Daily Judgments of 13 August
Supreme Court of India
SLP(C) No.-004775-004779 - 2025
Parties: KAMAL GUPTA vs M/S L.R. BUILDERS PVT. LTD
Judge(s): JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JUSTICE ATUL S. CHANDURKAR
Area of Law: Arbitration Law
The Court ruled that a non-signatory to an arbitration agreement cannot participate in arbitration proceedings, as they are not bound by the arbitral award, and such participation would violate confidentiality under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Additionally, the Court clarified that once an arbitrator is appointed under Section 11(6), the court becomes functus officio and cannot entertain further applications or issue additional directions. Consequently, the Court set aside the lower court's order allowing non-signatory intervenors to participate.
Crl.A. No.-003495-003495 - 2025
Parties: ASHOK DHANKAD vs STATE NCT OF DELHI
Judge(s): JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL, JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The Court overturned the High Court's bail grant, determining that the High Court failed to adequately consider the seriousness of the allegations, which included abduction and violent attacks resulting in one death. The Supreme Court highlighted the accused's conduct, including absconding and attempts to influence witnesses, as factors overlooked by the High Court. The Court ordered the accused to surrender within one week but allowed for a future bail application to be assessed on its merits.
Delhi High Court
W.P.(C)-10624/2020
Parties: SHEELENDRA KUMAR vs UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY & ANR.
Judge(s): JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR, JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
Area of Law: Service Law
The High Court quashed the dismissal of a BSF constable and his conviction under IPC Sections 354 and 323 by the General Security Force Court. The court found the guilt findings unsustainable due to significant contradictions in witness testimonies, particularly between their initial statements and those given nine years later. The complainant's account was deemed incredible, lacking sufficient evidence to support the conviction. Additionally, the court ruled the punishment disproportionate given the absence of direct evidence, leading to the petitioner's reinstatement with full benefits.
W.P.(C)-5830/2024
Parties: AADYA ANTYA vs HIGH COURT OF DELHI THROUGH REGISTRAR GENERAL
Judge(s): JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR, JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
Area of Law: Service Law
The High Court ruled that the petitioner is not entitled to appointment for a vacancy created by the resignation of a selected candidate, Ms. Riya Goyal, who had joined the Delhi Judicial Services. According to the Delhi Judicial Services Rules, 1970, once initial vacancies are filled, any new vacancy due to resignation is considered a fresh vacancy requiring a new recruitment process, not to be filled from the waitlist. The court cited Supreme Court precedents to affirm that being on the waitlist does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment. Additionally, the court dismissed the petitioner's argument for alignment with a DoPT Office Memorandum, emphasizing that judicial services are governed by state-specific rules. The court did not address allegations of misconduct against Ms. Goyal, as it was outside the scope of the writ petition.
W.P.(C)-4054/2025
Parties: M/S. CEIGALL INDIA LIMITED vs NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA & ANR.
Judge(s): HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
Area of Law: Administrative Law
The High Court ruled that the petitioner's error in submitting the bid amount was inadvertent and bona fide, rendering NHAI's action to forfeit 5% of the bid security under clause 2.20.7(a) of the RFP unsustainable. The court applied the doctrine of proportionality, requiring the petitioner to deposit Rs. 15,00,000 with NHAI as a precaution, while restraining NHAI from further actions such as debarment. The court quashed NHAI's impugned letters and permitted a fresh tendering process, allowing the petitioner to participate.
BAIL APPLN.-1394/2025
Parties: NARENDER vs STATE NCT OF DELHI
Judge(s): JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application of an accused charged under Section 78 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act for allegedly using a child to transport 450 quarters of illicit liquor. The court highlighted the seriousness of the offense, noting the exploitation of children in criminal activities, and deemed custodial interrogation necessary to explore potential wider networks. Given the gravity of the allegations and the need for police investigation, the court concluded that anticipatory bail was not warranted.
O.M.P.-717/2010
Parties: INDRAPRASTHA POWER GENERATION CO LTD vs E.M. SERVICES(I) PVT LTD
Judge(s): JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH
Area of Law: Arbitration Law
The High Court held that the arbitral award conflicted with fundamental Indian legal principles and basic notions of justice. The arbitrator's failure to frame an issue on the petitioner's counter-claim, despite it being specifically pleaded, deprived the petitioner of the opportunity to present evidence, violating their rights. Consequently, the court set aside the arbitral award.
CRL.M.C.-6579/2018
Parties: ANAND TANWAR vs POONAM ANAND TANWAR
Judge(s): JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
Area of Law: Family Law
The High Court upheld a maintenance order of Rs. 33,332 per month for the respondent wife and three children, determining it valid based on the petitioner's multiple income sources, including property ownership and a property dealing business, which allowed for an income assessment of Rs. 50,000 per month. Although the parties resumed cohabitation in July 2022, the court reduced the maintenance for the wife's personal expenses to Rs. 8,500 per month going forward.
CRL.M.C.-4785/2017
Parties: GAINDA LAL vs THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS
Judge(s): JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The petition challenging the discharge of the deceased's in-laws from charges under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code was dismissed. The court determined that the death was due to natural causes (pneumonia), negating the applicability of Section 304B. Additionally, the allegations under Section 498A were found to lack specificity, as the petitioner's statements and witness testimonies did not provide concrete instances of cruelty or dowry harassment. The court upheld the lower courts' decisions, concluding that the evidence did not substantiate the claims.
BAIL APPLN.-864/2025
Parties: PETER NWALUE vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Judge(s): JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court denied bail to Peter Nwalue under Section 21 of the NDPS Act, finding the accused's arguments regarding the seizure memo, absence of public witnesses, and lack of videography insufficient to counter the presumption against bail under Section 37, given the recovery of 602 grams of heroin. The court determined that while these issues could be addressed at trial, they did not establish reasonable grounds for believing the accused was not guilty or unlikely to reoffend if released on bail. The bail application was dismissed due to the absence of evidence demonstrating delays in trial proceedings.
W.P.(CRL)-3779/2024
Parties: SARTAJ vs STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
Judge(s): JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court set aside the Competent Authority's order denying the petitioner's request for a second furlough related to FIR No. 407/2016. The court ruled that the rejection, based on the petitioner's involvement in another offense during a prior furlough, was invalid since he had been granted bail in that case. The court ordered the petitioner to be released on a two-week furlough, contingent upon a personal bond.
Bombay High Court
SA/296/1993
Parties: ANUSAYA BABURAO KALE AND ORS Vs BABAI LAXMAN CHORGE
Judge(s): JUSTICE MS. JUSTICE GAURI GODSE
Area of Law: Property Law
The High Court allowed the defendants' second appeal, overturning lower court decisions that ordered them to vacate the suit property. The court recognized the defendants' right to reside in their father's property, affirming that prior to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, they held a right of maintenance and residence under uncodified Hindu law. Post-1956, this right was enhanced by Sections 23 and 14 of the Act, granting them absolute ownership. The court noted that the defendants were in possession before a 1966 partition and that their residence rights remained intact despite it. The plaintiff's claim of the defendants being mere licensees was deemed unsustainable, leading to the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit.
Calcutta High Court
CS-COM/565/2024
Parties: SHAKAMBARI ISPAT & POWER LIMITED Vs BIRAT CHANDRA DAGARA
Judge(s): JUSTICE KRISHNA RAO
Area of Law: Commercial Law
The High Court held that the defendant admitted liability to the plaintiff for Rs. 3,37,15,075 and ordered payment with 12% annual interest from October 28, 2021. The court applied Order XII, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, permitting judgment on admitted claims without awaiting resolution of other issues.
WPA/10536/2025
Parties: M/S IDL EXPLOSIVES LIMITED & ORS. Vs COAL INDIA LIMITED & ANR.
Judge(s): JUSTICE OM NARAYAN RAI
Area of Law: Administrative Law
The High Court ruled that the 2-year debarment of the petitioner from contracting with Coal India Limited was disproportionate. The court determined that the Chairman failed to adequately assess the quantum of loss, focusing solely on the gravity of the offence, contrary to the relevant clause which required consideration of both factors. The court set aside the order and directed the Chairman to reassess the ban period in line with its observations within 4 weeks.
WPA/12164/2025
Parties: EASTERN CHEMOFARB PVT. LTD. Vs EASTERN CHEMOFARB PVT. LTD. PERMANENT WORKER’S UNION & ANR.
Judge(s): JUSTICE SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL)
Area of Law: Labor Law
The High Court upheld the Industrial Tribunal's award that Eastern Chemofarb Pvt. Ltd.'s suspension of work was unjustified. Although the Tribunal incorrectly applied Section 25(O)(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the High Court agreed with its conclusion that the company failed to adequately justify the suspension. Consequently, the court directed the company to permit workers to resume duties with full service benefits.
WPA/17679/2025
Parties: DG RAJ HIGHWAY SERVICES Vs THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA ROY
Area of Law: Administrative Law
The High Court ruled that DG Raj Highway Services is entitled to request a re-weighment of its consignment under Section 79 of the Railways Act, 1989, following an overloading charge. The court found the railway authority's response inadequate as it failed to comply with Section 79. It ordered the petitioner to deposit the demanded amount and applicable commercial charges, after which the railway authority must conduct the re-weighment and release the consignment. The parties may then pursue their claims and cross-claims as per the law. No order on costs was issued.
WPA/20449/2024
Parties: RUKHSANA HAMID Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH
Area of Law: Administrative Law
The High Court upheld the validity of a demolition order issued by the Superintending Engineer of the Asansol Municipal Corporation, affirming that such orders can be delegated under Section 266 of the West Bengal Municipal Corporation Act, 2006. The court found that the Superintendent Engineer acted within the scope of a valid delegation of power. Additionally, the court ruled that principles of natural justice were not violated, as a hearing was provided to the individuals responsible for the unauthorized construction, while the petitioner, not directly involved, was not entitled to a hearing.
CRR/718/2018
Parties: WEST BENGAL STATE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD Vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR.
Judge(s): JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR GUPTA
Area of Law: Administrative Law
The High Court held that a delay of 1463 days in filing a revisional application by the West Bengal State Agricultural Marketing Board was inordinate and could not be condoned. The Board's reasons for the delay were deemed insufficient, lacking adequate explanation for the movement of files between departments. The court emphasized that while a liberal approach is favored in criminal cases, substantial justice cannot override the necessity for a clear and sufficient cause for delay. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was rejected, and the revisional application was dismissed as barred by limitation.
RVW/161/2022
Parties: THE HOWRAH MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. Vs M/S PRODUCTION ENTERPRISE & ANR.
Judge(s): JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ
Area of Law: Administrative Law
The High Court dismissed the review petition by the Howrah Municipal Corporation, finding no apparent error in the consent order dated December 22, 2020. The court emphasized that review jurisdiction is limited to specific grounds: discovery of new evidence, apparent mistakes, or other sufficient reasons, rather than alternative arguments. The Corporation did not demonstrate any valid grounds for review, leading to the dismissal of the petition.
CRA (DB)/302/2025
Parties: MD. SADDAM @ MOHAMMAD SADDAM @ SADDAM MALLICK @ ABDUL MALLICK Vs THE UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Judge(s): JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK, JUSTICE MD SHABBAR RASHIDI
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court dismissed Md. Saddam's criminal appeal against the rejection of his discharge application. The court determined that seized materials indicated his involvement in activities threatening India's sovereignty, necessitating a trial. It ruled that alleged procedural non-adherence under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 should be addressed at trial and did not warrant automatic discharge.