Civil Law - Impleadment in Specific Performance Suit – Order 1 Rule 10 and Order 43 Rule 1 of the CPC -  Appeal against Addition of Third Party – Appeal Allowed – The appellant challenged an order of the Single Judge allowing the impleadment of her brother-in-law (Respondent No. 4) in a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell – Held: A third party not privy to the contract and claiming independent title cannot be impleaded – Such impleadment would enlarge the scope of the suit into a title dispute – Appeal allowed and impleadment set aside [Paras 1–3, 16–26].

Appealability – Order Not Enumerated Under Order XLIII CPC – Maintainability Under Section 10 of Delhi High Court Act – Upheld – The respondent objected to the maintainability of the appeal under Order XLIII CPC and Commercial Courts Act – Held: Even if not appealable under Order XLIII, the impugned order qualifies as a “judgment” under Section 10 of DHC Act as it affects valuable rights and changes the character of the suit – Appeal maintainable [Paras 10–15].

Impleadment Test – Necessary and Proper Party – Order I Rule 10 CPC – Not Satisfied – Court reiterated that only those parties whose presence is necessary to adjudicate the issues in the suit can be impleaded – Respondent No. 4, claiming co-ownership but not being a party to the contract, failed the test – His dispute lies in a separate title suit, not in a specific performance suit [Paras 17–20, 24–25].

Binding Precedents – Supreme Court Judgments in Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal and Anil Kumar Singh v. Shivnath Mishra – Applied – The Court relied on established law that in a suit for specific performance, a stranger to the contract cannot be added merely because of a claimed interest in the property – Doing so alters the nature of the suit and is impermissible [Paras 19–21].

Distinguished Cases – Sumtibai and Rajesh Kumar Arora – Not Applicable – Respondent No. 4 cited judgments where impleadment was permitted – Held: These cases were fact-specific and do not dilute the general bar on impleading third parties in specific performance suits – Those decisions did not form ratio applicable to present case [Paras 22–23].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Impugned Order Set Aside – Respondent No. 4’s impleadment struck off – Liberty granted to pursue independent remedy – Suit to proceed without alteration of scope [Paras 27–28].

Income Tax – Section 80IA – Interest Income from Fixed Deposits – Deduction Allowed – The appellant, operating a port terminal under a BOT agreement with JNPT, placed funds in fixed deposits to meet mandatory obligations for crane replacement under the License Agreement and to hold disputed tariff collections as per a High Court order – Held: Since the deposits were made out of business compulsion and closely linked to the infrastructure facility's operation and maintenance, the interest earned qualifies for deduction under Section 80IA [Paras 5-9, 20-26, 40-53].

Income Tax – Interest on TDS Refund – Deduction Permitted – The appellant received interest on tax deducted at source by its customers, which formed part of port usage charges – Held: The interest was incidental to the business and directly linked to the appellant’s operations – The Court held that interest on delayed refunds of such business receipts is an accretion to business income and is eligible for deduction under Section 80IA [Paras 6-7, 30-31, 46-47].

Statutory Interpretation – “Derived from” – Direct Nexus Required – Interpretation of Section 80IA must recognize that business receipts linked directly to the operation and maintenance of an eligible infrastructure facility fall within its ambit – Mere labeling of interest income as "income from other sources" not justified when business compulsion dictates such deposits [Paras 42-50].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – Orders of ITAT and CIT(A) set aside – The appellant is entitled to claim deduction under Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act on both (i) interest earned on fixed deposits made for business obligations and (ii) interest received on income-tax refunds arising from business receipts [Paras 52-55].

Service Law - Fraudulent Appointment – Use of Forged Documents – Appointment Cancelled - The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in 2010 but his appointment was cancelled in 2022 on the grounds that forged educational documents and identity were used – The Court found discrepancies in the petitioner’s PAN, Aadhar, B.T.C. Certificate, and academic documents, indicating impersonation – Verification by police revealed that no person by petitioner’s claimed name resided at the stated address – Held: Petitioner’s appointment was obtained through fraud, hence void ab initio, and liable to cancellation without need for departmental enquiry [Paras 2-4, 24-34].

Natural Justice – Scope in Fraudulent Appointment Cases – No Enquiry Required - The petitioner alleged non-service of show cause notice and violation of principles of natural justice – The Court held that where fraud is evident, principles of natural justice need not be applied rigidly and no detailed departmental enquiry is necessary – Citing various precedents, it was reiterated that fraud vitiates all solemn acts and appointments based on fraud cannot be sustained [Paras 18-23, 26, 33].

Eligibility and Misrepresentation – Name Discrepancies Across Records – Fraud Proven - The petitioner failed to explain discrepancies in his name across different records such as “Kamlesh,” “Kamlesh Kumar,” and “Kamlesh Kumar Nirankari” – Misuse of another individual’s certificates was established through investigation – Held: The mismatch and impersonation confirm fraudulent entry into service, disentitling petitioner to any equitable relief [Paras 28-32].

Relief – Appointment Void Ab Initio – No Protection or Reinstatement - The petitioner was not entitled to salary or reinstatement – Court reaffirmed that fraudulent appointments do not confer any right, and disciplinary proceedings under Article 311 or service rules are unnecessary in such cases – Held: Impugned order cancelling appointment and recovery of salary is lawful and does not warrant interference [Paras 35-37].

Land Acquisition  – Reference under Section 18 – Rejection by Reference Court Reversed – Compensation Enhanced – The appellant challenged the rejection of a reference filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on the ground that it was time-barred and also questioned the compensation determined by the Collector at ₹479.15 per acre – The High Court held that the appellant had no actual or constructive knowledge of the award until February 1989 and filed the reference within six months thereafter – It further held that the Collector erred in relying on the lowest exemplar – Compensation was revised to ₹8,784.77 per acre – Appellant also found entitled to statutory benefits under the Amending Act No. 68 of 1984, including solatium at 30%, additional compensation at 12% p.a., and enhanced interest at 15% p.a. – Appeal allowed – Reference Court’s judgment set aside [Paras 1, 19-24, 35, 38, 40, 42].

Limitation – Date of Knowledge – Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act – Reference held within limitation – Appellant proved that he had no notice or knowledge of the award before February 1989 – Respondents failed to lead any evidence to prove otherwise – Held: Reference made on 03.03.1989 was within limitation under Section 18 as interpreted by the Supreme Court – Dismissal by the reference court was erroneous [Paras 19-24].

Compensation – Determination based on Exemplar – Preference for Highest Exemplar – Held: Collector’s reliance on lowest exemplar dated 20.07.1979 unjustified – Exemplar dated 29.09.1977, though two years prior, showed higher per acre consideration of ₹8,784.77 and was for a similar area and type of land – Appellant held entitled to compensation at that rate – Collector and reference court both erred in their approach [Paras 25-31, 35].

Soil Quality and Land Use – Irrigation and Proximity – Evidence showed appellant's land was fertile, irrigated, and yielded multiple crops – Collector failed to consider productive nature and comparable market value – Held: Land's true value not reflected in award – Compensation revised accordingly [Paras 30-31, 34].

Statutory Benefits – Amending Act No. 68 of 1984 – Additional Benefits Granted – Though Collector’s award was passed prior to the amendment, reference court's decision was post-amendment – Held: Appellant entitled to solatium @30%, additional compensation @12% per annum, and enhanced interest @15% per annum under Section 28 of the Act – Benefits applicable to enhanced compensation awarded by the Court [Paras 39-40].

Appeal Allowed – Judgment and Order of Reference Court Set Aside – Held: Reference was filed within limitation – Compensation enhanced to ₹8,784.77 per acre – Appellant entitled to statutory benefits under amended provisions – Respondents failed to disprove appellant’s claims – No order as to costs [Paras 42-43].

Criminal Law – Conviction under Sections 498A and 306 IPC – Acquittal – Appellant convicted by Trial Court for cruelty and abetment of suicide of wife – Deceased gave two versions: (i) complaint to police jamadar (Exh. 55) shortly after the incident citing a domestic quarrel and statement by husband “if you want to die, burn yourself”, and (ii) Dying Declaration before Executive Magistrate (Exh. 34) alleging regular beatings – Court found Exh. 55 to be more reliable and immediate, while Exh. 34 suffered from procedural lapses and lacked credibility – No corroboration for consistent cruelty or intent to instigate suicide – Held: Mere words uttered in quarrel without mens rea not sufficient to constitute abetment – Prosecution failed to prove charges under Sections 498A and 306 IPC beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 1, 4, 11.4, 17, 21, 23, 27.2, 33, 34].

Dying Declaration – Evidentiary Value – Deceased’s Dying Declaration recorded by Executive Magistrate (Exh. 34) within 13 minutes, based on cyclostyle form, lacking identification of thumb impression or medical endorsement of mental fitness – Doctor who signed not traced nor examined – Court found DD suspicious and lacking trustworthiness – In contrast, complaint to PW-12 Police Jamadar (Exh. 55) found to be more immediate, coherent and credible – Held: Exh. 34 does not inspire confidence; Exh. 55 can be treated as dying declaration under Section 32 of Evidence Act [Paras 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 17.1, 21, 22, 28].

Abetment of Suicide – Mens Rea and Instigation – Alleged abetment based on husband’s statement “if you want to die, burn yourself” during domestic quarrel – Deceased committed self-immolation – No evidence of continuous cruelty or instigation with intent – Court referred to Sanju v. State of MP and Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh – Held: Mere utterance in heat of moment without intention or active instigation insufficient to attract Section 306 IPC – No offence of abetment made out [Paras 4, 27.2, 33].

Cruelty under Section 498A IPC – No Proof of Persistent Harassment – Prosecution failed to prove continuous physical or mental cruelty – Neighbours turned hostile and denied witnessing quarrels – No evidence of dowry demand or coercive conduct – Dying Declaration Exh. 34 mentioning daily beatings found unreliable – Held: Prosecution failed to establish cruelty as per legal definition under Section 498A IPC [Paras 3.1, 4.3, 17, 24, 26, 32].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 498A and 306 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted – Record and proceedings to be returned to trial court [Para 34].

Criminal Law  – Conviction for Repeated Rape of Minor – Testimony of Prosecutrix Reliable – Conviction Upheld – The prosecutrix, minor step-daughter of the appellant’s live-in partner, alleged repeated acts of rape over two years at two residences – The Trial Court convicted the appellant based on her consistent and credible testimony – Held: Her version was corroborated by medical evidence (torn hymen), FIR, and statements – The defence theory of consensual relationship and false implication was rejected – Conviction under Section 376 IPC upheld [Paras 1–13].

Evidentiary Value – Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix – No Corroboration Required – The Court reiterated that a conviction under Section 376 IPC can be based solely on the unimpeached, consistent testimony of the prosecutrix – Cited Supreme Court rulings affirming that corroboration is a matter of prudence, not law – Absence of injuries not fatal – The prosecutrix’s evidence found trustworthy and sufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 10.1, 11–12].

Sentence Reduction – Mitigating Factors Considered – Long Pendency, Family Hardship, Good Conduct – Though conviction was upheld, sentence reduced from 10 years to 6 years RI – The Court noted: (a) 21 years had passed since the incident, (b) appellant is sole earner with three minor daughters, (c) nearly 5 years of sentence already undergone with no misuse of liberty and satisfactory jail conduct – Held: Sentence modified in light of mitigating factors, while emphasising that offence remains serious [Paras 14–15].

Decision – Conviction Maintained – Sentence Modified to 6 Years RI – Appellant directed to surrender within 3 days – Trial Court to ensure compliance – Appeal disposed of accordingly [Paras 16–19].

Anticipatory Bail – Sections 465, 468, 471, 409, and 420 of the IPC - Section 13(1)(c) read with 13(2), Prevention of Corruption Act - Serious Allegations of Corruption – Prima Facie Case Established – Bail Denied - The petitioner, a former writer at the Traffic Enforcement Unit, Muvattupuzha, was accused of misappropriating ₹20,90,750/- through falsification of expenditure vouchers and bank entries – The petitioner sought anticipatory bail on grounds of personal hardship and alleged bias – The Court, upon detailed scrutiny of case diary, statements of multiple bank officials, and recovery of incriminating documents, held that a strong prima facie case existed – Held: No exceptional circumstances shown; anticipatory bail denied [Paras 1-16].

Evidence – Testimony of Bank Staff – Direct Attribution to Accused – Bail Justifiably Refused - Multiple officials from State Bank of India confirmed that remittances from the police department were handled solely by the petitioner – Statements consistently proved manipulation of duplicate and triplicate vouchers post-bank seal – Recovery of 400+ vouchers and cash books from her residence during judicial search corroborated allegations – Held: Direct role in remittance and manipulation stands established for custodial interrogation [Paras 8-13].

Financial Discrepancy – Lifestyle and Income Mismatch – Chitty Remittances Unexplained - Petitioner’s net salary was ₹21,000 with EMI liabilities – Yet she participated in multiple chitties and incurred substantial expenses – Annexure A8 bank statement failed to show alternate legitimate sources of such funds – Held: Unaccounted funds raised suspicion, supporting prosecution case of embezzlement [Paras 10, 13-14].

Custodial Interrogation – Necessity for Handwriting Samples – Grant of Bail Would Hinder Investigation - Investigation required collecting handwriting and signature samples for forensic comparison – Court held custodial interrogation necessary to trace fund origin, examine falsified documents – Held: Bail at this stage would impair effective prosecution in a serious corruption case [Paras 13-15].

Corruption Cases – Grant of Bail Only in Exceptional Circumstances – No Falsity or Political Bias Alleged - Relying on Devinder Kumar Bansal v. State of Punjab [2025 KHC 6219], Court reiterated that anticipatory bail in corruption cases is to be granted only where false implication or political vendetta is apparent – Held: Neither ground made out in present case – Bail refused [Paras 14-15].

Decision – Anticipatory Bail Denied – Direction to Cooperate with Investigation - Application dismissed with direction to petitioner to surrender before Investigating Officer immediately – On failure, liberty granted to officer to proceed with arrest as per law [Para 16].

Tenancy Law - Eviction – Bona Fide Requirement – Section 11(3) of Rent Control Act – Appeal Dismissed - Landlords sought eviction for starting a steel and cement business in the tenanted premises – Both Rent Control Court and Appellate Authority found the need bona fide – Tenant challenged findings on grounds of landlord affluence, poor access road, and absence of building plan – Supreme Court held that similar objections were rejected earlier in related R.C.Rev. Nos. 41 and 49 of 2023 – Held: Challenge unsustainable; eviction rightly granted [Paras 2-5].

Comparative Hardship – Tenant Failed to Seek Protection Under Second Proviso – No Relief - The tenant failed to take steps under the second proviso to Section 11(3) to claim protection based on comparative hardship – Court held that such omission disentitles the tenant from any equitable consideration – Held: No case made for interference in revisional jurisdiction [Paras 4-5].

Consistency in Judicial Findings – Identical Objections Previously Rejected – No Differentiation - The Court noted that eviction orders in similar cases from the same premises were upheld in earlier revisions – Identical objections of tenant had already been considered and rejected – Held: No reason to deviate when facts and grounds remain unchanged [Paras 4-5].

Decision – Revision Dismissed – Six Months’ Time Granted to Vacate Premises - Although revision was dismissed on merits, Court granted six months’ time to vacate subject to conditions – Arrears to be paid within four weeks and rent to continue till actual surrender – Undertaking to vacate to be filed before Rent Control Court/Execution Court [Para 5].

Civil Law – Dismissal for Non-Prosecution – Counterclaim Proceeded – Appeal by Plaintiff Abandoned - Plaintiff failed to appear, resulting in dismissal of the suit for non-prosecution – However, defendant’s counterclaim for ₹1.68 crores was entertained as it was filed with appropriate stamp duty and supported by evidence – Held: Defendant permitted to proceed with counterclaim despite dismissal of original suit [Paras 2-4].

Counterclaim – Promissory Note and Deed of Undertaking – Execution Admitted – Counterclaim Decreed - Defendant relied on Ex.D1 (promissory note for ₹1.68 crores) and Ex.D2 (deed of undertaking) both executed by the plaintiff – Cheques issued by plaintiff were dishonoured and police complaint resulted in registration of FIR – Plaintiff did not appear to refute documents – Held: Counterclaim proved through oral and documentary evidence; decree granted as prayed for [Paras 3-4, 7-9].

Fraud and Misrepresentation – Plaintiff Misused Blank Signed Promissory Notes – FIR Registered – Supporting Evidence Marked - Defendant demonstrated that plaintiff had collected funds in a fraudulent scheme involving auctioned goods purportedly through the Central Excise Department – Supporting cheques and their dishonour established through Exs.D3 to D10 – Criminal proceedings under Sections 406 and 420 IPC pending – Held: Sufficient material to support counterclaim of misuse and liability [Paras 3-4, 7-9].

Law of Indemnity – Affirmation of Ownership and Inducement – Defendant Entitled to Recover Losses - Citing Adamson v. Jarvis (1827) 4 Bingham 66, court reiterated that a person misrepresenting authority or ownership and inducing another into transactions is liable to compensate – Held: Defendant entitled to recover loss from plaintiff under indemnity principles [Para 8].

Decision – Counterclaim Decreed – ₹1.68 Crores with Costs – Suit Dismissed – Judgment for Defendant - Plaintiff’s suit dismissed without trial – Defendant’s counterclaim allowed based on unrefuted evidence – Judgment and decree granted for ₹1.68 crores with costs [Para 9].