Temporary Injunction – Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC – Trespasser vs. True Owner – Refusal of relief – Plaintiff sought injunction on basis of alleged long possession over Survey No.643; no sale deed or lawful title produced; Khasra entry of 1990–91 held baseless—Held: Injunction cannot be granted to protect unlawful possession against true owner; concurrent findings of Civil Court and Appellate Court upheld [Paras 14–20].

Revenue Entries – Section 115 MP Land Revenue Code – Collector’s permission mandatory – Orders quashed – SDO ordered correction of entries without Collector’s recommendation; appellate orders affirmed same—Held: Though findings justified on merits, procedure under Section 115 must be complied with; orders of 26.11.2019 and 05.04.2021 quashed; matter remanded to SDO to obtain Collector’s permission and pass fresh orders [Para 21].

Decision – M.P. No.1564/2022 dismissed (no injunction) – M.P. No.1722/2021 partly allowed by quashing revenue appellate orders; case remanded to SDO for fresh decision [Para 22].

Criminal Trial – Conviction for Grievous Hurt – Bite Mark Not Proved – Acquittal Granted – Petitioners were convicted under Sections 341, 323, 326, and 506 IPC for allegedly assaulting the complainant and biting off part of his ear – Trial Court and Sessions Court upheld conviction – Held: Medical evidence showed sharp, clean-cut wounds rather than abrasions typical of human bite – No bite pattern was observed – Medical testimony did not corroborate complainant’s version – Accused acquitted [Paras 17-21, 28].

Witness Credibility – Key Eyewitness Hostile – Corroboration Lacking – Prosecution relied on Amar Dass and Binda Ram as eyewitnesses – Binda Ram turned hostile and denied seeing the incident – Amar Dass’s testimony contradicted official records regarding location of FIR and hospital accompaniment – Held: His presence at the scene doubtful – Conviction cannot be based on uncorroborated testimony of related witness alone [Paras 22-24, 27].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Concurrent Findings Interfered – Errors in Appreciation of Evidence – Though the revisional scope is limited, the Court found perverse appreciation of evidence – Medical and ocular evidence failed to align – Non-examination of Investigating Officer and lack of forensic proof further weakened prosecution – Held: Findings of lower courts were unsustainable – Revision allowed [Paras 12-16, 29-33].

*Decision – Revision Allowed – Conviction Set Aside – Accused Acquitted – The High Court found the prosecution's case to suffer from material inconsistencies between medical and ocular evidence, absence of forensic confirmation, and unreliable witness testimony – Held: Courts below erred in convicting the accused – Their findings were perverse and unsupported by the record – Accused Shammi Kapoor and Rajinder Kumar acquitted of all charges [Paras 32-34].

Family Law - Maintenance – Widow’s Right – Estate of Father-in-Law – Enforceable Right – The Appellant, a widowed daughter-in-law, claimed maintenance from the estate of her predeceased father-in-law – The Family Court dismissed the petition as non-maintainable under Section 22 of HAMA – Held: Under Sections 19(1), 21(vii), 22(2), and 28 of HAMA, a widowed daughter-in-law has a statutory right to claim maintenance from her father-in-law’s estate in absence of other means – Appeal allowed; order of Family Court set aside [Paras 1-3, 6-10].

Statutory Interpretation – HAMA is a Welfare Legislation – Liberal and Purposeful Construction – The Court emphasized that HAMA must be interpreted in a manner advancing social protection to vulnerable dependants like widowed daughters-in-law – The right of maintenance survives as an enforceable claim against the estate and transferees under Section 28 – Held: Narrow interpretation would defeat the object and intent of the statute [Paras 8, 11-12].

Definition of Dependant – Section 21(vii) of HAMA – Applicability – The Court held that the term “dependant” under Section 21(vii) includes the widow of a son, entitled to maintenance from the estate of her father-in-law, provided she has no other source of maintenance – Held: Her claim survives against legal heirs who inherited the estate [Paras 6-7, 10].

Family Court Judgment – Error of Law – Incorrect Interpretation of Section 22 – The Family Court wrongly held the claim to be barred under Section 22 – The High Court clarified that Section 22 enables enforcement of maintenance claims against heirs who inherited estate from the deceased, and does not bar claims under Section 19 against the estate – Held: Impugned judgment set aside [Paras 5, 10].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Family Court Directed to Expedite Disposal – The High Court remanded the matter for further proceedings and assessment of maintenance quantum – Held: Appeal disposed of with directions for early disposal [Paras 14-16].

Civil Writ – Land Acquisition - Industrial Land Allotment – Original Sanction for Petitioner – Acquisition Under Section 28 of KIAD Act – Petitioner’s Rights Recognized - Petitioner was sanctioned land by KIADB in 2001 for setting up a Software Park and had made partial payment; however, due to landowner litigations and writ appeals, final handover was delayed – Despite pendency, KIADB reassigned the same lands to private respondents without notice or cancellation of petitioner’s allotment – Held: No cancellation of petitioner’s allotment was formally communicated, making subsequent allotments improper [Paras 2–6, 13].

Failure of Authority – Lack of Due Process – Violation of Fairness – Notice Not Issued - Respondents failed to issue prior notice to the petitioner regarding cancellation or reassignment – No material placed showing demand for balance payment – Such action held to be procedurally unfair and violative of petitioner’s rights [Paras 13–14].

Irreversibility of Transactions – Compensation Already Paid – Realistic Relief Granted – Equity Considered - Private respondents deposited ₹42.9 crores as compensation and acquired consent from landowners – Court held that reversal would create irreparable consequences – Hence, directed identification and allotment of alternative 20 acres to petitioner at 2003–04 rates [Paras 14

Civil Writ – Land Acquisition - Industrial Land Allotment – Original Sanction for Petitioner – Acquisition Under Section 28 of KIAD Act – Petitioner’s Rights Recognized - Petitioner was sanctioned land by KIADB in 2001 for setting up a Software Park and had made partial payment; however, due to landowner litigations and writ appeals, final handover was delayed – Despite pendency, KIADB reassigned the same lands to private respondents without notice or cancellation of petitioner’s allotment – Held: No cancellation of petitioner’s allotment was formally communicated, making subsequent allotments improper [Paras 2–6, 13].

Failure of Authority – Lack of Due Process – Violation of Fairness – Notice Not Issued - Respondents failed to issue prior notice to the petitioner regarding cancellation or reassignment – No material placed showing demand for balance payment – Such action held to be procedurally unfair and violative of petitioner’s rights [Paras 13–14].

Irreversibility of Transactions – Compensation Already Paid – Realistic Relief Granted – Equity Considered - Private respondents deposited ₹42.9 crores as compensation and acquired consent from landowners – Court held that reversal would create irreparable consequences – Hence, directed identification and allotment of alternative 20 acres to petitioner at 2003–04 rates [Paras 14–17].

Decision – Writ Petition Partly Allowed – Allotment in Favour of Private Respondents Not Quashed – Direction Issued for Alternative Allotment to Petitioner - Court directed the authorities to allot 20 acres of land in a nearby industrial area within six months at historical rates – Relief balanced between petitioner’s entitlement and irreversible developments [Para 17].

–17].

Decision – Writ Petition Partly Allowed – Allotment in Favour of Private Respondents Not Quashed – Direction Issued for Alternative Allotment to Petitioner - Court directed the authorities to allot 20 acres of land in a nearby industrial area within six months at historical rates – Relief balanced between petitioner’s entitlement and irreversible developments [Para 17].

Civil Law  – Challenge to ex parte specific performance decree of 1976 – Fraud and guardian’s gross negligence alleged – Dismissal Affirmed – Suit O.S. No.165/1985 sought to avoid O.S. No.296/1975 decree on grounds of fraud/misrepresentation and guardian’s negligence, with consequential possession – Held: Appellant failed to prove fraud or gross negligence – Trial Court’s dismissal upheld – Appeal dismissed [Paras 3, 17, 34–36].

Minors – Guardian’s alleged gross negligence – Appointment under O.32 R.3 CPC – No specific, cogent proof – Pleas Bald – Negligence Not Established – Record showed father was appointed guardian; defendants engaged counsel; one brother was major; no objections by parents at the time; appellant’s own evidence acknowledged father’s role and support – Held: Gross negligence not proved – Point No.1 answered against appellant [Paras 18–21, 27, 33–34].

Fraud/Misrepresentation – Burden of Proof – Ex parte decree preceded by notices and counsel representation – No independent evidence of fraud – Finding: No Fraud – Grandfather admitted agreement and delivery of possession in reply notice; defendants’ counsel filed vakalat; ex parte decree followed defendants’ absence – Held: Fraud/misrepresentation not proved – Points 2–4 against appellant [Paras 21–23, 35].

Specific Performance – Deposit of Balance Consideration – Set‑off via Memo – Compliance Sufficient – Executing Court order upheld in C.R.P. No.1070/1989 – Appellant precluded from re‑agitating – Plaintiff in O.S. 296/1975 filed memo within one month to set‑off Rs.2,648.25 against costs – Held: Treated as sufficient compliance; revision dismissed – Appellant cannot contend non‑deposit [Paras 24, 29].

Part Performance – Section 53‑A TPA – Possession under Agreement – Alienees’ Protection – Trial framed issue on Sec.53‑A; on facts, plaintiff not entitled to declaration/possession – Appellate Court found no basis to disturb Trial Court view – Outcome: No interference [Issues & final findings; Paras “Issues”, 35–36].

Maintainability – Separate Suit to Avoid Decree where Party to Earlier Suit – Proper Remedy is before same court or superior forum – Principle reiterated with reference to ALT authorities – Outcome: Appellant’s challenge untenable in collateral suit posture [Para 32].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – No interference warranted with Trial Court’s dismissal of suit – Parties to bear own costs – Miscellaneous petitions closed [Paras 35–36].

Bail – SC/ST Act – Deprived Scheduled Caste Accused – Applicability of Act in Question - Appellant sought bail contending he also belonged to Scheduled Caste and was not individually attributed with caste-based insult – Held: Appellant belongs to Khatik caste (notified as Deprived Scheduled Caste), and no specific role or caste abuse attributed to him – Applicability of SC/ST Act to his case is arguable – Bail granted [Paras 3, 7].

Regular Bail – Delay in Arrest – No Specific Role or Weapon – Custody Held Unnecessary - The appellant was arrested 425 days after FIR registration – No specific injury or weapon attributed to him – Court held that continued incarceration would serve no purpose – Charges under IPC triable by Magistrate – Bail allowed [Paras 3, 7].

Prima Facie Consideration – Trial Court Ignored Material Factors – Bail Rejected Erroneously - Trial Court failed to consider appellant’s caste status, absence of specific allegations, and non-depiction in CCTV footage – Held: These were relevant mitigating factors – Order rejecting bail set aside [Paras 3, 7].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Bail Granted – Impugned Order Set Aside - The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Additional Sessions Judge dated 12.06.2025, and granted regular bail to the appellant, subject to furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court [Para 7].

Civil Appeal – Dispute Over Sale Agreement – Presumption under Section 118 of NI Act Rebutted – Appeal Allowed - Plaintiff alleged payment of ₹52,40,120/- under an oral agreement for return of sale consideration, supported by three cheques allegedly issued as acknowledgment – Trial court presumed consideration under Section 118 of the NI Act and decreed suit – Held: Plaintiff's version of payment lacked credibility, cheques not issued in discharge of liability, and no independent proof of payments made – Presumption rebutted – Suit dismissed [Paras 9-21].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Burden of Proof – Section 118(a) – Presumption Not Available Where Consideration Disproved - Plaintiff pleaded a specific form of consideration that was not reflected in the cheques and failed to prove it – Once plaintiff alleges a consideration different from that mentioned in the instrument, presumption under Section 118(a) ceases to apply – Citing K.P.O. Moideenkutty Hajee v. Pappu Manjooran – Held: Plaintiff must prove liability independent of presumption – Failed to discharge burden [Paras 19-21].

Appellate Review – Evaluation of Evidence – Improbable Transactions and Witness Unreliable – Trial Court Judgment Set Aside - Evidence including testimony of a daily-wage employee was unreliable – No source of funds shown by plaintiff – Failure to explain why seller would issue cheques for amounts received – Trial court findings held perverse – Decree set aside and suit dismissed [Paras 17-22].

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Section 420 IPC – Prima Facie Allegations Established – Petition Dismissed – Petitioner, formerly Credit Manager with a finance company, challenged FIR alleging fraudulent loan sanction for a slum property – FIR detailed petitioner’s active role in approval process, despite knowing that loan violated internal norms – Held: FIR discloses commission of cognizable offence and cannot be quashed at threshold – No case made out under Bhajan Lal principles – Petition dismissed [Paras 1-5, 9].

Scope of Interference – Section 482 CrPC – FIR Cannot Be Quashed When Allegations Disclose Offence – Reliance on Supreme Court precedents including Neeharika Infrastructure and Bhajan Lal – Court reiterated that quashing jurisdiction is to be exercised sparingly – Where the FIR discloses prima facie case, Courts must allow investigation to proceed – Question of facts and involvement of petitioner to be decided in trial – Interim protection vacated [Paras 5-8].

Role of Petitioner – Credit Approval and Internal Processes – Petitioner’s Argument Rejected – Plea that approval was conditional on legal and technical clearance was held untenable – Petitioner’s role in sanctioning loan based on appraisal memo evident – Court held that facts warrant full investigation and trial, not quashing at threshold [Paras 6-7].

Cited Precedents – Bhajan Lal and Neeharika Infrastructure – Not Applicable – Petitioner’s reliance on these cases and a 2023 Bombay High Court decision found to be misplaced – Facts of cited cases distinguished as petitioner in this case had active role in the impugned loan transaction [Para 8].

Final Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Protection granted earlier stands vacated – No costs imposed – Trial proceedings may continue in accordance with law [Para 9].

Matrimonial Law - Divorce and Restitution of Conjugal Rights – Allegations of Cruelty and Desertion – Appeals Dismissed – Appellant/Husband challenged the Family Court’s common order dismissing his divorce petition and allowing the respondent/wife’s petition for restitution of conjugal rights – Allegations of mental, financial, and emotional cruelty were not supported by evidence – Claims of desertion disproved by continued cohabitation and reconciliation efforts – Family Court’s finding of condonation under Section 23(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act upheld – Appellate Court affirmed that no extraordinary circumstances existed to warrant dissolution of marriage – Appeals and all connected IAs dismissed [Paras 1-3, 10-12, 44-55].

Divorce – Allegation of Cruelty – No Evidence – Divorce Denied – Vague and unsubstantiated claims of financial cruelty, inappropriate behaviour by respondent’s relatives, and vague allegations regarding joint accounts and jewellery failed to establish cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act – No medical or documentary proof submitted – Acts allegedly constituting cruelty were either condoned or unrelated to the respondent – Divorce rightly denied [Paras 13-22, 45-48, 54].

Cruelty and Condonation – Section 23(1)(b), Hindu Marriage Act – Continued Cohabitation Negates Cruelty Claim – Appellant cohabited with respondent and children even after filing for divorce, took holidays and attempted reconciliation – Such conduct amounts to condonation – Bar under Section 23(1)(b) applicable – Divorce petition defeated on that ground alone [Paras 44-47].

Desertion – No Continuous Two-Year Separation – Divorce Denied – Appellant failed to prove desertion as defined under Section 13(1)(ib) – Family interactions and cohabitation up to 2017 disproved continuous separation – No legal ground made out for divorce based on desertion [Para 19].

Restitution of Conjugal Rights – Reconciliation Admitted – Decree Upheld – Evidence showed appellant was willing to settle and rejoin family – No legal ground to deny wife’s petition for restitution – Family Court’s decree confirmed as reasonable and lawful [Paras 36-38, 54].

Additional Evidence – Partition Suit – Rejected Under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC – Attempt to introduce partition suit documents and sale deeds during appeal disallowed – Appellant had opportunity during trial but failed to act – No due diligence shown – No exceptional ground made out under CPC – IAs dismissed [Paras 25-35].

Allegation of Judicial Bias – Reconciliation Duty of Judge – Objection Rejected – No objection raised during trial to judge conducting reconciliation – Family Court Judge acted under Section 9 of Family Courts Act – Appellant participated in proceedings without protest – Late objection rejected as baseless [Paras 39-43].

Decision – Both appeals dismissed – No cruelty or desertion proved – Restitution of conjugal rights rightly granted – No merit in additional evidence or bias claims – Interim applications dismissed – No costs [Paras 54-55].