SARFAESI Act – Civil Court Jurisdiction – Fraud Pleaded Without Details – Bar Under Section 34 Ignored – Trial Court Order Set Aside – Respondent-plaintiff filed civil suit challenging SARFAESI possession proceedings by alleging fraud in relinquishment deed – Trial court granted ex parte stay against possession without considering bar of jurisdiction under Section 34 of SARFAESI Act – Held: Mere pleading of fraud without detailed particulars does not automatically confer jurisdiction on Civil Court – Trial court erred in failing to examine statutory bar or precedent – Order unsustainable [Paras 15, 22–24, 28]

Article 227 – Scope – Trial Court Failed to Examine Legal Bar – High Court Intervention Justified – Parties Relegated to Trial Court – Petitioner invoked Article 227 against ex parte proceedings and interim stay – Though High Court noted that petitioner could have sought remedy before trial court, intervention deemed appropriate as trial court’s order ignored jurisdictional bar and prior inconsistent pleadings – Matter remanded for fresh adjudication on jurisdiction and injunction after hearing both parties [Paras 25–28]

Civil Procedure – Ex Parte Order – Service Valid but Pleadings Withheld – No Illegality in Ex Parte Proceedings – Petitioner Free to Move Trial Court for Relief – Trial court proceeded ex parte after service was effected on petitioner – High Court held there was no illegality in procedural aspect – However, petitioner allowed to move appropriate application before trial court for recall or stay variation – Trial court to decide expeditiously [Paras 21, 25, 28–29]

Pleadings – Contradictory Stand – Civil Suit Alleging Fraud after Prior Writ Petition Affirming Voluntariness of Relinquishment – Relevant for Trial Court Consideration – Respondent earlier admitted in writ petition that relinquishment deed was voluntary – Subsequently challenged the same as fraudulent in civil suit – Held: Contradictory stand must be evaluated by trial court while deciding injunction and maintainability [Paras 16–17, 27]

Decision: Impugned order dated 03.03.2025 set aside – Petitioner permitted to move application before trial court – Trial court directed to decide on maintainability and injunction in view of Section 34 of SARFAESI Act and relevant precedents – Hearing to be completed expeditiously and decision on or before 24.12.2025 [Paras 28–30]

Criminal Law – Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder – Conviction under Section 302 IPC altered to Section 304 Part II – Appellant convicted for stabbing wife during sudden quarrel in fit of rage while under influence of alcohol – Incident occurred at home with only minor daughter present – No evidence of premeditation or prior enmity – Knife used was kitchen knife picked from spot – Victim’s dying statement to landlady, "Inhone mere ko kya maar diya", construed to refer to husband – Appellant remained at scene and cooperated during investigation – Held: Though act had knowledge of likely consequence, it lacked intent to kill – Conviction modified to Section 304 Part II IPC – Sentence reduced to 7 years simple imprisonment [Paras 38, 41, 44, 55–57, 60–64]

Criminal Procedure – Right to Silence – Section 313 Cr.P.C. – Appellant’s silence during examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. regarding genesis of quarrel held not incriminating – Court held silence could not fill evidentiary gaps – Prosecution case itself showed absence of murderous intent – Silence alone cannot lead to murder conviction [Paras 50–51]

Evidence – Dying Declaration – Identification by Victim – Victim’s repeated utterance “inhone” interpreted in cultural context as pointing to husband – Though no eyewitness to stabbing, circumstantial evidence and victim’s immediate utterance held reliable [Paras 28–31]

Criminal Law – Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC – Applicability – Conditions for Exception 4 met: sudden quarrel, no premeditation, act done in heat of passion, no undue advantage taken – Appellant acted impulsively, under influence of alcohol, using kitchen knife at hand – Held: Circumstances supported reduction of offence from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC [Paras 44, 54–56, 58–64]

Criminal Sentencing – Sentence Reduction – Original sentence of life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC modified to 7 years simple imprisonment under Section 304 Part II IPC – No fine imposed – Compensation to be disbursed per Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme, 2018 as recommended by Trial Court under Section 357A Cr.P.C. [Paras 64–67]

Criminal Law – Murder – Unlawful Assembly – Arson – Conviction Upheld – Accused formed unlawful assembly and launched attack on the deceased in course of property dispute – House of deceased was set on fire and he was assaulted with lathis on vital body parts causing fatal cranio-cerebral injuries – Trial court convicted under Sections 148, 436 and 302 IPC read with Section 149 – High Court found evidence of eye-witnesses, many of them injured, consistent and corroborated by medical evidence – Held: Conviction justified [Paras 1, 9, 13-14, 17-18]

Evidence – Injured Witnesses – Medical Corroboration – Six injured witnesses confirmed to have sustained blunt force trauma consistent with lathi assaults – Medical reports supported their presence at scene and nature of assault – Minor omissions and initial non-disclosures found not material – Credibility intact despite pendency of counter-case against them [Paras 11-14]

Medical Jurisprudence – Cause of Death – Post-mortem revealed depressed skull fracture, haemorrhage in brain stem and multiple antemortem injuries – Death opined to be due to cranio-cerebral trauma caused by hard and blunt weapon – Medical findings fully matched with witness account of assault – Held: Death was clearly homicidal [Para 9]

Common Object – Section 149 IPC – Applicability – Acts of setting fire, fatal assault on deceased and coordinated attack on rescuers established that unlawful assembly had common object – Specific roles attributed to each appellant – No requirement to prove individual overt act where offence committed in furtherance of common object – Vicarious liability under Section 149 attracted [Paras 13, 17]

Hostile Witnesses – Effect on Prosecution – Some prosecution witnesses turned hostile or did not support prosecution – Held: Core case established by consistent and credible testimony of injured and independent witnesses – Conviction can be sustained on basis of quality evidence despite some hostile witnesses [Para 16]

Motive – Land Dispute – Claim of accused that house belonged to them contradicted by prosecution evidence showing longstanding possession by deceased – Existence of land dispute supported motive – Presence of motive strengthens prosecution version but not essential in light of direct evidence [Para 15]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction of surviving appellants under Sections 148, 436 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC affirmed – Appeal abated against Appellant-Basudev Barik due to death – Remaining appellants directed to surrender within three weeks [Para 18]

Civil Law – Rejection of Plaint – Jurisdiction Barred by Special Statute – Suit involving investor’s grievance against registered stockbroker for alleged non-delivery of shares and wrongful debit – Held: SEBI Act, 1992 provides a complete adjudicatory mechanism, including appointment of adjudicating officer under Section 15-I – Civil Court jurisdiction expressly barred under Section 15-Y – Plaintiff’s remedy lies under the special statute – Trial court erred in dismissing application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Impugned order set aside and plaint rejected [Paras 2, 10–15, 19]

Securities Law – SEBI Act – Investor Grievance – Default by Stockbroker – Suit filed for mandatory injunction directing stockbroker to deliver specific shares and reverse debited amount – Held: Matters relating to stockbroker default fall squarely within scope of Sections 15-F and 15-C of SEBI Act – Adjudication must be done by SEBI-appointed officer, not civil court – Civil court lacks jurisdiction in view of statutory bar under Section 15-Y [Paras 14–15]

Specific Relief – Suit for Mandatory Injunction – Not Maintainable Where Alternative Remedy Exists – Plaintiff filed suit for mandatory injunction instead of recovery – Held: When efficacious statutory and legal remedies are available under SEBI Act or by filing suit for recovery with ad valorem court fee, mandatory injunction cannot be granted – Suit hit by Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act – Apparent attempt to evade court fee liability [Paras 16–17]

Res Judicata and Abuse of Process – Second Application under Order 7 Rule 11 – Earlier rejection by trial court set aside by High Court with direction to decide afresh – Trial court failed to appreciate binding nature of earlier order – Repetition of error renders impugned order unsustainable [Paras 4, 18]

Decision: Revision petition allowed – Impugned order dated 18.02.2017 set aside – Suit of the plaintiff/respondent rejected as barred by law – Pending applications, if any, also disposed of [Para 19–20]

Tenancy Law – Eviction – Alternate Suitable Residence – Decree of eviction passed against tenant under Section 13(1)(l) of Bombay Rent Act – Tenant during pendency of suit acquired 2 BHK flat jointly with son – Held: Despite being joint ownership, tenant was financial contributor, helped in loan repayment, and suppressed fact during trial – Decree upheld as alternate suitable residence was indeed acquired [Paras 24–27]

Will and Testament – Bequest of Premises – Suit premises claimed to be not needed due to bequest of rooms in Kelkar Museum to tenant and wife under a Will – Will imposed strict conditions including prohibition on altering furniture and requirement to display rooms to public – Held: Rooms were not freely usable or private, hence not “suitable alternate residence” under Rent Act [Paras 22–23]

Tenancy Inheritance – Right to Sue – Legal heirs brought on record after tenant’s death – Landlord argued tenancy rights extinguished with eviction decree – Held: Right to sue survives for legal heirs already brought on record and paying mesne profits – But such entry does not confer tenancy rights under Section 5(11)(c) of Bombay Rent Act in absence of evidence of co-residency at time of death [Paras 17–18]

CPC – Order XXII and Legal Representation – Legal heirs brought on record without objection – No automatic conferment of tenant status – Determination under Section 5(11)(c) requires evidence, cannot be assumed in writ proceedings [Paras 17–18]

Maharashtra Rent Control Act – No Eviction Ground – Petitioners argued decree not sustainable under new Act as Section 16 lacks alternate residence ground – Rejected – Decree based on cause of action and trial under Bombay Rent Act remains valid and enforceable [Para 19]

Writ Jurisdiction – Concurrent Findings – Trial and appellate courts found acquisition of alternate suitable residence by tenant – High Court upheld findings as probable and based on evidence – No jurisdictional error or perversity warranting interference under Article 227 [Paras 21, 27–29]

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Decree of eviction upheld – Petitioners directed to hand over vacant possession within six weeks – Respondent permitted to withdraw deposited compensation [Paras 29–31]

Criminal Law – Murder – Common Intention – Eyewitness Account – Conviction Confirmed – Victim shot dead on a boat by appellant Dhanu Ghosh using a pipe gun – Other appellants instigated and facilitated the act – PW1 and PW4, brothers of the deceased, were eyewitnesses and gave consistent accounts of the incident – Post-mortem (PW7) confirmed gunshot injury from close range – Presence of multiple eyewitnesses nullifies argument of false implication – Common intention clearly established through coordinated acts and presence [Paras 10–12, 25–28, 32–35]

Evidence – Non-Recovery of Weapon – No Fatality to Prosecution – Pipe gun used in offence not recovered – Bullet also not recovered from the body – Held: Non-recovery of weapon not fatal where eyewitness testimony is reliable and corroborated by medical evidence – Medical opinion clearly supports prosecution version of a close-range gunshot causing death [Paras 5–6, 23, 33, 36]

Criminal Trial – Eyewitness Credibility – Corroboration with Medical Evidence – Consistent Testimony – PW1 and PW4 identified appellants and described the incident with precision – PW2 (boatman) corroborated circumstances though not an eyewitness – PW3 arrived shortly after the incident and saw accused fleeing – Medical evidence (PW7) consistent with oral evidence – Cross-examination of witnesses failed to discredit them – Held: Trial Court rightly relied on ocular and medical evidence to convict [Paras 13–20, 27–31]

Criminal Law – Motive – Presence of Eyewitnesses – Motive Becomes Redundant – Defence raised plea of prior enmity and false implication – Court held that where there are trustworthy eyewitnesses, proof of motive is unnecessary – Enmity could also support motive for murder – Plea of false implication rejected [Paras 34–35]

Criminal Procedure – Section 313 CrPC – Improper Framing of Questions – No Prejudice Shown – Appellants argued that questions under Section 313 CrPC were complex – Court found no material prejudice – No denial of fair opportunity established – Conviction not vitiated on this ground [Para 7]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence of life imprisonment under Section 302/34 IPC affirmed – Period of detention already undergone to be set off under Section 428 CrPC – No interference warranted with Trial Court’s findings [Paras 37–40]

Civil Law – Second Appeal – Perversity in Finding – High Court interfered with concurrent findings of Trial and Appellate Courts which relied on presumption under Section 90 Evidence Act in respect of a 22-year-old sale deed – Held: Finding was perverse as presumption under Section 90 only applies to documents over 30 years old and cannot be applied to certified copies – Finding that plaintiffs lacked title based on such presumption was legally unsustainable [Paras 12, 17.1, 18, 23].

Evidence Law – Proof of Execution – Section 67 Evidence Act – Sale deed not proved in accordance with law – Defendants failed to produce original deed or examine deed writer or attesting witnesses – Mere registration of sale deed and marking as exhibit not sufficient to establish due execution – Identification of signature by unrelated witness insufficient [Paras 20.9–20.17].

Burden of Proof – Plaintiffs successfully discharged initial burden under Section 101 by producing previous sale deeds, rent receipts, and oral testimony – Onus then shifted to defendants, who failed to rebut allegations of forgery and misrepresentation – Mutation and municipal records do not confer title and are not substitutes for legal proof of ownership [Paras 20.1–20.7, 22.3].

Civil Procedure – Scope of Section 100 CPC – High Court can interfere in second appeal where findings are vitiated by perversity or wrong legal approach – Concurrent findings ignoring legal requirements for proving execution of a sale deed are perverse and liable to be set aside [Paras 11.1–11.3, 12.1, 23–24].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgments and decrees of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court set aside – Plaintiffs’ suit decreed – Sale deed dated 29.03.1978 declared fraudulent, invalid, and void – Mutation and municipal assessment in favour of the defendants quashed – Plaintiffs declared to have right, title, and interest over the suit land [Para 25].

Civil Law – Suit & Counter-Claim – Common Judgment – Necessity of Separate Appeals – Failure to challenge decree in original suit renders it final – First Appellate Court’s decision in appeal against counter-claim alone held unsustainable – Res judicata, waiver and estoppel attracted – Decree in counter-claim restored [Paras 10–19].

Civil Procedure – Common Judgment in Suit and Counter-Claim – Requirement of Separate Appeals – Res Judicata – Trial Court decided Civil Suit No. 309/08/13 (dismissed) and Counter-Claim No. 330/09/2013 (decreed) by a common judgment – Plaintiffs filed appeal only against the decree in the counter-claim – Decree in the civil suit remained unchallenged – Held: In view of principles (para 42) of Ramesh Chand v. Om Raj, 2022 (2) SLC 1145, when suit and counter-claim are decided together, both decrees must be challenged separately – Non-challenge to one decree results in finality and operates as res judicata, waiver and estoppel – The First Appellate Court erred in entertaining the solitary appeal against the counter-claim decree [Paras 10–17].

Res Judicata – Finality of Decree – Bar on Entertaining Appeal Against Only One of Two Decrees – Unappealed decree in original suit becomes final inter se parties – First Appellate Court could not reverse findings indirectly by allowing appeal against counter-claim alone – Impugned appellate judgment, therefore, unsustainable [Paras 16–18].

Adverse Possession – Title Admitted – Trial Court Findings – Plaintiff’s plea of adverse possession rejected by trial court; counter-claim for possession decreed on admitted title – Since dismissal of suit was not appealed, findings attained finality – Consequent revival of trial court’s decree warranted [Paras 13–14, 18–19].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree dated 25.02.2016 of First Appellate Court set aside – Decree dated 24.04.2014 in Counter-Claim No. 330/09/2013 restored – Other substantial questions of law rendered redundant [Paras 18–19].

Property Law – Mutation – Supreme Court Judgment Recognizing Ownership – Municipal Records to Reflect Non-Thika Status – Writ Petition Allowed – Petitioner purchased property via registered deed and obtained amalgamation order – Property mutated in its favour in 2008 – Thika Controller later declared respondents’ predecessor as Thika tenants – This was challenged and ultimately reversed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2022, confirming that the premises was not Thika – Respondent Corporation’s reliance on Thika Controller’s order to alter mutation entry was held unlawful – Held: Municipal records must be corrected to show Petitioner as owner and remove Thika classification – Respondents’ civil claim for adverse possession is pending and will not affect current ownership mutation [Paras 1, 8–10, 27–37]

Municipal Law – Scope of Mutation – Title Dispute Not to Be Decided – Mutation Based on Lawful Ownership Recognized by Supreme Court – Corporation argued it cannot determine title – High Court held that where ownership is already determined by the Supreme Court, Corporation is bound to act accordingly – Pending civil litigation on adverse possession does not preclude mutation in favour of Petitioner as rightful owner – Corporation directed to act in compliance with Supreme Court judgment [Paras 18, 28, 32, 36]

Constitutional Law – Article 226 – Availability of Alternate Remedy Not a Bar Where Supreme Court Judgment Ignored – Despite availability of alternate statutory mechanism under KMC Taxation Rules, High Court exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 as municipal authority failed to act on Supreme Court’s final judgment – Held: Inaction despite final adjudication of title and property classification justifies writ remedy [Paras 18, 21, 35]

Tenancy Law – Thika Tenancy – Claim Rejected by Supreme Court – Mutation Based on Thika Tenancy Set Aside – Property Declared Non-Thika – Thika Controller had declared respondents’ predecessor as Thika tenant – Supreme Court conclusively ruled that property is not Thika – Held: All entries treating property as Thika and mutation in favour of private respondents based on Thika status are illegal – Property to be recorded as non-Thika [Paras 6–7, 28–30]

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Respondent Corporation directed to:

(i) Record the property as a non-Thika premises

(ii) Restore mutation in the name of the Petitioner as lawful owner

(iii) Give effect to any civil court decree in favour of private respondents, if passed in future [Paras 36–37]