Whether the writ petition filed as a PIL by a corporator was maintainable to challenge AMC’s tax revision, given the existence of statutory remedies and absence of public‑authorisation. Whether the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by reassessing the merits of AMC’s policy decision increasing property tax rates, rather than confining review to procedural legality. Whether the municipal corporation’s act of revising taxes after a long interregnum was per se arbitrary or unreasonable, warranting judicial intervention.

Municipal Law — Revision of property tax — Procedural challenge by writ petitioner in the guise of PIL — Locus and maintainability — Scope of judicial review — Doctrine of judicial restraint. A writ petition filed as a public interest litigation by a corporator challenging the municipal corporation's resolution revising property tax rates for 2017–18 to 2021–22 was held to be an impermissible attempt to substitute judicial scrutiny for administrative policy. The court emphasised that municipal tax policy and revenue measures are matters of executive/administrative prerogative, and judicial interference is permissible only where there is illegality, perverse decision-making, or patent non-compliance with statutory procedure. Where petitioner did not demonstrate authorization to represent public interest, and statutory remedies existed (appeal under Section 406, Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949), the High Court erred in re‑examining the merits of the tax revision. The Division Bench’s order quashing the municipal resolutions was set aside; appeals allowed. Judicial review was confined to examining whether the procedure was followed and whether the decision was arbitrary or illegal; absent such infirmity, courts must defer to policy decisions of municipal bodies.

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

1. Akola Municipal Corporation (AMC) revised property tax assessment methodology and rates for the five‑year period 2017–18 to 2021–22 by resolutions dated 3 April 2017 and modified 19 August 2017.

2. The revision followed a door‑to‑door survey and engagement of a technical consultant (tender floated; Sthapatya Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. awarded work) to prepare an integrated GIS‑based database and assessment software, addressing a long gap in reassessments since circa 2001.

3. Dr. Zishan Hussain (a corporator), filed PIL No. 42 of 2018 in the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) seeking quashing of the revision on grounds of procedural irregularity and arbitrariness; he did not claim to represent the entire citizenry and had statutory remedies under Section 406 MMA.

4. The High Court allowed the PIL, quashed the municipal resolutions and orders, and directed relief in favour of the writ petitioner; AMC appealed to this Court.

---

ISSUES

1. Whether the writ petition filed as a PIL by a corporator was maintainable to challenge AMC’s tax revision, given the existence of statutory remedies and absence of public‑authorisation.

2. Whether the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by reassessing the merits of AMC’s policy decision increasing property tax rates, rather than confining review to procedural legality.

3. Whether the municipal corporation’s act of revising taxes after a long interregnum was per se arbitrary or unreasonable, warranting judicial intervention.

---

ANALYSIS OF LAW AND FACTS

A. Locus, Maintainability and Public Interest Litigation

• The petition was filed as a PIL but the petitioner was a corporator who did not assert authorization to represent the public at large. The Court treated the filing as raising primarily a private grievance masked as PIL. Where a petitioner lacks proper locus or authority and statutory remedies are available, courts must scrutinise maintainability. Section 406 MMA offers an efficacious remedy against tax assessments/revisions.

• The Court observed the possibility that the writ petition may have been motivated by business or personal interest, particularly given challenge to the tender and award to the consultant.

B. Scope of Judicial Review — Policy vs. Procedure

• The jurisprudence of this Court establishes that economic and fiscal policy decisions (including tax fixation) lie within the domain of the legislature/executive/municipal authority; courts must exercise restraint and cannot substitute their view of policy or economics where decision‑making is within statutory authority and the procedure followed is lawful (citations: Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Union of India; BALCO Employees' Union v. Union of India; Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Ltd. v. Union of India).

• Judicial interference in PILs is warranted only where there is demonstrable dereliction of constitutional or statutory obligations, perversity, or manifest illegality. Courts should limit review to legality and reasonableness of the process adopted — not to the substantive wisdom of the policy.

C. Application to the Present Case

• AMC had not revised property taxation since circa 2001; a robust revenue‑generation need existed to fund municipal functions. AMC procured expert assistance, carried out survey and valuation exercises, and formulated a resolution to revise ratable/expected letting values for the 2017–22 period.

• The petitioner did not adduce material showing the procedure adopted was ex facie arbitrary, perverse, or contravened statutory provisions. The High Court, however, substituted its own view and conducted a merits‑based reappraisal of the policy choice — beyond permissible judicial review.

• Given the admitted existence of statutory remedies and the limited grievance confined to procedure, the appropriate course was to confine review to whether statutory mandates were ignored in a manner that vitiates the exercise. No such showing was made.

---

CONCLUSION & ORDER

1. The appeals are allowed.

2. The judgment of the High Court dated 9 October 2019 in PIL No. 42 of 2018 and the Review order dated 24 January 2020 are set aside.

3. The Court held that: (i) the writ petition filed as a PIL by the corporator was not a proper vehicle to displace the statutory remedies and to review economic policy; (ii) the High Court exceeded the scope of judicial review by reassessing the wisdom of AMC’s tax revision; and (iii) absent material demonstrating procedural illegality, perversity or arbitrariness, the municipal decision must stand.

4. No order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Whether the writ petition filed as a PIL by a corporator was maintainable to challenge AMC’s tax revision, given the existence of statutory remedies and absence of public‑authorisation. Whether the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by reassessing the merits of AMC’s policy decision increasing property tax rates, rather than confining review to procedural legality. Whether the municipal corporation’s act of revising taxes after a long interregnum was per se arbitrary or unreasonable, warranting judicial intervention.

Municipal Law — Revision of property tax — Procedural challenge by writ petitioner in the guise of PIL — Locus and maintainability — Scope of judicial review — Doctrine of judicial restraint. A writ petition filed as a public interest litigation by a corporator challenging the municipal corporation's resolution revising property tax rates for 2017–18 to 2021–22 was held to be an impermissible attempt to substitute judicial scrutiny for administrative policy. The court emphasised that municipal tax policy and revenue measures are matters of executive/administrative prerogative, and judicial interference is permissible only where there is illegality, perverse decision-making, or patent non-compliance with statutory procedure. Where petitioner did not demonstrate authorization to represent public interest, and statutory remedies existed (appeal under Section 406, Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949), the High Court erred in re‑examining the merits of the tax revision. The Division Bench’s order quashing the municipal resolutions was set aside; appeals allowed. Judicial review was confined to examining whether the procedure was followed and whether the decision was arbitrary or illegal; absent such infirmity, courts must defer to policy decisions of municipal bodies.

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

1. Akola Municipal Corporation (AMC) revised property tax assessment methodology and rates for the five‑year period 2017–18 to 2021–22 by resolutions dated 3 April 2017 and modified 19 August 2017.

2. The revision followed a door‑to‑door survey and engagement of a technical consultant (tender floated; Sthapatya Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. awarded work) to prepare an integrated GIS‑based database and assessment software, addressing a long gap in reassessments since circa 2001.

3. Dr. Zishan Hussain (a corporator), filed PIL No. 42 of 2018 in the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) seeking quashing of the revision on grounds of procedural irregularity and arbitrariness; he did not claim to represent the entire citizenry and had statutory remedies under Section 406 MMA.

4. The High Court allowed the PIL, quashed the municipal resolutions and orders, and directed relief in favour of the writ petitioner; AMC appealed to this Court.

---

ISSUES

1. Whether the writ petition filed as a PIL by a corporator was maintainable to challenge AMC’s tax revision, given the existence of statutory remedies and absence of public‑authorisation.

2. Whether the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by reassessing the merits of AMC’s policy decision increasing property tax rates, rather than confining review to procedural legality.

3. Whether the municipal corporation’s act of revising taxes after a long interregnum was per se arbitrary or unreasonable, warranting judicial intervention.

---

ANALYSIS OF LAW AND FACTS

A. Locus, Maintainability and Public Interest Litigation

• The petition was filed as a PIL but the petitioner was a corporator who did not assert authorization to represent the public at large. The Court treated the filing as raising primarily a private grievance masked as PIL. Where a petitioner lacks proper locus or authority and statutory remedies are available, courts must scrutinise maintainability. Section 406 MMA offers an efficacious remedy against tax assessments/revisions.

• The Court observed the possibility that the writ petition may have been motivated by business or personal interest, particularly given challenge to the tender and award to the consultant.

B. Scope of Judicial Review — Policy vs. Procedure

• The jurisprudence of this Court establishes that economic and fiscal policy decisions (including tax fixation) lie within the domain of the legislature/executive/municipal authority; courts must exercise restraint and cannot substitute their view of policy or economics where decision‑making is within statutory authority and the procedure followed is lawful (citations: Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Union of India; BALCO Employees' Union v. Union of India; Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Ltd. v. Union of India).

• Judicial interference in PILs is warranted only where there is demonstrable dereliction of constitutional or statutory obligations, perversity, or manifest illegality. Courts should limit review to legality and reasonableness of the process adopted — not to the substantive wisdom of the policy.

C. Application to the Present Case

• AMC had not revised property taxation since circa 2001; a robust revenue‑generation need existed to fund municipal functions. AMC procured expert assistance, carried out survey and valuation exercises, and formulated a resolution to revise ratable/expected letting values for the 2017–22 period.

• The petitioner did not adduce material showing the procedure adopted was ex facie arbitrary, perverse, or contravened statutory provisions. The High Court, however, substituted its own view and conducted a merits‑based reappraisal of the policy choice — beyond permissible judicial review.

• Given the admitted existence of statutory remedies and the limited grievance confined to procedure, the appropriate course was to confine review to whether statutory mandates were ignored in a manner that vitiates the exercise. No such showing was made.

---

CONCLUSION & ORDER

1. The appeals are allowed.

2. The judgment of the High Court dated 9 October 2019 in PIL No. 42 of 2018 and the Review order dated 24 January 2020 are set aside.

3. The Court held that: (i) the writ petition filed as a PIL by the corporator was not a proper vehicle to displace the statutory remedies and to review economic policy; (ii) the High Court exceeded the scope of judicial review by reassessing the wisdom of AMC’s tax revision; and (iii) absent material demonstrating procedural illegality, perversity or arbitrariness, the municipal decision must stand.

4. No order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: Whether the power of seizure under Section 102 CrP...Whether the power of seizure under Section 102 CrPC can be lawfully exercised by investigative authorities in proceedings initiated solely under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Whether Section 18A of the PC Act and the procedural regime under the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 are mutually exclusive of the investigative powers under Section 102 CrPC. Whether the decision in Ratan Babulal Lath v. State of Karnataka (2022) constitutes a binding precedent to the effect that the PC Act is an exhaustive code precluding recourse to Section 102 CrPC.

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: Whether the power of seizure under Section 102 CrP...: Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 18A; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 102 — Seizure v. Attachment — Distinction — App...

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 18A; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 102 — Seizure v. Attachment — Distinction — Applicability. Where investigation under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ("PC Act") disclosed alleged disproportionate assets held by a public servant and his relatives, police exercised powers under Section 102 CrPC to freeze bank accounts and seize certain monetary instruments. The High Court set aside the seizure, relying on earlier pronouncements treating the PC Act as a self-contained code governing attachment/confiscation under Section 18A and the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944. Held: The power to seize under Section 102 CrPC and the power to attach/confiscate under Section 18A read with the Ordinance are distinct in purpose, scope and procedure; they are not mutually exclusive. Section 102 CrPC is an investigative power available to police to secure property that may be evidence or alleged to be proceeds/linked with an offence; Section 18A/Ordinance prescribes a separate, judicially supervised procedure for attachment/confiscation with substantive consequences. A prior decision (Ratan Babulal Lath) which summarily characterized the PC Act as a complete code without detailed factual analysis does not constitute binding ratio on the narrow question of seizure under Section 102. Where seizure under Section 102 was exercised in aid of investigation and reported as required, the action is sustainable, subject to assessment of whether retention remains necessary following completion of investigation. De-freezing orders granted without addressing statutory safeguards and post-investigation consequences are liable to be set aside with directions calibrated to the status of investigation and present position of funds. Appeal allowed in part.

---

CONCISE STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. A preliminary enquiry by the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB), West Bengal, targeted the accused Prabir Kumar Dey Sarkar. Material alleged substantial unexplained assets vis-à-vis declared income for the check period (2007–2017).

2. FIR No. 09/19 registered; investigation revealed numerous fixed deposits and bank deposits in the names of the main accused and relatives including the respondent (father).

3. Police froze several fixed deposits and bank accounts under Section 102 CrPC. Application to de-freeze was rejected by the City Sessions Court (28.03.2023); subsequently, the Calcutta High Court set aside the freezing order (04.10.2024) holding that Section 102 could not be invoked where the PC Act and Section 18A governed attachment.

4. Sanction for prosecution against the main accused was granted (22.04.2024) and chargesheet filed (13.05.2024). The State challenged the High Court order by way of this appeal.

---

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

1. Whether the power of seizure under Section 102 CrPC can be lawfully exercised by investigative authorities in proceedings initiated solely under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. Whether Section 18A of the PC Act and the procedural regime under the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 are mutually exclusive of the investigative powers under Section 102 CrPC.

3. Whether the decision in Ratan Babulal Lath v. State of Karnataka (2022) constitutes a binding precedent to the effect that the PC Act is an exhaustive code precluding recourse to Section 102 CrPC.

---

ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND LAW

A. Nature and Purpose — Seizure (Section 102 CrPC) v. Attachment/Confiscation (Section 18A/Ordinance)

1. Textual and functional distinctions: Section 102 uses the language of seizure and empowers any police officer to take possession of property alleged or suspected to have been stolen or found under suspicious circumstances. The Ordinance/Section 18A contemplates attachment and confiscation by an expressly judicial process (application to a District Judge/Special Judge, affidavits, ad-interim attachment, show-cause, hearing and opportunity to furnish security).

2. Comparative statutory practice: Parallel statutes (PMLA, Income-tax Act) evidence that attachment/confiscation is a consequence requiring structured, deliberative and judicially supervised steps. Seizure under Section 102 is immediate and investigative in character, often aimed at securing evidence and preventing tampering or dissipation in the course of a criminal probe.

3. Precedent: This Court's jurisprudence recognises that police may seize bank accounts/passports under Section 102 where the property is related to the commission of an offence (see Tapas D. Neogy, Suresh Nanda, Teesta Setalvad). Freezing under Section 102 must be to aid investigation; it is not in itself an attachment yielding final proprietary consequences.

B. Procedural Safeguards and Post-seizure Obligations

1. Reporting requirement: Section 102(3) mandates that the seizure be reported to the Magistrate "forthwith" — meaning as soon as reasonably possible given context and investigatory exigencies (Shento Varghese). Delay, if satisfactorily explained, does not automatically vitiate seizure; unreasonable delay may invite departmental consequences but does not necessarily undo valid investigative acts.

2. Investigative adequacy: The sustaining of a Section 102 action requires demonstration that retention served investigatory needs — e.g., risk of evidence loss, likelihood of dissipation, or direct nexus to offence. Where investigation is complete, continued retention must be justified; affected parties may seek release or be directed to offer security/bank guarantees.

C. On the Question of a "Code in Itself" and Precedential Value

1. What constitutes ratio decidendi: Precedent binds where the court lays down legal principles tied explicitly to material facts and reasoning; obiter or perfunctory formulations lack binding force. A "code in itself" conclusion requires careful enquiry into whether the statute comprehensively regulates the field and excludes operation of other laws.

2. Ratan Babulal Lath: The Court finds that in that decision the statement that the PC Act is a complete code was not accompanied by a full exposition of facts and a reasoned comparison of the procedural provisions; hence it lacks the necessary elements of a binding ratio on the narrow question at hand. The present bench therefore treats Ratan Babulal Lath as not determinative for the question whether Section 102 CrPC may be used for seizure in aid of investigation under the PC Act.

D. Application of Law to the Present Facts

1. Investigation and sanction were obtained; charges were framed and the chargesheet presented. Initial seizure/freeze of fixed deposits took place during the investigation. The Trial Court rejected the de-freezing application; the High Court inverted that view on the premise that Section 102 could not be used where Section 18A applies.

2. Having found the two regimes distinct, and the investigative power under Section 102 available, the present appeal determines that the High Court erred in setting aside the seizure on the sole ground that attachment procedure was not followed. The seizure was an investigatory step — not an attachment under the Ordinance — and thus permissible if reported/justified.

3. However, completion of the investigation and presentation of the chargesheet changes the calculus. Continued freezing must be re-examined: if funds have already been released or investigation yields no continuing need for retention, equitable remedies (re-deposit, security/bank guarantee, or release) become appropriate.

---

CONCLUSION & FINAL ORDER

1. The appeal is allowed in part.

2. Holding: The powers under Section 102 CrPC and the powers under Section 18A of the Prevention of Corruption Act (via the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944) are distinct and not mutually exclusive. Section 102 CrPC may be lawfully invoked by police in the course of investigation under the PC Act to seize or freeze bank accounts and other movable properties where there exists a nexus to the alleged offence or a risk to the investigation, subject to the safeguards and reporting obligations provided under law.

3. On the facts of this case: Given that investigation has concluded and a chargesheet has been filed, the court directs as follows:

   • If the frozen amounts have already been released pursuant to the High Court order, the respondent shall either re-deposit the said amount or furnish tangible security/bank guarantee for the like amount within three weeks from the date of this order.

   • If the amounts have not been released, the status quo as preserved by the stay of the High Court order shall be governed by the directions above and parties retain the right to pursue appropriate proceedings before the competent court to determine proprietary rights and the necessity of continued retention/attachment.

4. The rights and remedies of the parties under the PC Act, Ordinance and CrPC (including appeals and applications for release on furnishing security) are kept open.

5. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of in the terms above.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Ss. 25, 30, 31A, 32, 38, 14, 15, 11 — Termination of arbitral proceedings — Whether termination under S. 25 or S. 38 is distinct from or traceable to S. 32(2) — Statutory scheme, legislative design, and doctrinal divergence — Explained.

A. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Ss. 25, 30, 31A, 32, 38, 14, 15, 11 — Termination of arbitral proceedings — Whether termination under S. 25 or S. 38 is distinct from or traceable to S. 32(2) — Statutory scheme, legislative design, and doctrinal divergence — Explained.

The 1996 Act employs the expression “terminate the proceedings” in multiple provisions (Ss. 25(a), 30(2), 32(2), 38(2)). Each provision embodies an independent statutory source of termination. The Act does not create a single, unified termination mechanism under S. 32, but contemplates different situations in which proceedings may be brought to an end. The power, preconditions, and consequences of termination differ in each section. Harmonious construction does not justify collapsing all forms of termination into S. 32(2)(c).

B. S. 25(a) — Default of claimant — Mandatory termination — Nature and consequences — Recall jurisdiction — Distinction from S. 32.

Under S. 25(a), if the claimant fails to file the statement of claim within the time under S. 23(1) without showing sufficient cause, the tribunal shall terminate the proceedings. Termination under S. 25(a) is pre-adjudicatory, arises before commencement of the hearing, and does not per se extinguish the tribunal’s mandate.
By virtue of SREI Infrastructure and Sai Babu, sufficient cause shown even after termination may permit recall, because S. 25 lacks the phrase used in S. 32(3) that “the mandate of the arbitral tribunal shall terminate”. Hence, termination under S. 25(a) does not operate as termination of mandate in the S. 32 sense.

C. S. 25(b), (c) — Respondent’s default or non-appearance — Continuation mandatory — No power to terminate.

Where respondent fails to file the statement of defence (S. 25(b)) or a party fails to appear or produce documents (S. 25(c)), the tribunal must continue with the proceedings. These provisions confer no termination power; they strengthen the legislative intent that tribunal must proceed toward adjudication.

D. S. 30(2) — Settlement by parties — Mandatory termination — Scope.

If parties settle, the tribunal must terminate the proceedings under S. 30(2). Settlement award under S. 30(3)-(4) is treated as a final arbitral award with all statutory consequences.

E. S. 32 — Termination of proceedings — Scheme, scope, and effect — Distinction from other forms of termination.

S. 32(1) contemplates termination either (i) by final award or (ii) by an order under S. 32(2).
S. 32(2)(a)-(c) provides three situations: withdrawal of claim; termination by consent; and situations where continuation becomes “unnecessary or impossible”.
S. 32(3) provides that termination under S. 32(1)-(2) extinguishes the tribunal’s mandate, subject only to Ss. 33 and 34(4). This consequence is unique to termination under S. 32 and does not attach automatically to termination under S. 25 or S. 38.

F. S. 32(2)(c) — “Unnecessary or impossible” — Interpretive parameters — Express and implied abandonment — Limits on tribunal’s discretion.

The words “unnecessary” and “impossible” cannot be interpreted to include defaults already governed by S. 25. They address post-initiation circumstances making continuation futile, redundant, or incapable of completion.
Abandonment under S. 32(2)(c) requires conduct so “clinching and convincing” that it leads to only one conclusion: the claimant has given up the claim (Dani Wooltex). Mere non-appearance, absence of request for fixing hearings, or inertia does not constitute abandonment.
The tribunal must record reasoned satisfaction before invoking S. 32(2)(c); casual exercise defeats the object of the Act.

G. S. 38 — Deposit of costs — Suspension or termination — Nature of power — Whether termination under S. 38 equates to S. 32(2)(c).

Under S. 38(2), failure of parties to deposit fees may lead the tribunal to suspend or terminate proceedings qua claim or counter-claim. This is a textually independent statutory termination.
Unlike S. 32(2)(c), S. 38(2) does not require satisfaction that continuation is unnecessary or impossible. Termination arises directly from statutory non-payment of costs.
Some High Courts (Delhi, Bombay, Telangana) had read S. 38 termination as falling within S. 32(2)(c). The Court rejects the conflation: S. 38 termination does not ipso jure extinguish tribunal’s mandate under S. 32(3) unless the statutory conditions of S. 32(2) are independently met.

H. Fee fixation — S. 31A read with Fourth Schedule — Consent of parties — ONGC v. Afcons Gunanusa — Effect on validity of termination under S. 38.

Tribunal’s fee must be fixed with consent of parties. Unilateral fixation contrary to Fourth Schedule principles cannot constitute a lawful basis for invoking S. 38(2). Where fee determination was defective or contrary to ONGC v. Afcons Gunanusa JV, non-deposit cannot lawfully trigger suspension or termination.

I. Mandate of tribunal — When it terminates — S. 14, S. 32(3) — Distinction among Ss. 25, 30, 32, 38.

Tribunal’s mandate terminates only upon:
(i) final award (S. 32(1)), or
(ii) termination under S. 32(2), or
(iii) circumstances under S. 14 (de jure/de facto inability).
Statutory terminations under S. 25 or S. 38 do not automatically extinguish mandate.
Revival after S. 32(2) termination is not permissible; revival after S. 25(a) is permissible on sufficient cause; revival after S. 38 depends on validity of underlying fee-fixation and statutory compliance.

J. Remedies — Ss. 11, 14, 15 — Maintainability of fresh appointment after S. 38 termination.

Where termination is not under S. 32(2), S. 32(3) consequences do not ensue. Hence, a second petition under S. 11(5)/(6) for appointment of a substitute arbitrator is not automatically maintainable after a S. 38 termination.
If the dispute relates to legal termination of mandate, remedy lies under S. 14(2).
If the dispute relates to substitution of arbitrator upon valid termination of mandate, remedy lies under S. 15(2).
Maintainability depends on the true legal character of the termination order.

K. Legislative history — UNCITRAL Model Law — Purpose of harmonised scheme — Termination structure intentionally decentralised.

Parliament consciously enacted multiple termination points to ensure procedural efficiency while preserving tribunal’s duty to adjudicate. Imported UNCITRAL concepts do not mandate a single termination mechanism.

L. Judicial conflict — Two competing lines — Reconciliation attempted.

One line: all terminations ultimately traceable to S. 32(2)(c) (Datar Switchgear, Neeta Lalitkumar, PCL Suncon).
Other line: S. 25, S. 30, S. 38 operate independently; S. 32(2)(c) applies only when its specific preconditions are met (SREI Infrastructure, Sai Babu, Dani Wooltex).
The Court endorses the latter view: termination regimes are distinct; S. 32(2)(c) is not a residuary provision absorbing all termination scenarios.

M. Duties of arbitral tribunal — Hearings, fixing of meetings, case progression — Non-discretionary.

Tribunal cannot adopt a passive role. Even absent party requests, tribunal must fix hearings, progress the matter, apply S. 25 where necessary, and cannot treat inaction as abandonment unless criteria of S. 32(2)(c) are strictly satisfied.

NCLAT’s order set aside. Where the corporate debtor’s own ledger and conduct (continued supplies/payments including ₹61 lakh after demand notice) demonstrate no bona fide pre-existing dispute, the adjudicating authority under Section 9 IBC is entitled to admit the petition; spurious or belated counter-assertions (especially by an unauthorized/suspended director) do not defeat the claim. Delay in filing Section 9 was not imputable to the operational creditor while an earlier CIRP against the CD was pending and an IRP was in place.

Factual snapshot. — Operational creditor (a registered partnership firm) served demand notice under Section 8 IBC (25.08.2021) for ₹1,79,93,691 (plus interest). The corporate debtor’s own ledger (communicated by CD on 04.08.2021) showed a closing debit balance of ₹2,49,93,690.80 and, after admitted payments, an outstanding ₹1,79,93,690.80. CD paid further ₹61 lakh after the demand notice. A separate CIRP against the CD was already pending (order dated 06.09.2021) when the Technical Director (suspended) addressed a reply on 20.11.2021 alleging short/faulty supply, two invoices not supplied and counterclaims; those allegations were not supported by contemporaneous documentary proof and the suspended director lacked authority. NCLT admitted the firm’s Section 9 petition (06.12.2023). NCLAT set aside the admission on the ground of a pre-existing dispute and delay; this Court restored the NCLT order.

Held (concise). — NCLAT’s order set aside. Where the corporate debtor’s own ledger and conduct (continued supplies/payments including ₹61 lakh after demand notice) demonstrate no bona fide pre-existing dispute, the adjudicating authority under Section 9 IBC is entitled to admit the petition; spurious or belated counter-assertions (especially by an unauthorized/suspended director) do not defeat the claim. Delay in filing Section 9 was not imputable to the operational creditor while an earlier CIRP against the CD was pending and an IRP was in place.

Legal principles applied.

• The NCLT must determine (i) existence of operational debt, (ii) that debt was due and payable and (iii) whether a pre-existing dispute or pending suit/arbitration existed on the date of receipt of the demand notice — per Mobilox and subsequent authorities.

• The adjudicating authority must separate “grain from chaff”: reject moonshine, spurious or tactical defences but not examine merits in depth; a defence must be bona fide and supported by credible material to displace admission.

• Ledger entries, admissions and subsequent payments by the corporate debtor are material indicia that negate a pre-existing dispute.

• Replies made by persons without authority (e.g., a suspended director) are of limited evidentiary value.

• Delay in filing Section 9 may be excused where an earlier CIRP was pending and the operational creditor reasonably awaited the outcome (or learned of withdrawal) before filing its own petition.

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

1. Adjudicatory test under Section 9 (practical application).
   At the admission stage under Section 9 IBC the adjudicating authority must satisfy itself that (a) an operational debt exists; (b) evidence shows the debt was due and unpaid; and (c) no real, bona fide pre-existing dispute or pending suit/arbitration existed on the date of receipt of the demand notice. In performing this function the authority must separate real disputes from spurious or tactical defences without conducting a full-blown trial of the merits.

2. Ledger and post-notice conduct as decisive indicia.
   Where the corporate debtor’s own ledger/account statements record the debt (including a certified closing debit balance) and the corporate debtor continues supplies and makes payments even after correspondence complaining of defects, those facts constitute powerful evidence negating the existence of a bona fide pre-existing dispute — such ledger entries and payments may justify admission of a Section 9 petition.

3. Evidentiary weight of belated or unauthorized replies.
   A belated reply asserting counterclaims or defects — especially when addressed by an officer who is, on record, suspended or otherwise unauthorised — is of limited probative value at the admission stage and cannot be allowed to defeat an operational creditor’s otherwise well-evidenced claim.

4. Delay excuse where an earlier CIRP existed.
   An operational creditor is not to be prejudiced for not filing its own Section 9 while a separate CIRP against the corporate debtor is subsisting and an IRP is in place; reasonable delay to monitor or react to developments (e.g., withdrawal of the earlier CIRP) is not a ground, by itself, to infer the existence of a pre-existing dispute.

5. Rejection of moonshine defences.
   The adjudicating authority must reject ‘moonshine’ defences — i.e., fictitious, speculative, unparticularised or inflated counterclaims — and admit an operational creditor’s petition where the defence lacks credible documentary foundation and appears designed only to delay or defeat recovery.

Operative consequence in the present case. — NCLAT erred in treating formulaic/alleged defects and an unauthorised, belated rebuttal as a bona fide dispute. The NCLT’s admission order (06.12.2023) is restored; the corporate debtor’s ledger, subsequent payments and absence of credible contemporaneous counter-evidence made the Section 9 admission appropriate.