Specific Performance – Agreement for Sale – Readiness and Willingness – Illegality of Termination Notice – Both Appeals Disposed of – Plaintiff entered into agreement for sale dated 9.1.1977 with Defendant No. 1 for purchase of flat at Rs. 26,000/- and paid Rs. 10,500/- as advance – Defendant No. 1 unilaterally terminated the agreement vide notice dated 30.9.1981 without first issuing a notice making time the essence of the contract – Flat was subsequently sold to Defendant No. 3 and then to Defendant No. 4 during pendency of the suit – Trial court decreed the suit in part, declining specific performance in exercise of discretion under Section 20 but granting damages of Rs. 1,52,250/- and refund of Rs. 10,500/- with interest – Held: For agreements relating to immovable property, a vendor must first serve a notice making time the essence before straightway terminating the agreement; notice of termination dated 30.9.1981 is illegal and bad in law; Plaintiff has proved readiness and willingness [Paras 21–22, 52–53].

Constructive Notice – Section 3, Transfer of Property Act – Proviso to Explanation I – Three Conditions Cumulative and Mandatory – Defendant No. 4 claimed to be a bonafide purchaser without notice – Trial court held he had constructive notice merely because suit agreement was registered – Held: Mere registration of an instrument is insufficient to fasten constructive notice; all three conditions of the proviso to Explanation I of Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act must be cumulatively satisfied: (i) registration completed as per the Registration Act; (ii) instrument duly entered in books under Section 51; and (iii) particulars correctly entered in indexes under Section 55 – Only the first condition was proved; conditions (ii) and (iii) were neither pleaded nor proved by the Plaintiff – Finding of constructive notice against Defendant No. 4 set aside [Paras 61–66].

Bonafide Purchaser for Value Without Notice – Section 19(b), Specific Relief Act – Protection from Specific Performance – Defendant No. 4 paid Rs. 1,30,000/- by cheques, name entered in co-operative society records, possessed the flat since May 1986, paid stamp duty, disclosed transaction to Income Tax authorities and lis pendens notice was admittedly not registered by Plaintiff – Held: Defendant No. 4 is a transferee for value who paid in good faith and without notice of the original contract; entitled to protection under Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act [Paras 67, 76(iii)].

Discretion under Section 20, Specific Relief Act – Sub-section (1) vs. Sub-section (2) – Scope – Sub-section (1) confers wide discretionary jurisdiction not confined to the illustrative circumstances in Sub-section (2); discretion must be sound, reasonable and guided by judicial principles – Defendant No. 4 in continuous possession since 1986 after paying valuable consideration; Plaintiff offered balance amount only two months after termination notice – Trial court's refusal to grant specific performance was a proper exercise of discretion – Held: Appellate court will not substitute its discretion unless the lower court's discretion was exercised unfairly, dishonestly or contrary to rules of reason and justice; no such ground made out [Paras 70–74].

Cross-Objection – Respondent's Right to Attack Adverse Finding Without Filing Formal Memo – A respondent in an appeal is entitled to support the decree by challenging any finding recorded against him without filing a formal memo of cross-objections; cross-objections under Order 41 Rule 22 CPC after the 1976 Amendment are purely optional and not mandatory – Defendant No. 4, who had also filed his own appeal, was entitled to challenge the adverse finding on bonafide purchaser without cross-objection [Paras 56–57].

Decision: Both appeals disposed of – Decree dated 14.1.2010 in Suit No. 1642/1984 confirmed – Appeal No. 171/2010 dismissed – Appeal No. 490/2010 disposed of in the above terms – Interim order extended by six weeks – No order as to costs.

Bail – Regular Bail – Second Application – Extended Incarceration – Slow Pace of Trial – Petitioner arrested on 27.10.2025 in FIR registered under Sections 109, 190, 191(3), 324(4), 351(2) and 115(2) BNS, 2023 – Challan presented on 19.01.2026 – 21 prosecution witnesses cited, none examined till date – Petitioner's role limited to giving lalkara – Incarceration for 5 months and 3 days – Petitioner acquitted in the one prior FIR in which he was involved – Held: Further detention as undertrial not warranted – Bail granted subject to conditions [Paras 3, 6].

Bail – Duty of Full Disclosure – Suppression of Prior Bail Application – Uberrima Fides – Obligation of Good Faith – Present petition being second bail attempt, prior application having been dismissed as withdrawn – Petitioner failed to disclose previous bail proceedings – Duty of disclosure is not a mere procedural formality but a substantive prerequisite, as adjudication of successive bail applications necessitates evaluation of change in circumstances since the last dismissal – Failure to disclose prior bail history, especially in the digital era where case history is publicly accessible, constitutes abuse of process and borders on dereliction of professional duty – Suppression of material facts strikes at the root of administration of criminal justice – Costs of Rs. 10,000/- imposed for non-disclosure, to be remitted to District Legal Services Authority, Faridkot [Paras 7–7.3, 10].

Bail – Non-Disclosure – Judicial Discretion – Balance of Empathy and Discipline – Ordinary course would warrant dismissal of petition on ground of suppression alone – However, where petitioner behind bars may inadvertently fail to communicate nuances of past proceedings to counsel, and where on merits bail is otherwise deserved, court may exercise judicial discretion to overlook suppression while unequivocally deprecating such conduct – Court must balance scales of justice with judicial empathy, particularly to avoid further prejudice to an imprisoned litigant – Conduct nonetheless deprecated and costs imposed [Para 7.2–7.3].

Advocate's Duty to Court – Officer of Court – Dual Responsibility – Learned counsel espousing the cause of a petitioner owes duty to court and is charged with dual responsibility of zealously espousing client's cause while ensuring stream of justice remains unpolluted by suppression of truth and suggestion of falsehood – In digital era, plea of ignorance regarding prior bail proceedings accessible on the High Court's website borders on dereliction of requisite professionalism [Para 7.1].

Decision: Petition allowed – Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail on furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate subject to conditions – Costs of Rs. 10,000/- imposed for non-disclosure of prior bail application, to be deposited with CJM, Faridkot within four weeks and remitted to District Legal Services Authority, Faridkot – In case of non-deposit, recovery directed through Deputy Commissioner, Faridkot as arrears of land revenue [Paras 8–10].

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].

Criminal Law – Murder – Acquittal – Sections 302 and 34 IPC – Appellants A1 (wife of the deceased) and A2 (alleged paramour) were convicted by the trial court for the murder of the deceased at Marina Beach on 30.09.2014 – A1 sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC; A2 sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and five years RI under Section 506(ii) IPC – On appeal, High Court finds multiple infirmities in the prosecution case including unreliable eyewitness testimony, absence of Test Identification Parade, suppression of call detail records, doubtful arrest and recovery, and tampering with hospital records – Held: It would be highly unsafe to convict the appellants on the basis of such evidence – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellants acquitted [Paras 14, 15].

Eyewitness Testimony – Identification at Police Station – Absence of Test Identification Parade – Credibility – Prosecution examined three eyewitnesses PW3, PW4 and PW6 – PW6's deposition that the occurrence took place at 3.00 p.m. is contrary to the prosecution case and of no avail – PW3 and PW4, both strangers to the accused, identified the accused at the police station four to five days after the occurrence without any Test Identification Parade – Held: Where witnesses have identified accused at the police station and no Test Identification Parade has been conducted, dock identification in court is meaningless – Further, PW4 repeatedly stated the date of occurrence as 30.10.2014 instead of 30.09.2014, a contradiction that cannot be brushed aside – PW3 was unable to specify the exact date of occurrence at all [Paras 9(ii)–9(vii)].

Investigation – Delayed Despatch of Witness Statements – Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. – Statements of witnesses recorded by PW24 during investigation were sent to the Magistrate six months after the occurrence – Held: It is imperative that documents of special importance, including statements under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C., are despatched to the Magistrate without delay to guard against subsequent fabrication – Failure to do so raises a serious doubt on the evidence of the eyewitnesses [Para 9(viii)].

Suppression of Evidence – Call Detail Records – Adverse Inference – PW24, the Investigating Officer, admitted in cross-examination that he had collected the call detail records of A1, A2 and the deceased but deliberately did not produce them before the court as they would go against the prosecution case – Held: Suppression of material evidence by the prosecution is a serious infirmity that undermines the entire prosecution case [Para 13].

Tampering with Records – Accident Register – Prosecution Case Doubtful as to Origin – The Accident Register [Ex.P13] recorded the deceased as "unknown" when brought to the hospital at 10.25 p.m. on 30.09.2014 – The word "unknown" was subsequently circled and the name and address of the deceased were added on 12.02.2015 – PW20 denied making this alteration; PW24 confirmed the entries were made subsequently – This is inconsistent with the prosecution case that the parents identified the deceased at the beach at 9.15 p.m. before the body was taken to the hospital – Held: The prosecution has suppressed the genesis and origin of the occurrence, and where the genesis and origin are in doubt, the entire prosecution case must be viewed with suspicion [Para 10].

Arrest and Seizure – Doubtful – PW7 deposed that he handed over his vehicle to A2 at 7.00 p.m. at Padi Kuppam, which is far from the scene of occurrence, casting doubt on A2's alleged presence at Marina Beach at 7.15 p.m. – Further, PW7 appears to have seen A2 at the police station on 02.10.2014, whereas the prosecution case is that A2 was arrested only on 04.10.2014 – If the arrest is doubtful, the seizure pursuant to A1's confession also cannot be believed [Paras 11, 12].

Motive – Not Established – Though A1 and A2 were shown to have lived together in a rented house (PW11, PW12, PW13), establishing an extra-marital affair alone does not prove motive to commit murder – Nothing on record to indicate what proximate act provoked A1 and A2 to cause the death of the deceased – Held: Motive for the occurrence has not been established [Para 8].

Decision: Both criminal appeals allowed – Conviction and sentence of A1 under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC and of A2 under Sections 302 and 506(ii) IPC, imposed by the VI Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai vide judgment dated 26.08.2019 in S.C. No. 171 of 2015, set aside – Appellants acquitted of all charges – Bail bonds, if any, discharged.

Contempt of Courts Act – Civil Contempt – Section 2(b) – D.K. Basu Guidelines – Alleged Custodial Torture – Application Dismissed – Applicant, a farmer and Congress party office-bearer, alleged that while in custody on 20.05.2020, he was taken to the office of the Police Commissioner, Rajkot City, where respondents No. 1 and 2 (DCP and Police Inspector) brutally assaulted him – FIR registered against respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and two unknown police personnel for offences under IPC – Investigation concluded with filing of "A" Summary report stating insufficient evidence against accused – Held: No prima facie case established for violation of the guidelines issued under paragraphs 35 and 36 of D.K. Basu to initiate proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the respondents [Paras 25–27].

D.K. Basu Guidelines – Scope of Contempt Proceedings – Before initiating contempt proceedings for non-compliance of the D.K. Basu directions, the applicant must prima facie establish violation of the specific requirements set out in paragraphs 35 and 36 of D.K. Basu pertaining to arrest, detention, identification of police personnel, medical examination, and intimation of arrest – In the present case, on perusal of the entire record, none of the said directions are shown to have been violated so as to attract the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 [Para 26].

Contempt Proceedings – "A" Summary Report – Pending JMFC Proceedings – Where FIR has been registered and investigation has concluded with filing of "A" Summary stating offence was committed but offenders are unknown, the applicant has a remedy to contest the matter on merits before the learned JMFC and is not without recourse – In such circumstances, initiation of contempt proceedings against respondents is not warranted [Paras 24, 27].

Decision: Application dismissed — Notice discharged — Applicant granted liberty to raise contentions in pending proceedings before the learned JMFC.

Specific Performance — Maintainability — Suppression of Earlier Agreement — Appeal Allowed — The plaintiff/first respondent filed a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement dated 09.10.2006 (Ex.A2) in respect of suit property, receiving an advance of Rs. 6,00,000/- against total consideration of Rs. 10,15,000/- — The appellant/first defendant terminated the agreement by notice dated 27.01.2007 (Ex.B2) — The plaintiff did not seek any declaratory relief challenging the said termination — The Trial Court decreed the suit, which order is assailed in this appeal — High Court, on re-appreciation of evidence and law, reverses the decree and dismisses the suit — Held: A suit for bare specific performance, without a prayer for declaration that the termination of the agreement is invalid, is not maintainable — Further, the plaintiff suppressed the material fact of the earlier agreement dated 01.12.2005 (Ex.B1) between the appellant and the plaintiff's husband, under which Rs. 5,00,000/- had already been paid and carried forward — The plaint was framed as if Ex.A2 was the first and only agreement, which constitutes suppression of material facts disentitling the plaintiff to equitable relief [Paras 18-20, 23-25].

Time as Essence of the Contract — Specific Stipulation — Effect of Prior Failed Transaction — Ex.A2 prescribed a period of three months for completion of the sale — The backdrop of the earlier failed transaction under Ex.B1 lends significance to such stipulation — The contractual period expired on 09.01.2007 and the plaintiff took no concrete or effective steps to perform her part of the contract before the termination notice was issued on 27.01.2007 — Held: On the facts and surrounding circumstances, the parties intended time to be the essence of the contract [Para 21].

Readiness and Willingness — Section 16(c), Specific Relief Act — Failure to Establish Continuous Readiness — The plaintiff adopted inconsistent stands by claiming readiness on the one hand and attributing delay to the defendant on the other — Evidence of P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 established that title documents had been verified even prior to Ex.B1, rendering untenable the contention that the defendant failed to furnish title deeds — The plaintiff's silence during the stipulated period and absence of satisfactory proof of financial capacity indicate failure to establish continuous readiness and willingness as mandated under Section 16(c) [Para 22].

Discretionary Relief — Equitable Jurisdiction — Disentitlement on Account of Suppression — Specific performance being an equitable and discretionary relief, the plaintiff who has suppressed material facts, failed to prove readiness and willingness, and omitted to seek necessary declaratory relief, cannot be held entitled to such relief — Decree for specific performance passed by the Trial Court set aside [Para 23-25].

Decision: Appeal allowed — Judgment and decree dated 20.04.2021 in O.S. No. 116 of 2007 set aside — O.S. No. 116 of 2007  dismissed — No order as to costs.

Writ Law - Maintainability of complaint against spouse - Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007 - Sections 2 and 4 - Dispute between husband and wife who are both senior citizens - Petitioner husband challenged orders of the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner directing joint Katha and maintenance in favour of the respondent wife - Petitioner inherited landed properties and retired as a conductor from KSRTC - Previous litigation in O.S. No. 350/2013 and R.A. No. 09/2016 held that the wife was not entitled to a share in the property during the lifetime of the husband - Final decree proceedings in F.D.P. No. 16/2015 were concluded - Wife's subsequent suit for joint ownership was rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC which was upheld in appeal - High Court observed that the Act is a beneficial legislation intended to protect elderly persons from neglect by children and relatives - Section 2(g) defines relative as a legal heir of a childless senior citizen - Court noted that the Act is protection-focused and not adversarial against senior citizens - Held - The wife does not fall within the class of persons entitled to initiate proceedings against the husband under the Act - Disputes between husband and wife cannot be decided under this enactment - Impugned orders set aside - [Paras 1-15].

Writ Law - Jurisdiction of Statutory Tribunal - Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007 - Section 4 - Scope of summary powers - Authorities under the Act directed mutation of property records and maintenance despite contrary findings by a competent Civil Court - High Court held that jurisdiction under the Act is summary in nature and confined to maintenance and protection and eviction in specific circumstances - Act is not intended to decide complex civil or matrimonial disputes - Statutory authorities must act within the four corners of the statute and cannot assume jurisdiction not vested in them - Held - Respondents 1 and 2 exceeded their jurisdiction by entertaining the application and traveling beyond the scope of the Act - Orders vitiated by jurisdictional error - [Paras 12-14].

Decision: Writ petition is allowed – Orders dated 17.10.2023 and 28.07.2022 passed by the first and second respondents respectively are set aside.

Civil Law – Specific Performance – Oral Agreement to Sell – Burden of Proof – Suit Dismissed – Plaintiff claimed an oral agreement to sell was entered on 15.03.2000 in the presence of witnesses, with entire sale consideration of Rs. 1,40,000/- paid to the defendants and possession of the suit land handed over to him – Defendants denied the agreement, payment, and delivery of possession – Held: Where the agreement to sell is oral, the plaintiff is required to lead cogent and authentic evidence to substantiate his case – Bald statements of the plaintiff and his witnesses, unsupported by any documentary proof of payment or possession, are insufficient – Suit rightly dismissed by both courts below [Paras 27, 28].

Civil Law – Oral Agreement – Implausibility – Delay in Suit – Plaintiff filed the suit in 2015, more than 15 years after the alleged agreement of 15.03.2000, without any plausible explanation for the long silence – Held: No prudent man who has paid a sum of Rs. 1,40,000/- would remain silent for 15 years without taking any steps to enforce the agreement – The story projected by the plaintiff is highly improbable and the delay itself militates against the genuineness of the claim [Paras 30, 31].

Civil Law – Possession – Revenue Record – The copy of jamabandi for the year 2009-2010 shows the defendants as owners-in-possession of the suit land, falsifying the plaintiff's claim that possession was handed over to him pursuant to the oral agreement – No material record placed on record to establish possession by the plaintiff [Para 29].

Second Appeal – Scope of Interference – Section 100 CPC – Substantial Question of Law – Concurrent findings of two courts below that the plaintiff failed to prove the oral agreement, payment of sale consideration, and possession, are pure findings of fact – Appellant unable to point out any error, perversity, or illegality in the judgments of the courts below – Held: High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact in second appeal unless a substantial question of law arises – No such question arises in the present case [Paras 33, 34, 36].

Decision: Second appeal dismissed – Concurrent findings of the trial court and first appellate court affirmed – Pending miscellaneous applications disposed of.

Service Law — Dismissal from Service — Fraud at Entry — Forged Educational Certificates — BSF Constable — Petitioner enrolled in BSF on 28.02.1989 by submitting forged Madhyamik mark sheet, having actually failed in the secondary examination — Fraud detected upon character and antecedents verification; re-verification by District Magistrate, North 24-Parganas confirmed petitioner was not a student of the school mentioned — Petitioner himself admitted during Record of Evidence that he had failed the secondary examination and produced forged documents — Tried by Petty Security Force Court on five charges; found guilty on two charges under Section 23 of the BSF Act — Sentenced to dismissal from service and rigorous imprisonment of fifteen months — Held: An employer cannot retain an employee who does not possess the minimum educational qualification; once fraud at entry is established, dismissal is the only appropriate consequence — No interference warranted [Paras 29–35, 41, 44].

Delay in Initiation of Disciplinary Proceedings — Laches — Petitioner contended that delay of over 30 years in concluding disciplinary proceedings was attributable to the respondent authorities and prejudiced him — Held: Delay was substantially attributable to the petitioner himself, who filed successive litigations before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Trial Court at Barasat, and this Court by way of Criminal Revision Application, consuming considerable time — Recruiting authority has the right to initiate disciplinary proceedings at any point of service career upon detection of fraud — Delay per se does not condone fraud or entitle the delinquent employee to relief [Paras 36–37].

Proportionality of Punishment — Fraud in Securing Appointment — Judicial Review — Submission that punishment of dismissal after 32 years of blemish-free service is disproportionate — Held: Fraud is the deciding factor; petitioner was ineligible even to apply for the post — Authority could have taken a stricter stand by recovering salary paid during entire service period — Punishment imposed is just and proper — Court ought not to interfere lightly with punishment imposed by employer in exercise of power of judicial review — Once the action of the authority is not shown to be vitiated by illegality, perversity, unreasonableness, or violation of principles of natural justice, the Writ Court should respect the decision under challenge [Paras 38–44].

Evidence — Admission — Headmaster's Testimony — Petitioner challenged reliability of headmaster's deposition on the ground that he could not prove his own identity during cross-examination — Held: Facts admitted need not be proved — Petitioner himself admitted during proceedings that documents were not genuine — Investigating agency independently verified documents from the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education and was unable to trace them — Testimony of headmaster inconsequential in view of petitioner's own admission [Para 31].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed — No costs.