Limitation – Condonation of Delay – Second Appeal – Delay of 1221 Days – Appellant sought condonation on the ground that he was residing in Dubai and was unaware of the judgment of the First Appellate Court – Affidavit silent as to the date of return to India – Appellant had earlier prosecuted first appeal from Dubai by engaging counsel – Held: Mere residence abroad without specific explanation does not constitute sufficient cause [Paras 5-7].

Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 – “Sufficient Cause” – Scope – Appellant pleaded ill-health as a reason for delay – No medical records or particulars of illness produced – No plea of hospitalization – Held: Bald and unsupported plea of ill-health cannot justify inordinate delay [Paras 6-7].

Delay After Obtaining Certified Copy – Conduct of Litigant – Even after receipt of certified copy of appellate judgment, appellant delayed filing second appeal by nearly one year – Lack of diligence and bona fides clearly established – Held: Negligence and inaction disentitle discretionary relief under Section 5 [Paras 6-7, 11].

Discretion of Court – Condonation of Delay – Principles – Law of limitation based on public policy – Courts cannot extend limitation on equitable grounds – Liberal approach cannot defeat statutory mandate – Held: Inordinate delay without satisfactory explanation cannot be condoned [Paras 8-11].

Decision:

Interlocutory Application No. 01 of 2018 dismissed – Delay of 1221 days not condoned – Second Appeal rejected – Interim orders, if any, stood vacated.

Motor Vehicles Law – Bike Taxis as Transport Vehicles – Sections 2(7), 2(25), 2(47), 41(4), MV Act, 1988; Rule 2, CMV Rules, 1989; Central Government Notification S.O.1248(E) dated 05.11.2004; Central Government Clarification No. RT-11021/34/2023-MVL dated 22.01.2024 – Affirmative Finding – The High Court held that a motorcycle, capable of carrying a rider and a pillion passenger, falls within the definition of 'motorcab' under Section 2(25) and consequently within 'contract carriage' under Section 2(7) of the MV Act when used for hire or reward – The Central Government's 2004 notification explicitly lists motorcycles for hire to carry one pillion passenger as transport vehicles – This position was further clarified by the Central Government in 2024, advising States/UTs to process permit applications for motorcycles as contract carriages – The argument that CMV Rules' vehicle classification excludes motorcycles from carrying passengers for hire was rejected, as classification is based on construction, not commercial use – A previous Division Bench ruling affirming motorcycles as transport vehicles has attained finality – Motorcycles are legally classifiable as transport vehicles and contract carriages under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Paras 46, 49, 50, 53, 54, 57, 59, 60, 61, 67, 68, 121, 124].

Constitutional Law – Right to Trade and Business – Article 19(1)(g), 19(6), Constitution of India – Legitimate Business – The Court affirmed that operating bike taxis is a legitimate business protected under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, not being inherently dangerous, illegal, or res extra commercium – Any restrictions must be imposed by a valid law, be in the public interest, and be reasonable under Article 19(6) – A complete prohibition, while potentially falling under "restriction," requires strict scrutiny and substantiation by credible material demonstrating that less drastic measures would be insufficient to achieve the public interest objective – A blanket prohibition on bike taxi services, without a valid law and justification for its reasonableness and public interest, infringes Article 19(1)(g) [Paras 69, 73, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 95, 123, 125, 126].

Motor Vehicles Law – State Government's Power to Control Road Transport and Issue Permits – Sections 66, 67, 73, 74, 80, 96, MV Act, 1988; KODTTA Rules, 2016 – State Cannot Impose Blanket Ban – The MV Act, a Central legislation, occupies the field of motor vehicle regulation, preventing the State from enacting repugnant laws or excluding motorcycles as transport vehicles – While Section 67 empowers the State to control road transport and make schemes, this power is not unbridled and must be exercised by gazette notification, guided by objectives like last-mile connectivity and safety, not for a blanket ban on a class of vehicles – Sections 73, 74, and 80 mandate that Regional Transport Authorities (RTAs) shall not ordinarily refuse contract carriage permit applications and must provide written reasons for any denial, precluding a blanket ban – The KODTTA Rules, defining 'taxi' as 'motorcab', implicitly cover bike taxis, meaning aggregators are entitled to operate bike taxi services under existing licenses, provided vehicle details are furnished – The State's contention of a policy prohibiting bike taxis was rejected due to lack of formal notification and contradictory actions like the Electric Bike Taxi Scheme – The State Government cannot impose a blanket ban on bike taxi services or refuse permits for motorcycles as transport vehicles without a valid, reasoned, and publicly notified policy consistent with the MV Act and constitutional rights [Paras 86, 87, 88, 97, 98, 99, 105, 106, 107, 108, 113, 118, 119, 120, 121, 125, 134, 135, 139, 141, 147].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The impugned order of the Single Judge is set aside – Motorcycle owners are granted liberty to file applications for registration as transport vehicles (yellow board) and for contract carriage permits – The State Government is directed to consider these applications without denying them on the ground that motorcycles cannot be operated as transport vehicles or contract carriages – Pending applications of aggregators are to be considered, and fresh applications are permitted, all to be processed in accordance with law and the Court's observations [Paras 149, 151, 152].

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 9 – Ad-interim Mandatory Injunction – “Status quo ante” direction restoring earlier state of affairs – Special Judge directed parties to “maintain status quo ante as on the date of filing of Section 9 petition” without recording reasons – Held: such ad-interim mandatory injunction cannot be granted lightly and must be supported by justifiable reasons and prima facie finding that status quo was altered and justice demands restoration – Impugned non-speaking order unsustainable and liable to be set aside [Paras 25-33, 47].

Injunctions – Status quo and Status quo ante – Meaning – “Status quo” means existing state of affairs at the relevant time – “Status quo ante” means state of affairs prior to the existing state and necessarily involves disturbing present position to restore the previous one – Held: order to maintain “status quo ante” operates as mandatory direction and therefore requires higher scrutiny and reasons [Paras 27-31].

Judicial Orders – Reasons – Necessity – “Reasons are the life of law” – Orders must disclose application of mind – Litigant entitled to know why relief is granted/declined – Held: absence of reasons vitiates judicial order; reasons cannot be substituted later through arguments/affidavits [Paras 32-35, 39-40].

Administrative/Statutory Law Principles – Validity of order must stand on reasons contained in the order – Supplementation barred – Held: order can be judged only on reasons stated therein; fresh reasons cannot be supplied subsequently (Mohinder Singh Gill principle) – Therefore, respondent’s attempt to justify “status quo ante” order on alleged violation of prior directions/lease terms rejected at appellate stage [Paras 38-40].

Commercial Appeals – Maintainability – Appeal against ad-interim order during pendency of Section 9 petition – Registry objection as to maintainability overruled and appeal held maintainable [Para 24].

Lease Dispute – Possession controversy – Appellants claimed possession taken pursuant to lease termination and re-entry clauses and Section 68, Major Port Authorities Act, 2021 – Respondent asserted possession not taken as per lease and statutory procedure – Held: such contested factual/legal issues should be examined by Special Judge in pending Section 9 petitions; appellate court confines itself to legality of impugned ad-interim order [Paras 36-44].

Precedent – Bank Guarantee principles not applicable – Reliance on (2025) 10 SCC 176 (Jindal Steel and Power Ltd.) distinguished as it related to restraint on invocation of bank guarantee when Section 9 matter ripe for hearing – Present case concerns ad-interim mandatory “status quo ante” direction and hence no benefit to respondent [Paras 48-49].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Impugned ad-interim “status quo ante” order dated 19.12.2025 (extended subsequently) set aside (judgment records setting aside at Para 51) – Special Judge directed to decide CAOP Nos.37 & 38 of 2025 under Section 9 of the 1996 Act on the date already fixed (27.01.2026) in accordance with law – No order as to costs – Miscellaneous applications, if any, closed [Paras 51-53].

Pre-emption – Tenant’s Right – Municipal Area – Extinguishment of Right – Sale of co-sharer’s land effected after inclusion of village within municipal limits – Held: Right of pre-emption stood extinguished – Suit for pre-emption not maintainable [Paras 8].

Tenancy – Proof – Gair Maurusi Entry – Absence of Rent – Revenue records consistently showed plaintiff in possession as gair maurusi with entry “bila lagan bawaja tameer makaan” – No entry of rent, no lease deed, no pleadings or proof regarding creation of tenancy – Held: Possession simpliciter or gair maurusi entry without rent does not establish tenancy – Tenancy being bilateral relationship cannot be inferred merely from possession [Paras 10.1–10.2, 13].

Pleadings and Evidence – Beyond Pleadings – Plaintiff attempted to improve case during evidence by alleging tenancy under Gram Panchayat at nominal rent – Such plea neither pleaded nor supported by documents – Held: Evidence beyond pleadings cannot be considered – No amount of evidence can substitute absence of pleadings [Paras 10.2].

Earlier Judgments – Binding Effect – Parties Not Same – Earlier civil judgment relied upon by plaintiff did not bind defendants who were not parties thereto – Subsequent suit dismissal did not adjudicate nature of possession – Held: Earlier judgments do not conclusively prove tenancy [Paras 10.3, 13].

Second Appeal – Scope – Section 100 CPC – Findings of Fact – First Appellate Court being final court of facts reversed trial court’s finding on tenancy after detailed re-appreciation of evidence – Findings neither perverse nor illegal – Held: No substantial question of law arises – Interference declined [Paras 13–14].

Possession – Protection – Due Process of Law – Though tenancy not proved, plaintiff found to be in settled possession – Held: Plaintiff cannot be dispossessed except in accordance with law [Paras 8, 15].

Contempt Petition – Not Pressed – COCP dismissed as not pressed [Para 16].

Decision: RSA dismissed – Finding affirmed that plaintiff is not proved to be tenant though in possession – Protection against dispossession except by due process upheld – COCP No. 3975 of 2018 disposed of as not pressed.

Civil Procedure – Temporary Injunction – Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC – Scope of Appellate Interference – Appellate court can interfere only when discretion exercised by trial court is arbitrary, capricious, perverse or contrary to settled principles – If the view taken by trial court is a possible view, appellate court cannot substitute its own view [Paras 66–68, 75].

Contract – Memorandum of Understanding for Development of Immovable Property – MOU not signed by all co-owners – No power of attorney in favour of signatory co-owner – Held: MOU not binding or enforceable against non-signatory owners – No prima facie enforceable right created in favour of builder [Paras 16–17, 26–27, 69].

Stamp Act & Registration Act – Unstamped and Unregistered MOU – Clauses creating ownership rights in immovable property – MOU providing for transfer of 42% ownership in land and superstructure – Held: Document compulsorily registrable and chargeable with stamp duty – Unstamped and unregistered MOU inadmissible in evidence and incapable of conferring legal rights unless defect cured [Paras 18–19, 39–46, 70].

Specific Relief – Suit for Permanent Injunction – Absence of Prayer for Specific Performance or Declaration – Plaintiff seeking to restrain true owners from dealing with property – Held: Suit for injunction simpliciter not maintainable when equally efficacious remedy of specific performance available – Bar under Section 41(h) of Specific Relief Act attracted [Paras 47–51, 72].

Possession – Builder Claiming Possession under MOU – Clause showing possession as mere licence for construction – No transfer of possession or interest – Held: Builder not in settled or lawful possession – Injunction cannot be granted against true owners [Paras 19, 52–54, 71].

Arbitration Clause – Effect on Civil Court Jurisdiction – Mere existence of arbitration clause does not bar civil suit – No application under Section 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act filed – Parties waived arbitration – Trial court’s finding on lack of jurisdiction held erroneous but not affecting final outcome [Paras 55–61, 74].

Equitable Relief – Injunction – Discretionary Nature – Plaintiff capable of being compensated by damages – MOU containing penal clauses for monetary compensation – Held: No irreparable injury made out – Balance of convenience not in favour of plaintiffs [Paras 64–65, 75].

Decision: Appeal dismissed with costs – Order rejecting ad-interim injunction affirmed – Interim status quo order vacated – Trial court directed to decide suit expeditiously – Observations confined to appeal and not to prejudice trial [Paras 76–79].

Education Law – Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan – Parent Teachers Association – Occupation of School Premises – Plying of Buses – Learned Single Judge permitted Parent Teachers Associations / Parents Welfare Associations to continue occupation of school premises and operate transport facilities – Directions issued without reference to statutory provisions – Appellate Court held that judgment suffered from non-consideration of Article 147 of KVS Education Code governing constitution, powers and functions of PTA – Impugned judgment set aside and matters remanded for fresh consideration [Paras 1, 12–14].

Education Law – Statutory Framework – Article 147 of KVS Education Code – PTA to consist of parents and all teaching staff with Principal as ex officio Chairman – PTA prohibited from collecting or maintaining funds and limited to objectives enumerated in Code – Prima facie finding that petitioner Associations were not constituted in accordance with Article 147 and activities undertaken were beyond statutory scope – However, appellate court refrained from final adjudication on merits [Paras 12–13].

Administrative Law – Exercise of Jurisdiction – Requirement to Consider Statutory Provisions – Single Judge disposed of writ petitions without reference to governing statutory provisions – Held that adjudication ignoring relevant statutory framework is unsustainable – Proper course is remand for reconsideration in accordance with law [Paras 12, 14].

Education – Student Welfare and Transport Facilities – Balancing statutory compliance with student convenience – Court clarified that no opinion expressed on factual or legal contentions – Liberty granted to writ petitioners to seek interim relief before Single Judge – Status quo regarding plying of buses and unboarding of students directed to be maintained for ten days to enable parties to seek appropriate interim orders [Paras 14–15].

Decision: Writ Appeals allowed – Common judgment dated 25.07.2025 set aside – W.P.(C) Nos. 25921 of 2018, 26907 of 2018 and 25995 of 2018 remanded to the learned Single Judge for fresh consideration in the light of Article 147 of the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Education Code and other relevant statutory provisions – Status quo directed to be maintained for ten days.

Tenancy Rights – Heritability – Death of Tenant – Punjab Village Common Lands Act – Tenant Kulwant Rai held to be in cultivating possession as gair maurusi for decades – Upon his death, tenancy rights devolved upon legal heirs – Gram Panchayat failed to show any statutory provision extinguishing tenancy on death – Held: Tenancy rights are heritable and plaintiffs lawfully stepped into shoes of deceased tenant [Paras 12].

Village Common Land – Dispossession by Gram Panchayat – Requirement of Due Process – Earlier civil decree recognised tenant’s possession and restrained dispossession except in accordance with law – Panchayat initiated ejectment proceedings under Section 7 but resorted to auction during pendency – Held: Panchayat could not dispossess tenants or their heirs without completing statutory ejectment proceedings [Paras 11, 14].

Auction of Panchayat Land – Validity – Auction conducted during pendency of injunction and ejectment proceedings – Found to be a short-cut method to oust tenants – Held: Auction dated 06.04.1985 illegal, null and void and incapable of conferring lawful possession on auction vendees [Paras 7.1, 11].

Injunction – Dispossession During Pendency of Suit – Mandatory Injunction – Plaintiffs dispossessed despite interim injunction order – Civil court competent to restore possession and grant mandatory injunction to restore status quo ante – First Appellate Court rightly ordered restoration of possession [Paras 7.2, 13].

Second Appeal – Scope under Section 100 CPC – Findings of Fact – No Substantial Question of Law – Appellate Court’s findings based on revenue record, prior judgments and evidence – No perversity or misapplication of law shown – Held: Interference in second appeal not warranted [Paras 15, 16].

Decision: Second appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 21.11.1997 passed by First Appellate Court affirmed – Plaintiffs entitled to declaration of tenancy and restoration of possession.

Civil Law – Advocate Commissioner’s Report – Evidentiary Value – Application under Section 151 CPC to strike down commissioner’s report – Held: Commissioner’s report is only a piece of evidence and an aid to the Court – It cannot be struck down merely on allegations of collusion or misconduct unless proved by cogent evidence – Objections to report must be examined during trial through evidence and cross-examination [Paras 8, 27–34].

Order XXVI Rule 10 CPC – Scope – Commissioner’s report forms part of record and is non-adjudicatory in nature – Court may accept, reject, vary or order further inquiry – Report does not bind the Court and is subject to scrutiny along with other evidence – Law reiterated [Paras 27–30].

Article 227 – Supervisory Jurisdiction – Interference with Interlocutory Orders – High Court will not interfere unless there is patent illegality, jurisdictional error or perversity – Order refusing to strike down commissioner’s report based on settled principles does not warrant interference [Paras 34–36].

Artificial Intelligence in Judicial Process – Use of AI-Generated Citations – Trial Court relied on non-existent rulings generated by AI tools – Judicial Officer candidly reported bona fide mistake and lack of intent – Held: Mere reference to non-existent citations does not vitiate an order if the correct principles of law are applied and conclusions are otherwise legally sound [Paras 13–15, 25–26, 35–36].

Artificial Intelligence – Cautionary Guidelines – AI may assist in research and organization but lacks judicial reasoning – Courts and advocates must independently verify citations and authorities from authentic sources – Reliance on unverified AI-generated material may undermine integrity of judicial process – Emphasised [Paras 15–24].

Commissioner’s Report – Allegations of Collusion – Burden of Proof – Mere assertions of collusion or deviation from High Court directions insufficient – Such allegations must be established by clear evidence – Appropriate stage for examination is during trial, not at interlocutory stage [Paras 8, 33–34].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition dismissed – Impugned order dated 19.08.2025 upheld – No illegality or jurisdictional error found – No order as to costs – Pending interlocutory applications closed [Paras 36–37].

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Section 528 BNSS – Scope of Interference at Investigation Stage – Petitioner sought quashing of FIRs registered for offences under Sections 132, 224, 352, 351(3), 353(2) and 56 of BNS arising out of a single incident – FIRs registered within days of incident and investigation yet to commence in earnest – Held: FIR is not an encyclopedia and High Court cannot assess correctness or sustainability of invoked sections at threshold – Investigation must be permitted to proceed [Paras 9, 14–16].

Public Servant – Obstruction and Abuse – Section 132 BNS – Prima Facie Disclosure of Cognizable Offence – Contention that Section 132 BNS not attracted as no criminal force used – Court held that whether correct provision is invoked or alteration is required is a matter for investigation and not for quashing at inception – Police entitled to add or alter offences during investigation with leave of Court [Paras 9, 14].

Offences Against Women – Insult to Modesty – Section 79 BNS (Section 509 IPC) – Telephonic conversation attributed to petitioner contained abusive and offensive language directed at a woman public servant – Prima facie material discloses words and expressions capable of outraging modesty of a woman – Failure of prosecution to invoke Section 79 BNS at initial stage not fatal – Investigation warranted into offence of insulting modesty of woman [Paras 10, 13].

Elected Representative / Public Figure – Standard of Conduct – Petitioner, a former electoral contestant, expected to exercise restraint in speech – Abusive language against a woman public servant performing statutory duty held impermissible and beyond tolerance in civilised society – Such conduct requires investigation in public interest [Paras 10, 12].

Unauthorised Banners and Flexes – Civic Nuisance – Karnataka Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1981 – Court took judicial notice of rampant erection of unauthorised banners for film promotion and political publicity – Such acts cause public nuisance and disfigurement of public spaces – State directed in principle to enforce provisions of the Disfigurement Act more stringently [Para 11].

FIR – Not an Encyclopedia – Limits of Section 528 BNSS / Section 482 CrPC Jurisdiction – Reiterated that High Court should not conduct a mini-trial or scrutinise evidence at quashing stage – Reliance placed on Supreme Court decisions emphasising restraint and sparing exercise of inherent powers – Criminal proceedings not to be scuttled at nascent stage [Paras 12, 14].

Connected Petitions – Common Incident – Similar Relief – Both FIRs arose out of same transaction with different complainants – For reasons applicable to Crl.P. No.716 of 2026, companion petition also held devoid of merit – Both petitions dismissed [Paras 15–16].

Decision: Criminal Petition Nos. 716 of 2026 and 721 of 2026 dismissed – Investigation permitted to continue – Observations confined only to consideration under Section 528 BNSS and not to influence investigation or trial.