Criminal Law – Quashing – Section 482 CrPC – Scope – Petitioners sought quashing of proceedings in C.C. No. 17248/2019 alleging false implication based on fabricated agreement – Court reiterated inherent powers under Section 482 must be exercised sparingly in rare cases to prevent abuse or secure ends of justice – When disputed facts exist, particularly genuineness of documents and receipt of consideration, such issues must be tested in trial, not at quash stage [Paras 19, 23, 25].

Cheating & Criminal Breach of Trust – Sections 406, 420 IPC – Ingredients – Complainant alleged petitioners received ₹1.65 crores but failed to register plots and instead sold to third parties – Petitioners denied receipt, relied on FSL report – Court held allegations prima facie disclosed entrustment and dishonest intention, sufficient for cognizance – Whether payments were made and whether agreement genuine are trial issues [Paras 8-9, 23-24].

Protest Petition – Magistrate’s Cognizance – Legality – Magistrate initially dismissed final report as “false” but on protest petition recorded sworn statements of complainant and witness, considered Exs.P1–P13 and RTGS receipts, and took cognizance under Sections 406, 420, 120B IPC against A1–A3 – Order found reasoned and valid – Sessions Judge correctly upheld cognizance [Paras 6-7, 24-25].

Civil vs. Criminal Proceedings – Parallel Remedies – Pendency of O.S. No. 223 of 2023 for specific performance based on same agreement not a ground to quash criminal case – Law settled that civil dispute does not bar prosecution if criminal ingredients present – Mere existence of civil remedy does not dilute criminality [Paras 10, 18].

Fabricated Document Allegation – FSL Report – Petitioners relied on forensic opinion discrediting signatures and stamp paper – Court held defence evidence cannot be weighed at quash stage – Genuineness of agreement and probative value of FSL report are matters for trial [Paras 8, 14].

Judicial Approach – Summoning Order – Standard – At cognizance stage, Magistrate only needs prima facie satisfaction of offence, not detailed reasoning or proof – Court reiterated that non-speaking or cryptic orders are undesirable but not always fatal; in this case, Magistrate gave sufficient reasons [Paras 12, 17, 21-22].

Decision – Criminal petition dismissed – Proceedings in C.C. No. 17248 of 2019 to continue – Petitioners’ personal appearance dispensed with except when specifically required, subject to representation by counsel – Trial Court directed to decide on merits uninfluenced by observations [Paras 25-26].

Eviction – Bona fide Requirement – Section 14(3), HP Urban Rent Control Act – Landlord entitled to choose premises suited to his condition – Subsequent availability of other flats did not defeat requirement – Eviction decree restored [Paras 14-18, 22-24].

Landlord’s Bona Fide Need – Petition filed in 2013 on ground of retirement and absence of accommodation at Dharamshala – Requirement established at trial; Rent Controller decreed eviction – Appellate Authority erred in doubting bona fides merely because other sets in same building became vacant during proceedings – Held, bona fide need must exist at institution and continue till final adjudication, but landlord’s age, convenience and road-level suitability of demised premises justified preference [Paras 12-14, 19-21].

Subsequent Events – Applied principle in Hasmat Rai v. Raghunath Prasad, AIR 1981 SC 1711 – Requirement must subsist till appellate stage – However, subsequent vacancies did not nullify landlord’s specific need for road-level flat suited to his old age – Tenant cannot dictate choice of premises [Paras 14-17, 21].

Supreme Court Guidance – Followed Kanhaiya Lal Arya v. Md. Ehshan, SLP(C) 21965/2022, decided 25.02.2025 – Landlord is best judge of which premises satisfies his need – Tenant cannot question landlord’s selection [Para 20].

Decision – Civil Revision Petition allowed – Judgment dated 29.05.2023 of Appellate Authority-II, Kangra set aside – Eviction order dated 22.02.2023 of Rent Controller-I, Kangra affirmed – No order as to costs [Paras 22-24].

Court Fees — Declaratory suit with injunctions relating to property — Injunction relief not independent of declaration — Market value basis applicable — Petition dismissed; impugned order upheld [Paras 2.1–2.4, 5-7].

Court Fees — Declaratory relief vs Cancellation — Distinction clarified — As per Suhrid Singh v. Randhir Singh (SC), executant must seek cancellation with ad valorem fee; non-executant in possession can pay fixed fee for declaration — However, if not in possession and consequential relief sought, ad valorem fee applies — Here, petitioner not in possession of yellow-marked portion, injunctions sought were consequential — Ad valorem valuation necessary [Paras 4-6].

Possession — Relevance for court fees — Petitioner not in possession of disputed portion used by respondents for ingress/egress — Separate gates and wall demarcation shown in site plan and photos — Hence consequential injunction relief flows from declaration — Market value valuation justified [Paras 5-6].

Valuation of plaint — No distinction between challenge to a clause or entire instrument — Declaration of nullity of Clause 22 of Sale Deed would affect entire deed with impact on property — Correct valuation must be at market value of subject property on date of suit [Para 6].

Decision — Impugned order valid — Petition dismissed — Plaintiff must value suit at market value and pay ad valorem court fees as per Court Fees Act and Delhi High Court Rules [Para 7].

Quick Capsule – Essential Commodities Act – Wheat hoarding – Recovery from shop doubtful, seizure memo silent on place, no independent witnesses – Defence evidence of farmers storing wheat outside shop credible – Presumption under Section 10-C rebutted – Conviction set aside – Appeal allowed [Paras 14–28].

ECA – Licensing restriction – Clause 3, U.P. Foodgrains Order – Any person storing ≥5 quintals deemed dealer unless rebutted – Prosecution alleged appellant stored 100 quintals inside shop – Defence showed wheat belonged to DW-1 & DW-2 farmers, kept temporarily outside shop with mandi receipts – Trial Court wrongly rejected evidence for not knowing accused – High Court held such reasoning flawed – Deeming presumption rebutted [Paras 12–13, 23–25].

Search and seizure – Section 100 CrPC – Compliance mandatory – Officer must call independent witnesses and prepare seizure list specifying place – Here, Ext. Ka-1 & Ka-2 lacked details of search site, no independent witnesses present – Trial Court failed to assess compliance – Held: serious irregularity prejudicing accused [Paras 14–20, 25].

Evidence – PW-1 ARO sole witness – His testimony showed seizure but did not specify whether wheat inside or outside shop – Recovery memo deficient – Defence evidence unrebutted – Prosecution case left doubtful [Paras 15–17].

Section 294 CrPC – Admission of genuineness of documents – Appellant’s counsel admitted prosecution documents – Held: such admission only makes documents admissible but cannot cure substantive gaps in proving lawful search and seizure – Division Bench ruling in Saddiq v. State of U.P., 1981 CrLJ 379 (All) applied [Paras 26–27].

Reverse burden – Section 10-C ECA – Burden shifts once prosecution proves lawful seizure of excess stock – Here, prosecution failed to establish lawful seizure under Clause 14 and Section 100 CrPC – Hence reverse burden never triggered – Appellant not liable [Paras 22–25].

Case law – Applied Ranjan Kumar Chadha v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1262 (non-compliance of search provisions impacts evidentiary weight) – Saddiq v. State of U.P. (1981 CrLJ 379) on Section 294 documents – Both weighed in favour of appellant [Paras 21, 26].

Benefit of doubt – Serious lacunae in prosecution evidence, credible defence version supported by records – Trial Court erred in presuming guilt – Appellant entitled to acquittal [Paras 25–28].

Disposition – Criminal appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence dated 10.04.1987 under Section 7 ECA set aside – Appellant acquitted – Bail bonds discharged subject to fresh compliance under Section 437A CrPC [Paras 29–31].

Partition Suit – Maintainability – Hindu Law – Son cannot sue for partition during lifetime of father-Karta without his consent – Principles laid down in Sitara Lal, Hari Kishen and Satish Narain reaffirmed – Suit filed by plaintiff-son against father-Karta held not maintainable [Paras 9-10].

Cause of Action – Bald pleadings – No particulars of ancestral property or joint family nucleus alleged – Mere assertion of HUF existence insufficient – Plaint lacking material facts discloses no cause of action – Trial court erred in rejecting O.7 R.11 CPC application [Paras 11-12].

Court Fee – Ad Valorem Liability – Plaintiff admitted non-possession of properties – Claim of 1/3rd share without joint possession attracts ad valorem court fee on market value of share claimed – Supreme Court ruling in Kinny Kapur v. Gunveer Kapur applied – Trial court erred in deferring issue [Para 13].

Benami Transactions Act – Defence plea that properties purchased in names of other family members hit by prohibition – Strengthens requirement for plaintiff to specifically plead source of HUF funds – Absence of particulars fatal to plaint [Paras 2.1, 3].

Procedure – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Sufficiency of pleadings and valuation are threshold issues; cannot be deferred – Trial court’s approach contrary to settled law [Para 14].

Decision: Revision petition allowed – Impugned order dated 10.02.2023 set aside – Matter remitted to trial court for fresh decision on O.7 R.11 CPC application in light of findings – [Paras 15-16].

Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act, 1953 – S. 20-B – allottee-tenant’s full sale-price deposit (1973); Settlement Officer’s objections merely technical; prolonged State inaction – estoppel – Civil Court jurisdiction available – proprietary rights & injunction affirmed; RSAs 2581/4164/4193/4194 of 1999 dismissed with costs.

Declaration of ownership and injunction against dispossession - Land Tenure – Section 20-B, Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act – Vesting of Ownership Rights – Plaintiffs allotted surplus land in 1963 as tenants, deposited full sale consideration in 1973 under Tehsildar’s order – Settlement Officer raised only technical objections (uncertified girdawari, missing lease file) but no action taken for decades – Held: Proprietary rights vested upon deposit of price; officials’ negligence cannot defeat substantive rights – Plaintiffs declared owners in possession, revenue entries corrected, injunction granted [Paras 4-7].

Civil Court Jurisdiction – Bar under Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act – State contended bar of jurisdiction – Held: Where valuable civil rights are threatened due to inaction of authorities, Civil Court jurisdiction is not ousted – Plaintiffs entitled to seek declaration and injunction against State [Paras 5, 10].

Estoppel – State’s Silence – Nearly two decades of inaction after full payment – State never demanded batai nor rectified technical defects – Held: State estopped from denying ownership to plaintiffs – Conduct indicated recognition of proprietary rights [Paras 6, 10].

Appellate Practice – Concurrent Findings – Trial Court decreed declaration and injunction, First Appellate Court affirmed – High Court found no legal infirmity in concurrent findings – Regular Second Appeals dismissed with costs [Paras 8, 11].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Plaintiffs declared owners in possession; State restrained from interference; sale certificate to issue – All four appeals dismissed with costs [Paras 10-11].

Tenancy Law - Landlord-Tenant – Subletting – Eviction – Tenant settled abroad and premises found in exclusive possession of sub-tenant – Sub-tenant failed to prove direct tenancy with previous or current landlord – Rent Controller and Appellate Authority held subletting proved – High Court found no perversity or illegality in findings – Held: Concurrent findings of subletting justified – Eviction order affirmed [Paras 1-5, 13-14, 32]

Sub-tenant – Right to File Revision – Maintainability – Objection raised that sub-tenant, not being tenant, cannot file revision under Section 24(5) of the Act – Rejected – Held: Since sub-tenant was impleaded by landlord and decree was joint, sub-tenant had right to challenge it independently – Reliance placed on Supreme Court ruling in Karam Singh Sobti v. Pratap Chand, AIR 1964 SC 1305 – [Paras 16-19]

Civil Procedure – Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope – Revisional court not to re-appreciate evidence unless findings are perverse or illegal – Where concurrent findings of fact are possible and supported by evidence, revisional interference unwarranted – [Paras 20-22, 32]

Evidence – Proof of Subletting – Alleged rent receipts produced by sub-tenant disbelieved due to absence of originals, suspicious similarity in dates, and lack of proof of contents – Held: Findings of Rent Controller and Appellate Authority not perverse – [Para 23]

Pleadings – Sufficiency in Eviction Petitions – Objection raised that landlord failed to plead subletting occurred after commencement of Act and without written consent – Held: Though pleadings were not in precise statutory language, subletting was clearly averred and contested – No prejudice caused – Insufficiency of pleadings not fatal – Reliance on Virendra Kashinath Ravat v. Vinayak Joshi, AIR 1999 SC 162 – [Paras 24-29, 31]

Sub-tenant – Claim of Independent Tenancy – Sub-tenant claimed to be inducted by previous landlord – Found unproved by both courts below – Held: Sub-tenant failed to establish independent right – Eviction order binding on him as well – [Paras 12-14, 30]

Decision: Revision petition dismissed – Eviction order based on subletting affirmed – No costs – [Para 32]

Rent Control – Eviction on bona fide requirement – Leave to defend – Revisional scope – Landlord–tenant relationship proved on better title – Tenant’s pleas of ownership and alternate accommodation found bald – No triable issue – ARC order upheld – Tenant directed to hand over premises by 21.09.2025 – Sections 14(1)(e), 25B & 25B(8) DRC Act [Paras 15–16, 17–27, 28–29].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope under Section 25B(8) DRC Act – High Court cannot act as a first appellate court or re-appreciate facts – Tenant merely sought to re-agitate contentions negated by the ARC – Held: Interference unwarranted in absence of perversity or jurisdictional error [Paras 15–16].

Landlord–Tenant Relationship – Better title suffices – Registered Will dated 10.01.1949, Rent Agreement dated 03.09.1963 and rent receipts, and partition decree dated 25.07.2023 established landlords’ superior title – Tenant’s reliance on an MCD notice only showed status as “occupier”, not owner – Held: Relationship established and no triable issue arose [Paras 2, 5, 17–20].

Bona Fide Requirement – Landlord is best judge of need – No obligation to furnish minute particulars or area measurements – Challenge that “one room” would not suffice is immaterial – Held: Assertion of genuine residential need unrebutted by any substantive material – No triable issue [Paras 21–24].

Alternative Accommodation – Mere bald allegations – No documents showing self-owned alternative flats by landlords – Landlords shown to be living in rented premises – Held: No material to dislodge plea of lack of suitable alternate accommodation – No triable issue [Paras 25–27].

Decision – Revision petition dismissed – ARC order of eviction affirmed – Tenant to hand over the tenanted room marked E and F in the site plan at Plot No. 536, Mukim Pura, Sabzi Mandi, Delhi to the landlords on or before 21.09.2025 in terms of Section 14(7) DRC Act – Parties to bear their own costs [Paras 28–29].

Arbitration Law - Foreign Award – GAFTA Appeal Award 4618A (London) – Enforcement in India under Part II – Public Policy Objection – Enforcement Allowed – The petitioner, an Austrian company, sought enforcement of a GAFTA Appeal Award dated 28.09.2021 directing payment by the respondent, an Indian importer – The respondent resisted on grounds that the award violated Indian public policy and contained errors in interpretation of contract – Held: Section 48 does not permit a review on merits – Enforcement court cannot sit in appeal over contractual interpretation or factual findings – GAFTA Appeal Board’s award declared enforceable as decree under Section 49 – Execution permitted [Paras 23-29].

Public Policy – Narrow scope under Section 48 – No review on merits – The Court reiterated that post-2015 amendment, “public policy” in Section 48 is restricted to (i) fraud or corruption in making of award, (ii) contravention of fundamental policy of Indian law, or (iii) conflict with most basic notions of morality or justice – Mere misapplication of law or erroneous finding is not a ground – Respondent’s attempt to reopen the merits of GAFTA Appeal decision rejected [Paras 23-26].

Foreign Seat/Curial Law – English Arbitration Act remedies not availed – Estoppel at enforcement stage – Arbitration seated in London with English law as curial law – Under ss. 67–73 of English Arbitration Act, challenges to jurisdiction, serious irregularity, or errors of law must be made within 28 days – Respondent failed to take timely recourse – Citing POL India Projects, Court held that enforcement objections cannot substitute for missed challenge before seat court – Respondent estopped from raising new objections in India [Paras 11-14].

Scope under Part II – No “second look” at award – Enforcement court cannot revisit factual or legal merits of foreign award – Supreme Court in Shri Lal Mahal overruled Phulchand Exports, holding that Section 48 does not permit expanded “public policy” review – Court applied Renusagar test: only if contrary to (i) fundamental policy of Indian law, (ii) interests of India, or (iii) justice or morality, enforcement can be refused – Here none attracted [Paras 10, 15-16].

Seat/Law and Challenge Forum – London seat with English law as governing arbitration law – Following Eitzen Bulk, once parties choose foreign seat, Part I of Indian Arbitration Act is excluded – Any objections to fairness, procedure, or findings had to be raised before English courts under curial law – Respondent’s reliance on Indian domestic arbitration standards (Saw Pipes) misplaced [Paras 12-13].

NY Convention – Public Policy Defence – Application of Article V(2) – Enforcement to be refused only if contrary to fundamental policy of Indian law or most basic notions of morality and justice – Court cited Avitel and Vedanta to emphasise India’s pro-enforcement bias – Narrow defence cannot be stretched to cover mere contractual disagreement – Allegations of unjust enrichment or commercial unfairness do not amount to public policy violation [Paras 16-18].

Execution Proceedings – Section 46–49 of Arbitration Act – Section 46 makes foreign award binding; Section 48 sets limited defences; Section 49 provides that once enforceable, foreign award is deemed to be decree of Indian court – Court clarified that after recognition, petitioner may pursue attachment and sale of respondent’s assets, interest, and costs under CPC like any decree-holder [Paras 27-29].

Decision – Objections rejected; GAFTA Appeal Award No. 4618A (28.09.2021) treated as decree under Section 49; binding under Section 46; enforceable under Section 48 – Respondent’s resistance on public policy and merits grounds rejected – Petitioner entitled to execute award in India with all consequential reliefs – Application allowed [Paras 27-29].