Arbitration Law – Section 11(6) – Fresh Application – Abandonment of Earlier Proceedings – Bar of Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC – Parties had jointly purchased land at auction and entered into three agreements dated 02.04.2013 containing an arbitration clause – Respondent invoked arbitration in 2015 and a sole arbitrator was appointed – Respondent thereafter unilaterally withdrew from proceedings by communication dated 29.08.2019 and failed to appear – Arbitrator passed an award on 30.06.2020 in favour of appellant – Respondent filed a fresh Section 11 application in 2021 – High Court allowed the same, leaving the issue of res judicata to the arbitral tribunal – Held: Respondent had abandoned the earlier arbitration proceedings and the fresh application was barred under principles of Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC [Paras 17, 19, 20].

Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC – Applicability to Section 11 Proceedings – Abandonment – Principles of Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC, which prohibit institution of fresh proceedings on the same cause of action without leave of the court, apply to proceedings under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act – In the absence of any liberty granted at the time of withdrawal or abandonment of the first application, a fresh application under Section 11 of the Act is not maintainable – Abandonment cannot be readily inferred but where conduct of the claimant unequivocally indicates relinquishment of claim, such inference is warranted [Paras 15, 16, 17].

Fresh Cause of Action – Non-Accrual – Respondent contended that a fresh cause of action arose on dismissal of the Civil Appeal filed by the original land owners by this Court on 09.07.2021 – Held: The dispute between the parties was not the subject matter of the said Civil Appeal; the Civil Appeal related only to validity of the auction – No fresh cause of action accrued to the respondent on dismissal of the said appeal – Subsequent Section 11 application was based on the same cause of action and was liable to be dismissed on grounds of public policy [Paras 18, 19].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned order dated 08.11.2024 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed and set aside – No order as to costs.

Bail – Regular Bail – Prolonged Incarceration – Parity with Co-accused – Appellant in custody since 14.01.2023 in connection with FIR No. 219/2022, Police Station Wagle Estate, District Thane City, for offences under Sections 307, 326, 324, 323, 504, 506, 141, 143 and 149 IPC and Sections 4 and 25 of the Arms Act – Trial yet to commence with thirteen witnesses to be examined – Out of eight accused, five already released on bail, one absconding and only one other accused in custody – Held: Considering the length of incarceration, pendency of trial, and parity with co-accused released on bail, case for bail is made out – Appeal allowed – Appellant directed to be produced before the trial Court for release on bail subject to conditions as the Court deems fit.

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated 23.06.2025 in Bail Application No. 837/2025 set aside – Trial Court directed to release appellant on bail subject to such conditions as it may impose to ensure his presence – Appellant directed to cooperate fully in the trial and not misuse liberty – Liberty reserved to the State to seek cancellation of bail in case of any infraction or fresh offence.

Referred Cases:

SARFAESI Act – Auction Sale – Statutory Timeline – Rule 9(4) – Sale Set Aside – Borrowers availed credit facilities of Rs. 4 crore from secured creditor; upon default, loan classified as NPA and SARFAESI proceedings initiated – E-auction conducted on 04.09.2020; auction purchasers deposited 25% bid amount – Confirmation of sale remained restrained by successive judicial orders of DRT, DRAT and High Court – Balance 75% deposited only on 31.03.2022, approximately 15 months after the outer limit under Rule 9(4) – Sale certificate issued and registered on 18.04.2022 – High Court set aside the auction sale holding the delay violated Rule 9(4) – Held: Completion of sale prorogued beyond mandatory statutory timeline not due to any default of borrowers but owing to subsisting judicial orders and procedural restraints – Sale remained inchoate and could not operate to divest borrowers of secured assets – Appeals dismissed [Paras 16–35].

Right of Redemption – Survival after Sale Certificate – Article 300-A – Where auction sale itself had not attained statutory finality under Rule 9(4) of the SARFAESI Rules owing to non-compliance with mandatory deposit timelines, the issuance and registration of a sale certificate did not extinguish the borrowers' right of redemption – Borrowers had discharged entire outstanding liability of Rs. 3,89,31,614/- through successive deposits made under judicial supervision and remitted the balance amount of Rs. 2,29,31,614/- on 02.12.2022 pursuant to High Court direction – Divestment of constitutional right to property where debt stands fully discharged would be disproportionate and unsustainable – Held: Borrowers entitled to redemption; secured creditor directed to release secured assets and return title deeds [Paras 23–34].

Misrepresentation – Incorrect Statement before Court – Mitigating Effect of Prompt Correction – During hearing of writ petition, borrowers' counsel incorrectly stated that sale certificate had not been issued; error promptly corrected by affidavit dated 16.12.2022 – High Court condoned the misrepresentation in the interest of justice – Held: Where correction is swiftly made and no unfair advantage was derived, discretion of High Court to proceed on merits rather than dismiss on procedural ground is within jurisdiction and aligned with broader concept of justice – Appeal cannot be allowed solely on ground of misrepresentation [Paras 12–15].

Interpretation of Order – "No Further Steps" – High Court order dated 15.12.2020 permitted secured creditor to accept balance sale consideration while restraining "no further steps" till disposal of S.A. No. 263/2020 – High Court in impugned judgment interpreted "no further steps" as barring only issuance and registration of sale certificate, not receipt of balance consideration – Held: Such interpretation is correct; to construe the expression as prohibiting receipt of balance consideration would render the first part of the order otiose – Secured creditor was free to accept balance consideration but failed to do so; delay inures to benefit of borrowers [Paras 19–22].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Auction sale and sale certificates set aside – Secured creditor directed to release secured assets and return title deeds to borrowers – Auction purchasers entitled to refund of entire sale consideration with interest at 12% per annum – Parties to bear their own costs.

Civil Law – Succession Certificate – Minor Legal Heir – Non-Impleadment – Order IX Rule 13 CPC – Appellant No. 1 was a minor aged about 12 years when respondents initiated proceedings for grant of Succession Certificate in respect of retiral benefits of their deceased father – A public notice was issued but did not specify that proceedings were initiated on account of the death of the deceased – Minor was never impleaded as a party, depriving him of opportunity to be heard – Respondents, despite knowledge of the minor's existence as a legal heir, took no steps to appoint a lawful guardian – Held: Minor was legally incapacitated from responding to public notice or initiating legal proceedings; finding of courts below that no prejudice was caused to the minor is unsustainable in law [Paras 8, 9].

Order IX Rule 13 CPC – Scope – Sufficient Cause – Distinction from Section 96 CPC – Primary requirements of an application under Order IX Rule XIII CPC are whether summons were duly served and whether there is sufficient cause for non-appearance – Scope of proceedings under Order IX Rule XIII CPC is wider than Section 96 CPC, enabling the applicant to demonstrate sufficient cause and seek setting aside of an ex parte decree – Observation by Additional District Judge that a minor could have impleaded himself upon publication of public notice held wholly erroneous and perverse [Paras 7, 8].

Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Section 383 – Revocation of Succession Certificate – Material Misstatements – Where an application for succession certificate is defective or material facts have been suppressed or misstated, the certificate is liable to be revoked – In the present case, the mother of the minor was incorrectly described in the application; no explanation was furnished for the serious misstatement – Such inaccuracies further vitiate the proceedings [Para 8].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned orders of High Court, District Court and Trial Court quashed and set aside – Application under Order IX Rule XIII CPC allowed – Ex parte order granting Succession Certificate quashed – Matter restored to original number – Parties directed to appear before competent court – Court requested to decide the matter preferably within one year.

Criminal Law – Sanction for Prosecution – Section 197 Cr.P.C. – Police Officers – Subordinate Ranks – Appellants, subordinate rank police officers, were accused of murdering the complainant's husband allegedly at the instance of a senior officer (Sankaran Moitra) during election duty – This Court had earlier quashed proceedings against Sankaran Moitra for want of sanction under Section 197(1) – Magistrate extended that benefit to the appellants – High Court reversed, holding the earlier order applied only to Sankaran Moitra – Held: Appellants, being subordinate rank officers removable without Government sanction, were not entitled to protection of Section 197(1) – Benefit of decision in Sankaran Moitra not available to appellants [Paras 7, 10].

Section 197 Cr.P.C. – Scope – "Government" – Definition – Sub-section (1) protects only those public servants who are not removable from office save by or with the sanction of the Government – "Government" as defined under Section 17 IPC means the Central Government or State Government – If an authority lower than the Government can dismiss a public servant, sanction of the Government is not required for prosecution – Appellants being subordinate rank officers not falling in such protected category, Section 197(1) was inapplicable [Paras 8, 9, 10].

Section 197(3) Cr.P.C. – Subsequent Notification – Bar on Cognizance – Prospective Effect – State Government of West Bengal issued twin notifications dated 19.11.2010 extending protection of Section 197(2) to subordinate rank police officers charged with maintenance of public order – Bar under Section 197 applies at the stage of cognizance – A subsequent notification cannot nullify a valid cognizance order already taken – Since cognizance was taken in 2001, well before the 2010 notification, its benefit was unavailable to the appellants – Post-cognizance sanction cannot save proceedings [Paras 11, 12, 13, 14, 15].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Interim order, if any, discharged – No opinion expressed on merits of allegations against the appellants.

FEMA — Section 37A — Seizure Proceedings and Adjudication Proceedings — Independence and Inter-dependence — Competent Authority's Refusal to Confirm Seizure — Effect on Adjudication — The appellants, Directors and family members of M/s. Accord Distilleries & Breweries Pvt. Ltd., were alleged to have acquired and held shares of a Singapore-based foreign entity without RBI approval in violation of Section 4 of FEMA — The Competent Authority, exercising powers under Section 37A(3), refused to confirm seizure of appellants' assets, recording a finding that no proof of payment for shares existed and that the foundational requirement of "reason to believe" was not satisfied — Notwithstanding this, the Adjudicating Authority proceeded with the SCN proceedings, issued a corrigendum and ultimately passed a final adjudication order — Held: The refusal to confirm seizure by the Competent Authority under Section 37A(3) is a substantive evaluation and not an empty formality; such findings necessarily have a bearing on the adjudication proceedings, particularly where the appeal against the order refusing confirmation is still pending [Paras 26–32, 36].

FEMA — Adjudication — Competent Authority's Order — Adjudicating Authority Cannot Override — Appeal Pending — The Adjudicating Authority, while passing the final order under Section 16, extensively relied upon observations of the Division Bench and effectively overrode and contradicted the order of the Competent Authority refusing to confirm seizure, even though the Department's appeal against that order was pending before the Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA — Held: Such course of action tantamounts to abdicating the powers of the Appellate Authority and is arbitrary and contrary to law; the Adjudicating Authority could not have undone the order of the Competent Authority while the same was sub judice in appeal [Paras 37–38].

Writ Petition Against Show-Cause Notice — Maintainability — Exceptions to General Rule — The High Court dismissed the writ petitions on the ground of non-maintainability, holding that a writ against an SCN is not entertainable — Held: This proposition is not an inviolable rule; interference at the stage of SCN is permissible in exceptional circumstances such as where the notice suffers from patent lack of jurisdiction, reflects non-application of mind, is issued with a predetermined approach, amounts to abuse of process of law, or results in violation of principles of natural justice — Rejection of challenge to SCN on ground of non-maintainability was not justified in the peculiar facts of the case [Para 32–33].

Division Bench — Observations Prejudicing Appellants — High Court's observations in paragraphs 32, 33 and 34 of the impugned judgment impliedly effaced the findings of the Competent Authority refusing to confirm seizure and foreclosed the outcome of the appeal pending before the Appellate Authority — The Adjudicating Authority heavily relied upon these observations in the final adjudication order — Held: Such observations were erroneous and have caused prejudice; they are set aside — Adjudication proceedings revived from stage of SCN [Paras 35–36, 39–40].

Suppression of Facts — Allegation of Concealment — No Merit — Respondents alleged that appellants suppressed the fact of the final adjudication order having been passed — Held: No merit in the contention; pleadings in the civil appeals clearly disclosed that the SCN had culminated in a final adjudication order against which statutory appeals had also been preferred; no deliberate concealment or lack of candour established [Para 24].

Decision: Appeals disposed of — Orders of the Division Bench (23.07.2024) and Single Judge (30.11.2023) of the Madras High Court set aside — Final adjudication order dated 26.08.2024 passed by the Adjudicating Authority set aside as arbitrary and contrary to law — Appellate Authority directed to decide the Department's appeal against the Competent Authority's order under Section 37A(5) within two months — Adjudication proceedings arising out of SCN to be taken up thereafter to their logical conclusion, uninfluenced by any observations made in the orders set aside.

Building Bye-Laws — Unauthorised Construction — Municipal Corporation Liability — Collusion and Connivance — Petitioner constructed a G+1 floor building without any sanctioned plan — Municipal Corporation failed to notice construction and passed demolition order only after completion of structure — Court observes that an entire one-and-a-half-storied building getting constructed without detection indicates an alarming state of affairs which could not have occurred without collusion and connivance of Municipal Authorities — State Government directed to conduct thorough inquiry into why entire structures are completed without due sanction and without any corrective measures being taken — Commissioner of Greater Chennai Corporation directed to file personally affirmed affidavit — Respondent Corporation disclosed that the site was within limits of Madhavaram Municipality at the relevant time and outside Chennai Corporation jurisdiction [Paras 1–3].

Unauthorised Construction — State Government Order Granting Relief to Violators — Additional Secretary (Technical), Housing and Urban Development Department, Tamil Nadu, by order dated 22.03.2024, directed that no coercive action be taken against persons who had violated building norms — Court expresses inability to comprehend how such relief could have been granted when blatant violation was evident and High Court had directed strict compliance with law — State of Tamil Nadu directed to file affidavit disclosing identity of officer(s) responsible for passing said order and furnishing explanation for its issuance [Paras 4–5].

Building Bye-Laws — Pan-India Directions — Misuse of Residential Areas for Commercial Purposes — Court takes judicial notice of widespread and blatant violations of building bye-laws and land-use regulations across the country — Constructions frequently undertaken in prohibited areas and, upon completion, put to uses other than those for which sanction was granted — Residential colonies being converted into commercial areas by unauthorised use, causing prejudice to bona fide residents and serious environmental and civic consequences — Held: Issue requires examination on a pan-India basis — All Municipal Corporations and Municipalities of capital cities of all States and Union Territories impleaded as party respondents — Directed to conduct comprehensive inquiry within their entire jurisdictions, including residential colonies, group housing societies, and 'islands' falling within or surrounded by Corporation/Municipality areas — Detailed list of areas demarcated for residential use but misused for non-residential purposes to be filed by way of personally affirmed affidavits by Commissioners — State of Tamil Nadu through Chief Secretary also impleaded — Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Senior Counsel, appointed as Amicus Curiae — Affidavits to be filed and served on Amicus Curiae by 15.05.2026 — Matter listed on 20.05.2026 [Paras 6–16].

Decision: Miscellaneous Application disposed of with directions — State of Tamil Nadu directed to file affidavit explaining order dated 22.03.2024 within four weeks — All Municipal Corporations and Municipalities of capital cities of all States and Union Territories impleaded and directed to file comprehensive inquiry reports — Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha appointed Amicus Curiae — Matter listed on 20.05.2026 [Paras 5, 9–16].

Constitutional Law — Legislative Competence — Tolls on National Highways — Entry 23 and Entry 96 List I vs. Entry 59 List II, Seventh Schedule — Pith and Substance Doctrine — Question arose whether toll collected for use of National Highways by the National Highways Authority of India falls within Entry 59 List II (State List) or within the Union List — Held: Applying the doctrine of pith and substance, any toll which is essentially a charge or fee collected for the use of a National Highway by the National Highways Authority of India is squarely covered within the Union List under Entry 23 read with Entry 96 of List I — Consequently, expression "Tolls" in Entry 59 List II must be restricted to those tolls or charges which are not collected by the Union Government in terms of List I — No interference warranted with the High Court's judgment — SLP dismissed [Order].

Decision: Delay condoned — Special Leave Petition dismissed — Pending applications disposed of.

Criminal Law – Matrimonial Dispute – Section 498A IPC – Dowry Prohibition Act – Quashing – Vague and Omnibus Allegations – FIR lodged after a delay of more than six years and seven months from the date of marriage alleging dowry demand, harassment, instigation by sister-in-law, miscarriage caused by husband's assault, sexual misconduct by father-in-law, and forcible eviction from matrimonial home – Investigating officer dropped Section 313 IPC charges in chargesheet – No medical evidence to support miscarriage – No documentary evidence regarding jewellery taken – High Court declined to quash – Held: Appeals allowed – FIR, Chargesheet, and Criminal Case quashed qua the appellant sister-in-law and parents-in-law [Paras 2–29].

Section 498A IPC – Misuse – Vague Allegations Against Relatives – A mere reference to names of family members in a matrimonial dispute case without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud – There is a well-recognised tendency to implicate all members of the husband's family when domestic disputes arise – Generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution – Courts must exercise caution to prevent misuse of Section 498A and unnecessary harassment of innocent family members [Para 22].

Delay in FIR – Fatal in Matrimonial Cases – Due to the personal nature of the relationship between the parties in matrimonial cases, there is already an insufficiency of evidence to support or rebut claims – A delay of nearly seven years in lodging the FIR can be fatal to the prosecution's case when not properly explained – Citizens who allege commission of an offence should not delay in pursuing their rights – Law protects those who are vigilant (vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt) – The reason ascribed for delay, namely the father-in-law's reputation as an advocate, was not substantiated by any specific instance of threat or restraint over six years [Paras 21, 24].

Section 313 IPC – Charges Dropped by Investigating Officer – Allegations of miscarriage caused by physical assault were not supported by the medical examination report which failed to ascribe any particular injury supporting the claim – Investigating officer dropped charges under Section 313 in the chargesheet – High Court, not having the benefit of the chargesheet, erroneously treated these allegations as supporting a cognizable offence – Only offences with lesser punishment survive the investigation [Para 23].

Section 354 IPC – Outrage of Modesty – No Substantive Material – Allegation that the father-in-law held the complainant's hands and engaged in inappropriate conduct was not elaborated upon either in the FIR or in the chargesheet – The nature of the alleged 'obscene acts' was not specified – Prosecution could not substantiate any material in support during proceedings – State counsel unable to discern substantive material from the chargesheet for Section 354 – Mere bald allegations without evidentiary backing cannot sustain prosecution [Para 25].

Non-Appearance of Complainant – Adverse Inference – Complainant failed to enter appearance despite service of notice, indicating indifference and lack of interest in contesting the appeals – This draws an adverse inference against the prosecution case [Para 25].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Impugned order of the Allahabad High Court dated 18.12.2023 set aside – FIR No. 758/2023, Chargesheet No. 01/2024, and Criminal Case No. 634/2025 quashed qua the appellant sister-in-law and parents-in-law – Observations not to affect any matrimonial or other proceedings pending between the parties.