Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 – Resumption of Land – Proof of Grant – Absence of Original Records – Assistant Commissioner proceeded on assumptions without producing grant order or authenticated records – Mere reference to “documents available on record” insufficient – Order of resumption unsustainable [Paras 21–26].

PTCL Act – Burden of Proof – Claimants seeking resumption must conclusively establish that land was granted to a member of SC/ST with conditions against alienation – Confiscatory nature of resumption proceedings – Strict proof required – Deputy Commissioner rightly set aside resumption order in absence of proof [Paras 27–28].

Grant vs. Auction Sale – Darkhast Register – Material produced in appeal indicating that land was sold to original holder in public auction and not granted free or at concessional rate – Land sold in auction does not attract PTCL Act – Proceedings under PTCL Act not maintainable [Paras 18–20, 21–22].

Alienation of Land – Registered Sale Deed of 1951 – Long Possession of Purchasers and their Successors – Delay and Laches – Application for resumption filed after about 46–47 years – Such belated challenge to alienation held not maintainable [Paras 25, 30].

Single Judge’s Order – Error Apparent – Proceeded on assumption that grant in favour of Bovi community member stood proved – Failed to examine absence of original grant records and delay – Order set aside [Paras 16, 28–29].

Decision: Writ Appeal allowed – Order dated 17.11.2004 passed in W.P. No. 7988/2002 (SC/ST) set aside – Appellate order of Deputy Commissioner dated 15.10.2001 restored – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 31–32].

Criminal Law – Discharge – Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction – Section 397 CrPC – Revision petition filed against order refusing discharge of accused in a case alleging financial fraud by office-bearers of a Co-operative Society – Held: At the stage of discharge, Court is only required to see whether a prima facie case is made out – Revisional court cannot assess probative value or admissibility of evidence in detail – No perversity or illegality in the Magistrate’s order declining discharge [Paras 6, 15].

Cheating – Section 420 IPC – Concealment of True Consideration – Conveyance of Society Property – Accused, as President and Secretary of Society, allegedly entered into agreement granting right of way to builder by suppressing actual consideration of ₹1.70 crores and showing only ₹35 lakhs – Society induced to part with valuable property on false representation – Held: Dishonest concealment of material facts causing wrongful loss to Society and wrongful gain to accused squarely attracts offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC [Paras 8–10].

Forgery – Section 468 IPC – False Document – Agreement Executed Without True Authority – Agreement executed by accused showing false consideration amount and misrepresenting approval of Society – Held: Document executed by suppressing true facts and without informed consent of Society constitutes a “false document” – Forgery committed for the purpose of cheating – Section 468 IPC prima facie attracted [Paras 11–12].

Falsification of Accounts – Section 477A IPC – False Entries in Society Records – Accused alleged to have made false entries in Minutes Book and registers of Society regarding consideration received – Held: Being officers of the Society, making false entries with intent to defraud the Society attracts Section 477A IPC [Para 13].

Criminal Breach of Trust – Section 406 IPC – Entrustment – Amount paid by builder to accused not amounting to entrustment as defined under Section 405 IPC – Held: Section 406 IPC may not be attracted – However, existence of one unsustainable charge is not a ground to discharge accused when other offences are prima facie made out [Para 14].

Evidence at Discharge Stage – Statements of Witnesses and Income Tax Records – Prosecution relying on statements of builder’s officials, brokers and Income Tax officers to show payment of actual consideration – Held: Evaluation of credibility and admissibility of such evidence is a matter for trial – Cannot be examined in revision against refusal of discharge [Para 15].

Decision: Criminal Revision Petition dismissed – Order of Magistrate refusing discharge upheld – Prosecution to proceed for offences under Sections 420, 468 and 477A IPC – No ground for interference under revisional jurisdiction.

Sports Law – Olympic Selection – Cross Country Skiing – Exclusion of Meritorious Athlete – Arbitrary Selection Process – Petitioner, top-ranked Indian athlete as per FIS points list dated 19.01.2026, excluded from Olympic consideration on ground of non-participation in World Championship – Held: FIS Qualification System prescribes exhaustive, objective, points-based eligibility criteria under Section C – Participation in World Championship not a mandatory eligibility condition – Selection based on extraneous criteria is manifestly arbitrary and unsustainable in law [Paras 34–45].

Sports Selection – FIS Qualification System – Distinction between Athlete Eligibility and Quota Allocation – Section C governs athlete eligibility based on age, medical fitness, and FIS points – Section D relates only to allocation of quota to National Olympic Committees – Held: Respondents impermissibly conflated quota allocation with athlete eligibility – Additional conditions cannot be read into the Qualification System by executive interpretation [Paras 38–44].

Administrative Law – Arbitrariness – Introduction of Non-Notified Selection Criteria – Respondents restricted Olympic selection to performance in March 2025 World Championship, ignoring notified assessment period from 01.07.2024 to 18.01.2026 – Held: Retrospective and selective application of criteria defeats the notified qualification framework and violates principles of fairness and transparency [Paras 46–47, 50].

Sports Governance – Long List under NOC Accreditation Manual – Scope and Effect – Long List dated 26.09.2025 relied upon to exclude petitioner – Held: Long List is only an accreditation mechanism and cannot override Final List based on FIS points – Clause 3.2.2 does not mandate World Championship participation as a precondition – Exclusion from Long List cannot defeat substantive eligibility [Paras 48–49].

Judicial Review – Sports Matters – Limits and Exceptions – While courts ordinarily defer to expert bodies in athlete selection, interference is justified where decision-making is arbitrary, unfair, or contrary to governing rules – Present case falls within exception warranting judicial intervention [Paras 31–33, 45].

Ad-hoc Committee – Selection Process – Procedural Impropriety and Bias – Selection undertaken by Ad-hoc Committee applying criteria not traceable to international qualification documents – Held: Committee acted beyond authority and contrary to binding FIS framework – Selection process vitiated [Paras 50, 52–55].

Relief – Direction to Ensure Olympic Participation – Prayer to include petitioner allowed – Respondent IOA and Ad-hoc Committee failed in supervisory duty – Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports directed to make all reasonable efforts to facilitate petitioner’s participation in Winter Olympics, Milano Cortina 2026, with full cooperation from IOA [Paras 56–58].

Observations on Role of State and Sports Bodies – Ministry cannot act as mute spectator in matters affecting athletes’ careers and national representation – Fairness, transparency, and merit-based governance are integral to sports administration – Institutional indifference deprecated [Paras 54–59].

Decision: Writ Petition partly allowed – Exclusion of petitioner declared arbitrary and illegal – Directions issued to facilitate petitioner’s participation in XXV Olympic Winter Games, Milano Cortina 2026 – Prayer C (challenge to Ad-hoc Committee) kept pending; respondents directed to file reply – Matter listed for further hearing.

Arbitration – Section 34 – Inordinate Delay in Pronouncement of Award – Effect on Validity – Arbitral award reserved on 06.03.2021 and pronounced on 06.03.2023 – Delay of about two years after reserving the award – Held: Delay by itself is not a ground to set aside an award, but where such delay is unexplained and adversely reflects on the findings, the award stands vitiated as being in conflict with public policy of India and suffering from patent illegality [Paras 6–7, 13, 18].

Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal – Arbitration Clause Restricting Disputes – Arbitration clause permitted reference only where liability was admitted and dispute related solely to quantum – Insurer disputed existence of arbitral dispute after full and final settlement – Tribunal decided only the voluntariness of settlement but failed to adequately address whether an arbitrable dispute survived in view of the restrictive clause – Held: Issue went to the root of jurisdiction and was adversely impacted due to delay in pronouncement [Paras 8–12, 18–19].

Delay and Impact on Consideration of Arguments – Human Memory and Fairness – Long gap between conclusion of arguments and pronouncement of award shakes confidence of parties as to whether submissions were effectively weighed – Written submissions cannot substitute oral arguments – Held: Justice must not only be done but must appear to have been done – Delay created avoidable speculation and suspicion [Paras 13–15].

COVID-19 as Justification for Delay – Rejection – Tribunal attributed delay to COVID-19 till last quarter of 2022 – Supreme Court orders excluded period only till 28.02.2022 – Even after exclusion, delay of nearly one year remained unexplained – Reason that Tribunal members could not meet after reserving award indicated lack of deliberation – Held: Explanation for delay not acceptable [Paras 16–17].

Section 29A – Legislative Intent of Speedy Arbitration – Though Section 29A not applicable to pending proceedings, it crystallises legislative intent of expeditious resolution – Arbitration proceedings spanning nearly a decade with two-year delay in pronouncement defeated the object of arbitration [Paras 14–15].

Public Policy of India – Patent Illegality – Inordinate and unexplained delay affecting jurisdictional findings brings award within ambit of Section 34(2)(b)(ii) and Section 34(2A) – Award held patently illegal and unsustainable [Paras 6, 18].

Decision: Petition allowed – Arbitral award dated 06.03.2023 set aside – Court refrained from examining merits of claims as jurisdictional issue itself vitiated by delay – All pending applications disposed of.

Insurance Law – Weather Based Crop Insurance Scheme – Disclosure of Material Terms – Duty of Insurer – Claims under WBCIS repudiated on the ground that adverse weather parameters on 13.05.2012 did not meet prescribed trigger points – Farmers alleged that detailed terms of scheme including wind-speed and rainfall trigger points were never disclosed – Held: Contract of insurance is governed by principle of utmost good faith imposing reciprocal duty of disclosure on insurer and insured – Failure to clearly communicate highly technical trigger points vitiates repudiation of claims [Paras 17–18, 21–24].

Consumer Law – Deficiency of Service – Limited Disclosure through Pamphlet – Effect – Insurance Company contended that scheme was explained and proposal forms contained declaration of understanding – Evidence showed only a one-page pamphlet in Telugu was distributed containing incomplete and incorrect information regarding risk periods – Trigger points not disclosed – Held: Mere declaration in proposal form insufficient when actual disclosure was inadequate and misleading – Deficiency of service established [Paras 22–24].

Crop Insurance – Coverage Period – Excess Rainfall and Wind Speed Parameters – Excess/unseasonal rainfall cover applicable only between 01.01.2012 and 29.02.2012 – Damage alleged on 13.05.2012 not covered under rainfall peril – Wind-speed cover applicable from 01.03.2012 to 31.05.2012 subject to minimum trigger of 35 km/hr – Held: Though claims may not strictly satisfy trigger data, insurer cannot rely on technical exclusion when parameters were not properly disclosed to farmers [Paras 15–17, 21].

Consumer Fora – Relief – Modification by High Court – NCDRC directed refund of premium with interest and compensation of Rs.40,000 per claimant – Held: Farmers entitled to indemnification for insured loss due to non-disclosure by insurer – However, direction for refund of premium unsustainable as risk was undertaken – Compensation reduced to Rs.10,000 per claimant for litigation cost and mental agony – NCDRC order modified accordingly [Paras 24–25].

Judicial Review – Writ Jurisdiction over Consumer Commission Orders – High Court may interfere where relief granted is excessive or contrary to contractual principles while affirming findings on deficiency of service – Partial interference justified – Writ petitions disposed of with modification of relief [Paras 24–25].

Decision: Writ petitions disposed of – Findings of NCDRC on non-disclosure and deficiency of service upheld – Direction to refund premium set aside – Compensation reduced from Rs.40,000 to Rs.10,000 per claimant – No costs – Pending applications closed.

Land Acquisition – Mega Market by APMC – Challenge by Public Charitable Trust – Multiple acquisition notifications relating to two sets of lands (Subject ‘A’ and Subject ‘B’) – Common dismissal of writ petitions by Single Judge upheld – Appeals dismissed [Paras 1, 16, 66].

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 6 Proviso (ii) – Limitation of one year for final notification – Computation of period – Date of publication in Village Chavadi relevant – Period during which acquisition proceedings stayed by Court to be excluded – Final notification within time – No violation of Section 6 in respect of Subject ‘A’ property [Paras 34–37].

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 11A – Alleged lapse for non-passing of award within two years – Effect of interim stay orders – Period of stay to be excluded – Draft award and subsequent award not invalid – No lapse of acquisition proceedings [Paras 38–44].

Urgency Clause – Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act – Dispensation of enquiry under Section 5A – Subjective satisfaction of Government – Proposal by APMC, deliberations in departmental and Single Window Committee meetings – Adequate application of mind – No mala fides or non-application of mind established – Invocation of urgency upheld [Paras 45–48].

Urgency Acquisition – Section 17(3A) – Requirement of tender/payment of 80% compensation – Beneficiary APMC deposited substantial amounts with State – Partial disbursement to Trust – Withholding of balance justified due to pending land ceiling proceedings under Section 66 of Karnataka Land Reforms Act – No invalidation of acquisition on ground of non-payment [Paras 49–52].

Possession – Mode of taking possession – Drawing of mahazar/panchnama sufficient – Official Memorandum evidencing taking over of possession and handing over to beneficiary – Interim orders prevented further steps – Possession validly taken – Land vested in State free from encumbrances [Paras 53–54].

RFCTLARR Act, 2013 – Section 24(2) – Earlier finding of lapse set aside by Supreme Court – Post-remand consideration limited – Acquisition not lapsed once award passed and possession taken – Non-payment of full compensation does not result in lapse, only interest payable [Paras 15, 56, 61].

Acceptance of Compensation – Acquiescence – Trust participated in meetings fixing compensation, accepted substantial amounts, executed indemnity bonds, sought enhancement under Section 18 – Subsequent refund after adverse orders does not undo acquiescence – Doctrine of approbate and reprobate applied – Writ challenge not maintainable after acceptance of compensation [Paras 62–65].

Public Purpose – Acquisition of Trust Property – Charitable nature of Trust not a bar to acquisition – Establishment of APMC market yard a valid public purpose – Power of eminent domain upheld [Paras 59–60].

Decision: Writ Appeals dismissed – Order dated 03.02.2025 passed by learned Single Judge dismissing WP Nos. 3884/1999 and 37140/2000 affirmed – Acquisition proceedings upheld – No costs [Paras 66–67].

Civil Suit – Recovery of Money – Friendly Loan – Promissory Notes – Plaintiff claimed recovery of ₹50 lakhs advanced as interest-free friendly loan to deceased borrower – Two promissory notes executed for consolidated amounts of ₹45 lakhs and ₹5 lakhs – Defendants denied loan and alleged forgery – Held: Promissory notes valid in law – Signatures of executant not specifically denied in pleadings – Minor discrepancies immaterial – Plaintiff entitled to decree for recovery [Paras 18–19, 24].

Negotiable Instruments – Undated Cheques – Evidentiary Value – Five undated cheques with blank payee name issued by deceased borrower – Cheques not constituting bills of exchange – However total amount matched promissory notes – Held: Though unenforceable as cheques, documents had corroborative value supporting existence of debt [Paras 11(i), 20].

Evidence – Proof of Signatures and Handwriting – Burden of Proof – Plaintiff summoned bank witness to prove signatures on cheques – Defendants neither denied signatures specifically nor produced counterfoils or specimen signatures – No evidence led to disprove handwriting – Held: Initial onus discharged by plaintiff – Defendants failed to rebut – Preponderance of probabilities favoured plaintiff [Paras 21–24].

Civil Trial – Pleadings – Effect of Absence of Specific Denial – Written statement did not specifically plead that signatures or handwriting on promissory notes were forged – No steps taken for expert comparison – Held: Defendants could not be permitted to challenge execution at stage of arguments [Paras 19, 23].

Standard of Proof – Civil Proceedings – Civil suits decided on balance of probabilities – Trial Court correctly appreciated oral and documentary evidence – No perversity or infirmity found in decree for principal amount [Para 24].

Interest – Pendente Lite Interest – Section 34 CPC Principles – Trial Court granted future interest but denied pendente lite interest without reasons – Held: Successful plaintiff entitled to pendente lite interest even if promissory notes did not stipulate interest – Interest awarded @ 9% per annum from date of suit till decree [Paras 25–27].

Costs – Award of Costs – Successful Party – Trial Court failed to award costs despite plaintiff succeeding – Earlier order recorded that Local Commissioner’s fee to be recovered as costs – Held: Plaintiff entitled to full costs including remuneration of Local Commissioner [Para 28].

Appellate Jurisdiction – Section 96 CPC – No error in appreciation of evidence by Trial Court – Money decree upheld – Cross-objections partly allowed on interest and costs [Paras 29–30].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Decree for ₹50 lakhs upheld – Cross-objections allowed – Pendente lite interest @ 9% p.a. granted – Costs awarded – Registry directed to release balance deposited amount with accrued interest to plaintiff [Paras 29–31].

Hindu Law – Adoption – Effect of Valid Adoption – Severance from Biological Family – Adopted Son Acquiring Exclusive Rights in Adoptive Mother’s Property – Plea of Joint Hindu Family Rejected – Once adoption is not challenged and stands valid, adopted son ceases to be member of biological family and cannot be treated as coparcener with biological father and brother – Property of adoptive mother cannot become joint family property of biological family [Paras 23–26, 35–37].

Partition Suit – Unity of Title and Unity of Possession – Essential Requirements – Failure to Prove – Plaintiff claiming possession of only two rooms and not joint possession of entire property – Held: Mere residence or permissive occupation does not establish unity of title or joint possession – Suit for partition not maintainable in absence of joint ownership [Paras 29–31, 36].

Agreement Relied for Throwing Property into Joint Family – Proof and Credibility – Agreement dated 23.12.1948 (Ext.-9) Found Forged and Unreliable – Mention of municipal holding number not in existence on date of alleged execution – Plaintiff’s contradictory testimony regarding execution and knowledge of agreement – Held: Agreement not genuine and cannot confer any right or create joint family property [Paras 27–28, 33].

Adoption Deed – Challenge to Validity – Limitation – Plaintiff neither challenged adoption nor could do so after long lapse of time – Registered deed of adoption carries statutory presumption of validity – Consequences under Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act must follow [Paras 23–24].

Prior Litigation and Compromise Decree – Effect – Property of adoptive mother allotted to adopted son under compromise in First Appeal – Schedule ‘B’ property became exclusive property of adopted son during lifetime of adoptive mother – Plaintiff claiming through neither adoptive mother nor compromise – No independent right established [Paras 26, 32–35].

Permissive Possession – Nature and Effect – Plaintiff occupying two rooms without asserting hostile title or specifying date of entry – Held: Possession permissive and not indicative of ownership or joint title – Payment of municipal taxes after institution of suit does not create title [Paras 30–31].

Civil Procedure – Abatement – Death of One of Substituted Legal Heirs – Estate Sufficiently Represented – Appeal Not Abated – Distinction between non-substitution of party and non-substitution of one heir – No possibility of conflicting decrees – Appeal to proceed on merits [Paras 16–22].

Second Appeal – Scope – Findings of Fact by First Appellate Court – No Perversity – High Court not to reappreciate evidence – Substantial questions of law answered against appellant [Paras 36–38].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of First Appellate Court affirmed – Plaintiff not entitled to any share in Schedule ‘B’ property – No order as to costs.

Customs and Excise – Export Oriented Unit (EOU) – De-bonding – Final Date of Exit – Suo Motu De-bonding Order – Appellant EOU engaged in manufacture of silk fabrics sought exit from EOU scheme – Dispute regarding duty liability on capital goods and raw materials on de-bonding – Deputy Development Commissioner clarified vide letter dated 10.05.2019 that suo motu de-bonding order dated 08.08.2006 is to be treated as final date of exit – Held: Said clarification is material and goes to the root of determination of duty liability and applicability of concessional provisions [Paras 8–9, 13].

EOU – Condition No.10 of Standard Conditions – Applicability on De-bonding – Condition No.10 provides for levy of customs duty on depreciated value of capital goods and specified treatment of raw materials and excisable goods upon de-bonding after export obligation period – Held: Authorities were required to examine applicability of Condition No.10 in light of final exit date of 08.08.2006 – Failure to do so vitiates the impugned orders [Paras 8–10, 12].

Appellate Jurisdiction – Remand – Duty to Decide on Merits – CESTAT earlier remanded the matter directing de novo consideration – Commissioner (Appeals) erroneously held that earlier assessment had attained finality and that he had no power to revisit the issue – Held: Once matter is remanded for de novo consideration, appellate authority is duty-bound to examine entire matter on merits – Such refusal amounts to jurisdictional error [Paras 10–11].

Quasi-Judicial Authorities – Requirement of Reasoned Orders – Failure to Apply Mind – Commissioner (Appeals) and CESTAT failed to consider core contention regarding status of appellant as 100% EOU till 08.08.2006 and effect of clarification dated 10.05.2019 – CESTAT merely extracted findings of Commissioner (Appeals) without independent reasoning – Held: Orders suffer from non-application of mind and are unsustainable in law [Paras 11–12].

Judicial Review – Substantial Question of Law – Interference Justified – Substantial question of law framed as to whether CESTAT decided appeal without considering issues directed to be examined earlier – Held: Question answered in favour of appellant – Impugned orders liable to be set aside and matter remanded for fresh adjudication [Paras 3, 12–14].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Final Order No.A/31463/2017 dated 11.09.2017 passed by CESTAT and Order-in-Appeal No.4 of 2004 (T) Cus dated 10.08.2004 set aside – Matter remanded to Commissioner (Appeals) for de novo consideration in accordance with law, taking into account clarification letter dated 10.05.2019 – No order as to costs – Pending miscellaneous petitions closed.