ALS

π€πšππ«π’π€πšπš π‹πžπ πšπ₯ π’πžπ«π―π’πœπžπ¬ (𝐀𝐋𝐒)

Tag: #LegalView

  • Himachal Pradesh High Court: Pending CBI or Vigilance Inquiry Cannot Justify Interference with Arbitral Award Under Section 37

    Himachal Pradesh High Court: Pending CBI or Vigilance Inquiry Cannot Justify Interference with Arbitral Award Under Section 37

    Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

    Date: 02.11.2026

    Himachal Pradesh High Court: Pending CBI or Vigilance Inquiry Cannot Justify Interference with Arbitral Award Under Section 37

    This Short Article has been prepared & written by Arbitrator Shobhit Malik. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his mob no- +91 9712924188 and email id shobhit.Ica23@gmail.com.

    The Himachal Pradesh High Court has dismissed the Union of India’s appeal against an arbitral award in favour of contractor Pramod Sood, reaffirming that courts have only a narrowly limited role in reviewing arbitration decisions under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

    Background of the dispute

    The dispute arose from work relating to the trenching and laying of optical fibre cable (OFC). Pramod Sood, the claimant, pursued arbitration following directions of the High Court. The sole arbitrator, V.K. Khurana, issued an award on 21 July 2006.

    The Union of India and another party challenged that award before the District Judge, Shimla, under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Their objections were dismissed on 1 September 2011. They then appealed to the High Court under Section 37(1)(b) of the Act.

    Grounds raised by the Union of India

    The appellants argued that the award was founded on surmises and conjectures. They also relied on the fact that records connected with the work had been seized by the Central Bureau of Investigation in 1997 and that a vigilance inquiry had earlier been underway.

    According to the Union of India, requiring payment while those inquiries remained pending could undermine the purpose of examining alleged irregularities. It further challenged the award of interest at 14% per annum from 1 November 1996, contending that Clause 16.2 of the contract barred interest on earnest money, security deposits, or sums payable to the contractor.

    High Court’s reasoning: Section 37 review is highly restricted

    Justice Virender Singh held that an appeal under Section 37 is not a routine appeal on facts or contractual interpretation. Where an arbitral award has already survived a challenge under Section 34, the appellate court’s scope is even narrower.

    The Court relied on Supreme Court guidance in Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. v. Chenab Bridge Project Undertaking and Bombay Slum Redevelopment Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v. Samir Barain Bhojwani. These decisions establish that courts should not set aside an award merely because another interpretation of the evidence or contract is possible.

    Interference is justified only where the award is perverse, manifestly arbitrary, or otherwise falls within the limited statutory grounds under Section 34. Under Section 37, the court primarily examines whether the Section 34 court exercised that limited jurisdiction correctly.

    CBI seizure and vigilance inquiry did not invalidate the award

    The High Court found that the CBI seizure of records and the vigilance inquiry did not affect the merits of the arbitral determination. The arbitrator had decided the dispute after providing both sides an opportunity to present their case.

    The District Judge had also considered this issue. The High Court noted that the appropriate stage to raise such objections was when the application under Section 18 of the Act was being considered. Crucially, the appellants did not show how the award violated public policy.

    Decision

    The High Court found no basis to interfere with the District Judge’s well-reasoned order dismissing the Section 34 objections. The appeal under Section 37 was therefore dismissed, along with any pending applications.

    Key legal takeaway

    The decision reinforces the finality of arbitration in India. A party challenging an arbitral award cannot succeed under Section 37 simply by offering a different reading of the facts or contract. It must demonstrate a serious legal defect, such as perversity or manifest arbitrariness, within the narrow limits set by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

    Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

    Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

    Source: Himachal Pradesh High Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • Bombay High Court Upholds Compassionate Appointments After Years of Service

    Bombay High Court Upholds Compassionate Appointments After Years of Service

    Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

    Date: 02.11.2026

    Bombay High Court Upholds Compassionate Appointments After Years of Service

    This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Madhumita Jha. The views expressed are based on her interpretation of the law. She can be reached at her mob no- +91 8726929060 and email id jhamadhumita27@gmail.com .

    The Bombay High Court has set aside attempts to cancel the compassionate appointments of two Maharashtra government employees after finding that the State had wrongly treated their deceased fathers’ posts as Group B solely because of the pay scale attached to them.

    Background of the dispute

    The case combined petitions filed by Avinash Kondiram Wagh and Abhay Chandrakant Khond against the State of Maharashtra and officials in the Vocational Education and Training Department.

    Both petitioners had received government employment on compassionate grounds after their fathers died while in service:

    • Avinash Wagh was appointed as a Group Instructor in 2004 after his father, a junior clerk, died in service.
    • Abhay Khond was appointed as a Junior Clerk-cum-Typist in 2008 after his father, a Training Officer, died in service.

    They completed probation, were confirmed in service, and continued working for years. In 2010, however, departmental authorities issued show-cause notices proposing to cancel their appointments. The authorities argued that the posts held by the deceased employees carried the pay scale of Rs. 6,500–10,500 and therefore fell within Group B, whose dependants were allegedly not eligible for compassionate appointment under the policy then relied upon by the State.

    The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dismissed the petitioners’ challenges in 2014. The High Court had meanwhile protected their employment during the litigation.

    Court’s key finding: Pay scale alone does not determine classification

    The central issue was whether the State could classify the relevant posts as Group B merely because of their pay scale.

    The Division Bench held that it could not. It found that the authorities had selectively relied on the Government Resolution of 2 July 2002 and an internal departmental letter dated 19 May 2010, without considering later government resolutions that specifically classified the posts in question.

    For Wagh’s case, the Court noted that multiple government resolutions treated the post of Group Instructor, carrying the disputed pay scale, as a Group C (Technical) post. These included resolutions dated:

    • 22 October 2008;
    • 31 March 2010;
    • 14 May 2010; and
    • 31 August 2010.

    The State did not establish that any of these resolutions had been withdrawn, superseded, or invalidated. The Court also observed that the departmental letter did not reconcile its position with these specific classifications.

    In Khond’s case, the respondents had admitted that his father was employed in a Class III post. The Court found no valid basis for subsequently treating that post as Group B. Khond himself had been appointed to a Group C post as Junior Clerk-cum-Typist.

    Long service and absence of wrongdoing mattered

    The High Court also relied on fairness and equity. Both petitioners had been appointed by competent authorities, completed probation, and served continuously for nearly two decades. Neither was accused of fraud, misrepresentation, suppression of facts, or misconduct.

    The Court held that it would be seriously prejudicial and disproportionate to unsettle their employment after such a long period, particularly because they had crossed the usual age limits for entering government service.

    Referring to the Supreme Court decision in Md. Zamil Ahmed v. State of Bihar, the Court reiterated that the State should not take advantage of its own alleged mistake after a long delay when the employee had not secured appointment through deception or concealment.

    Compassionate appointment is a beneficial measure

    The judgment restated that compassionate appointment is an exception to ordinary recruitment rules. Its purpose is to provide immediate financial support to a family facing hardship after the death of its earning member.

    The Court held that cancelling confirmed appointments decades later would undermine that objective. Once the petitioners had become confirmed employees, their service could not be taken away except in accordance with law and applicable service rules.

    The Court also noted that Maharashtra expanded its compassionate-appointment policy in September 2021 to cover dependants of employees in Groups A and B as well as Groups C and D. While this later policy did not retrospectively decide the petitioners’ entitlement, it showed that the earlier restriction had since been broadened.

    Outcome

    The High Court allowed both writ petitions and set aside the Tribunal’s 2014 order insofar as it had dismissed the petitioners’ original applications. The proposed cancellation of their compassionate appointments was held unsustainable.

    The ruling is expressly confined to the particular facts of these cases and is not to be treated as a precedent for other matters. Its core message is nevertheless clear: government authorities must consider all applicable classification rules and cannot undo long-standing compassionate appointments on a narrow or inconsistent reading of policy, especially where the employees acted in good faith and have served for many years.

    Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

    Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

    Source: Bombay High Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • Delhi High Court Ruled Deemed Occupancy Certificate Claim Cannot Override RERA

    Delhi High Court Ruled Deemed Occupancy Certificate Claim Cannot Override RERA

    Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

    Date: 02.11.2026

    Delhi High Court Ruled Deemed Occupancy Certificate Claim Cannot Override RERA

    This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Narendra Singh. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his mob no- +91 8800860662 and email id amitnaren@outlook.com .

    The Delhi High Court has dismissed two appeals by CJ Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., holding that the developer could not avoid the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA) on the basis of a claimed β€œdeemed” occupancy certificate and was required to comply with the statutory pre-deposit condition before its appeals could be heard.

    Background: Metroplex East commercial complex

    CJ Infrastructure developed Metroplex East, a commercial complex at 21, District Centre, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi. The project comprises 197 units along with common areas, including the entrance lobby, elevators and staircases. The developer stated that construction was completed on 14 February 2013 and that an architect had certified the building as fit for occupation.

    According to the company, it applied to the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) for an Occupancy-cum-Completion Certificate (OCC) in 2013 and early 2014. It argued that, because the DDA did not respond within the applicable period, the OCC should be treated as having been granted by operation of the building bye-laws.

    Between 2013 and 2015, the company sold or allotted 149 commercial units and executed registered conveyance deeds in favour of purchasers. Later, several purchasers initiated proceedings under RERA, principally alleging that the developer had not obtained a formal OCC for the building.

    The central dispute: Was the OCC deemed to have been granted?

    The developer’s principal argument was that the project had effectively been completed before RERA came into force and that a deemed OCC had arisen because of the DDA’s alleged inaction. On that basis, it contended that the RERA authorities lacked jurisdiction over the complaints.

    The Court did not accept this position. It examined the record placed by the DDA and highlighted key deficiencies:

    • The developer claimed that it had applied for completion on 14 February 2013, but the Fire Safety Certificate relied upon was dated 30 October 2013. The certificate was required for a completion application.
    • The OCC-fee receipt produced by the developer was dated 20 April 2017, approximately four years after the claimed OCC application.
    • The DDA reported deviations from the sanctioned plan.
    • The application was scrutinised under the Unified Building Bye-Laws, 2016, and the stated deficiencies were not rectified despite opportunities to do so.
    • The DDA rejected the OCC application on 8 September 2021.

    The Court held that a deemed OCC could not be claimed in these circumstances. It noted that deemed approval requires the applicant to have met the necessary requirements, including payment of applicable fees, and cannot authorise conduct contrary to lease conditions, the master plan, regulations or building bye-laws.

    Most importantly, the Court found that no OCC existed when the appeals were before the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT). Therefore, the project remained subject to RERA.

    Why the RERA pre-deposit requirement applied

    The second major issue concerned Section 43(5) of RERA. This provision requires a promoter challenging an order before the appellate tribunal to first deposit at least 30% of the penalty, or such higher percentage as the tribunal directs, or the total amount payable to the allottee, including interest and compensation, depending on the nature of the order.

    The REAT had required CJ Infrastructure to deposit the full adjudicated amounts as a condition for continuing its appeals. When the company did not make that deposit, the REAT dismissed the appeals.

    The Delhi High Court upheld that decision. It emphasised that the statutory wording, including β€œit shall not be entertained,” makes pre-deposit a mandatory threshold condition for a promoter’s appeal. The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which had held that this requirement is not unconstitutionally burdensome and serves to protect allottees’ financial interests.

    The Court also rejected the developer’s offer to provide immovable-property security instead of making the deposit. RERA contains no provision permitting such a substitute.

    Judgment and implications

    The High Court found no error in the REAT’s orders and dismissed both appeals. It nevertheless allowed the appellants an opportunity to seek revival of their REAT appeals within 30 days of the judgment, provided they comply with the applicable pre-deposit condition under Section 43(5).

    The ruling reinforces two important principles for real-estate developers:

    1. A deemed occupancy certificate cannot be assumed merely from alleged administrative inaction. The applicant must show compliance with the applicable approval requirements, including supporting documentation, fees and rectification of identified shortcomings.
    2. The RERA pre-deposit requirement is mandatory for promoters’ appeals. A developer cannot ordinarily have an appeal heard by REAT without first making the required statutory deposit, and offering property as security is not an authorised alternative.

    The judgment, pronounced on 29 August 2025 by a Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, underscores the courts’ approach of enforcing RERA’s safeguards for allottees while requiring strict compliance from promoters seeking appellate relief.

    Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

    Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

    Source: Delhi High Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • Karnataka High Court Dismisses Retired FSL Officer’s Plea to Halt Forgery Case

    Karnataka High Court Dismisses Retired FSL Officer’s Plea to Halt Forgery Case

    Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

    Date: 02.11.2026

    Karnataka High Court Dismisses Retired FSL Officer’s Plea to Halt Forgery Case

    This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate G Sridharamurthy. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his mob no- +91 9845906418 and email id sriadv3@gmail.com .

    The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a criminal petition by a retired Forensic Science Laboratory officer, holding that his claim that he was forced to sign a disputed experience certificate must be tested at trial rather than decided at the discharge stage.

    Background: recruitment complaint led to criminal case

    The case arose from the recruitment process for the post of Scientific Assistant in the Biology Section of the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL). The complainant, K. Sridhar, who held an M.Sc. in Biotechnology, applied in response to a notification issued on 25 February 2003.

    After receiving no information about the recruitment outcome, Sridhar sought records through an application under the Right to Information Act in December 2007. Following proceedings before RTI authorities, he received certain documents that he alleged were false or misleading. These records, including documents dated in 2008, formed the basis of a complaint registered by the Madivala Police in July 2010.

    The investigation was subsequently transferred to the COD. After investigating, the agency filed a charge sheet alleging that officials had conspired to facilitate the appointment of another candidate by creating or issuing a false experience certificate.

    Allegations against the petitioner

    Rangegowda, a retired Deputy Director associated with the FSL, was named as Accused No. 3. The prosecution alleged that he and others conspired in relation to the appointment of Accused No. 2 as a Scientific Assistant, despite the candidate allegedly lacking the required qualification.

    The charge sheet invoked offences relating to preparation or signing of incorrect official documents, false certification, criminal conspiracy and provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. A central document was a certificate dated 12 March 2003 bearing Rangegowda’s signature.

    Defence: signature was allegedly obtained under pressure

    Rangegowda sought discharge before the trial court, maintaining that he had not committed the alleged offences. His principal defence was that Accused No. 1 had compelled him to sign a pre-typed document in the latter’s chamber and that he had no meaningful alternative.

    He also argued that:

    • he was initially treated as a witness, including in a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code;
    • the trial court had not adequately considered the legal ingredients of the offences alleged;
    • certain allegations were barred by limitation; and
    • material from a departmental enquiry supported his position.

    The trial court rejected his discharge application. He then moved the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, seeking to have that order set aside.

    High Court’s reasoning: disputed defence requires evidence at trial

    Justice H.P. Sandesh held that the dispute could not be resolved at the discharge stage. The Court noted that Rangegowda did not dispute issuing the certificate dated 12 March 2003 or that it carried his signature. His contention was that the document had been signed under coercion.

    According to the Court, whether the petitioner was actually compelled to sign the certificate is a factual issue requiring examination of evidence. It cannot be decided merely by evaluating the defence version while considering an application for discharge.

    The Court also accepted that the investigating material indicated allegations of a cognizable offence and an alleged conspiracy involving the issuance of the certificate. At this preliminary stage, the court said it could not assess the reliability of the prosecution’s evidence or discard it in favour of the petitioner’s explanation.

    Why the discharge request failed

    The High Court emphasized that discharge is appropriate where allegations and collected material fail to disclose a case requiring trial. Here, however, the existence of the signed certificate was not disputed, and the prosecution had material supporting its allegation that the certificate was connected to an improper appointment.

    The Court treated the petitioner’s explanation, including his reliance on his earlier statements and departmental enquiry material, as a defence that may be raised during trial. It found no error in the trial court’s refusal to discharge him.

    Outcome and legal significance

    The criminal petition was dismissed, leaving the prosecution against Rangegowda to proceed before the trial court. The decision reinforces a key distinction in criminal procedure: at the discharge stage, courts assess whether the prosecution material discloses grounds to proceed, but they generally do not decide contested factual defences.

    Where a document’s issuance is admitted but the circumstances of signing are disputed, the matter ordinarily requires a full trial and evidence-based determination.

    Listen to this on our #YouTube Channel

    Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

    Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

    Source: Karnataka High Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • Delhi HC: Invalid Arbitrator Appointment Clause Does Not Invalidate Arbitration Agreement

    Delhi HC: Invalid Arbitrator Appointment Clause Does Not Invalidate Arbitration Agreement

    Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

    Date: 26.10.2026

    Delhi HC: Invalid Arbitrator Appointment Clause Does Not Invalidate Arbitration Agreement

    This Short Article has been prepared & written by Arbitrator Shobhit Mallik. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id shobhit.Ica23@gmail.com .

    The Delhi High Court has referred a payment and performance dispute between Greentree Building Energy Private Limited and the Bureau of Energy Efficiency (BEE) to arbitration, holding that BEE could not unilaterally appoint the sole arbitrator under the contract.

    Background of the dispute

    The dispute arose from a government engagement for conducting refresher courses for Energy Auditors and Energy Managers across India. BEE issued a request for proposal in December 2023, and Greentree’s bid was accepted through a Letter of Award dated 15 February 2024. The parties then entered into a Memorandum of Agreement/Service Agreement on 29 February 2024.

    Under the arrangement, Greentree was to provide refresher training to about 2,000 candidates through workshops held nationwide. The agreement included an arbitration clause providing that unresolved disputes would be referred to a sole arbitrator appointed by BEE, with New Delhi as the seat and venue of arbitration.

    Greentree’s claims

    Greentree contended that its work was hampered because BEE did not provide a functioning portal, candidate database, and necessary instructions or approvals concerning registration, payment verification and certification. According to Greentree, it had to deploy its own staff and technical resources to establish an alternative portal.

    The contract period was extended twice: first until 14 May 2025 and then until 1 October 2025. Greentree stated that it trained 636 candidates, exceeding the first milestone requirement of 600 candidates.

    For that milestone, Greentree issued an invoice of Rs. 46,11,204, inclusive of IGST, representing 30% of the total contract value of Rs. 1,53,70,680. It said that only Rs. 15,53,350 was released.

    BEE’s payment calculation treated Rs. 44,19,071 as payable but deducted:

    • Rs. 11,52,801 for alleged shortfalls in the minimum number of participants at six workshops; and
    • Rs. 15,37,068 as an alleged maximum 10% penalty on the total contract value.

    Greentree challenged these deductions as unilateral, arbitrary and inconsistent with the agreement. It also claimed a further Rs. 5,14,918 relating to 67 additional candidates trained under the same work order.

    BEE’s position

    BEE disputed Greentree’s claims. It maintained that Greentree had repeatedly failed to perform according to the agreed milestones and timelines, despite earlier communications. BEE also asserted that the deductions from the invoice were justified under the contractual framework.

    The Court did not decide these factual and contractual disputes. It held that questions relating to delay, performance, deductions and payment entitlement must be determined by the arbitral tribunal.

    Why the Court intervened

    Greentree invoked arbitration in April 2026 and asked BEE to agree to an independent and impartial sole arbitrator. While BEE responded to the notice, it did not concur with such an appointment.

    The Court found that the contractual provision allowing BEE to appoint the sole arbitrator could not be enforced. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the Court reaffirmed that a party interested in the outcome of a dispute cannot unilaterally appoint the sole arbitrator. Such a process creates justified concerns regarding the arbitrator’s independence and impartiality and conflicts with the requirement of equal treatment of parties.

    Importantly, the Court clarified that an invalid appointment procedure does not invalidate the arbitration agreement itself. The parties’ clear intention to resolve disputes through arbitration remained effective; only the agreed method of appointment had failed.

    The Court’s decision

    The Delhi High Court appointed Ms. Manini Brar, Advocate, as the sole arbitrator to decide the disputes arising from the work order and service agreement.

    The arbitration will proceed under the aegis and rules of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC). The parties must make the disclosures required under Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. BEE may raise any preliminary objections concerning jurisdiction or arbitrability before the arbitrator.

    All claims, counterclaims and substantive defences remain open for decision on their merits. The Court expressly stated that its order should not be treated as a view on the correctness of either party’s case.

    Legal significance

    The ruling reinforces a central principle of Indian arbitration law: a party to a dispute cannot retain exclusive control over the appointment of a sole arbitrator. Where such a clause exists, courts can preserve the arbitration agreement while replacing the defective appointment mechanism with an independent judicial appointment.

    For government bodies, contractors and commercial parties, the decision highlights the need to draft arbitration clauses that provide a neutral, balanced and legally sustainable appointment process.

    Listen to this on our #YouTube Channel

    Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

    Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

    Source: Delhi High Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • Bombay High Court Upholds Maha RERA Appellate Tribunal’s Power to Restore Defaulted Proceedings

    Bombay High Court Upholds Maha RERA Appellate Tribunal’s Power to Restore Defaulted Proceedings

    Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

    Date: 26.10.2026

    Bombay High Court Upholds Maha RERA Appellate Tribunal’s Power to Restore Defaulted Proceedings

    This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Narendra Singh. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id amitnaren@outlook.com .  

    The Bombay High Court has held that the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal may restore proceedings dismissed for non-prosecution when sufficient cause is shown, even though RERA does not expressly state that power.

    Background of the dispute

    Hubtown Ltd. challenged an order of the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal that revived an allottee’s delayed appeal. The allottee had originally filed a complaint under Section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, seeking relief from Maha RERA. Maha RERA dismissed that complaint on 23 April 2024.

    The allottee then appealed to the Appellate Tribunal, accompanied by an application seeking condonation of a 25-day filing delay. On 3 July 2025, the application was dismissed for want of prosecution because the allottee did not appear. As a consequence, the appeal was also disposed of.

    The allottee subsequently sought restoration of both the delay-condonation application and the appeal, along with condonation of the delay in making the restoration request. The Appellate Tribunal allowed those applications, relying in part on its inherent powers under Regulation 25 of the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal Regulations, 2019.

    The promoter’s challenge

    Hubtown argued that the Appellate Tribunal, as a statutory body, could exercise only those Civil Court powers expressly specified in Section 53(4) of RERA. While that provision permits dismissal for default or ex parte proceedings, it does not specifically confer a power to restore a matter dismissed in default.

    The promoter also contended that Regulation 25 could not enlarge the Tribunal’s jurisdiction beyond RERA and its rules, and that the allottee had not shown adequate cause for delay.

    High Court’s reasoning

    Justice N. J. Jamadar rejected the narrow reading of Section 53. The Court emphasized three connected principles:

    • Natural justice governs the Tribunal’s procedure. Section 53(1) states that the Appellate Tribunal is not bound by the strict procedure of the Code of Civil Procedure and must be guided by natural justice.
    • The Tribunal can regulate its own procedure. Section 53(2) authorizes it to do so, subject to RERA.
    • Necessary incidental powers are implied. A tribunal must possess powers that are ancillary and essential to perform its statutory functions effectively, unless the statute expressly prohibits their use.

    The Court found that the power to restore a case dismissed for default is a natural counterpart to the power to dismiss it for non-appearance. A tribunal may dismiss a matter when a party does not appear, but fairness may require it to restore the matter if the party later establishes good cause for the absence.

    Supreme Court precedents relied upon

    The judgment drew support from established Supreme Court decisions:

    • In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. R. Srinivasan, the Supreme Court recognized that a judicial or quasi-judicial body which may dismiss a proceeding for non-prosecution also has inherent jurisdiction to restore it upon a showing of good cause.
    • In Union of India v. Paras Laminates (P) Ltd., the Court held that statutory tribunals have powers expressly granted as well as powers necessarily incidental to making their jurisdiction effective.
    • In Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal, the Supreme Court held that a tribunal may set aside an ex parte award in the interests of justice even without an express provision, absent any statutory prohibition.

    Applying these principles, the Bombay High Court held that the Appellate Tribunal’s restoration power exists independently of Regulation 25 because it is essential to achieving RERA’s purpose and to deciding matters fairly.

    Limited scope for interference with delay condonation

    The Court also declined to interfere with the Tribunal’s decision to condone delay. It observed that once the first adjudicatory forum has exercised positive discretion to condone delay after assessing the explanation and supporting documents, an appellate or supervisory court should not lightly overturn that decision.

    Interference would generally be justified only where the order is perverse or where delay has been condoned without any reasons. The Court found neither circumstance present and held that no substantial question of law arose.

    Outcome and legal significance

    The Bombay High Court dismissed Hubtown’s second appeal and disposed of the related interim application. The ruling confirms that the Maha RERA Appellate Tribunal is not confined to a mechanical reading of its expressly listed powers. Consistent with natural justice, it may restore a proceeding dismissed in default where sufficient cause is established and no statutory prohibition applies.

    This ensures that procedural lapses do not automatically defeat a party’s substantive right to have a real-estate dispute adjudicated on its merits.

    Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

    Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

    Source: Bombay High Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • Bombay HC: Criminal Proceedings Cannot Be Used to Settle Purely Civil Disputes

    Bombay HC: Criminal Proceedings Cannot Be Used to Settle Purely Civil Disputes

    Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

    Date: 26.10.2026

    Bombay HC: Criminal Proceedings Cannot Be Used to Settle Purely Civil Disputes

    This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Madhumita Jha. The views expressed are based on her interpretation of the law. She can be reached at her email id jhamadhumita27@gmail.com .  

    The Bombay High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against M/s. Akansha Developers, holding that the dispute over an Aundh redevelopment project was fundamentally civil and did not disclose a prima facie case of cheating or criminal breach of trust.

    Background of the dispute

    The case arose from a redevelopment arrangement involving properties bearing CTS Nos. 773, 774, 776 and 784 at Mouje Aundh, Taluka Haveli, Pune. The complainant claimed ownership rights in the ancestral properties and asserted that CTS No. 784 had been purchased by his grandfather through a registered sale deed dated 6 May 1955.

    The parties had entrusted development of the property to M/s. Akansha Developers. Under the development arrangement, the developer was to carry out the project and provide compensation along with an allotted flat and shop. A dispute later emerged over the inclusion of CTS No. 784 in the project. The complainant contended that certain family members had no right, title or possession authorising them to execute a development agreement concerning that parcel.

    Criminal complaint and earlier proceedings

    In 2012, the complainant initiated RCC No. 581 of 2012 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pune, alleging offences including cheating, breach of trust and other provisions of the Indian Penal Code.

    The Magistrate issued process on 9 August 2012 for offences under Sections 403, 406, 420, 423, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Other allegations, including those under Sections 404, 426, 447 and conspiracy-related provisions, were rejected on the ground that no offence was made out. A revision challenge before the Sessions Court was dismissed on 28 October 2014.

    Akansha Developers then approached the Bombay High Court seeking to quash the remaining criminal proceedings.

    Developer’s case: a contractual dispute already addressed in civil court

    The developer argued that the same dispute had already been the subject of civil proceedings since 2009. According to the developer, the civil suit was decreed on 27 April 2012, before the criminal complaint was filed, and the complaint was therefore a retaliatory attempt to reopen issues already considered in the civil litigation.

    It was also submitted that the development agreement and power of attorney authorised the developer to undertake the project and negotiate matters connected with possession of CTS No. 784. The developer maintained that it remained willing to provide the complainant’s earmarked flat and shop.

    The civil court had concluded that cancellation of the development agreement was not appropriate because the project had been completed, the agreement had been acted upon and third-party rights had crystallised. Instead, it awarded damages of Rs. 5 lakh to the complainant. The decree was under challenge in a first appeal.

    Complainant’s allegations

    The complainant opposed the petition, alleging that CTS No. 784 was not covered by an earlier civil decree and that the family members who executed the development agreement lacked ownership rights in that property. It was alleged that the developer acted in concert with them, incorporated the disputed parcel into the larger project and failed to pay amounts promised under the development agreement.

    High Court’s reasoning

    Justice Milind N. Jadhav held that the parties’ rights and obligations were governed by executed and registered documents, including the development agreement, power of attorney and revenue records. The Court noted that the civil court had already ruled that the development agreement could not be cancelled, while the complainant’s appeal against that decision remained pending.

    The Court found that the dispute was amenable to civil adjudication and that parallel criminal proceedings could not be sustained on the same facts without a prima facie showing of criminal intent. It specifically held that there was no element of cheating in the circumstances of the case.

    The judgment also observed that, once allegations under certain related provisions had not been made out, the cheating charge under Section 420 was unsustainable on the facts presented.

    Outcome

    By its judgment dated 22 October 2026, the Bombay High Court quashed the Sessions Court’s order of 28 October 2014 and set aside the Magistrate’s order issuing process dated 9 August 2012. The writ petition filed by M/s. Akansha Developers was allowed.

    Key legal takeaway

    The decision reinforces that a property-development dispute governed by contractual and title documents will ordinarily remain a civil matter. Criminal proceedings for cheating or breach of trust require clear, prima facie allegations of criminal intent; they cannot be used merely because a party disputes contractual performance or property entitlements already being litigated before a civil court.

    Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

    Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

    Source: Bombay High Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • Karnataka High Court Declines to Quash Disproportionate-Assets Cases Against Retired Officials

    Karnataka High Court Declines to Quash Disproportionate-Assets Cases Against Retired Officials

    Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

    Date: 26.10.2026

    Karnataka High Court Declines to Quash Disproportionate-Assets Cases Against Retired Officials

    This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate G Sridharamurthy. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id sriadv3@gmail.com . 

    The Karnataka High Court has dismissed two petitions seeking to halt corruption prosecutions against retired public officials, holding that disputed evidence on alleged disproportionate assets must be assessed at trial rather than through quashing proceedings.

    Court’s decision

    In a common order dated 17 October 2026, Justice H.P. Sandesh rejected:

    • Criminal Petition No. 3849 of 2019 filed by H.M. Khyum Ali, a retired Deputy Director in the Department of Mines and Geology; and
    • Writ Petition No. 48145 of 2018 filed by M.K. Baldevakrishna, formerly Managing Director of the Dr. Ambedkar Development Corporation.

    Both petitioners faced proceedings under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, concerning assets alleged to be disproportionate to their known sources of income.

    Allegations in the two cases

    H.M. Khyum Ali case

    The Lokayukta police registered a suo motu case in 2008. The prosecution alleged that, during the check period from 11 February 1974 to 27 June 2008, Ali had assets valued at Rs. 62.76 lakh and expenditure of Rs. 53.24 lakh against an income of Rs. 67.89 lakh. The charge sheet assessed the alleged disproportionate assets at approximately Rs. 48.11 lakh, or 70.81% above known income.

    Ali argued that the investigation was incomplete because documents and explanations relating to several asset schedules had not been considered before the charge sheet was filed. He also contended that salary, rental income, fixed-deposit interest, advances, and tuition income were omitted from the calculation.

    The Court found that these assertions involved disputed facts and matters of defence that must be tested during trial. It noted that charges had already been framed and six prosecution witnesses had been examined and cross-examined.

    M.K. Baldevakrishna case

    Baldevakrishna’s case arose from a 2008 raid and investigation. The prosecution alleged assets of about Rs. 2.69 crore, expenditure of about Rs. 1.64 crore, and income of about Rs. 2 crore during the relevant period. The final report alleged disproportionate assets of 116.41% above known income.

    He argued that sanction for prosecution had not been validly obtained and that authorities had delayed proceedings until after his retirement. He also challenged the order taking cognizance, arguing that it did not demonstrate sufficient judicial application of mind.

    The Court held that the sanction issue did not justify quashing the prosecution because the matter had been referred for consideration while he was in service, and he retired during that process. It also ruled that the allegation of disproportionate assets and the adequacy of the petitioner’s explanations were matters for evidence at trial.

    Why the Court refused to intervene

    The Court emphasized three central reasons:

    • Disputed factual questions cannot be resolved in quashing proceedings. Claims about omitted income, asset valuations, explanations for property, and the correctness of the disproportionate-assets calculation require evidentiary scrutiny.
    • The cases had progressed substantially. In Ali’s matter, charges had been framed and prosecution evidence had begun, making intervention under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code inappropriate.
    • Retirement did not require the cases to be terminated. Relying on recent Supreme Court authority, the Court held that the 2018 amendment to Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act could not be used retrospectively to invalidate proceedings initiated under the earlier legal position where the accused had retired.

    Cognizance orders upheld

    Both petitioners challenged brief cognizance orders stating, in substance, that the final report had been perused, cognizance taken, and summons issued. The High Court held that these orders were not mechanical merely because they were concise.

    According to the Court, the reference to having perused the final report showed that the trial court had considered the charge-sheet material before taking cognizance. A detailed order was not necessary at that stage.

    Legal significance

    The ruling reinforces that High Courts will ordinarily not use their inherent or writ jurisdiction to conduct a β€œmini-trial” in disproportionate-assets cases. Where the prosecution presents material supporting the allegation and the defence depends on competing calculations, documents, or explanations, those issues are to be decided through the regular trial process.

    The Court therefore dismissed both petitions, allowing the respective criminal proceedings to continue.

    Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

    Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

    Source: Karnataka High Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in LLP Partnership Dispute Involving Alleged Forgery

    Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in LLP Partnership Dispute Involving Alleged Forgery

    Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

    Date: 24.10.2026

    Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in LLP Partnership Dispute Involving Alleged Forgery

    This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Narendra Singh. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id amitnaren@outlook.com .  

    The Punjab and Haryana High Court has declined anticipatory bail to two partners of M/s GLK Homes LLP in a case involving allegations of forged retirement documents, unpaid settlement amounts, and an alleged attempt to remove a partner from the business.

    Background of the dispute

    The case arose from a dispute within M/s GLK Homes LLP, a firm incorporated in June 2020. The complainant, Devender Singh, alleged that he had joined the firm as a partner and contributed to its business and management. According to the complaint, disagreements later developed between the partners, after which the accused allegedly conspired to exclude him from the firm and deny him his share in its capital, profits, and goodwill.

    The complainant alleged that the accused had offered to dissolve the business arrangement by paying him β‚Ή13.50 crore. While β‚Ή50 lakh was transferred through RTGS, he claimed that the remaining amount was not paid. Three cheques dated 1 April 2022 were allegedly issued for the balance, but the account from which they were drawn had been closed.

    He further alleged that a retirement deed was fabricated to show that he had voluntarily retired from the LLP after receiving a full and final settlement. The allegedly forged document was submitted to the Registrar of Companies to create a record that he had left the firm.

    Petitioners’ defence

    The petitioners argued that the matter was essentially a delayed commercial dispute concerning land transactions and partnership arrangements. They maintained that β‚Ή50 lakh had been paid to the complainant because it represented his agreed capital contribution to the LLP, not a settlement of β‚Ή13.50 crore.

    Their case was that the alleged larger payment arrangement was oral, undocumented, and implausible. They also contended that the complainant had resigned voluntarily in September 2020 and that his entitlement to payment depended on conditions relating to acquisition of land and regulatory approvals.

    The petitioners relied on a video recording which they claimed showed voluntary execution of the relevant documents. They also stressed that they had cooperated with the investigation and that the disputed original documents were already in the investigating agency’s possession.

    Land transaction context

    The dispute was connected with approximately 11.26 acres of land in Village Sihi, Faridabad. The petitioners described a sequence of earlier agreements involving landowners, M/s Bonanza Promoters Pvt. Ltd., M/s Crown Township Pvt. Ltd., and entities associated with the complainant.

    According to their submissions, M/s GLK Homes LLP acquired the land in July 2020 through registered transactions worth more than β‚Ή47 crore. The petitioners claimed that they had arranged substantial funds for the transaction after the complainant and another associate were unable to finance the project.

    They also referred to a separate dispute involving M/s Shail Developers Ltd., which had advanced β‚Ή2.50 crore. That amount was later returned by M/s GLK Homes LLP under a compromise arrangement.

    Forensic findings weighed heavily with the Court

    The State and the complainant opposed anticipatory bail, relying on findings of the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Bhondsi. The forensic examination reportedly found the compromise deed, retirement deed, and board-meeting minutes to be forged.

    Most significantly, the Court noted that the complainant’s signatures on the disputed retirement documents were found to have been lifted from another document. The Court also found that the petitioners’ video-recording claim did not displace the forensic material at the bail stage.

    The Court observed that it appeared doubtful that the complainant would have resigned shortly after sale deeds were executed in the LLP’s favour in July 2020 merely in exchange for β‚Ή50 lakh, particularly given the scale of the underlying land transaction and the complainant’s asserted financial involvement.

    Court’s decision

    Justice Shalini Singh Nagpal held that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary form of protection and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. While the Court acknowledged that custodial interrogation might not be necessary solely because the petitioners had previously joined the investigation, it held that this was not enough to justify pre-arrest bail.

    The seriousness of the alleged forgery, the forensic findings, and the petitioners’ attributed role were treated as decisive factors. The Court concluded that no strong or exceptional circumstances had been shown to warrant anticipatory bail.

    The petition was therefore dismissed.

    Key legal takeaway

    The decision illustrates that in allegations of business-partnership fraud, the existence of documentary evidence does not automatically favour anticipatory bail. Where forensic material indicates that signatures or corporate records may have been fabricated, courts may treat the allegations as serious enough to deny pre-arrest protection even if the dispute also has commercial and civil dimensions.

    Listen to this on our #YouTube Channel

    Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

    Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

    Source: Punjab & Haryana High Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • Bombay High Court Upholds Rs. 2.675 Crore Arbitration Award in Goregaon Redevelopment Dispute

    Bombay High Court Upholds Rs. 2.675 Crore Arbitration Award in Goregaon Redevelopment Dispute

    Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

    Date: 24.10.2026

    Bombay High Court Upholds Rs. 2.675 Crore Arbitration Award in Goregaon Redevelopment Dispute

    This Short Article has been prepared & written by Arbitrator Shobhit Mallik. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id shobhit.Ica23@gmail.com .

    The Bombay High Court has dismissed Kumar Urban Development Private Limited’s challenge to an arbitral award requiring it to pay the Jal Ratn Deep Co-operative Housing Society Rs. 2.675 crore, reaffirming that a genuine liquidated-damages clause can be enforced when delay is established and actual loss is difficult to quantify.

    The dispute at a glance

    The case arose from the proposed redevelopment of Jal Ratn Deep Co-operative Housing Society’s property at Bangur Nagar, Goregaon (West), Mumbai. The society owns land containing five buildings and 97 occupied flats. After its members approved redevelopment in 2010, Kumar Builders Mumbai Realty Private Limited was appointed as developer; its rights and obligations later vested in Kumar Urban Development Private Limited through a merger.

    The parties executed their original Development Agreement on 12 January 2011. It included a time-bound construction schedule and a liquidated-damages provision. Under Clause 26, if the developer failed to complete the work and hand over the completed new building within the prescribed period, and the default continued beyond 60 days, it had to pay Rs. 10 lakh per week of delay or part thereof. The clause expressly described the amount as liquidated damages and β€œnot as penalty.”

    How the redevelopment stalled

    The redevelopment was affected by delays in approvals, revised plans, negotiations with members, and changes in development-control rules. The developer had initially paid the society Rs. 1.10 crore as security deposit and stated that it had also paid Rs. 2.425 crore towards hardship compensation and corpus.

    Following the introduction of fungible FSI in 2012, the developer offered larger rehabilitation flats and submitted revised proposals. The parties eventually entered into a fresh development agreement in August 2013, under which the developer was to load sufficient TDR for rehabilitation premises first and load the remaining TDR later.

    However, disagreements emerged over the sequence of obligations, including members’ vacation of flats, loading of TDR, payment of corpus and provision of a bank guarantee. The situation was further complicated by regulatory developments, including changes following the Supreme Court’s decision in the Kohinoor Mills matter. The society ultimately invoked Clause 26 and claimed liquidated damages for the developer’s alleged delay.

    Arbitration award and court challenge

    A sole arbitrator found that the developer had committed delays and awarded liquidated damages for 62 weeks at Rs. 10 lakh per week, totaling Rs. 6.20 crore. After adjusting the security deposit and hardship compensation/corpus amounts, the arbitrator directed payment of Rs. 2.675 crore, together with interest and quantified costs.

    The developer challenged the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Its central argument was that the society had not proved any real loss or legal injury. The developer stressed that members had continued to live in their existing flats and had not been displaced or required to obtain alternative accommodation. It also argued that the stipulated weekly amount had no demonstrated commercial basis and was, in substance, a penalty rather than a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

    The society responded that Clause 26 was a negotiated commercial term, expressly excluded a penalty character, and operated as a genuine pre-estimate of loss. It argued that the arbitrator had already found delay and breach, and that the nature of a delayed construction and redevelopment project made precise quantification of the loss difficult.

    Why the High Court refused to interfere

    Justice Aarti Sathe held that the court’s role under Section 34 is narrow. It cannot reassess evidence or substitute its own view merely because another interpretation may be possible. Interference is reserved for exceptional cases, such as awards affected by patent illegality, perversity, lack of reasons or findings based on no evidence.

    The Court found that Clause 26 clearly fixed Rs. 10 lakh per week as the agreed consequence of continuing delay and expressly stated that the payment was not a penalty. It accepted the arbitrator’s conclusion that the clause represented a genuine pre-estimate of loss in a construction-related redevelopment arrangement, where exact loss may be difficult to prove.

    The Court also noted the arbitrator’s findings of significant inaction and delay by the developer, including periods of approximately five months and eleven months in processing approvals. The arbitrator had also considered correspondence showing the society’s frustration with the prolonged delays and its loss of confidence in the developer.

    On this basis, the Court held that proof of actual loss or legal injury was not required in the circumstances. It distinguished authorities relied on by the developer by emphasizing that Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act permits reasonable compensation up to the stipulated amount, and that genuine pre-estimated damages may be awarded where actual loss is difficult to establish.

    Key legal principles from the ruling

    • Contractual wording matters: A carefully drafted liquidated-damages clause can be enforceable where it identifies the trigger for payment, specifies the agreed rate and indicates that the sum is not penal.
    • Delay can support liquidated damages: Once breach and delay are established, precise proof of financial loss may not be necessary if the stipulated sum is a genuine pre-estimate and the loss is difficult to quantify.
    • Section 34 review is limited: A court will not re-evaluate evidence or replace an arbitrator’s plausible interpretation of a contract with its own view.
    • Reasoned arbitral findings are protected: Findings based on the contract, correspondence and evidence will generally withstand challenge unless they are perverse, unsupported by evidence or fundamentally unlawful.
    • Adjustments may be permitted: The arbitrator’s adjustment of sums already paid by the developer against the liquidated-damages award was upheld because the relevant amounts arose under the parties’ contractual arrangement.

    Outcome

    The Bombay High Court dismissed the developer’s petition and left the arbitral award intact. The developer remains liable for the adjusted award of Rs. 2.675 crore, along with interest and costs as determined in arbitration.

    The Court also directed that any money deposited in court be released after one month from the judgment’s upload date, and it made no separate order as to costs.

    This decision highlights the importance of precise delay-damages clauses in redevelopment agreements and confirms the high threshold for setting aside a reasoned arbitral award in India.

    Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

    Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

    Source: Bombay High Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

    www.aadrikaalaw.com