Specific Performance – Readiness and Willingness – Lis Pendens – Appeal Dismissed – Plaintiff entered into agreements of sale dated 06.07.2010 (Ex. A1) and 13.08.2010 (Ex. A2) with the 1st defendant for a total consideration of Rs.22,00,000/-, paying an advance of Rs.5,00,000/- – Vendor failed to appear for registration on 11.10.2010 despite the plaintiff's presence and readiness – During pendency of suit filed on 21.02.2011, vendor sold the property to the appellant (2nd defendant) by sale deed dated 25.02.2011 and further created mortgage and power of attorney on 25.03.2011 – Trial Court decreed the suit for specific performance holding the appellant not a bona fide purchaser and the subsequent transactions hit by Section 52 TPA – Appellant challenged decree on grounds of want of continuous readiness and willingness, time being the essence, financial incapacity, uncertainty of subject-matter, and bona fide purchase without notice – Held: All points answered against the appellant – Decree confirmed – Appeal dismissed with costs [Paras 1, 33, 34].

Specific Performance – Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Continuous Readiness and Willingness – Proof – Plaintiff's immediate post-breach telegram (Ex. A5 dated 11.10.2010) asserting presence at Sub-Registrar's office and demanding execution, followed by postal proof (Ex. A6), notice (Ex. A7), acknowledgement (Ex. A8), and vendor's reply (Ex. A9), constituting contemporaneous conduct consistent with readiness – Test under Section 16(c) is totality of conduct before and after the critical date, not merely presence of a time clause – Non-completion within stipulated period attributable to vendor's default, not plaintiff's – Held: Plaintiff proved continuous readiness and willingness; contractual time limits do not defeat specific performance on these facts [Paras 16–22].

Specific Performance – Financial Capacity – Proof – Fixed deposit and deposit receipts (Ex. A19 to A25) in names of plaintiff and wife showing family unit resources, corroborated by banking records (Ex. A34, Syndicate Bank statement) reflecting withdrawals corresponding to advance payments and later deposits around October 2010 – Defence contention that FD receipts do not equal cash in hand on registration day and that deposits in spouse's name are irrelevant, rejected – Courts consider command over immediate family resources when supported by persistent conduct to complete – Non-deposit of balance before decree not invariably fatal in law – Section 16 Explanation (i) of Specific Relief Act clarifies that actual tender or court deposit is not necessary unless so ordered – Held: Financial capacity and readiness established [Paras 19–21].

Specific Performance – Certainty of Contract – Appurtenance Disputes – Vendor side raised disputes regarding extent (1.50 acres vs 1.35 acres) and appurtenances (well, kalam, salai) at notice stage and in pleadings – Plaintiff's evidence that disputes on incidentals were later pretexts; core terms (parties, property, total consideration of Rs.22,00,000/-) consistently identifiable – Plaintiff's reply notice (Ex. A13) reflecting willingness to proceed even leaving disputed incidentals shows he did not treat collateral disputes as condition precedent – Held: Disputes on appurtenances do not render essential terms vague or incapable of enforcement; specific performance not disentitled on ground of uncertainty [Paras 23–26].

Lis Pendens – Section 52, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Bona Fide Purchaser – No Defence Against Pendency – Suit presented on 21.02.2011; appellant's sale deed dated 25.02.2011 (registered 28.02.2011); mortgage (Ex. A16) and GPA (Ex. A17) dated 25.03.2011 – All transactions posterior to institution of suit – Encumbrance Certificate dated 24.02.2011 showing no encumbrance cannot override Section 52 TPA which operates from date of presentation of plaint irrespective of actual notice to the transferee – Transferee pendente lite bound by result of litigation and cannot claim better title than vendor in a pending suit – Held: Bona fide purchaser plea based on Encumbrance Certificate cannot prevail against lis pendens [Paras 27–29].

Specific Performance – Decree Against Legal Heirs – Consequential Reliefs – Vendor died during proceedings; his legal heirs impleaded as defendants 5 and 6 – Appellant's objection that heirs have no title to convey fails once lis pendens is established – Consequential reliefs of execution/registration of sale deed, delivery of possession and permanent injunction against vendor's heirs and pendente lite transferee legally sustainable where Section 16(c) compliance is established and subsequent transfers fall within lis pendens – Held: Reliefs against legal heirs and injunction/possession directions are sustained [Paras 30–32].

Decision: A.S. No. 63 of 2021 dismissed with costs – Judgment and decree dated 30.06.2020 in O.S. No. 69 of 2011 on the file of the IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, confirmed – Connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed.

Excise Law – License Cancellation – Procedural Impropriety – Collector Acting as Judge in Own Cause – Commissioner Influenced by Subordinate's Recommendations – Impugned Order Quashed – Petitioner's Brewery and Distillery inspected on 04.05.2025 at 2:00 a.m. and unauthorized manufacturing activities found — FIR registered — Parallel proceedings initiated before both the Collector (Excise) and Commissioner State Taxes & Excise — Collector conducted prior inquiry, recorded statements of officers, passed recommendatory order dated 02.06.2025 recommending cancellation, filed rejoinder before Commissioner in support of his own inquiry report and recommendations, and thereby became judge in his own cause — Commissioner kept his own proceedings in abeyance pending Collector's inquiry and then passed cancellation order dated 04.07.2025 relying upon Collector's recommendations and pleadings — Held: The impugned order of the Commissioner does not reflect independent and impartial application of mind; procedure followed was neither contemplated under the statute nor in furtherance of justice — Order of cancellation quashed and set aside [Paras 4(ii)(b), 4(ii)(c), 5].

H.P. Excise Act – Section 6 as Amended – Section 8 Notification dated 26.04.2025 – Composition of Inspection Team – Mandatory Requirement of Executive Magistrate, Excise Officer and Police Officer of Specified Rank – The amended Section 6 authorizes three classes of officers to exercise powers under Sections 8 and 10 — The Notification dated 26.04.2025 mandates that powers under Section 8 shall be exercised by an Officer under Section 6(1)(ii) (Executive Magistrate not below rank of Tehsildar) accompanied by an Officer of the State Taxes and Excise Department not below the rank of Assistant State Taxes & Excise Officer and a Police Officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police — Harmonious construction of the Act and Notification shows that the inspection under Section 8 requires all three components — The inspection team constituted did not include Executive Magistrate of First Class and inspection report does not clearly establish presence of Police Officers of specified rank — Team not constituted in consonance with the Act and Notification — However, since FIR already registered and petitioner failed to demonstrate specific prejudice, entire edifice not quashed on this ground alone [Paras 4(i)(b)–4(i)(d), 5].

Natural Justice – Nemo Judex in Causa Sua – An adjudicating authority that has previously conducted an inquiry, recorded evidence, and formed opinions regarding the licensee's conduct cannot thereafter adjudicate upon show cause notices and pass recommendatory orders relying on that very inquiry and evidence — The Collector (Excise) having conducted the initial inquiry, recorded statements of officers, and furnished report cannot adjudicate and recommend cancellation on the same basis — His allowing himself to influence proceedings before the Commissioner by filing rejoinder supporting his own inquiry report compounded the procedural impropriety — Held: Petitioner was prejudiced; recommendations/orders/pleadings of the Collector (Excise) are treated as non-est [Para 4(ii)(c)].

Decision: Writ petition allowed in part — Impugned order dated 04.07.2025 cancelling petitioner's licenses in Forms D-2 and L-11 quashed and set aside — Commissioner State Taxes & Excise directed to adjudicate the notice dated 26.05.2025 afresh without relying upon recommendations, orders or pleadings of the Collector (Excise) — Petitioner to be given reasonable opportunity — Exercise to be completed within two months — Respondents directed to ensure inspection teams are constituted strictly in consonance with the applicable Act, Rules and Notifications in future.

Criminal Law – POCSO and BNS Offences – Quashing of FIR – Post-Settlement Marriage – Petition Allowed – FIR was lodged at the instance of the parents of the prosecutrix at Police Station Dhamnod, District Dhar, under BNS and POCSO Act – Prosecutrix had been a consenting party and was forced to depose against the petitioner by her parents – Subsequent to recording of her statement in the Trial Court, the parties solemnized marriage – Both parties appeared before the High Court, prosecutrix confirmed compromise and stated she does not intend to prosecute the petitioner – Held: When parties have settled and are residing together as husband and wife, allowing criminal proceedings to continue would be catastrophic for both; though Court should be slow to quash proceedings involving heinous offences, the peculiar facts and circumstances, including post-settlement marriage and the prosecutrix's own assent to quashment, warrant exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction — FIR and all subsequent proceedings quashed [Paras 3, 7–8].

Decision: Petition allowed — FIR No. 560/2024 registered at Police Station Dhamnod, District Dhar and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom quashed.

Family Law — DNA Examination — Adultery — Presumption of Legitimacy — Section 112 Evidence Act — Direction Refused — Appellant-husband filed application in divorce proceedings under Section 13 HMA seeking DNA examination of minor child born during subsisting marriage, with the stated purpose of substantiating his allegation of adultery against respondent-wife — Family Court rejected the application on the ground that it would adversely affect the rights, dignity and future of the minor — On appeal, High Court holds that Section 112 of the Evidence Act creates a conclusive presumption of legitimacy for a child born during a valid marriage, which can be displaced only by proof of non-access between spouses — Appellant neither specifically pleaded nor placed any foundational material establishing non-access — Held: In absence of such pleading and material, statutory presumption remains intact and DNA examination cannot be directed — Appeal dismissed [Paras 7–10].

DNA Testing — Exceptional Circumstances — Not to Be Directed as a Matter of Routine — Balancing Interests of Child Against Rights of Parties — DNA examination can be ordered only in exceptional circumstances where strong prima facie material establishing non-access is available or where the interests of justice so demand — Direction for DNA testing, if granted, may have the effect of bastardising the child and is an unwarranted intrusion into the privacy and dignity of the minor, which are facets of the fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution — Courts must exercise utmost caution and restraint — The balance of interest in the present case tilts in favour of protecting the legitimacy and rights of the child [Paras 8–10].

Adultery — Evidentiary Requirements — Conflation of Adultery with Paternity — Appellant's contention that DNA examination was sought solely for proving adultery and not for determining paternity — Held: Such a distinction cannot be accepted as a reason to bypass the foundational requirement of rebutting the presumption under Section 112 — Permitting DNA examination without first discharging the burden of establishing non-access would render the protection under Section 112 otiose [Paras 5, 9].

Decision: Appeal from order dismissed — Order of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Nainital dated 16.12.2025 rejecting application for DNA examination upheld — Pending applications disposed of.

Hindu Law — Partition Suit — Ancestral Property — Coparcenary — Burden of Proof — Plaintiffs sought partition of suit schedule properties claiming them to be joint and ancestral properties — Held: There is no presumption of a property being joint family property merely on account of existence of a Joint Hindu Family — The party asserting must prove existence of a nucleus with which joint family property could be acquired — In the absence of any pleading or evidence establishing existence of coparcenary property, no question of blending or throwing of self-acquired property into common stock arises — Plaintiffs failed to plead and prove the existence of coparcenary or ancestral property — Suit schedule properties held to be self-acquired properties of the father of Defendant No.4 [Paras 18–35].

Relinquishment Deed — Pre-existing Right — Validity — Ex.A-7 was a registered relinquishment deed executed by Defendant No.4 in favour of his father — Held: Relinquishment of right in a property can arise only when the person relinquishing holds a pre-existing right in the property — By the date of Ex.A-7 (02.01.1969), Defendant No.4 was not possessed of any pre-existing right in Ex.A-7 property, as his father was alive until 1988 — The purported relinquishment is therefore meaningless and cannot be construed to convert self-acquired property into joint family property — Moreover, Ex.A-7 can at best be treated as a gift deed, making the property the self-acquired property of Defendant No.4 [Paras 21, 29, 35, 42, 53].

Non-Joinder of Necessary Parties — Partition Suit — Alienees in Possession — Plaintiffs were aware that several items of plaint schedule properties were in the possession of third-party purchasers and alienees, who were not impleaded as parties to the suit — Defendant Nos.16 to 18, though impleaded as legal representatives of Defendant No.3, were not brought on record as proper parties by amendment of plaint — Held: In the absence of proper and necessary parties, a suit for partition cannot be decided — The suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone [Paras 36–41, 48, 54].

Alienations by Defendant No.4 — Self-Acquired Property — Validity — Defendant No.4 alienated all plaint schedule properties under registered sale deeds prior to the filing of the suit — As on the date of institution of the suit in 1982, the entire plaint schedule properties were in possession of the purchasers — Plaintiffs' own admissions confirmed knowledge of alienations and possession by purchasers — Defendant No.5 (brother of plaintiffs) had previously filed a written statement in O.S.No.119/1985 asserting that the properties were self-acquired properties of the paternal grandfather — Held: The alienations by Defendant No.4 as absolute owner are valid and binding — No property was available for partition as on the date of suit [Paras 36–47, 51].

Pleadings — Evidence Beyond Pleadings — Law Reiterated — Held: No evidence can be led beyond the pleadings — In the absence of specific pleading regarding the existence of coparcenary property, any amount of evidence on that point cannot be considered — Plaintiffs failed to plead and prove which properties were joint and which were ancestral in the plaint schedule [Paras 18, 41].

Decision: Appeal allowed — Decree and judgment dated 01.03.2000 in O.S.No.100 of 1983 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalli, set aside — Suit dismissed — Parties to bear their own costs.

Service Law – Disciplinary Proceedings – Removal from Service – Excess Loading of Fuel Tanker – Petitioner, an Executive Operations Officer and Gantry Officer at HPCL's Visakhapatnam Terminal, was suspended on 10.09.2007 and issued a charge memo dated 26.11.2007 alleging that he instructed the crew of tanker No. AP31U2529 to load fuel in excess – Disciplinary authority held the charges proved and ordered removal from service vide proceedings dated 29.12.2009 – Appellate authority affirmed the order on 24.06.2011 – Petitioner challenged both orders under Article 226 of the Constitution – Held: No grounds for interference made out – Writ petition dismissed [Paras 1, 11, 15–16].

Departmental Enquiry – Participation – Refusal to Cross-Examine Witnesses – Petitioner declined to cross-examine management witnesses MW.2, MW.3 and MW.4 on the ground that his defence assistant sought permission to visit the site and inspect the tanker – Court held that such request ought to have been made after fully participating in the enquiry and demonstrating necessity during cross-examination – By evading cross-examination, petitioner disentitled himself from claiming absence of evidence or lack of quality evidence [Paras 7, 12, 14].

Judicial Review – Scope – Disciplinary Proceedings – Constitutional courts cannot re-appreciate evidence or act as appellate authority over disciplinary authorities – Interference permissible only where punishment is shockingly disproportionate or there is a complete absence of evidence – On facts, disciplinary authority considered available material and returned a finding of guilt – No case of no evidence or perversity made out – Court declined to interfere [Paras 13–15].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – No costs – Miscellaneous petitions pending stand closed.

Service Law — Compassionate Appointment — Died in Harness — Age Determination — Ossification Test — Petitioner provisionally appointed on compassionate ground following death of his father in harness — Provisional appointment terminated on grounds of overage (age assessed between 33–38 years at Initial Medical Examination) and low vision — Apex Medical Board subsequently found petitioner's age between 35–40 years and vision normal — Court directed ossification test by SSKM hospital board, which assessed age within 30–40 years, giving mean age of 35 years, i.e., the prescribed upper limit — Held: As ossification test was conducted in 2024 and petitioner was provisionally appointed in 2021, it can safely be concluded that the petitioner was under 35 years of age at the time of appointment — Termination order set aside — Reinstatement directed within four weeks [Paras 14–25].

Compassionate Appointment — Back Wages — Not Granted — Authorities could not have engaged petitioner based on age assessed by their own medical boards, which placed him above the prescribed limit — Provisional appointment letter was subject to compliance of rules including medical check-up — Delay in age ascertainment not attributable to respondent authorities — Held: No direction for back wages [Para 26].

Ossification Test — Bracket of Age — Direction for Fresh Test Refused — Respondents sought fresh ossification test before AIIMS, Kalyani, with age bracket limited to five years, relying on Division Bench ruling in M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited v. Sujala Ankure — Held: Facts of the cited case are distinguishable — There, age was found improper due to concurrent consideration of the age of the female's child — No such doubt arises in the present case as assessments by different boards do not differ substantially — Direction for fresh test would cause further delay and severe prejudice to petitioner — Further test refused — Order of Division Bench dismissing appeal against ossification test direction is final and binding [Paras 18, 22–24].

Compassionate Appointment — Urgency — Delay Deprecated — Appointment on compassionate ground is warranted only when the family of the deceased employee faces acute financial crisis — Such appointment ought not to be kept pending indefinitely — Petitioner lost his father in 2021 and has been litigating since 2022 — Delay of nearly five years causes injustice and severe prejudice [Para 21].

Decision: Writ petition disposed of — Impugned order of termination of provisional appointment set aside — Respondents directed to reinstate petitioner in service within four weeks from communication of order — Back wages declined — No costs.

Industrial Disputes Act – Reference to Labour Court – Section 10(1) – Scope of Appropriate Government's Power – Letters Patent Appeal Dismissed – Respondent No. 3, a Senior Executive/Manager Administration-Supervisor drawing Rs. 76,268/- per month, was relieved from service by appellant company upon acceptance of alleged voluntary resignation with full and final settlement of Rs. 4,43,468/- – Respondent No. 3 filed complaint before Assistant Labour Commissioner challenging termination – Reference ordered by respondent No. 2 to Labour Court under Section 10(1)(c) of the ID Act – Appellant challenged reference contending respondent No. 3 was not a 'workman' and no industrial dispute existed – Held: While forming an opinion under Section 10(1) of the ID Act, the appropriate Government is required only to satisfy itself that an industrial dispute exists or is apprehended; it is not required to adjudicate whether the employee is a 'workman' under Section 2(s), as that falls within the exclusive domain of the Labour Court [Paras 35–39, 50, 60].

Industrial Disputes Act – Nature of Order of Reference – Administrative Function – The function discharged by the appropriate Government under Section 10(1) is administrative and not judicial or quasi-judicial in nature – The appropriate Government cannot delve into the merits of the dispute or determine the lis between the parties while making a reference – Making a reference presupposes formation of opinion and is not required to be reduced in writing with reasons, as that would amount to adjudication on merits – Reasons are required only when the appropriate Government refuses to make a reference, as mandated by Section 12(5) [Paras 34, 47–48, 58].

Industrial Disputes Act – Section 2(s) – Whether Employee is 'Workman' – Disputed Question of Fact – Appellant's contention that respondent No. 3 was working in managerial and supervisory capacity and therefore not a 'workman', and further that voluntary resignation had severed employer-employee relationship, are disputed questions of fact and merit — Held: Both questions are required to be adjudicated by the Labour Court on evidence and cannot be decided by the appropriate Government or the High Court in writ jurisdiction; appellant is at liberty to raise all such contentions before the Labour Court [Paras 54–56, 61].

Judicial Review – Order of Reference – Scope of Interference under Article 226 – High Court has jurisdiction to interfere with an order of reference only when futility of the reference is demonstrable from its bare reading or when the appropriate Government had no material before it or failed to apply its mind — Contention that an employee is not a 'workman' requires examination of facts and evidence and cannot be adjudicated by the High Court in writ jurisdiction; such contention goes to the merits of the dispute which is within the adjudicatory domain of the Labour Court [Paras 41–44, 57].

Decision: Letters Patent Appeal dismissed — Civil Application disposed of.

Juvenile Justice – Bail – Child in Conflict with Law – Section 12, JJ Act, 2015 – Bail is Rule, Refusal Exception – CCL aged 14 years 9 months arrested on 22.08.2025 for alleged offences under Sections 103(1) and 109(1) BNS 2023 and Section 135(1) of the GP Act for causing death of another child by a single knife blow – Section 12 of the JJ Act, 2015 overrides bail provisions of CrPC and BNSS – Use of expression "such person shall be released on bail" demonstrates mandatory nature of bail to a juvenile – Refusal permissible only on three specified grounds: likelihood of association with known criminal, exposure to moral/physical/psychological danger, or release defeating ends of justice – Seriousness of offence and age of juvenile are not relevant considerations for denial of bail under Section 12 – CCL ordered to be released on bail [Paras 9–9.1, 14].

Juvenile Justice – Section 15 JJ Act – Preliminary Assessment – Age Below 16 Years – Not Applicable – Provision of Section 15 requiring preliminary assessment of mental and physical capacity for commission of heinous offence applies only to children above 16 years – CCL aged 14 years 9 months not amenable to proceedings under Section 15 – Board retains all options under clauses (a) to (g) of Section 18 including advice, admonition, community service, probation and institutional care based on social investigation report and past conduct [Paras 6–6.2, 13].

Juvenile Justice – Section 12 JJ Act – Non-Obstante Clause – Exclusion of CrPC – Section 12 bears a non-obstante clause expressly excluding the provisions of CrPC or any other law for the time being in force – Bail application of a juvenile is not maintainable under Sections 437 or 439 CrPC – Courts of Sessions exercising appellate power under Section 101(2) and High Court exercising revisional power under Section 102 exercise the powers of the Board as provided under Section 8(2) – Source of power to grant bail under the JJ Act is independent from CrPC [Para 10].

Juvenile Justice – Bullying – Cognitive and Emotional Development of Child – Probation Officer's Report – CCL and deceased were schoolmates – Deceased had persistently bullied, physically assaulted and threatened the CCL over a month preceding the incident – On the date of incident, the deceased was physically assaulting another child (C.W. 19) by pressing his neck and upon CCL intervening, again threatened the CCL – Knife blow inflicted in such circumstances – Probation Officer's report revealed continuous bullying, stable family background and positive emotional, physical and intellectual condition of the CCL with counselling underway at the Observation Home – Children are more susceptible to impulsive decision-making driven by emotion rather than reason and their cognitive maturation continues until early 20s – These circumstances held relevant for bail consideration [Paras 11–12.1, 14].

Decision: Revision application allowed – CCL ordered to be released on bail on applicant's father executing personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- with condition of ensuring good behaviour and well-being of the child – Probation Officer directed to monitor conduct of CCL and submit quarterly reports before concerned Board/Children's Court until completion of trial – Probation Officer to arrange behaviour modification therapy and psychiatric support if considered necessary [Paras 14–16].