Criminal Law – Bail - PMLA – Scheduled Offence – Gambling vs. Cheating – Applicant argued gambling is not a scheduled offence – Held: While gambling is not scheduled, the act of obtaining KYC documents from victims by promising jobs (Cheating - S. 318 BNS) and using them to open bank accounts (Forgery - S. 338, 340 BNS) constitutes scheduled offences – The criminal activity of cheating/forgery was integral to laundering the gambling money – [Paras 10, 11].

Criminal Law – PMLA – Proceeds of Crime – Section 2(1)(u) – Money generated from gambling was deposited in shell accounts opened via scheduled offences (cheating/forgery) – Held: The funds withdrawn from these accounts became "tainted" due to the criminal overlay of forgery/cheating used to process them – Thus, they qualify as proceeds of crime – [Para 11, 12].

Criminal Law – Bail – Section 45 PMLA – Strong prima facie case exists against the applicant for active involvement in opening shell accounts and withdrawing cash – Twin conditions for bail not satisfied – Possibility of tampering with evidence – [Para 14].

Decision: Bail Application rejected.

Civil Law - Partition – Joint Family Property – Claim by Daughters – Dismissal of Suit – Plaintiffs (daughters) sought 1/7th share in ancestral and purchased properties claiming fraudulent alienation by brother (Defendant No.1) – Courts below found that partition of ancestral property had occurred in 1966 via registered deed – Plaintiffs failed to challenge partition or subsequent settlement/consolidation records despite knowledge – Held: No co-parcenary or joint ownership subsisted – Suit rightly dismissed [Paras 5–10, 17–18].

Hindu Succession Act – Section 6 – Reopening of Partition – Not Permissible – Partition occurred prior to 20.12.2004 – Plaintiffs relied on amended Section 6 to seek reopening – Held: Explanation to Section 6 bars reopening of partitions effected before 2005 amendment – Appeal court correctly held that plaintiffs’ claim not maintainable on this ground [Paras 10, 22].

Limitation – Date of Knowledge – Article 59 – Plaintiffs alleged cause of action arose in 2013 when brother threatened to sell property – However, settlement and consolidation records were finalized in 1977 and 1982 and never challenged – No specific plea or proof of date of knowledge of RORs – Held: Vague assertion of threat in 2013 insufficient – Suit barred by limitation under Articles 59 and 110 of Limitation Act [Paras 18, 22].

Civil Procedure – Non-joinder of Parties – Legal Heirs of Other Branch Not Necessary – Defendants argued that non-joinder of successors of common ancestor’s second son rendered suit defective – Held: Plaintiffs confined claim to properties allotted to their own father’s branch – No relief sought against other branch – Non-joinder not fatal [Para 17].

Civil Courts’ Jurisdiction – Bar under Consolidation and OEA Laws – Validity of Settlement and OEA Proceedings – Plaintiffs sought to invalidate RORs and settlements finalized decades earlier – Held: Section 59 of OCH & PFL Act and bar under OEA Act applicable – None of the exceptions laid down in Gulzar Khan v. Commissioner of Consolidation, 1993 (II) OLR 194, attracted – Civil court has no jurisdiction to re-open finalized consolidation or OEA decisions [Paras 18, 21, 22].

Sale Deed – Challenge to Alienation by Co-sharer – Defendant No.1 sold Schedule-B land to Defendant No.3 in 2012 – Plaintiffs sought cancellation alleging lack of consent – Held: Defendant No.1 had exclusive title as per RORs and earlier partition – Sale valid – Suit rightly dismissed [Paras 19–20, 22].

Criminal Law - Anticipatory Bail – Maintainability Before High Court – Concurrent jurisdiction of Sessions Court and High Court – Applicant directly approached High Court without first applying before Sessions Court – Applicant not residing within jurisdiction of Sessions Court where FIR lodged – Held: Petition maintainable under Clause 26(B) of Full Bench decision in Ankit Bharti v. State of U.P. [Paras 2–4]

Freedom of Speech – Social Media Posts – Applicant’s tweets following Pahalgam terror attack criticized Government’s response and Prime Minister’s political rally – FIR alleged tweets incited communal disharmony and defamed the nation – Applicant argued protection under Article 19(1)(a) – Held: Freedom of expression subject to reasonable restrictions – Tweets posted during a sensitive national crisis and widely circulated internationally, including in Pakistan – Cannot claim blanket protection under Article 19(1)(a) [Paras 5–10, 17–18]

Criminal Law – Sedition-like Offences under New Law – Applicant charged under Section 152 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (replacing repealed Section 124A IPC) – Held: Prima facie assessment of charges not permissible at bail stage – Supreme Court has granted liberty to raise all defences at stage of framing of charge – High Court bound by Article 141 not to interfere [Paras 7–10, 20]

Judicial Discipline – Binding Effect of Supreme Court Orders – Applicant’s SLP challenging rejection of writ petition dismissed by Supreme Court with liberty to raise issues at appropriate stage – Held: High Court bound by Supreme Court’s direction and cannot pre-emptively assess merits of FIR or charges [Paras 11–12, 20]

Investigation – Non-Cooperation by Applicant – Despite specific directions by High Court and opportunity given by Investigating Officer, applicant failed to appear and evaded investigation – Police reports indicated frequent change of residence – Held: Applicant’s conduct shows lack of bona fides and disentitles her to discretionary relief of anticipatory bail [Paras 13, 19]

Decision: Anticipatory bail application rejected – Court held it is not a fit case for granting relief under Section 482 BNSS – Applicant at liberty to apply for discharge or raise objections at the stage of framing of charge, as directed by Supreme Court [Para 21]

Criminal Law – Common Intention – Acquittal – Appellant Raj Bala convicted under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 IPC for allegedly firing at injured Kailash during a group assault where another accused had fired fatal shot – Trial court relied on ocular evidence but injury report (Exh. Ka-20) showed no firearm injury – Medical evidence inconsistent with prosecution’s version – Held: Common intention not proved – No evidence of premeditation, meeting of minds or active participation by appellant – Conviction under Section 34 IPC unsustainable [Paras 14–20, 25–30]

Evidence Law – Contradiction between Medical and Ocular Evidence – Medical report by PW-7 showed injuries were simple, caused by hard and blunt object – No X-ray report submitted for injury kept under observation – Doctor not certain about firearm involvement – Court held this contradiction casts serious doubt on prosecution’s case and undermines charge of firing by appellant [Paras 19–21, 26]

Presumption of Guilt – Mere Presence at Scene – Trial court erred in holding appellant guilty solely on her presence at the crime scene and alleged relationship with co-accused – Supreme Court precedents cited (Surendra Singh, Chandra Pratap Singh) reiterate that presence alone, without proven common intention, is not enough to invoke Section 34 IPC [Paras 15, 24, 27–30]

Benefit of Doubt – Acquittal – Court found prosecution failed to establish key ingredients for vicarious liability under Section 34 IPC – Absence of overt act, lack of evidence of firearm use by appellant, and doubt regarding motive led to acquittal – Court set aside conviction and sentence, extended benefit of doubt to appellant [Paras 33–38]

Decision: Criminal appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence of appellant Raj Bala under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted – Bail bond cancelled – Sureties discharged [Paras 36–39]

Civil Law – Dismissal of Suit for Default – Simultaneous Proceedings – Suit dismissed for non-appearance on 19.10.2016 when plaintiff was attending proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act – Appellant had earlier moved an exemption application anticipating scheduling conflict – Held: Plaintiff demonstrated bona fide conduct and presence before Magistrate Court on same day established by records – Sufficient cause shown under Order IX Rule 9 CPC – Dismissal set aside [Paras 3, 5.2, 9, 10, 13]

Limitation – Restoration Application – Delay of One Month – Explanation Offered – Plaintiff sought certified copy after learning of dismissal and approached legal aid – Application filed shortly after limitation period – Held: Delay not inordinate or unexplained – Sufficiently explained and condonable [Paras 11, 12, 13]

Legal Representation – Counsel's Lapse – Effect on Litigant – Plaintiff’s earlier counsel failed to appear – Court held that parties should not be penalised for lapses of counsel when sufficient effort shown – Plaintiff had previously appeared and actively pursued the matter – Restoration directed [Paras 5.2, 13, 14]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Orders dated 19.10.2016 and 28.08.2017 set aside – Suit restored to file – Proceedings to continue on merits – No opinion expressed on merits of the case [Paras 14, 15]

Easement of Necessity – Access Road – Plaintiffs sought declaration of easement of necessity and permanent injunction for a 10-feet wide road across defendant’s land (marked PQRS) – Trial Court found existence of necessity but held 10 feet width excessive – Decreed 3 feet wide pathway and granted injunction – First Appellate Court upheld the decree – High Court held that plaintiffs, being agriculturists, required access wide enough for bullock cart and transport of produce – Held: Easement of necessity granted with 6 feet width instead of 3 feet – Judgment and decree of lower courts modified accordingly [Paras 1–12].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Judgment and decree of Trial Court and First Appellate Court modified to grant plaintiffs easementary right over a 6 feet wide pathway – Rest of the decree remains undisturbed.

Arbitration Law – Contract Interpretation – Rebate for Damaged Buses – Petitioner claimed rebate for 966 damaged buses – Held: The contract was for the "fleet" of buses available, not necessarily buses actually plying. Clause 1.1.1 of Schedule-VI specifically stated that 100% of buses may not be on road due to maintenance and no claims could be raised. The Arbitrator's interpretation that no rebate was contractually due is a plausible view and does not warrant interference under Section 34. [Paras 30-33]

Arbitration Law – Public Policy – Interest on Interest – Respondent claimed interest on delayed payment charges – Held: The contract provided for delayed payment charges (which are essentially penal interest). Awarding further 18% interest on these charges amounts to "interest on interest" and is ambiguous/confusing under the contract terms. Such an award is contrary to the fundamental policy of Indian law and is set aside. [Paras 44-47]

Contract Law – Penalty vs. Reasonable Compensation – Defacement Charges – Section 74 Contract Act – Respondent claimed penalty of Rs. 1000/day/bus for non-removal of ads – Held: The stipulated amount was a penalty. The Respondent failed to prove actual loss or expenditure incurred for removing advertisements. Awarding the entire penalty amount without proof of loss violates Section 74 of the Contract Act and the ratio in Kailash Nath Associates. Award set aside on this count. [Paras 60-63]

Decision: Petition partly allowed. Award modified: Counter-claims for interest on delayed payments and defacement charges set aside. Award for RTO fees confirmed. Costs reduced. [Para 67]

Constitutional Law – Writ of Quo Warranto – Disqualification of Member of Parliament – Effect of Stay of Conviction – Petitioner sought Quo Warranto against Respondent No. 1 (Rahul Gandhi) on the ground of disqualification under Article 102 r/w Section 8(3) of the RP Act due to conviction in a defamation case – Held: Once the conviction is stayed by the Appellate Court (Supreme Court in this case), the disqualification arising out of such conviction ceases to operate from the date of the stay order. The conviction becomes non-operative, and the bar under Section 8(3) does not apply during the pendency of the appeal. – Writ Petition dismissed. [Paras 13, 16-17]

Election Law – Disqualification upon Conviction – Distinction between Stay of Sentence and Stay of Conviction – Held: There is a fundamental distinction between the stay of execution of sentence and the stay of conviction. Mere stay of sentence/bail does not wipe out the disqualification. However, when the conviction itself is stayed by the High Court or Supreme Court under Section 389 CrPC or inherent powers, the disqualification is kept in abeyance and the individual is not debarred from holding public office. [Para 13]

Decision: The writ petition is dismissed. [Para 20]

Taxation Law - International Taxation – Service Permanent Establishment (PE) – Calculation of Threshold Period – Article 5(6)(a) of India-Singapore DTAA – Assessee, a Singapore legal firm, had employees present in India for 120 days – Assessee claimed exclusion of vacation days (36), business development days (35), and common days (5) – Held: To constitute a Service PE, services must be "furnished within" the contracting state. Vacation days where no work is performed, and business development days where no billable services are rendered to clients, must be excluded from the threshold calculation. Excluding these, the period was 84 days, falling below the 90-day threshold. No Service PE constituted. [Paras 38-40]

International Taxation – Virtual Service PE – Interpretation of Treaty – Revenue argued for "Virtual Service PE" due to remote services provided from outside India – Held: The concept of "Virtual Service PE" is not expressly provided in the India-Singapore DTAA. Article 5(6) requires services to be furnished "within" India "through employees present". Courts cannot read new concepts into the treaty which are not explicitly included. Until the treaty is renegotiated to include virtual services, existing provisions must be strictly interpreted. [Paras 42-46, 49]

Decision: Appeals dismissed. Questions of law answered in favour of the Assessee. [Para 62]