Inter-State Sale of Natural Gas — Constitutional Competence — VAT — CST Act — Reliance Industries Limited extracted natural gas from the KG-D6 basin off the coast of Andhra Pradesh under a Production Sharing Contract with the Government of India — Gas was delivered to buyers at Gadimoga, Andhra Pradesh, under Gas Sales and Purchase Agreements (GSPA), whereafter it was transported through common carrier pipelines operated by RGTIL and GAIL to buyers' facilities in Uttar Pradesh — State of Uttar Pradesh levied VAT treating the transaction as an intra-State sale on the ground that goods were unascertained until receipt at Auraiya — High Court quashed assessment orders — Held: Sale of natural gas concluded at Gadimoga where title and risk passed to buyers; movement of gas from Andhra Pradesh to Uttar Pradesh occasioned by the contract of sale constituted an inter-State sale under Section 3(a) of the CST Act; the State of Uttar Pradesh lacked legislative competence to impose VAT on such transactions [Paras 3, 18, 77–89].

Federalism — Fiscal Federalism — Taxing Powers of Union and States — Mutual Exclusivity — The Constitution of India maintains a scheme of mutual exclusivity in the allocation of taxing powers between Parliament and State Legislatures — Entry 92-A of List I and Entry 54 of List II, read with Articles 269 and 286, exclusively vest in Parliament the power to levy tax on sales or purchases in the course of inter-State trade or commerce — States cannot by legislative fiction or contractual stipulation convert an inter-State sale into an intra-State sale or create territorial nexus to tax such transactions — Any construction leading to overlapping of taxation is to be eschewed [Paras 26–57].

CST Act — Section 3 — Explanation 3 — Clarificatory Nature — Retrospective Operation — Parliament inserted Explanation 3 to Section 3 of the CST Act by Finance Act, 2016 (Act 28 of 2016) to clarify that gas transported through a common carrier pipeline, co-mingled and fungible, introduced in one State and taken out in another, constitutes inter-State movement — Held: Explanation 3 was clarificatory in nature, added ex abundanti cautela pursuant to the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs decision dated 25.03.2015 and Office Memorandum dated 21.07.2015 — It did not alter the existing legal position and operates retrospectively from the date the main provision came into force — Argument that it applies only prospectively repelled [Paras 61–66].

CST Act — Section 3 vis-à-vis Section 4 — Precedence — Co-mingling of Gas in Common Carrier Pipeline — Unascertained Goods — The State of Uttar Pradesh contended that gas co-mingled in the common pipeline became unascertained goods, appropriated only at Auraiya, making the sale an intra-State sale under Section 4(2) of the CST Act — Held: Section 4 is expressly subject to Section 3 — Once a transaction satisfies the conditions of inter-State sale under Section 3, Section 4 has no independent application — For purposes of Section 3(a), there is no distinction between ascertained and unascertained goods if the goods have come into actual physical existence at the time of sale — Co-mingling of gas in a common carrier pipeline, being a statutory obligation under the PNGRB Regulations, 2008, does not affect the inter-State character of the concluded sale [Paras 67–86].

GSPA and GTA — Delivery Point — Title and Risk — Passing of Property — On a detailed examination of the GSPA and GTA, the delivery point of natural gas is unambiguously at Gadimoga in Andhra Pradesh — Title and risk pass to buyers at Gadimoga upon delivery to the transporter — The seller's role concludes at Gadimoga — The GTA is an agreement solely for carriage and not for sale — Transporter acquires no title in the gas — Re-metering at Auraiya is a mere incident of transportation attendant upon a sale already fully completed in another State and cannot create a fresh occasion for levy of VAT in Uttar Pradesh [Paras 78–86].

Estoppel — Approbate and Reprobate — Form-C — The State of Uttar Pradesh itself recognised the transactions as inter-State sales by issuing Form-C to buyers under Rule 12 read with Section 8(4) of the CST Act — Having acknowledged the inter-State character of the transaction, the State cannot approbate and reprobate by subsequently seeking to impose VAT on the same transactions [Para 83].

Public Trust Doctrine — Scope and Limits — The State of Uttar Pradesh argued that Reliance Industries acted as agent of the Union of India under the Public Trust Doctrine, making the sale complete only at the terminating point in Uttar Pradesh — Held: The Public Trust Doctrine, rooted in environmental jurisprudence under Articles 21, 48-A and 51-A(g), is concerned with normative standards of resource management and governance — It does not override the constitutional scheme of legislative competence or create taxing jurisdiction where the Constitution has not conferred any — The doctrine cannot be expanded to enable multiple taxation by a State upon a single inter-State transaction [Para 88].

Decision: Civil Appeal No. 3910 of 2016 dismissed — High Court's order quashing assessment order dated 11.06.2010 and directing refund of tax affirmed — Civil Appeal Nos. 3913, 3914 and 3915 of 2016 dismissed in terms of the reasoning in Civil Appeal No. 3910 of 2016.

Civil Law - Hindu Succession — Daughters' Right in Intestate Father's Property — Second Order VII Rule 11 Application — Res Judicata — Section 6(5) as Saving Clause — Independent Right under Section 8 — Propositus died intestate in 1985 leaving three daughters and four sons — Daughters filed suit in 2007 for partition claiming 1/8th share each — First plaint rejection application dismissed by High Court in 2013 holding suit maintainable on ground that daughters had right in father's share under Section 8 — Second application filed in 2021 by legal representatives of one defendant relying on Vineeta Sharma to contend Section 6(5) operates as a complete bar — Trial Court dismissed second application on ground of res judicata — High Court allowed revision and rejected plaint — Held: High Court erred on all three counts; impugned order set aside and plaint restored [Paras 3, 70, 71].

Res Judicata — Interlocutory Res Judicata — Second Order VII Rule 11 Application — Same Issue — Common Interest of Defendants — Section 11 Explanation VI CPC — Issue whether plaint disclosed cause of action notwithstanding registered Partition Deed was directly and substantially decided by High Court in RFA No. 168 of 2009 in 2013 and attained finality — Second application raising identical issue barred by principle of interlocutory res judicata — High Court's reasoning that res judicata did not apply as first application was by Defendants 1 to 3 while second was by legal representatives of Defendant 4 rejected — All defendants share common interest, defend same Partition Deed, assert same plea and litigate under same title within meaning of Explanation VI to Section 11 CPC — Mere invocation of additional sub-clauses of Order VII Rule 11 in second application does not take matter outside scope of res judicata [Paras 35–42].

Change in Law — Vineeta Sharma — Res Judicata Exception — Whether Applicable — Exception that subsequent change in law can render earlier decision on pure question of law ineffective as res judicata applies only where legal basis of earlier decision is undermined — 2013 order proceeded on independent right of daughters as Class I heirs under Section 8, not on coparcenary rights under 2005 Amendment — Vineeta Sharma deals with scope of 2005 Amendment and coparcenary rights; does not alter settled position that upon intestate death of Hindu male property devolves under Section 8 on all Class I heirs including daughters — Basis of 2013 order wholly undisturbed by Vineeta Sharma — High Court's reasoning that Vineeta Sharma constituted change in law overriding res judicata rejected as erroneous [Paras 40–42].

Section 6(5) Hindu Succession Act — Nature — Saving Clause, Not Jurisdictional Bar — Scope of Order VII Rule 11 — Section 6(5), read with its Explanation, saves from retroactive reach of 2005 Amendment only those partitions effected before 20.12.2004 by registered deed or court decree — Does not create jurisdictional bar to institution of suit for partition — Distinction between a bar and a saving clause legally significant: bar prevents court from entertaining suit at all; saving clause provides defence on merits to be proved by party asserting it — Whether a valid partition within meaning of Section 6(5) has been effected and is binding on daughters who were not parties to it are contested questions of fact and law requiring trial — Conflating existence of registered deed with conclusion that partition is valid and binding on all persons impermissible at Order VII Rule 11 stage [Paras 43, 53–58].

Section 8 Hindu Succession Act — Independent Right of Daughters as Class I Heirs — Unaffected by Section 6(5) — Proviso to Erstwhile Section 6 — Upon intestate death of propositus in 1985 leaving behind daughters as Class I heirs, proviso to erstwhile Section 6 attracted — Notional partition deemed to have taken place immediately before death — Deceased's undivided share devolved by intestate succession under Section 8 on all Class I heirs including daughters — This right accrued in 1985 under unamended Act, wholly independent of and predating 2005 Amendment — Section 6(5) saves pre-2004 partitions from retroactive reach of new coparcenary rights under Section 6(1) only; does not and cannot extinguish pre-existing rights of Class I heirs accrued under Section 8 — Plaint need not recite specific section number; suffices that bundle of facts pleaded brings case within Section 8 [Paras 59–67].

Revisional Jurisdiction — Section 115 CPC — Scope — High Court exceeded permissible scope of revisional jurisdiction by conducting independent and de novo appraisal of merits of dispute, scope of Partition Deed and rights of parties under Section 6(5) at threshold stage — Trial Court's order dismissing second application was reasoned, correctly applied res judicata and rightly held Section 6(5) does not bar suit — High Court's interference therewith unwarranted [Para 68].

Decision: Appeal allowed — Impugned judgment and order dated 29.08.2024 of the High Court of Karnataka in CRP No. 144 of 2023 set aside — Order dated 15.11.2022 of the Trial Court dismissing I.A. No. IV restored — Plaint in O.S. No. 5352/2007 restored to file — Status quo with respect to subject properties to continue until further orders of Trial Court — Trial Court to proceed expeditiously — No order as to costs.

Environmental Law – Illegal Sand Mining – National Chambal Gharial Sanctuary – Compliance with Court Directions – States of Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh filed compliance affidavits indicating initial steps towards installation of CCTV surveillance, GPS tracking, inter-departmental coordination and augmentation of enforcement capabilities — Held: Compliances remain nascent and substantial measures are yet to be operationalized at ground level; further directions to follow at next hearing — State of Rajasthan failed to file any compliance affidavit despite directions dated 2nd April and 17th April 2026; CEC report reveals only one CCTV camera installed out of 40 vulnerable locations, no control room, no GPS integration, no joint patrol teams, no inter-State SOP, and only four out of twenty-four check-posts equipped with surveillance — Held: Conduct of Rajasthan reflects shocking administrative apathy and institutional paralysis; serious displeasure expressed [Paras 3–7].

Illegal Mining – Organized Crime – Investigation Confined to Drivers – Masterminds Not Prosecuted – Pattern of investigation confined to drivers of mining vehicles while financiers and masterminds go unprosecuted — Held: Such pattern of investigation raises serious concern of deliberate inaction and possible connivance at various levels of administrative and enforcement machinery; cannot prima facie be treated as coincidence [Para 8].

Motor Vehicles Act – Unregistered Vehicles in Mining Operations – Sections 39, 41 and 192 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 50 Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 — Large number of tractors and trolleys found plying without number plates or registration particulars in districts of Dholpur (Rajasthan) and Morena (Madhya Pradesh) — Held: Operation of unidentified vehicles constitutes flagrant continuing violation of mandatory registration requirements; severely impedes interception, seizure, investigation and prosecution; enables organized mining networks to function with complete impunity — States directed to file detailed replies on enforcement measures [Paras 9–10].

Bridge on NH-44 – Structural Integrity Threatened – Extensive illegal excavation found beneath and in dangerous proximity to pillars of bridge on National Highway-44 near Morena-Dholpur border verified by CEC — NHAI directed to be impleaded as party respondent and to file affidavit on measures for safeguarding structural integrity and reasons why CCTV monitoring should not be directed on and around the bridge [Para 11].

Directions Issued – Personal Presence of Senior Officials – Five senior officials of Rajasthan (Additional Chief Secretary Home; Principal Secretaries of Mining & Geology, Finance, Forest & Environment, and Transport & Road Safety) directed to remain personally present before the Court on the next date and file individual compliance affidavits — Principal Secretary Transport, Madhya Pradesh also directed to be personally present with affidavit on unregistered vehicles — NHAI impleaded and directed to file affidavit — Matter listed for 20/05/2026 [Para 12].

Decision: Compliance by Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh noted as nascent — Serious displeasure expressed against State of Rajasthan for complete non-compliance — Directions issued for personal presence of senior State officials of Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh — NHAI impleaded as party respondent — All three States directed to file replies on unregistered vehicles — Matter listed on 20/05/2026.

Medical Education – Student Relocation – Fee Liability – Equitable Apportionment – Students admitted to SRMCH for MBBS batches 2013-14 and 2014-15 were compelled to relocate to three private transferee colleges (KIMS, IMS & SUM Hospital, and Hi-Tech Medical College, Bhubaneswar) following non-renewal of recognition by MCI on account of serious infrastructural and faculty deficiencies – This Court regulated relocation through interim orders and permitted students to pay fees at Government rates – 122 students were ultimately relocated, 41 each to KIMS and IMS and 40 to Hi-Tech – Transferee colleges filed interlocutory applications seeking payment of fees for education imparted – Held: Primary financial liability must be fastened upon SRMCH/Selvam Trust, and the funds secured by the Trust — Rs.10 crores by way of bank guarantee with MCI/NMC and Rs.2 crores deposited with the Registry — shall be distributed equally among the three transferee colleges [Paras 4-6, 11-12, 42-46].

Defaulting Institution – Principle Against Unjust Enrichment – Latin Maxim – SRMCH/Selvam Trust failed to maintain prescribed standards for imparting MBBS education despite collecting substantially higher fees than Government colleges – Writ Petition No. 681 of 2014 filed by the college was dismissed in limine, affirming MCI's findings of deficiency – Applying the maxim commodum ex injuria sua nemo habere debet (no one should derive benefit from their own wrong), neither the students can claim a windfall from interim arrangements nor can the defaulting institution escape liability for its own defaults – Trust directed to pay outstanding amounts to transferee colleges from the funds secured before MCI/NMC and this Court [Paras 36-38, 42-46].

Fee Structure – Government Rate vs. Private Rate – Quota Classification – Students transferred to the three private transferee colleges were accommodated against management/private quota seats, as no material on record demonstrated the existence of vacant Government quota seats in any transferee college – Accordingly, the fee structure applicable to private/management quota was held to be the relevant benchmark – Transferee colleges, however, fairly conceded that they would be satisfied with reimbursement at SRMCH rates rather than their own higher rates; total aggregate liability computed at approximately Rs.16.2 crores – Even applying SRMCH rates, the funds available (approximately Rs.14 crores) would not fully meet the dues of the transferee colleges [Paras 26, 33, 49].

Liability of Students – Undertakings Furnished – Recovery Mechanism – Students who had completed the MBBS course had furnished undertakings acknowledging that fee liability remained pending adjudication and undertaking to abide by the final directions of this Court – Students who paid fees at Government rates (approximately one-eighth of SRMCH fee per semester) cannot claim the benefit of that interim subsidised arrangement as a windfall at the final stage – Transferee colleges permitted to approach MCI/NMC with details of shortfall of fees due from each student (at SRMCH rates), and NMC directed to provide redressal for recovery of deficit – Amounts initially paid by students at the time of admission to SRMCH shall be duly adjusted – Students complying with fee liability entitled to receive academic and course-completion documents forthwith [Paras 48, 52-54].

Decision: I.A. Nos. 73763 of 2019, 69514 of 2019 and 151684 of 2022 disposed of – MCI/NMC directed to release approximately Rs.10 crores (bank guarantee) to the three transferee colleges in equal proportions within three months – Rs.2 crores deposited with the Registry along with accrued interest to be similarly disbursed – Bank details to be furnished within two weeks – Appeals closed.

Criminal Law – Murder – SC/ST Act – Acquittal – Appellant convicted under Sections 302 and 323 IPC and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act by the Special Sessions Judge and sentence confirmed by the High Court of Telangana – On appeal, Supreme Court finds that the prosecution case rested on weak, contradictory and crumbling evidence – Occurrence of the incident itself not proved – Motive and genesis of crime not established – Both courts committed concurrent error in convicting the appellant – Held: Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted [Paras 2, 10.2, 10.3].

Prosecution Case – Motive and Background – Deceased Shiva Shankar had earlier eloped with the appellant's younger sister, following which a Panchayat was allegedly held directing the deceased to leave the village – Deceased returned to the village to attend a friend's wedding and was allegedly beaten to death by the appellant with a shabad stone on 12.05.2013 – Appellant belonged to Mudiraj backward class community; deceased to the Mala Scheduled Caste community – FIR initially registered under Section 324 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) SC/ST Act; Sections 302 IPC and 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act added upon death of the deceased [Paras 3, 3.1, 3.1.3, 3.1.4].

Witness Testimony – Hostile Witnesses – Collapse of Prosecution Case – PW3 (Narendar), projected as an eyewitness and the person who allegedly informed PW1 about the incident, turned hostile and categorically denied going to PW1's house or witnessing the incident – His Section 161 CrPC statement was disowned as false – PW4 and PW5 also turned hostile and denied the holding of any Panchayat – The combined effect of hostile evidence directly contradicted and demolished the testimony of PW1 (mother of the deceased), the sole remaining eyewitness – Evidence of PW1, being that of an interested and related witness riddled with contradictions, was found unreliable [Paras 5.1.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 10].

Interested Witness – Evidentiary Standard – Court reiterated that evidence of partisan or interested witnesses must be appreciated with great care, scrutinising discrepancies, probability and genuineness of the story – When such evidence is further demolished by other reliable evidence on record, it loses all reliability to support the prosecution – Applied to hold PW1's uncorroborated testimony insufficient to sustain conviction [Paras 7.5, 7.6, 8, 8.1, 8.2].

Hostile Witness – Law Restated – Evidence of a hostile witness is admissible and can be relied upon to the extent found dependable and corroborated – Court affirmed the converse principle: evidence of a hostile witness, when credible and consistent with other evidence on record, can equally be utilised to discredit the prosecution case and support acquittal – Applied to hold that the hostile testimony of PW3, read with PW4 and PW5, demolished the fulcrum of the prosecution [Paras 8.3, 8.4, 8.4.1, 8.4.2, 9].

Medical Evidence – Postmortem Report – Evidentiary Value – Postmortem Report (Ex. P8) contained irreconcilable discrepancies as to the date and time of conclusion of postmortem – Explanation offered by PW7 (doctor) that the date was entered in error due to a 24-hour night duty was not credible – Wound Certificate (Ex. P15) did not bear any date – Court reiterated that a postmortem report is not substantive evidence by itself and requires corroboration through oral testimony of the medical expert – Absence of satisfactory explanation by PW7 reduced the evidentiary value of the medical evidence to nil [Paras 5.2.2, 5.2.3, 6, 6.1, 10.1].

Public Place – Independent Witnesses – Non-Examination – Scene of offence was on the main road frequented by quarry trucks and lorries round the clock – No independent witness from the vicinity was examined despite the incident allegedly occurring in a public place – Absence of such witnesses further reinforced the doubt cast on the very occurrence of the incident [Paras 7.1, 10].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentences under Sections 302 and 323 IPC and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act set aside – Appellant acquitted – Appellant to be released forthwith unless required to be detained in connection with any other offence [Paras 10.2–10.4, 11].

Service Law – Appointment – Regular vs. Contractual – Discrimination – Advertisement issued for regular posts of Assistant Professor in Pay Band-III with no mention of contractual appointments – Appellant, fully qualified with Ph.D. and First Class preceding degree, shortlisted and interviewed through the same process as all other candidates – Selection Committee recommended thirteen other candidates for regular appointment while arbitrarily recommending the appellant and one other for contractual appointment at fixed pay of Rs. 40,000/- per month for one year – No reason recorded for differential treatment – Held: Denial of regular appointment patently illegal and unconstitutional – Appellant entitled to regular appointment [Paras 12, 13, 14].

Selection Committee – Scope of Judicial Review – Arbitrary Recommendation – Court acknowledged that in judicial review it does not sit as a court of appeal over views of the Selection Committee – However, the point in issue was not whether reasons recorded were right or untenable, but whether denial of regular appointment against a regular vacancy, after subjecting the appellant to the identical selection process, could be justified at all – Absence of any recorded reason for singular treatment rendered the recommendation unsustainable [Para 13].

Estoppel – Acceptance Under Economic Compulsion – Oral Protest – High Court and Division Bench held that acceptance of contractual appointment without written protest and continued service thereunder barred the appellant from challenging the appointment – Supreme Court disagreed, noting that options for the unemployed are few and acceptance on the assurance of the then Director could not operate as estoppel against an underlying illegality in the selection procedure [Paras 6, 9, 10].

Relief – Moulding of Relief – Continuity Without Financial Benefit – Court directed Respondent No. 2 to issue order of regular appointment within four weeks – Appellant to be placed last in seniority among candidates recommended by the Selection Committee resolution dated 06.04.2013 – Relief moulded to deny financial benefits for the intervening period while granting continuity of service [Para 14].

Decision: Civil Appeal allowed – Orders and judgments of the Single Judge and Division Bench set aside – Respondent No. 2 directed to issue order of regular appointment as Assistant Professor within four weeks – Appellant to be placed last in seniority among the batch recommended on 06.04.2013 – Continuity of service granted without financial benefits for the intervening period – No order as to costs [Para 15].

Criminal Law - Preventive Detention - Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords Bootleggers Drug-offenders Dangerous Persons Video Pirates Sand Smugglers and Persons Engaged in Black-marketing of Essential Commodities Act 1981 - Section 3 - Appellant placed under detention by Commissioner of Police Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar based on five cases under Maharashtra Prohibition Act 1949 - Three cases were pending trial and two were under investigation at the time of order - High Court dismissed the challenge finding no fault in subjective satisfaction - Supreme Court observed that the offences alleged were cognizable but no effort was made by the Investigating Agency to arrest the appellant under ordinary law - Held - Invocation of preventive detention is not warranted where a person can be dealt with under ordinary laws of the land and there is an absence of cogent material to show breach of public order - Appeal allowed and detention order quashed - [Paras 1-15].

Criminal Law - Public Order vs Law and Order - Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act 1981 - Section 2(p) - Definition of Bootlegger - Detaining authority alleged activities were prejudicial to public order due to sale of spurious Toddy - Supreme Court held that a bald averment of prejudice to public order is insufficient - Material must indicate disruption of public order such as consumers falling sick or public peace being disturbed - Mere repetitive use of stereotypical words from the statute without factual substantiation does not satisfy the requirement of subjective satisfaction - Held - Activities attributed to appellant did not cross the threshold from law and order to public order - [Paras 7-12].

Criminal Law - Non-application of Mind - Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act 1981 - Section 3 - Failure to exercise ordinary penal powers - Relying on Arjun vs State of Maharashtra the Court noted that if the Investigating Agency found no reason to arrest the appellant despite the registration of multiple cases there was no justification for preventive detention - The detaining authority failed to consider why the appellant was not arrested during investigation of cognizable offences - Held - Satisfaction of the detaining authority had no real basis in the absence of efforts to invoke ordinary criminal law - [Paras 13-14].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court order dated 25.02.2026 set aside – Preventive detention order dated 13.10.2025 quashed – Appellant directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.

Arbitration – Incorporation by Reference – Section 7(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Appellant-developer entered into a Development Agreement dated 04.07.2012 with respondent housing society containing an arbitration clause (Clause 36) – Subsequently, Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreements were executed with individual members, each containing Clause 14 recording that all terms and conditions of the Development Agreement shall be construed to form part of those agreements and all clauses thereof shall be binding on the parties – Respondent members filed consumer complaints; appellant invoked arbitration – High Court dismissed Section 11 applications holding that mere reference to an earlier document is insufficient to incorporate the arbitration clause into a later agreement and that individual members were not privy to the Development Agreement – Held: High Court erred; Clause 14 constituted a specific, unequivocal incorporation of the Development Agreement body and soul into the Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreements, not a mere reference, and Clause 36 (arbitration clause) thereby formed part of the later agreements – Appeals allowed [Paras 3-4, 7-8, 11-13].

Arbitration Agreement – Distinction Between Reference and Incorporation – Section 7(5) requires a conscious acceptance of the arbitration clause from another document – A mere reference to another document adopts only specific portions; an incorporation brings the referred document in its entirety into the later contract – Where a later contract records that all terms and conditions of an earlier document shall be construed to form part of it and all clauses shall be binding on the parties, every term of the earlier document including the arbitration clause gets bodily lifted and incorporated – Clause 14 of the Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreements satisfied this test, as distinguished from a generic or limited reference [Paras 8-12].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Common order dated 26.06.2025 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay set aside – Mr. Vishal Kanade, Advocate, Bombay High Court, appointed as Sole Arbitrator – Arbitrator to make declaration under Section 12 of the Arbitration Act within fifteen days – Fees as per Fourth Schedule to the Arbitration Act.