Partition – Preliminary Decree – Will – The appellant challenged the preliminary decree of partition favoring respondents based on a Will – High Court held the Will was duly proved, and the suit property devolved upon the respondents as per the Will – Appeal against the decree dismissed [Paras 1-28].

Will – Requirement of Probate – Delhi – Appellant’s contention that Will was not probated was rejected – High Court confirmed that probate is not mandatory in Delhi – Reliance on the Will for partition upheld [Paras 19-20].

Non-Joinder of Parties – Legal Heirs – The suit for partition was challenged for non-joinder of other legal heirs – High Court held that other legal heirs were neither necessary nor proper parties as they had not laid any claim to the suit property – Suit not affected by non-joinder [Paras 21-23].

Oral Partition – Fresh Decree – Appellant’s claim of an oral partition was dismissed – High Court noted no formal partition by metes and bounds had occurred – Preliminary decree of partition was correctly passed by the learned Single Judge [Paras 24-27].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Held – No merit in the appeal – Preliminary decree of partition and permanent injunction affirmed – Suit property to be partitioned equally between the appellant and respondents [Paras 28-29].

Jurisdiction – UK Court’s Jurisdiction – Appellant contested jurisdiction of the UK Court over claims based on two Personal Guarantees – UK Court’s jurisdiction affirmed due to service of process under Section 1140 of the English Companies Act, using the appellant’s registered address for service in UK – High Court of Delhi held UK Court had jurisdiction and judgment was enforceable in India under Section 44A of CPC [Paras 8-30].

Application of Foreign Law – Default Rule – UK Court applied UK law by default as appellant failed to plead or establish application of DIFC or Singapore law as stipulated in the Personal Guarantees – High Court of Delhi upheld this application of law under principles governing asymmetrical jurisdictional clauses [Paras 31-33].

Conclusive Judgment – Ex parte Judgments – UK Court’s summary judgment based on merits of evidence and principles similar to Order XIII-A of CPC – High Court of Delhi ruled such ex parte judgments are conclusive under Section 13 of CPC if decided on merits [Paras 34-40].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Held – Judgment of UK Court enforceable in India – Dismissal of objections to enforcement – High Court of Delhi emphasized the importance of compliance with statutory requirements and recognized the legitimacy of summary judgments given on merits by competent foreign courts [Para 41-42].

Sexual Harassment – Conviction and Appeal – The deceased appellant Sakthivel was accused of sexually harassing eight girl students aged 9 and 10 years in Solappadi Government Primary School. The allegations included inappropriate touching and pinching of the students. The trial court convicted Sakthivel under Section 7 read with Section 8 of the POCSO Act. However, the High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction due to inconsistencies and lack of clear evidence from the victims and witnesses, undermining the prosecution’s case [Paras 1-13].

Evidence – Witness Testimony – Reliability – The testimonies of the eight victims (P.W.1 to P.W.8) were found to be inconsistent and similar, raising doubts about their veracity and the possibility of tutoring. The Assistant Elementary Education Officer (P.W.13) and the Headmaster (P.W.14) did not receive any complaints of sexual nature during their initial investigations. The evidence presented did not satisfactorily establish the foundational facts required to invoke the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act [Paras 11-12].

Investigation – Procedural Deficiencies – The investigation revealed procedural lapses, including the delay in filing the complaint and inconsistencies in the testimonies of key witnesses. The medical examination of the victim did not corroborate the allegations of severe sexual harassment. The failure to provide a coherent and consistent account of the incidents significantly weakened the prosecution’s case [Paras 4-7].

Decision – Criminal Appeal Allowed – The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court. The court directed the refund of any fine amount paid by the legal heirs of the deceased appellant [Para 13-14].

Revenue Records – Correction of Entries – Appellants contested the correction of entries in revenue records by the Revenue Divisional Officer without an underlying order – Court examined procedural requirements under A.P Records of Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 – Held, an appeal under Section 5(4) of the Act must be against a specific order of the Tahsildar or Revenue Divisional Officer – Entries corrected without an underlying order can only be challenged under Section 9 of the Act – Order of Revenue Divisional Officer set aside – Direction given to approach Collector under Section 9 for rectification of entries [Paras 1-16].

Section 9 of the Act – Revision by Collector – Clarified procedural remedy for irregular changes in revenue records – Collector has the power to correct entries in records suo moto or on application – Status quo to be maintained until Collector’s decision [Para 13-15].

Decision – Writ appeal allowed – Order of Revenue Divisional Officer dated 31.03.2022 set aside – Appellants directed to seek remedy under Section 9 – District Collector to consider application within eight weeks – Status quo maintained [Para 16].

Property Dispute – Appointment of Advocate Commissioner – The petitioner filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction to restrain respondents from interfering with the possession of the suit property – Respondents claimed possession and existing constructions on the land, disputing the property description – During trial, respondents sought an Advocate Commissioner’s appointment for property demarcation and inspection – Trial court allowed the application – High Court upheld the trial court’s order, emphasizing the necessity of an Advocate Commissioner to resolve factual disputes about property possession and boundaries [Paras 1-11].

Scope of Advocate Commissioner – Evidence Collection – The High Court differentiated between the collection of evidence and clarification of facts essential for the suit – The appointment aimed at identifying physical features and existing structures, not gathering evidence per se – Upheld as a proper exercise of discretion [Paras 8-10].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition dismissed – Trial court’s order for Advocate Commissioner’s appointment upheld – No order as to costs – Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, dismissed [Para 11].

Arbitration – Ex-parte Interim Measures – Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is maintainable against an order granting or refusing ex-parte interim measures under Section 9, even if the application is before a Commercial Court. The scope for interference in such appeals is limited, and the appellate court must consider whether the ex-parte measure was necessary without prior notice to the other party [Paras 1-22].

Commercial Courts Act – Section 13(1-A) – Appeals in commercial disputes – The proviso to Section 13(1-A) does not bar appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The non-obstante clause in Section 37(1) allows appeals from orders granting or refusing any measure under Section 9 of the Act, 1996, including ex-parte interim orders [Paras 17-22].

Procedure – Interim Protection – Interim protection granted by the High Court to remain in force until the Section 9 application is decided by the Commercial Court. The interim order should not be seen as an indication of the merits of the case [Paras 30-34].

Decision: Appeal disposed of – Interim protection extended until the final disposal of the Section 9 application by the Commercial Court. Costs made easy [Para 34-35].

Custody of Child – Physical Presence – Writ petition against the trial court's order requiring the physical presence of the child – Trial court insisted on the child's presence on several dates – Father contended that the child can communicate via video conference and is currently residing in Guwahati – Mother's application for child's custody led to the impugned order – High Court upheld trial court's decision emphasizing the necessity of the child's interaction with the court for custody determination [Paras 1-6].

Jurisdiction and Compliance – Father argued lack of jurisdiction by Bangalore courts and child's refusal to come to Bangalore – High Court rejected jurisdictional challenge noting that the mother had moved to Bangalore with the child in June 2022 with father's consent – Father's failure to comply with court orders to produce the child noted – High Court found trial court's decision to interact with the child appropriate considering the child's age and circumstances [Paras 4-6].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Held – Father's non-compliance with court orders necessitates child's presence for proper custody determination – Trial court's order to produce the child upheld – Pending interlocutory applications closed [Para 6].

Constitutional Law – Right to Education – Amendment to Maharashtra RTE Rules – Petitioners challenge the amendment excluding private unaided schools from admitting children from disadvantaged groups if government/aided schools are within 1 km – Contention that the amendment violates the RTE Act and Article 21-A of the Constitution – High Court examines the legislative intent and statutory obligations under the RTE Act [Paras 1-29].

Statutory Interpretation – Subordinate Legislation – Legitimacy of Amendment Rules – Argument that the amendment overreaches Section 12(1)© of the RTE Act – High Court holds that subordinate legislation must conform to the principal act – Amendment deemed ultra vires as it contradicts mandatory provisions of the RTE Act [Paras 30-35].

Fundamental Rights – Right to Free and Compulsory Education – High Court emphasizes that the amendment impinges upon the fundamental right to education – Provision restricting private school admissions violates Article 21-A and is inconsistent with legislative objectives [Paras 36-40].

Administrative Law – Arbitrary and Unreasonable Provisions – Amendment challenged on grounds of arbitrariness – High Court finds the exclusion of private unaided schools arbitrary and contrary to the principles of equality and non-discrimination under Article 15(5) of the Constitution [Paras 41-45].

Decision: Writ Petitions Allowed – Held – The impugned Amendment Rules notified on February 9, 2024, are set aside – High Court directs the State Government to ensure compliance with Section 12(1)© of the RTE Act, including private unaided schools in admission of children from disadvantaged groups [Para 46].

Arbitration Award – Evidence and Perverse Findings – The appellant challenged an arbitral award of Rs. 60,00,000/- granted to the respondent for damage to cement bags due to waterlogging. The tribunal relied solely on the respondent’s letter (Exhibit ‘T’) dated January 7, 2005, while discarding two survey reports – one by the insurer’s surveyor and another by a court-appointed independent surveyor. The court found the tribunal’s reliance on the letter to be baseless and perverse as it lacked sufficient evidence to substantiate the claim [Paras 1-32].

Unilateral Claim – Lack of Proof – The tribunal’s decision to base the award on the respondent’s unilateral claim letter, which was vague and contradictory, was deemed arbitrary. No evidence was provided to verify the exact number of damaged cement bags or the amount of cement. The court emphasized that a unilateral claim cannot be considered proof without supporting evidence [Paras 22-32].

Rejection of Survey Reports – Justification – The arbitral tribunal rejected the insurer’s surveyor’s report for not being proved in evidence and the court-appointed surveyor’s report for lacking authenticity and sufficient justification. The court upheld these rejections as sound and based on valid reasoning [Paras 16-21].

Misapplication of Case Law – The tribunal’s reliance on Gambhirmull Mahabirprasad v. The Indian Bank Ltd. (AIR 1963 Cal 163) was found to be misplaced. The case involved scenarios where damages could not be accurately quantified, unlike the present case where the claim was fully quantifiable but lacked foundational evidence [Paras 28-29].

Decision: The application under Section 34 was allowed, setting aside the arbitral award dated February 2, 2011. The petitioner was granted leave to withdraw the secured sum of Rs. 97,46,400/- along with accrued interest [Paras 33-35].