Land Acquisition – Market Value – Relevant date under Section 4 – Reference Court treated 13.01.2005 as relevant date instead of last date of publication i.e. 11.07.2005 – Held: Last date of publication under Section 4(1) is material date – Error apparent on face of record affecting rejection of sale instance [Paras 7, 11].

Comparable Sale Instance – Adjacent Village – Sale deed dated 24.04.2005 (Exh.22) of 77 R land from adjoining village Pachegaon at Rs.2,922/- per Are – Village shares boundary with acquired village – Time proximity established – Held: Exh.22 most suitable exemplar – Appellants entitled to Rs.2,922/- per Are for dry lands – Consequential rate for semi-irrigated lands fixed at Rs.4,383/- per Are – Other exemplars rightly discarded due to dissimilarity or small area [Paras 10-11].

Nature of Land – Irrigated vs Dry – Mere existence of well not sufficient to treat land as fully irrigated – No cogent evidence to classify lands as irrigated – Reference Court erred in partly treating certain lands as irrigated – Classification modified in accordance with evidence [Para 9, 11].

Highest Exemplar – Principle – Court may adopt highest bona fide exemplar if comparable – Reliance on Mehrawal Khewaji Trust – No escalation required where exemplar proximate in time – Enhancement permissible even if claim lower than determined rate – Reliance on Ambya Kalya Mhatra [Paras 12-13].

Pre-Notification Possession – Rental Compensation – Possession taken on 20.12.2003 prior to Section 4 notification dated 11.07.2005 – Held: Instead of remanding for separate determination, appropriate to grant 9% p.a. interest on enhanced compensation from date of possession till date of notification towards rental value – In line with subsequent Supreme Court modification enhancing rate of interest [Paras 14-15].

Statutory Benefits – Delay in Reference – References filed on 18.01.2008 but deficit court fees paid only on 17.06.2011 – Registration delayed till 11.08.2014 – Held: Period from 18.01.2008 to 17.06.2011 attributable to claimants – No statutory benefits for that period – Period from 17.06.2011 to 11.08.2014 attributable to authorities – Claimants entitled to statutory benefits for that period – Public exchequer not to bear burden of claimant’s lapses [Paras 16-18].

Interest under Sections 28 and 34 – Land Acquisition Act – Claimants entitled to statutory interest as per Full Bench in State of Maharashtra v. Kailash Shiva Rangari [Paras 19(f)].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – Compensation enhanced to Rs.2,922/- per Are for dry lands and Rs.4,383/- per Are for semi-irrigated lands – 9% p.a. interest on enhanced compensation from date of possession till notification towards rental value – Statutory benefits restricted for period attributable to claimants – Award modified accordingly – Reference Court to draw award [Para 19].

Arbitration – Section 34 & 37 – Patent Illegality – Award Contrary to Express Terms of Contract – Lease Deed Fastened Obligation on Lessor to Insure Premises – Fire Incident Found Accidental by Police, Fire Brigade and Surveyor – Arbitrator Ignored Binding Insurance Settlement and Under-Insurance by Lessor – Held: Award suffered from patent illegality and contravention of Section 28(3) as it rewrote contract and travelled beyond pleadings – Commercial Court erred in refusing to set aside award – Award quashed [Paras 38–46, 58, 74–75, 89].

Insurance Liability – Under-Insurance – Clause 13 of Lease Deed – Lessor Obliged to Adequately Insure Premises – Insurance Claim Settled at Rs.2.52 Crores – Arbitrator Compensated Alleged Shortfall Ignoring Under-Valuation – Held: Any reduction in claim due to under-insurance was to be borne by lessor – Arbitrator could not shift contractual burden to lessee – Award of damages unsustainable [Paras 40–47, 89(i)–(iv)].

Negligence – Fire Incident – Findings Based on No Pleadings and No Evidence – Fire Consistently Reported as Accidental Short Circuit – Arbitrator Discarded Official Reports on Hyper-Technical Grounds and Introduced New Case of Unauthorized Floors – Held: Arbitrator travelled beyond pleadings and denied opportunity to appellant to contest – Findings perverse and in excess of jurisdiction [Paras 35–36, 60–64, 66, 89(v)–(vii)].

Lease Termination – Clause 14 – Unqualified Right of Lessee to Terminate on Three Months’ Notice – Rent for Notice Period Paid – Arbitrator Awarded Rent Till Premises Re-Let – Held: Arbitrator cannot rewrite contract or create rights contrary to express termination clause – Award of post-termination rent patently illegal [Paras 77–81, 85–86, 89(viii)–(ix)].

Scope of Interference – Section 34 – Contravention of Contract and Patent Illegality – Court Can Interfere Where Award Ignores Terms of Contract or Decides Matters Beyond Pleadings – Commercial Court Failed to Exercise Jurisdiction – High Court Corrected Error Under Section 37 [Paras 67–73, 87–90].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order of Commercial Court dated 22.08.2025 set aside – Objections under Section 34 allowed – Arbitral award dated 23.12.2023 set aside – Parties left to bear their own costs.

Civil Law – Stay of Execution – Ex parte Decree – Petitioner challenged order dismissing application seeking stay of execution during pendency of application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC – Held: Application for setting aside ex parte decree filed more than 7 years after decree and 11 years after institution of suit – Petitioner slept over rights – No ground to stay execution – No jurisdictional error in impugned order [Paras 9, 13-15].

Order 9 Rule 13 CPC – Service of Summons – Plea of Non-Service – Petitioner contended she was not duly served – Held: Whether service was proper is a question of fact to be adjudicated by trial Court in pending Order 9 Rule 13 application – Cannot be examined in revision under Article 227 at this stage [Para 8].

Execution – Locus Standi – Subsequent Transfers – Petitioner argued decree-holder had no locus to seek execution and that she had sold land to third party – Held: Trial Court had already recorded findings regarding invalidity of exchange deed and subsequent transactions – Subsequent sales rendered inoperative – Contention untenable [Paras 10-12].

Limitation – Delay and Laches – Law of Limitation Based on Public Policy – Court relied upon Supreme Court judgments holding that inordinate delay cannot be condoned as matter of generosity – Party cannot fix its own period of limitation – Merits irrelevant at stage of delay condonation – Prolonged inaction disentitles equitable relief [Paras 13-14].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Scope – Interference under Article 227 warranted only in case of patent illegality or perversity – Held: Impugned order declining stay of execution suffers from no error – Revision dismissed – Clarified that observations shall not affect merits of Order 9 Rule 13 application [Paras 15-16].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition dismissed – Order declining stay of execution upheld – No opinion expressed on merits of pending Order 9 Rule 13 application – Pending applications disposed of.

Criminal Law – Inherent Power under Section 482 CrPC – Quashing of FIR – Court reiterated that inherent jurisdiction can be exercised where allegations, even if taken at face value, do not disclose commission of offence and continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process – Proceedings arising out of P.S. Case No.408/2023 quashed [Paras 6, 15–16].

Consent – Promise of Marriage – Married Parties – Allegation that accused established physical relationship on promise of marriage – Materials revealed complainant was already married and fully aware of subsisting marital bond and legal impediment – Relationship continued for considerable period voluntarily – No allegation of forcible intercourse – Held: Consent was conscious and informed – Ingredients of cheating or deceit not prima facie established [Paras 7–10, 13–14].

Section 417/493 IPC – Absence of Dishonest Inducement – Even accepting prosecution case at face value, no material to show fraudulent or dishonest intention at inception – Mere failure to marry or subsequent refusal to continue relationship not sufficient to attract criminal liability when parties knowingly entered consensual relationship – Continuation of proceedings held unsustainable [Paras 10–12].

Abuse of Process – Consensual Relationship Between Adults – Court observed that complainant was a mature, educated woman capable of understanding consequences of entering into relationship during subsisting marriage – Criminal law cannot be invoked to penalize consensual acts subsequently regretted – Proceedings characterized as abuse of process [Paras 13–14].

Decision: CRLMC allowed – FIR in Dharamsala P.S. Case No.408/2023 corresponding to C.T. Case No.1152/2023 pending before JMFC, Chandikhole, and all consequential proceedings quashed – Interim orders vacated.

Habeas Corpus – Arrest without Warrant – Communication of Grounds of Arrest – Petitioner contended that grounds were cyclostyled, vague and identical to reasons for arrest – Court examined Exts.P13 and P15 and held that detailed factual allegations specifying petitioner’s role in conspiracy and misappropriation were clearly stated – Held: Grounds were personal, specific and not mere formal “reasons for arrest” – Requirement under Article 22(1) and Section 47 BNSS complied with [Paras 16-21, 24].

Article 21 & 22(1) – Distinction between “Reasons for Arrest” and “Grounds of Arrest” – Reaffirmed that “reasons” are general investigative justifications whereas “grounds” must disclose specific factual basis necessitating arrest – Exts.P13 and P15 narrated conspiracy, role of petitioner’s firm, stripping of gold and pecuniary loss – Held: Sufficient disclosure enabling defence and opposition to remand [Paras 13-14, 20-21].

Section 48 BNSS (analogous to Section 50A CrPC) – Intimation to Friend/Relative – Grounds of arrest served on person accompanying petitioner from Chennai – Court inferred that accompanying staff member could reasonably fall within expression “friend” for purposes of statutory compliance – Subsequent email to wife did not invalidate earlier compliance – Held: No violation of mandate to inform friend/relative [Paras 19, 22].

Remand Proceedings – Non-supply of Remand Application – Remand report in Malayalam not served on accused at time of remand – However, written grounds of arrest supplied separately in English, language known to accused – Held: Since grounds were already furnished in writing, non-supply of remand report in local language did not vitiate arrest or remand [Paras 22-24].

Right to Legal Representation at Remand – Counsel of choice informed telephonically of arrest and production – Accused produced two hours later than time intimated – No advocate present at 10:00 p.m. remand – Court held that as counsel was informed and chosen by accused, obligation to provide legal aid did not arise – Delay due to medical examination and travel not sufficient to render arrest illegal [Paras 25-28].

Necessity and Justification of Arrest – Allegation of conspiracy and misappropriation of gold belonging to Travancore Devaswom Board involving offences under IPC and PC Act – Court held that grounds disclosed material showing petitioner’s complicity and role – Arrest not mechanical or routine – No illegality established [Paras 8, 21, 28].

Decision: Writ Petition (Criminal) dismissed – Arrest and remand upheld – No violation of Articles 21 and 22(1) or statutory safeguards under BNSS found.

Customs – Smuggling – Seizure of Foreign-Origin Cigarettes – 25,01,200 cigarette sticks seized from vehicle and godown – Absolute confiscation ordered under Section 111(d) – Penalty imposed under Section 112(b)(i) – Concurrent findings by Adjudicating Authority, Commissioner (Appeals) and CESTAT – Held: Seizure and confiscation based on detailed Panchnama and un-retracted statements under Section 108 – No infirmity in concurrent findings [Paras 11–15, 17–18].

Section 108 Customs Act – Evidentiary Value – Statements recorded under Section 108 not retracted at any stage – Such statements have binding effect and can be relied upon for confiscation and penalty – Right of cross-examination not absolute – In absence of demonstrated prejudice, denial of cross-examination not fatal [Paras 17, 25].

Burden of Proof – Section 123 Customs Act – Goods of foreign origin seized – Once seizure proved, burden shifts on person from whose possession goods recovered to establish licit import – Appellant failed to discharge statutory burden and remained in denial of seizure and valuation – Held: Authorities justified in drawing adverse inference [Paras 13, 21–22].

Valuation – Market Value Determination – Appellant challenged valuation of cigarettes at Rs.14 per stick – Show cause notice disclosed market survey basis and total market value of Rs.3,50,16,800/- – Once valuation disclosed, burden shifted to appellant to rebut with cogent material – Failure to produce contrary evidence renders valuation sustainable – No substantial question of law arises [Paras 20–22, 24–25].

Section 130 Customs Act – Scope of Appeal – High Court’s jurisdiction confined to substantial question of law – Concurrent factual findings by three authorities cannot be re-appreciated in absence of perversity or legal infirmity – Held: No question of law involved in challenge to valuation, seizure, or penalty – Appeal dismissed [Paras 23–26].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No substantial question of law involved – Pending application disposed of.

Criminal Law – Murder – Common Intention – Section 302/34 IPC – Accused armed with gun, farsa, bhala and lathi lay in wait in field and suddenly attacked deceased – Deceased dragged to field and brutally assaulted – Injuries multiple and grievous – Held: Conduct of accused in arriving together armed with deadly weapons, concerted assault and fleeing only after death established common intention – Conviction under Section 302/34 IPC justified [Paras 42-44, 57].

Evidence – Ocular Testimony – Related/Interested Witnesses – PW-2 (complainant), PW-3 and PW-4 eye-witnesses – Minor contradictions natural and not material – Testimony consistent on manner of assault and participation of accused – Mere relationship or village proximity no ground to discard otherwise reliable evidence – Conviction can be based on trustworthy ocular evidence [Paras 38-42, 45-46].

Medical Evidence – Corroboration – Post-mortem disclosed multiple lacerated, incised and contused wounds including fractures of skull, ribs and limbs – Doctor opined injuries possible by lathi, farsa and ballam – Medical evidence consistent with ocular account – Brutality of assault established – Prosecution case corroborated [Paras 49-51].

Common Intention – Section 34 IPC – Essence lies in pre-arranged plan and participation in furtherance of common intention – Inference drawn from manner of attack, weapons carried and collective conduct – Even if specific overt act not attributed to each accused, liability attracted where participation and shared intention proved [Paras 43-44].

Acquittal of Co-Accused – Parity – One co-accused acquitted on benefit of doubt due to doubtful presence – Held: No automatic parity in acquittal – Where participation of remaining accused proved beyond doubt, conviction sustainable [Para 52].

Procedural Irregularity – Recording Statement under Section 364 CrPC, 1898 instead of Section 313 CrPC, 1973 – Old Code repealed but forms deemed continued under Section 484(2)(b) CrPC, 1973 read with Section 8 General Clauses Act – Mere use of old proforma an irregularity, not illegality – No prejudice shown – Trial not vitiated [Paras 20-23].

Transfer of Case – Alleged Illegality – No High Court transfer order produced – Trial Court recorded that case was transferred by name to same Presiding Officer – Accused consented to disposal – No prejudice demonstrated – Objection rejected [Paras 16-19].

FIR – Prompt Lodging – Incident at 04:00 PM – FIR lodged at 06:45 PM – No delay – FIR not result of deliberation or consultation – Investigation commenced promptly [Para 27].

Motive – Prior Enmity – Deceased and complainant accused in earlier murder of father of accused – Bail granted shortly before incident – Strong and proximate motive – However, in case of direct ocular evidence, motive only corroborative [Paras 28-29].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction of surviving appellants Ram Narain and Ram Uggar @ Ram Ugra under Section 302/34 IPC upheld – Sentence of life imprisonment confirmed – Appellants directed to surrender within two weeks, failing which coercive steps to be taken – Appeal abated qua deceased appellants Gyanendri and Ram Pher [Paras 58-59].

Criminal Law - Appeal Against Acquittal – State challenged judgment of ASJ acquitting respondent of offences under Sections 326/341/506 IPC – Trial Court had convicted relying primarily on examination-in-chief of complainant – Appellate Court granted benefit of doubt due to hostile witnesses and evidentiary gaps – High Court held that findings of ASJ were cogent and well-reasoned – No perversity warranting interference – Appeal dismissed [Paras 15–17, 29].

Witness Testimony – Examination-in-Chief vs Cross-Examination – Complainant supported prosecution in examination-in-chief but, upon recall under Section 311 Cr.P.C. after nine years, denied identity of accused citing darkness and surrounding commotion – Though law permits reliance on examination-in-chief even if witness resiles later, such testimony requires careful scrutiny in light of surrounding circumstances – Sole testimony insufficient in absence of corroboration where serious doubts arise [Paras 23–26].

Hostile Witnesses – Corroboration – Two independent eye-witnesses examined (PW5 and PW9) turned hostile – Other public witnesses not examined – Held, failure of independent witnesses to support prosecution and absence of corroborative evidence weakened prosecution case – Created reasonable doubt [Paras 7, 15, 26–27].

Non-Examination of Investigating Officer – Effect – Subsequent I.O. not examined due to demise – In circumstances where eye-witnesses turned hostile, examination of I.O. was crucial to explain contradictions and prove investigation – Absence of such evidence contributed to doubt [Paras 16, 27].

Recovery of Weapon – Reliability – Alleged recovery of Ustra from bushes in open public place – No expert opinion obtained to connect weapon with injuries – Not sent to FSL – Held, recovery from open and accessible area without forensic corroboration not wholly reliable – Cannot conclusively link accused to offence [Paras 28–29].

Benefit of Doubt – Grievous Injury – Though MLC proved grievous injuries, prosecution failed to conclusively establish identity and role of accused – In criminal jurisprudence, benefit of doubt must go to accused – Acquittal upheld [Paras 18, 29].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Impugned judgment dated 12.09.2016 acquitting respondent affirmed – Pending applications disposed of.

Contempt Jurisdiction – Alleged Breach of Undertaking – Counsel’s Statement Before Appellate Court – Sale of Property During Pendency of Writ – Applicants alleged violation of undertaking and interim order restraining change in nature of property – Respondent contended no specific instruction was given to counsel to make such statement – Held: In absence of material showing specific authorization by client, statement made by counsel cannot be treated as binding undertaking – No wilful disobedience established – Contempt not made out [Paras 4-10].

Advocate-Client Relationship – Authority of Counsel – Scope of Implied Authority – Supreme Court in Himalayan Cooperative Group Housing Society v. Balwan Singh (2015) 7 SCC 373 relied upon – Lawyer must act on specific instructions in matters affecting substantive rights – No implied authority to make concession or undertaking without authorization – Statement “counsel says” does not ipso facto amount to client’s undertaking unless duly instructed – Principle applied to facts of case [Paras 6-9].

Interim Order – Effect of Setting Aside by Appellate Court – Conjoint Reading of Orders – Applicants argued that statement before Appellate Court must be read with earlier interim order dated 27.07.2009 restraining change in nature of property – Appellate Court had set aside interim order while remitting matter – Held: Once interim order stood set aside, it could not be read conjointly with alleged undertaking – During relevant period no subsisting interim protection existed [Paras 8-10].

Contempt – Requirement of Wilful Disobedience – Withdrawal of Writ Petition – Writ petition withdrawn on 11.01.2010 – Sale deeds executed on 23.12.2009 and 24.12.2009 – In absence of subsisting interim order and binding undertaking, execution of sale deeds does not constitute deliberate or wilful disobedience – Charge of contempt withdrawn – Notice discharged [Paras 9-11].

Decision: Contempt application dismissed – No contempt made out against respondent no. 1 – Charge withdrawn – Notice discharged.