Specific Performance – Readiness and Willingness – Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Agreement to Sell – Plaintiff sought specific performance of Agreement to Sell dated 27.01.2003 for a residential property for total consideration of ₹2,35,00,000/-, having paid ₹40,00,000/- upfront – Balance sale consideration of ₹1,95,00,000/- was payable within 45 days of conversion of suit property from leasehold to freehold – Plaintiff admitted knowledge of conversion by 07.10.2003 at the latest, yet failed to tender the entire balance consideration within 45 days thereof – Evidence of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 revealed that Plaintiff began arranging funds only from January 2004 onwards in partial and piecemeal amounts through Pay Orders made from third-party accounts, each subsequently cancelled – Held: Plaintiff failed to establish continuous readiness and willingness at all material times as required under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Specific performance refused [Paras 9–27, 42–46].

Agreement to Sell – Rescission – Time and Performance – Validity – Seller's replies dated 07.10.2003 and 01.01.2004 called upon the Plaintiff to pay the balance sale consideration along with interest at 12% per annum within 7 days – Plaintiff failed to comply with either demand – Held: ATS stood validly rescinded upon breach of its terms by the Plaintiff – Issue No. 3 decided in favour of Defendant [Paras 32–36].

Forfeiture – Earnest Money – Part Sale Consideration – No Forfeiture Clause – ATS contained no express provision authorising forfeiture of the amount paid – Defendant's own witness (DW-1) acknowledged in cross-examination that the ATS had no forfeiture clause – Held: In the absence of a contractual provision permitting forfeiture and without proof of loss, the Defendant is not entitled to forfeit ₹40,00,000/- paid as part sale consideration – Defendant directed to refund ₹40,00,000/- with simple interest at 9% per annum from 22.11.2003 [Paras 37–41, 47].

Time – Essence of Contract – Immovable Property – Urban Property Prices – In light of steep and continuous rise in urban property values, a purchaser cannot take indefinite shelter under the principle that time is not the essence of a contract for immovable property to cover delays, laches and non-readiness – Even in the absence of an express time-essence clause, performance must occur within a reasonable time – Merely providing for interest on delayed payment cannot be construed as authorising indefinite postponement of performance [Paras 28–30, 44–45].

Decision: Suit partly decreed – Relief of specific performance refused – Defendant directed to refund ₹40,00,000/- with simple interest at 9% per annum from 22.11.2003 until date of actual payment – Pending applications disposed of.

MSME Act – Writ Jurisdiction – Maintainability – Arbitral Award – Statutory Remedy – Petitioner challenged ex parte award of the MSME Facilitation Council, Kanpur directing payment of Rs. 24,15,835/- including interest, on grounds of improper service and bar of limitation – Held: Writ petition not maintainable where a specific statutory remedy under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is available – Acceptance of petitioner's submission would render the statutory mechanism redundant [Paras 9, 17–19].

Natural Justice – Ex Parte Award – Mixed Questions of Fact and Law – Petitioner contended that the MSME Council proceeded ex parte without proper service, in violation of principles of natural justice – Held: Determination of proper service requires examination of mode of service, acknowledgment, and addresses, which are disputed questions of fact and cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction – Issues are required to be examined by the forum competent under the statute [Paras 8–9].

Limitation – MSME Proceedings – Bar of Limitation – Petitioner contended that the claim was barred by limitation, the last supply having been made on 18.02.2017 and reference filed on 03.09.2020 – Held: Whether a claim is barred by limitation is a factual determination depending upon invoices, acknowledgments, and course of dealings, and does not justify bypass of statutory remedy under Section 34 – Reliance on Sonali Power Equipments (supra) does not permit such bypass [Paras 8, 12].

Writ Jurisdiction – Arbitral Matters – Scope of Interference – Scope of interference under Articles 226 and 227 in arbitral matters is extremely limited and confined to cases of patent perversity or exceptional circumstances – No manifest perversity demonstrated on the face of the record in the present case – Reliance on Serosoft Solutions (supra) misplaced [Paras 11, 18].

Pre-Deposit – Section 19, MSME Act – Writ Filed to Avoid Pre-Deposit – Held: A party cannot bypass the statutory remedy and invoke writ jurisdiction to avoid compliance with the requirement of pre-deposit under Section 19 of the 2006 Act – Relied upon: India Glycols Ltd. v. Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, (2018) 1 SCC 143 [Para 10].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed as not maintainable – Executing Court directed to decide pending applications expeditiously – Petitioner at liberty to avail statutory remedies available in law – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law – Double Jeopardy – Section 300(1) CrPC – Article 20(2) of the Constitution – Petitioner previously tried and convicted by JMFC Vadodara for offences under Sections 419/420 IPC in relation to forged bank drafts – Subsequently charge-sheeted before Trial Court at Dhar for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120-B IPC in relation to the same bank drafts – Trial Court and Revisional Court rejected the application under Section 300(1) CrPC – Held: Two of the three bank drafts forming the subject matter of the Dhar case were identical to those in the Vadodara case; addition of one more draft at Vadodara does not change the nature of the offence – Subject matter and nature of offence being the same, Section 300(1) CrPC and Article 20(2) of the Constitution are squarely applicable – Proceedings at Dhar quashed [Paras 10–13].

Double Jeopardy – Application under Section 300(1) CrPC – Delay – Limitation – Revisional Court erred in dismissing the application under Section 300(1) CrPC solely on the ground of delay – Held: The protection against being tried for the same offence twice is not merely a statutory right but a constitutional and fundamental right under Article 20(2) – An application invoking the doctrine of double jeopardy cannot be rejected on the ground of delay or on the ground that evidence would be required to be led; such protection can be exercised at any point in the life of a trial [Para 12].

Decision: Petition allowed – Impugned order dated 02.09.2011 passed by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Dhar, in Criminal Revision No. 128/2011 set aside – Further proceedings in Criminal Case No. 2626 of 2007 pending before the Trial Court at Dhar quashed.

Criminal Law - Bail - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) - Section 483 - Sections 61, 111, 318(4) and 351(2) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) - Organized Crime - Petitioner sought bail in FIR No. 126/2025 involving cheating of Rs. 55.80 lakhs through a criminal syndicate regarding sale of wild garlic - Investigating agency invoked Section 111 BNS alleging continued unlawful activity - Petitioner contended that the ingredients of Section 111 BNS were not met as the mandatory requirement of more than one charge sheet being filed within the preceding ten years was not satisfied - Record revealed one prior charge sheet was from 2005 and another from 2023 - Court noted that the charge sheet in the present case was already filed and investigation regarding the petitioner's role was complete - High Court observed that while the validity of charges under Section 111 BNS was subject to separate quashment proceedings the contention regarding the ten-year window prima facie appeared to have merit - Court emphasized that even for offences carrying life imprisonment there is no statutory bar to grant bail - Held - Investigation being complete and the petitioner having spent over eight months in jail the continued incarceration would amount to pre-trial punishment - bail granted subject to conditions - [Paras 1-24].

Criminal Law - Organized Crime - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) - Section 111 - Continued Unlawful Activity - Statutory Interpretation - Explanation-II to Section 111(1) BNS defines continued unlawful activity as an activity where more than one charge sheet has been filed before a competent court within the preceding period of ten years - Prosecution relied on a 2005 charge sheet and a 2023 charge sheet to invoke organized crime provisions - Held - The charge sheet from 2005 being more than twenty years old cannot be counted towards the statutory requirement of the preceding ten-year period to establish continued unlawful activity - [Paras 13-19].

Criminal Law - Economic Offences - Grant of Bail - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) - Section 483 - Gravity vs Liberty - Respondents opposed bail citing magnitude of the economic offence and accumulation of assets through crime - Court relied on Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI to hold that economic offences cannot be categorized as a standalone class to deny bail - Held - Factors such as gravity of offence must be weighed against the period of sentence and specific facts of the case - mere involvement in an economic offence is not a sufficient reason to deny the concession of bail - [Paras 12-17].

Criminal Law - Bail Jurisprudence - Rule of Liberty - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) - Section 483 - Rule vs Exception - Court reiterated the settled principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception - Reference made to recent Supreme Court precedents in Manish Sisodia and Jalaluddin Khan - Held - Denying bail when the investigation is complete and the trial is ongoing would militate against the principle of personal liberty - further investigation into other co-accused cannot be a ground to deny bail to the petitioner whose investigation is concluded - [Paras 20-22].

Decision: Petition allowed – Petitioner admitted to bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1.00 lac with two sureties of the like amount – Subject to conditions of regular appearance and restriction on leaving the territorial limits of J&K without permission.

Criminal Law – Bail – BNSS – Non-Compliance of Section 47 – Grounds of Arrest in Writing – Cyber Crime Case – Five petitioners arrested in connection with a cyber crime case involving operation of mule bank accounts for transfer of illegal funds – Arrests made after registration of FIR dated 09.01.2026 – Petitioners Rudra Madhab Mohapatra, Pananga Narayan Dash @ Pinu and Smruti Ranjan Moharana @ Chandan set up plea of non-compliance of Section 47 of BNSS – Case Diary revealed no mention of date and time of arrest of petitioner Rudra Madhab Mohapatra; no written grounds of arrest furnished to any of the petitioners either immediately after arrest or two hours prior to production before Magistrate for remand – Held: Non-compliance of Sections 47/48 of BNSS read with Article 22(1) of the Constitution entitles all petitioners to be released on bail – Bail allowed in all five cases on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.50,000/- each with one surety [Paras 11-15].

Criminal Law – Arrest – Grounds of Arrest – Writing Mandatory – Mode and Manner – Section 47 BNSS – Article 22(1) of Constitution – Section 47 of BNSS is a statutory mandate as well as a constitutional safeguard against arbitrary arrest and detention – Grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to the arrestee in the language he/she understands – In cases where arresting officer is unable to communicate grounds in writing at the time of arrest, it may be done orally, followed by written communication within a reasonable time and at least two hours prior to production for remand – In cases where police are already in possession of documentary material furnishing a cogent basis for arrest, written grounds must be furnished at the time of arrest itself – Non-compliance renders arrest and subsequent remand illegal – Law prospectively applicable from date of judgment in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra [Paras 5-11].

Criminal Law – Section 48 BNSS – Obligation to Inform Relatives/Friends of Arrest – Section 48 of BNSS casts a statutory obligation on the arresting officer to forthwith inform relatives, friends or persons nominated by the arrestee of the arrest and the place of detention – Additionally, duty is cast on the Magistrate before whom the arrested person is produced to satisfy himself that requirements of Section 48(2) and (3) have been complied with – These provisions are not empty formality; liberty of a person is priceless and cannot be compensated in terms of money [Paras 5-7, 12].

Criminal Law – Bail – Parity – Co-accused Released – Charge Sheet Filed – Principal accused Bablu Nayak already granted bail by Additional Sessions Judge for non-compliance of Section 47 of BNSS – Other co-accused also enlarged on bail – Charge sheet submitted – Offences triable by Magistrate notwithstanding maximum punishment of life imprisonment under Sections 338/340 of BNS – Parity extended to petitioners [Paras 13-14].

Decision: All five bail applications allowed – Each petitioner directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.50,000/- with one solvent surety to the satisfaction of the Court seized of the case on such terms and conditions as deemed fit – Soft copy of judgment to be communicated to concerned Court and thereafter to the concerned Jail through e-mail.

Anticipatory Bail — Second Petition — Maintainability — No Change in Circumstances — The petitioner filed a second petition for anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS within ten days of dismissal of the first petition on 06.04.2026, without disclosing any substantial or drastic change in circumstances — Held: A successive anticipatory bail petition filed without material change in circumstances is not maintainable [Para 7].

Anticipatory Bail — Person Already on Bail — Addition of Graver Offence — Remedy — The petitioner had been granted regular bail by the trial Court on 05.08.2024 — During trial, charges under Sections 302 and 201 IPC were ordered to be framed on an application for alteration of charge — The petitioner apprehended arrest consequent to addition of Section 302 IPC and sought anticipatory bail — Held: A person already on bail is in constructive custody of law and an application for anticipatory bail apprehending arrest does not lie in such circumstances — The appropriate remedies available are: (i) surrender and apply for bail for newly added offences; (ii) the investigating agency may seek cancellation of bail or arrest order from the Court; (iii) the Court may direct arrest and commit to custody under Sections 437(5) or 439(2) CrPC after cancellation of earlier bail; (iv) the investigating agency may obtain an order of arrest from the Court that granted bail before arresting the accused on addition of a new offence [Paras 7–8].

Decision: Petition dismissed — No ground to allow anticipatory bail.

Criminal Law – Murder – Acquittal – Unreliable Eye-Witnesses – Projected Witnesses – Incident alleged to have occurred on 05.01.1979 at 06:30 a.m. in the first week of January when heavy fog reduces visibility — Prosecution examined PW-7 (informant/son of deceased), PW-8, PW-9 and PW-10 as eye-witnesses — PW-7 admittedly not present at spot and came to know of incident from Jhabbar who informed him at home — PW-8's account suspicious as he neither raised alarm nor attempted to save the deceased despite allegedly witnessing a 3-4 minute assault — PW-9 (Balkishan) not stated to Investigating Officer that articles of Omkar fell at spot, revealing improvement in court — PW-10 (Sewag Ram), despite being brother-in-law of deceased, left the spot and did not accompany the dead body to post-mortem, a highly unnatural and suspicious conduct — Prosecution failed to examine Jhabbar, a material witness named in charge-sheet — Held: None of the prosecution witnesses were genuine eye-witnesses — Testimonies do not inspire confidence — Prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt — Appellant Omkar acquitted [Paras 17-36, 38-39].

Criminal Law – Recovery of Articles – Cap, Muffler and Waistcloth – Inconclusive Attribution – Cap (topa), muffler and waistcloth (tahmad) recovered from place of occurrence stated by PW-8 and PW-9 to belong to accused Omkar — Accused Omkar and his father Ranvir admittedly residing in village Pathauli (district Meerut), not in village Abupur where incident occurred — No witness from village Pathauli who regularly saw Omkar wearing these articles examined to prove attribution — These articles commonly worn during winter season — PW-9 admitted not having told Investigating Officer about these articles falling at the spot — Investigating Officer could not recover any weapon of assault from Omkar — Held: Attribution of recovered articles to Omkar not conclusively proved — Recovery creates further doubt about prosecution story [Paras 31-34].

Criminal Law – Bitter Enmity – False Implication – Double-Edged Weapon – Multiple civil and criminal litigations pending between prosecution and defence sides including cases under Section 307 IPC — Enmity is a double-edged weapon which may constitute motive for the crime as also a motive for false implication — Mere suspicion and enmity, in absence of cogent, reliable and foolproof evidence, not sufficient to hold accused guilty of murder — Following Sushil and Others v. State of U.P. and State of Punjab v. Sucha Singh [Paras 24-29].

Criminal Law – Suspicion – Cannot Replace Proof – Reasonable Doubt – Suspicion however grave cannot take the place of proof — Mental distance between "may be" and "must be" is large and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions — Prosecution must cover this distance by clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence — Benefit of doubt must be given to accused where prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt — Following Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam and State of Odisha v. Banabihari Mohapatra [Paras 25-27].

Decision: Criminal appeal allowed – Judgment and order dated 26.07.1984 of Trial Court convicting surviving appellant Omkar under Section 302/34 IPC set aside – Omkar acquitted – Appeal against deceased appellants Ranvir Singh, Mangey Ram and Hem Raj Singh stands abated – Bail bonds of Omkar cancelled and sureties discharged – Omkar to comply with Section 437-A CrPC.

Forest Law – Mining – Extension of Forest Clearances – Applicability of 2023 Guidelines – Compensatory Afforestation for Pre-1980 Broken-Up Area – Petitioner holding Mining Lease Nos.2678 and 2679 (valid till 31.12.2033) sought extension of Forest Clearances (valid till 05.12.2026 and 10.12.2026) co-terminus with mining leases – State demanded CA charges of Rs.1,15,64,96,400/- and Rs.15,60,60,000/- respectively and directed identification of CA land of 629.90 Ha and 85.00 Ha for broken-up forest area prior to 1980 for which CA had not been provided – Petitioner contended that 2015 Communication deemed FCs co-terminus with mining leases and that 2023 Rules are inapplicable – Held: At the stage when extension of FCs falls due, prevailing statutory stipulations govern; 2023 Rules and Guidelines issued under Section 3C of the Amended Act, being in force from 01.12.2023, are applicable – Writ petition dismissed [Paras 44, 59, 64-65].

Forest Clearance – Deemed Extension – 2015 Communication vs. 2023 Rules – UOI's communication dated 01.04.2015 stipulated that FCs shall be deemed extended co-terminus with mining lease subject to payment of NPV – Petitioner claimed NPV and CA charges already paid pursuant to Supreme Court's order dated 30.11.2006 and demand notices of 2006 – Held: 2015 Communication was an executive communication; upon coming into force of 2023 Rules and Consolidated Guidelines issued under Section 3C of the Amended Act in suppression of all previous guidelines, extension of FCs must comply with prevailing requirements – Santhipriya Minerals Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka distinguished on facts as the 2023 Rules had not come into force when that judgment was rendered [Paras 55-59].

Compensatory Afforestation – Broken-Up Forest Area Prior to 1980 – CA and NPV Distinguished – CA and NPV are two separate and distinct requirements – NPV compensates for intangible ecosystem goods and services lost upon diversion of forest land; CA compensates loss of "land by land" and "trees by trees" – Although petitioner had paid NPV and CA charges for fresh/virgin areas in 2006, CA for broken-up area prior to 1980 (629.90 Ha under ML No.2678 and 85.00 Ha under ML No.2679) had not been provided – 2023 Guidelines specifically clarify that CA provisions are applicable for broken-up forest area before commencement of the FC Act where CA has not been raised earlier – Demand justified [Paras 49-51, 61-64].

Environmental Restitution – Principle Applied – Granting reliefs sought by petitioner would result in permitting mining operations to continue without complying with CA stipulations for broken-up area – Supreme Court's principle of environmental restitution requires restoration of damaged ecological systems – Accepting petitioner's contention would permit mining without CA for broken-up area contrary to environmental restitution principles [Paras 52, 63-64].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Petitioner directed to comply with demand for compensatory afforestation as demanded vide impugned communications dated 20.06.2025 for consideration of extension of Forest Clearances – All pending applications disposed of.

Minority Educational Institutions – Right to Administer – Appointment of Principal – Article 30(1) of the Constitution – Circulars declared unconstitutional – The appellant, a minority aided institution, challenged the Single Bench's order directing the Regional Additional Director to reconsider the in-charge assignment of Principal in accordance with circulars dated 25/08/2021 (modified 08/09/2021), which mandated assignment of current charge only to the senior-most faculty member – Held: The freedom to choose the person to be appointed as Principal is a vital facet of the right to administer a minority educational institution under Article 30(1) and is absolute in character – The said circulars, to the extent applied to minority institutions, are violative of Article 30(1) and declared unconstitutional – Relied upon: Secy. Malankara Syrian Catholic College v. T. Jose, (2007) 1 SCC 386; Manager, Corporate Educational Agency v. James Mathew, (2017) 15 SCC 595 [Paras 8–15].

Article 30(1) – Scope – Minority Institution – Choice of Principal – Seniority Cannot Be Imposed – Management of a minority aided educational institution is free to appoint a Principal of its own choice and is under no obligation to appoint the senior-most qualified member – The right to choose the Principal, as the head responsible for the tone, temper, discipline, and academic efficiency of the institution, is an important part of the right of administration – Even receipt of State aid does not dilute this right – Once a conscious choice of a qualified person is made by the management, courts cannot examine the merits, rationality, or propriety of such choice [Paras 9–11, 14–15].

Administrative Instructions – Competence of Authority – Statutory Authority – An authority vested with power under the statute alone can exercise its discretion and pass orders – Even a superior authority cannot direct a statutory authority to act in a particular manner without statutory competence – Any decision taken at the behest of a person having no statutory role is patently illegal – Relied upon: Joint Action Committee of Air Line Pilots' Assn. of India v. DG of Civil Aviation, (2011) 5 SCC 435 [Paras 12, 14].

Decision: Writ appeals allowed – Order dated 5.8.2025 of the Single Bench set aside – Order dated 27.02.2025 giving in-charge of Principal to Dr. S.K. Upadhyay upheld – No order as to costs.