Tenancy Law - Cultivating Tenants Protection – Fixation of Arrears – Jurisdiction of Revenue Court – Tenant filed petition only seeking permission to deposit rent – Despite memo not pressing the petition, Revenue Court unilaterally determined arrears of Rs.93,418/- based on market value of paddy and revenue reports – Held, fixation of fair rent can be done only by the competent authority under the Puducherry Cultivating Tenants Payment of Fair Rent Act, 1970 – Revenue Court lacked jurisdiction – Order dated 08.09.1999 held a nullity [Paras 21–27].

Counsel’s Concession – Binding Nature – Alleged consent by tenant’s counsel to determination of arrears contrary to statute and contract – Held, counsel has no authority to surrender substantive rights or make concessions on questions of law – Such concession neither binds the client nor cures lack of jurisdiction – Reliance placed on Supreme Court precedent [Paras 26–27].

Eviction for Non-Payment of Rent – Section 3(4)(b), Puducherry Cultivating Tenants Protection Act – Mandatory Opportunity – Before ordering eviction, Revenue Court bound to grant reasonable time to tenant to deposit arrears – Tenant filed multiple applications expressing readiness to pay arrears – Applications kept pending for 20–28 years and dismissed mechanically along with eviction petition – Statutory mandate violated – Eviction order vitiated [Paras 28–30].

Abandonment of Cultivation – Pleadings and Proof – No plea by landlord alleging abandonment – Revenue Court suo motu relied on Tahsildar’s report and wrongly treated it as admission by tenant – Evidence without pleadings impermissible – Finding of abandonment held perverse and unsustainable [Paras 31–32, 38].

Beneficial Legislation – Interpretation – Puducherry Cultivating Tenants Protection Act is a welfare statute intended to protect cultivating tenants from unjust eviction – Courts must adopt liberal and tenant-oriented interpretation – Revenue Court failed to keep in view objects of the Act and scheme for fixation of fair rent – Eviction order set aside [Paras 24, 29, 34–35].

Legal Representatives of Cultivating Tenant – Status – Landlord himself impleaded legal heirs of deceased cultivating tenant – Revenue records showed cultivation by deceased tenant and his son – Objection that legal representatives are not cultivating tenants rejected – Petitioners entitled to protection under the Act [Paras 33, 37].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition allowed – Order dated 29.11.2023 in PCTPA.No.1 of 2001 set aside – Petitioners directed to deposit entire arrears of rent payable strictly in terms of the contract within eight weeks – On such deposit, possession to be restored within one week – Liberty reserved to respondents to initiate fresh eviction proceedings in accordance with law – No costs – Connected CMP closed.

Land Acquisition – Negotiated Compensation – Section 29(2) KIAD Act – Finality of Settlement – Petitioner accepted compensation through negotiation and executed agreement and indemnity bond under Section 29(2) KIAD Act – Compensation included market value, solatium, additional market value and interest – Held: Once compensation accepted in full and final settlement, claimant estopped from seeking further compensation or alternative reliefs such as allotment of sites [Paras 45–47].

Suppression of Material Facts – Acceptance of Compensation – Writ Jurisdiction – Petitioner failed to disclose receipt of ₹51,36,250/- towards compensation – Suppression of material facts disentitles petitioner from discretionary relief under Articles 226 and 227 – Writ petition liable to be dismissed on this ground alone [Paras 45–46].

Bangalore–Mysuru Infrastructure Corridor Project – Framework Agreement (FWA) – Binding Nature – FWA dated 03.04.1997 read with Project Technical Report (PTR) governs entire project – Project proponents entitled to develop only five demarcated self-sustaining townships – Any deviation impermissible without prior approval of State Government – Land acquired can be used only in conformity with FWA and PTR [Paras 56–62, 71–74].

Allotment of Sites to Land Losers – Contrary to FWA – Not Permissible – Claim for allotment of residential sites as compensation outside notified townships rejected – Such allotment would defeat integrated nature of infrastructure corridor and violate binding contractual framework – No enforceable promise shown for allotment of sites [Paras 68–74].

Effect of Supreme Court Judgment – BMICAP v. NICE (2021) 18 SCC 401 – Supreme Court authoritatively held that project proponents cannot develop land or layouts beyond five townships specified in FWA – Planning authorities lack jurisdiction to permit deviations without prior State approval – High Court bound by said declaration of law – Claims inconsistent with FWA/PTR not maintainable [Paras 56–62, 68–74].

Delay and Laches – Long Silence After Acquisition – Acquisition notifications issued in 1998 and 2003 – Compensation paid in 2007 – Writ petition pursued belatedly for additional benefits without explanation – Relief rightly declined on ground of delay and acquiescence [Paras 45–47].

Public Infrastructure Projects – Courts Not to Rewrite Contracts – Courts cannot compel State or project proponents to grant benefits not contemplated under statutory framework or binding agreements – Equity cannot override express contractual and statutory limitations governing large infrastructure projects [Paras 71–74].

Observations on BMIC Project – Public Interest – Court recorded serious concern over failure of BMIC Project to achieve objectives of decongestion and township development – Directed State Government to re-examine viability and future of project – However, such observations do not confer individual rights contrary to law [Paras 75–78].

Decision – Writ petition dismissed – Claim for allotment of sites and further compensation rejected – No relief granted – Pending applications disposed of [Para 79].

Civil Law  – Order 9 Rule 7 CPC – Nature of Relief – Discretionary and Equitable – Application for setting aside ex parte proceedings is not a matter of right – Applicant must establish “good cause” for non-appearance on date when proceeded ex parte – Unlike Order IX Rule 13, Rule 7 does not confer vested right to reopen proceedings – Discretion must be exercised on conduct of party and surrounding circumstances [Paras 10, 16].

Limitation – Article 137 Limitation Act – Applicability to Order IX Rule 7 CPC – Though CPC does not prescribe specific limitation, residuary Article 137 applies to all applications before civil courts unless expressly excluded – Period of three years cannot be rendered meaningless by prolonged inaction – Application filed after more than five years held barred by limitation and laches [Paras 11–14].

Service of Summons – Order V Rule 15 CPC – Validity of Service on Family Member – Summons served on petitioner’s father at correct address – Minor discrepancy in petitioner’s name not material where identity established – Process server reported prior conversation with petitioner and acceptance of summons by father at petitioner’s responsibility – Service held valid and in compliance with procedural requirements [Paras 7, 9].

Knowledge of Proceedings – Conduct of Party – Estoppel – Material on record showed petitioner’s prior knowledge of pendency of suit – Compromise entered before police authorities bearing petitioner’s signature acknowledging civil dispute and next date of hearing – Plea of lack of knowledge rejected as afterthought and attempt to mislead Court [Paras 8–9].

Delay and Laches – Equitable Relief Denied – Ex parte order passed on 10.01.2020 – Application under Order IX Rule 7 filed on 02.09.2025 without satisfactory explanation – Gross and unexplained delay destructive of equitable relief – Courts cannot reward deliberate inaction [Paras 14–15].

Stage of Proceedings – Prejudice to Opposite Party – Suit had progressed to stage of defendants’ evidence – Allowing belated application would unsettle concluded proceedings – Procedural discipline must be maintained to ensure certainty in civil trials [Para 15].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope – No Interference with Discretionary Orders – High Court’s revisional power limited to correcting jurisdictional error, perversity or material illegality – Trial Court exercised discretion on cogent material and settled principles – Mere possibility of different view no ground for interference [Paras 16–17].

Balancing Natural Justice – Limited Participation Permitted – Though revision dismissed, petitioner permitted to participate in further proceedings – Such participation not to reopen concluded stages – Petitioner barred from filing written statement or leading evidence [Para 18].

Decision – Civil revision dismissed – Order rejecting application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC upheld – No perversity or illegality found – Limited participation allowed in interest of natural justice without reopening proceedings [Paras 17–18].

Criminal Law – Grievous Hurt – Conviction under Section 325 IPC – Reliability of Injured Witness – Sentence Modified – Appellants convicted by Trial Court for causing grievous hurt to victim by assaulting him with wooden stick and bicycle pump – Prosecution case supported by injured eyewitness (P.W.2), independent eyewitnesses and medical evidence – Defence contended inconsistencies regarding weapon used and role of accused – Held: Evidence of injured witness carries greater evidentiary value and inspires confidence – Minor discrepancies as to number of assailants or nature of weapon do not discredit core prosecution case – Conviction upheld [Paras …].

Evidence – Injured Eyewitness – Legal Principles – Statement of injured witness corroborated by medical evidence and eyewitnesses – No material contradictions elicited in cross-examination – Reliance placed on Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra – Held: Presence and testimony of injured witness cannot be doubted unless serious infirmities exist – Broad substratum of prosecution case to be accepted [Paras …].

Medical Evidence – Corroboration – Doctors (P.W.9 and P.W.12) proved grievous head injuries including fracture – Injury reports consistent with assault by hard and blunt objects – Seized weapons produced and proved – Medical evidence lends assurance to ocular testimony [Paras …].

Sentence – Reduction – Long Lapse of Time – Ends of Justice – Incident dated 12.06.2008 – Appellants already suffered custody for more than one month – After lapse of nearly 17½ years, sending appellants back to prison would serve no useful purpose – Sentence of two years’ simple imprisonment reduced to period already undergone – Conditional bond under Section 106(4) Cr.P.C. directed for two years [Paras …].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Section 325 IPC affirmed – Sentence modified to period already undergone subject to furnishing bond – Appeal disposed of.

Motor Vehicles Act – Section 163A – Maintainability of Claim – Income Limit under Second Schedule – Tribunal dismissed claim holding annual income of deceased exceeded ₹40,000/- by including daily fooding allowance – High Court held that allowance paid exclusively for personal benefit of employee cannot be treated as contribution to family – Fooding allowance of ₹150 per day excluded from income computation – Annual income restricted to ₹39,600/- – Claim under Section 163A held maintainable [Paras 11, 15–17].

Compensation – Meaning of Income – Allowances – Distinction between Personal Benefit and Family Contribution – Reliance placed on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Indira Srivastava – Only those components of remuneration which would have formed part of family contribution can be included – Allowances meant exclusively for individual use cannot be added – Tribunal’s contrary view set aside [Paras 14–17].

Precedent – Deepal Girishbhai Soni – Applicability Explained – Earlier judgments relied upon by Tribunal distinguishable on facts – Issue of exclusion of allowances not examined in those cases – Income computation requires nuanced analysis based on nature of allowance [Paras 11, 16].

Insurance Policy – Employee Coverage – Comprehensive Package Policy – Policy produced before High Court showed coverage of employees of owner up to specified number – Deceased was helper of insured vehicle – Insurer liable to indemnify owner and pay compensation – Tribunal’s finding to contrary rejected [Paras 20–21].

Beneficial Legislation – Appellate Court Powers – Tribunal did not adjudicate other issues after rejecting claim on maintainability – High Court proceeded to determine liability and quantum to avoid multiplicity of proceedings – Motor Vehicles Act being beneficial legislation, prolonged litigation avoided [Para 19].

Quantum of Compensation – Assessment by High Court – Monthly income assessed at ₹3,300/- – Annual income ₹39,600/- – One-third deducted towards personal expenses – Compensation computed at ₹4,75,200/- plus general damages of ₹9,500/- – Total compensation ₹4,84,700/- with 6% interest from date of application [Para 22].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Award of Tribunal set aside – Claim under Section 163A held maintainable – Compensation of ₹4,84,700/- with interest awarded – Insurance Company directed to pay amount within three months – Tribunal to apportion compensation among claimants – No costs [Paras 22–23].

Domestic Violence Act – Section 2(f) – “Relationship in the Nature of Marriage” – Live-in Relationship with Married Man – Not Maintainable – Petitioner claimed reliefs under PWDVA alleging marriage and long-standing cohabitation with Respondent No.1 during subsistence of his first marriage – Evidence of joint property purchase, financial arrangements, IVF treatment, and birth of child relied upon – Sessions Court reversed reliefs granted by JMFC – Held: Relationship between an unmarried woman and a married man, entered into with knowledge of subsisting marriage, does not qualify as a “relationship in the nature of marriage” – Such relationship lacks legal sanctity and falls outside ambit of Section 2(f) PWDVA [Paras 24–28].

Live-in Relationship – Supreme Court Guidelines – Indra Sarma and D. Velusamy Applied – Court reiterated that all live-in relationships are not relationships in the nature of marriage – Essential conditions include parties being legally eligible to marry – Respondent No.1, being married, failed to satisfy mandatory condition of legal eligibility – Ratio of Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma and D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal squarely applicable [Paras 22–27].

Knowledge of Existing Marriage – Effect – Petitioner admitted awareness of Respondent No.1’s marital status at inception of relationship – Even if induced by misrepresentation, such relationship cannot be elevated to marriage-like status under PWDVA – Relationship akin to concubinage or extra-marital affair, for which Act does not presently provide protection [Paras 25–26].

Joint Property, Financial Control, Childbirth – Not Conclusive – Factors such as joint ownership of property, handling of bank accounts, sexual relationship, IVF treatment, or birth of child, though relevant, are insufficient by themselves to establish relationship in the nature of marriage when core legal requirements are absent – Social projection as husband and wife and legal capacity to marry remain determinative [Paras 25–27].

PWDVA – Beneficial Legislation – Limits of Interpretation – While PWDVA is a beneficial statute intended to protect women from abuse, courts cannot extend its scope beyond statutory definition – Expansion of protection to relationships knowingly entered with married persons requires legislative intervention and not judicial enlargement [Paras 26–28].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 – Limited Interference – Sessions Court correctly applied settled law and reversed trial court’s findings – No perversity or jurisdictional error found warranting interference under Article 227 – Concurrent appreciation of law upheld [Para 28].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Judgment and Order dated 26.07.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune upheld – Petitioner held not entitled to reliefs under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

Hindu Succession Act – Section 22 – Preferential Right of Pre-emption – Co-heirs – Testamentary Succession – Property originally owned by Tula Ram and bequeathed to his wife Purni Devi by a valid Will – Upon death of Purni Devi, property devolved by succession on her Class-I heirs including plaintiff and vendors – Vendors sold their share to defendant without notice to plaintiff – Held: Vendors inherited property by succession and not by survivorship – Plaintiff being a co-heir had a statutory preferential right under Section 22 – Courts below rightly decreed suit for pre-emption [Paras 11–12, 25–26].

Survivorship vs Succession – Female Owner – Inapplicability of Survivorship – Once property vested absolutely in a female owner under a Will, succession opens only after her death – Concept of survivorship has no application thereafter – Vendors could not claim inheritance by survivorship to defeat Section 22 – Concurrent findings upheld [Paras 11, 25].

Pre-emption – Notice of Intended Sale – Burden of Proof – Plea that plaintiff had notice of intended sale and refused to purchase – Burden lies on vendee/defendant to prove notice and refusal – Mere oral assertion of vendor without documentary or independent corroboration insufficient – Absence of notice preserves statutory right of co-heir [Paras 12, 22, 27].

Waiver of Statutory Right – Requirement of Clear and Unequivocal Conduct – Waiver of a statutory preferential right cannot be inferred lightly – Must be intentional, conscious and unequivocal – Continued joint ownership and absence of proof of notice negates plea of waiver – No abandonment of right established [Paras 13, 28].

Urban Property – Section 22 HSA – Independent of Customary Pre-emption – Statutory right under Section 22 operates irrespective of customary or relationship-based pre-emption – Decision in Atam Parkash v. State of Haryana does not dilute statutory preferential right of co-heirs – Correctly distinguished by Courts below [Paras 15, 26].

Regular Second Appeal – Section 100 CPC – Concurrent Findings of Fact – Findings regarding validity of Will, nature of succession, co-heirship, absence of notice and non-waiver based on proper appreciation of evidence – No perversity or substantial question of law made out – Interference in second appeal declined [Paras 23, 29–30].

Decision: Regular Second Appeal dismissed – Judgments and decrees of Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court decreeing suit for possession by way of pre-emption under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act affirmed – No substantial question of law arises.

Negotiable Instruments Act – Dishonour of Cheque – Section 138 – Pre-cognizance Stage – Section 223 BNSS – Magistrate directed issuance of notice to accused before taking cognizance – Held impermissible in complaints under Section 138 N.I. Act, which is a special enactment – No requirement of issuing notice or summons to accused prior to taking cognizance [Paras 5–10].

Criminal Procedure – BNSS, 2023 – Section 223 – Interpretation of First Proviso – Opportunity of Hearing to Accused – Supreme Court clarified that proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS does not mandate pre-cognizance notice in cheque dishonour cases – Trial Court erred in applying proviso mechanically at pre-cognizance stage [Paras 6–10].

Precedent – Binding Nature – Supreme Court Decision – Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar – Law declared that issuance of notice to accused prior to cognizance is not required in N.I. Act cases – Held: Trial Court order contrary to binding precedent suffers from legal infirmity [Paras 8–10].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Motion Stage Disposal – Pure Question of Law – In view of settled legal position, criminal revision taken up and decided at motion stage – Issuance of notice to private respondents dispensed with [Paras 11].

Remand – Cognizance and Issuance of Process – Trial Court directed to reconsider matter afresh in accordance with law and Supreme Court ruling – Impugned order quashed to the extent of issuing pre-cognizance notice [Paras 10, 12–14].

Decision: Criminal revision allowed – Impugned order dated 25.09.2025 quashed to the extent it directed issuance of notice to accused at pre-cognizance stage – Trial Court directed to take fresh decision on cognizance and issuance of process in accordance with law.

Anticipatory Bail – National Security Offences – Alleged Syndicate for Aiding Illegal Immigrants – Seriousness of Allegations – Rejection Upheld – Appeal filed against order rejecting anticipatory bail in offences under IPC, Foreigners Act and Passport Act – Allegations of being kingpin of syndicate providing illegal assistance, financial support and settlement to Rohingya and Bangladeshi nationals through Hawala and Society accounts – Material collected through surveillance, FSL reports and supplementary case diaries indicating financial transactions and incriminating conversations – Court held seriousness of allegations affecting security, integrity and harmony of nation – Custodial interrogation held likely and necessary – Anticipatory bail declined [Paras 3, 8–10, 15, 23].

Investigation – Multiple Charge Sheets Against Co-Accused – No Charge Sheet Against Appellant – Effect – Seven charge sheets filed against co-accused persons who were granted regular bail – Appellant not charge-sheeted till date – Court held mere non-filing of charge sheet against appellant not a ground for anticipatory bail where investigation is ongoing and material suggests involvement – Possibility of further evidence collection noted [Paras 4, 7, 23].

Proclamation and Non-Bailable Warrants – Setting Aside on Technical Grounds – Consequences – Non-bailable warrants and proclamation under Sections 82/83 Cr.P.C. issued against appellant – Proclamation order set aside earlier under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on technical grounds with liberty to pass fresh order – Court held setting aside of coercive steps on technical grounds does not entitle accused to anticipatory bail nor efface allegations of abscondence [Paras 5, 10, 24].

Custodial Interrogation – Importance in Conspiracy and National Security Cases – Reliance placed on Supreme Court decision in P. Krishna Mohan Reddy v. State of A.P. – Court reiterated that custodial interrogation is qualitatively different and essential in cases involving deep-rooted conspiracies, financial transactions and influential accused – Grant of anticipatory bail may impede effective investigation [Paras 15, 22, 25].

Delay in Arrest – Applicability of Supreme Court Precedents Distinguished – Reliance on Asha Dubey and Gursewak Singh cases by appellant – Court distinguished those cases holding that delay in arrest alone not decisive where allegations relate to national security and coercive steps were taken but accused avoided investigation – Benefit of delay principle not extended [Paras 18, 19, 24].

Investigating Agency – Lapses Noted – Strong Observations by Court – Court expressed serious displeasure over failure of Investigating Officer to take timely and effective steps, including not seeking search warrant of appellant’s office premises and not acting promptly after remand order under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Directions issued to communicate order to senior State authorities for appropriate action [Paras 11–13].

Decision: Criminal appeal dismissed at admission stage – Order rejecting anticipatory bail affirmed – Appellant directed to appear before Investigating Officer and cooperate with investigation – Liberty granted to seek regular bail if arrested – Investigating Agency left free to decide custodial interrogation as per law [Paras 26].