Tenancy Law – Protected Tenant – Section 4B of the Tenancy Act – Whether tenants can continue to hold tenancy rights despite land acquisition for development – Held, Section 4B prohibits termination of tenancy by efflux of time but does not apply where land has been exempted from the Tenancy Act under Section 88 due to public development purposes – [Paras 30-55].

Public Development – Exemption from Tenancy Act – Section 88 – The Court held that the land in question was reserved for development under a government-sanctioned scheme, which made the land exempt from the provisions of the Tenancy Act. Consequently, the petitioners could not claim tenancy protection – [Paras 65-85].

Civil Procedure – Reference to Competent Authority – Section 85A of the Tenancy Act – Whether the Civil Court’s referral to the Revenue Court to decide tenancy issues was valid – Held, the Civil Court correctly referred the issue of tenancy to the competent authority under Section 85A of the Tenancy Act, as the question of tenancy was integral to the execution proceedings – [Paras 90-100].

Decision:

Both writ petitions were dismissed, and the petitioners' claim to tenancy rights was rejected. The petitioners were found not entitled to tenancy protection due to the exemption of the land from the Tenancy Act under Section 88. The interim stay was extended for eight weeks.

Real Estate – Redevelopment Permissions – CIRP Process and Developer's Rights – Whether redevelopment rights of a property fall under the moratorium of a developer undergoing CIRP – Held, the redevelopment rights do not form part of AA Estates' assets, as the Development Agreement was terminated. The Resolution Professional's letters to halt redevelopment permissions were illegal and not based on CIRP records. Petition allowed, granting redevelopment permissions – [Paras 20-45].

Housing Societies – Section 79A, MCSA – Society's Right to Appoint a New Developer – The Court upheld the society's right to appoint a new developer after the developer failed to perform its obligations. The previous developer’s failure to complete redevelopment does not inhibit the society's right to appoint a new developer – [Paras 30-35].

Decision: The Petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b), and (c), directing authorities to grant redevelopment permissions to the petitioner and recognize Tristar Development LLP as the new developer.

Insolvency Proceedings – Effect of Resolution Plan on Statutory Dues – The petitioner company underwent insolvency proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, and a resolution plan was approved by the NCLT, Mumbai Bench – The plan provided for payment of all dues of creditors, including state dues – The petitioner contended that the resolution plan extinguished all previous liabilities, including those under the AP VAT Act and GST Act – Held: The Supreme Court’s decision in Ghanshyam Mishra and Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company held that once a resolution plan is approved, all claims not included in the plan are extinguished – The court ruled that the petitioner’s liability under the AP VAT Act and GST Act stood extinguished to the extent of its liability up to 04.09.2019 [Paras 6-12].

Binding Nature of NCLT Orders – Non-issuance of Notice to the State – The State argued that the NCLT’s order was not binding as no notice was issued to the State during the insolvency proceedings – Held: Section 238 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code provides a non-obstante clause overriding other laws – The court held that the NCLT’s order is binding on the State despite the lack of notice, and the remedy for the State was to seek setting aside of the order, not to contend its non-binding nature in subsequent proceedings [Paras 13-15].

Demand-cum-Adjudication Orders – Validity Post-Resolution Plan – The tax authorities issued demand-cum-adjudication orders for the period before and after the resolution plan’s approval – Held: The orders for the period prior to the resolution plan’s approval were set aside as they were covered by the plan – However, the period from 05.09.2019 to 31.03.2020 was not affected by the NCLT’s order, and the authorities were allowed to issue fresh notices to quantify taxes and dues for this period [Paras 16-18].

Decision – Writ Petitions Allowed in Part – The writ petitions were allowed to the extent that the demand-cum-adjudication orders dated 03.06.2023 and 25.11.2023 were set aside – The tax authorities were permitted to reassess and issue fresh notices for dues from 05.09.2019 to 31.03.2020 in accordance with law – No order as to costs [Para 19].

Arbitration Law – Challenge to Arbitral Award – Section 34 of the Arbitration Act – Whether the arbitral tribunal acted outside the terms of the contract by directing the refund of the security deposit and partially rejecting the "risk and cost" counterclaim of the Railways – Held, the arbitral tribunal failed to comply with Section 28(3) of the Arbitration Act by not adhering to the specific terms of the contract, including the forfeiture of the security deposit under Clause 62 of the GCC – [Paras 5-19].

Contract Law – Risk and Cost – Employer's Right to Recover Costs – The arbitral tribunal acted perversely by disregarding key evidence (Annexures 'A' and 'B'), which substantiated the Railways' claim for the full amount of "risk and cost" recovery. The tribunal relied on irrelevant documents, leading to a partial denial of the counterclaim – [Paras 20-30].

Public Policy and Arbitral Awards – The award was in conflict with the fundamental policy of Indian law as it overlooked crucial contractual provisions and relied on irrelevant considerations. The court reiterated the primacy of the contract and the need for arbitral awards to adhere to the contract's terms – [Paras 31-35].

Decision:

AP No. 780 of 2012 Allowed – The portions of the arbitral award granting a refund of the security deposit and partially refusing the counterclaim for "risk and cost" recovery are set aside. The claimant/respondent is liable to pay the full amount of Rs. 4,06,39,192 to the Railways under the counterclaim. The Railways are entitled to adjust this amount against any dues to the respondent.

EC No. 3 of 2024 Dismissed – [Paras 36-40].

Criminal Law – Regular Bail – Section 439 CrPC and Section 45 PMLA – Bail for a woman under PMLA – The petitioner applied for regular bail under Section 439 CrPC, arguing that she was wrongfully implicated in a money laundering case linked to her father’s illegal activities. She was accused of laundering approximately ₹12 crores through her companies from proceeds of cross-border cattle smuggling. Despite being a school teacher, investigations revealed that she managed various companies involved in the laundering activities – [Paras 1-45].

Bail under PMLA – Proviso to Section 45(1) PMLA – Special treatment for women – The court considered the special provision under the Proviso to Section 45(1) of PMLA, which grants exceptions to women, persons under 16, or those who are infirm, from stringent bail conditions. The petitioner, being a woman, was entitled to consideration under this provision. The court found no specific reasons to deny her the benefit of this provision – [Paras 50-51].

Right to Liberty – Article 21 – Impact of long incarceration – The court emphasized that the petitioner had been in custody since 26th April 2023. With the trial expected to be prolonged due to the voluminous chargesheet and translation issues, prolonged detention without trial would infringe upon her fundamental right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India – [Paras 45-55].

Doctrine of Parity – Bail granted to co-accused – The court considered the bail already granted to the petitioner’s co-accused, including her father, Anubrata Mondal, by the Supreme Court on the grounds of prolonged detention. The principle of parity, along with the petitioner’s entitlement under the proviso to Section 45(1), formed the basis for granting bail – [Paras 52-55].

Decision:

Regular Bail Granted – The petitioner was admitted to regular bail with conditions, including a personal bond of ₹10,00,000, restrictions on leaving the country, and cooperation with the investigation – [Paras 60-70].

Land Ownership – Lease Deed – Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 – Execution of lease deed challenged – Whether the State of U.P. was justified in leasing the land to the appellant despite claims of ownership by Bhola (respondent) – Held, Bhola’s land was never declared surplus under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, and the execution of the lease deed was unlawful – First appellate court rightly cancelled the lease.

Property Law – Exchange of Property – Section 118 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Alleged exchange of land between Bhola and the State – Whether the exchange met legal requirements under Section 118 of the Transfer of Property Act – Held, exchange must follow procedures applicable to sale, which was not followed in this case – No valid exchange of land established –.

Doctrine of Estoppel – Admission of Facts – Whether Bhola’s admission in an affidavit regarding relinquishment of rights estopped him from claiming the land – Held, admission alone cannot confer legal title; property must be transferred through recognized legal modes such as sale, lease, or exchange .

Trespass – Illegality in Property Transfer – Role of State Officials – Whether the appellant and State functionaries acted within the law in taking possession of Bhola’s land – Held, the State’s actions constituted property grabbing without legal sanction, amounting to trespass – The lease deed was declared void .

Costs and Damages – Trespass and wrongful possession – Whether the appellant and State Government were liable to pay costs for wrongful possession – Held, exemplary damages of Rs. 10,00,000 awarded to compensate for the 32-year deprivation of land possession .

Decision: Appeal Dismissed – The second appeal was dismissed, and the first appellate court’s decision was upheld, cancelling the lease deed executed in favor of the appellant. The court imposed exemplary costs and damages of Rs. 10,00,000, jointly payable by the appellant and the State Government to the legal heirs of Bhola​.

Property Law – Permanent Injunction – Suit for Injunction Simpliciter – Whether a suit for permanent injunction can be decreed without seeking a declaration of title when the title of the plaintiff is under dispute – Held, when a cloud is raised over the plaintiff's title, the suit for mere injunction is not maintainable without seeking a declaration of title – [Paras 19-22].

Title Dispute – Requirement of Comprehensive Suit – The trial court correctly dismissed the plaintiff's suit for permanent injunction, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove absolute ownership over the property – First Appellate Court erred in decreeing the suit based solely on possession without addressing the complicated issues of title – [Paras 5-7].

Burden of Proof – Title and Possession – The Supreme Court's rulings in Anathula Sudhakar and Kayalulla Parambath Moidu Haji applied, holding that where de jure possession has to be established based on title, the suit must be for declaration and not merely for injunction – [Paras 19-23].

Decision: Appeal Allowed – The judgment of the First Appellate Court is set aside – The plaintiff/respondent is directed to amend the plaint to convert the suit into a comprehensive suit for declaration of title, right, and interest, and for consequential permanent injunction – The trial court is directed to decide the case on merits as a suit for declaration of title and possession – [Paras 24-27].

Criminal Law – Change of Investigative Agency – Sections 452, 376, 313, 506, 323, 427 IPC – Whether a court can direct a change of the investigating agency upon the request of the accused – Held, the accused cannot choose or demand a change in the investigating agency unless clear evidence of bias or partiality is demonstrated – [Paras 12-16].

Writ of Mandamus – Section 156(3) CrPC – Application to Change Investigation Agency – The petitioners alleged that they were falsely implicated due to an ongoing civil dispute over land – Court reiterated that allegations of bias must be substantiated by specific material facts and not merely vague claims – Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the court emphasized that such changes in investigation should only be made in exceptional cases to ensure justice – [Paras 17-24].

Judicial Precedent – Apex Court Guidelines – The court cited the Supreme Court's ruling in Romila Thapar v. Union of India (2018) 10 SCC 753, highlighting that changes in investigation must be rare and based on convincing evidence of bias or injustice – The petitioners failed to make a case for such a change – [Paras 25-29].

Decision:

Writ Petition Dismissed – The petitioners' request for the appointment of another agency to investigate the criminal case was denied – Court observed that the investigation conducted by the local police was not shown to be biased or improper – The ongoing civil dispute cannot form the basis for seeking a change in the investigative agency – [Paras 30-33].

Partition Suit – Oral Gift and Applicability of Indian Succession Act – Whether the oral gift made by the first defendant (father) in 1963 to his wife Ayisha is valid, and if the Indian Succession Act applies post the registration of their marriage under the Special Marriage Act – Held, the oral gift to Ayisha was upheld based on evidence in Exts.A2 and A4, wherein the gift was acknowledged – The Indian Succession Act governs the succession due to the marriage registration under Section 15 of the Special Marriage Act – [Paras 1-25].

Special Marriage Act and Succession – Section 21 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 provides that the Indian Succession Act, 1925 applies to marriages solemnized under this Act, including marriages registered post-celebration under other forms – The trial court’s decision to apply the Indian Succession Act for partition of the property was affirmed – [Paras 20-25].

Gift under Mohammedan Law – Validity of Oral Gift – Under Mohammedan Law, oral gifts are permissible if essential conditions of declaration, acceptance, and delivery of possession are met – Court found sufficient evidence through the joint statements of the donor and donee, affirming possession and the gift – [Paras 15-19].

Decision: Appeal and cross objections dismissed – The preliminary decree of partition based on the application of the Indian Succession Act is upheld – No interference with the trial court’s findings.