1. The account book is a private and unilateral record maintained by one party and such record cannot be treated as substantive evidence under Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, to impose liability for enforcement of a legal right without independent and corroborative evidence.

2. A prospective accused has no vested right to be heard prior to initiation
of criminal proceeding as the Cr.P.C (BNSS) does not provide for right of
hearing to the prospective accused before the registration of an FIR.

3. Even if there is any sort of procedural illegality in conducting the
search and seizure, that evidence itself will not become inadmissible
unless the search and seizure was in complete defiance of the law and
procedure or the evidence collected has been tempered with or
interpolated.

4. The owner/employer of a project, being the author of the tender documents, is best placed to understand the requirements of the project and to interpret the terms and conditions contained therein. In matters relating to interpretation of tender conditions and evaluation of bids, Courts ought to exercise restraint and
should not substitute their own interpretation in place of that adopted by the owner/employer, unless the decision is shown to be arbitrary, irrational, mala fide, or in violation of statutory provisions.

5. Failure to satisfy the requirement of detention solely for political or social reasons is fatal to a claim for Samman Nidhi under the Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Narayan (MISA/DIR Rajnaitik Ya Samajik Karno Se Niruddha Vyakti) Samman Nidhi Niyam, 2008.

6. Ocular, medical, electronic, and circumstantial evidence including last- seen testimony, recovery of weapons, and unexplained injuries on the accused clearly established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Minor contradictions in the testimony of witnesses or the hostility of some witnesses would not weaken the prosecution case and would not constitute a ground for acquittal.

7. In cases involving heinous crimes such as multiple murders, sexual assault, and theft, the testimony of an injured eyewitness is of high evidentiary value, his presence at the scene naturally established by his injuries. Where such testimony is corroborated by postmortem reports, medical evidence, forensic analysis, and recovery of incriminating property, the prosecution establishes an unbroken chain of circumstances, sufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

8. Where the petitioner chose not to participate in the tender process and failed to place any material establishing arbitrariness, mala fides or favouritism in the decision-making process, and the tender had already culminated in a concluded contract acted upon by the successful bidder, the High Court declined to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in view of the limited scope of judicial review in contractual matters and the overriding consideration of public interest.

9. Section 50 of the NDPS Act applies only to the personal search of a
person and not to the search of a vehicle, bag, container or premises;
therefore, plea of non-compliance with Section 50 would be untenable.
Likewise, mere delay in forwarding samples to the Forensic Science
Laboratory or their routing through another authority, even with
reference to the procedure contemplated under Section 52A of the
NDPS Act read with Rule 13 of the NDPS (Seizure, Storage, Sampling
and Disposal) Rules, 2022, does not by itself vitiate the prosecution
case when safe custody of the seized contraband and link evidence are
duly established, and thus it cannot be a ground for acquittal.

10. A clause in an agreement cannot be treated as an arbitration agreement merely because it employs the expression “arbitration”. The Court must examine its true nature and intent, and where such clause, in substance, provides only for conciliation or amicable settlement followed by recourse to civil courts, the Court may refuse to appoint an Arbitrator.