Arbitration – Interim Measures – Section 9 – Attachment Before Judgment – Prima Facie Case Not Made Out – Appellant sought interim protection by attaching 1600 MT of rice and security deposit of USD 296,326.74 for demurrage claims under a charterparty agreement – Learned Single Judge vacated the ex parte order for attachment and directed return of security deposit – On appeal, Division Bench found appellant had not established a strong prima facie case as demurrage was in nature of unadjudicated liquidated damages and no enforceable debt had crystallised – Mere right to sue cannot justify interim relief [Paras 44–51]

Balance of Convenience – Delay in Seeking Relief – Appeal Dismissed – Appellant delayed for 3 years before invoking arbitration and seeking attachment – Delay unexplained – Respondents deposited security promptly and were in ordinary business course – Balance of convenience found against appellant [Paras 52–56]

Asset Dissipation – Allegations Vague – No Evidence of Intent to Defeat Arbitral Award – Court held appellant failed to show specific acts of asset dissipation or imminent risk warranting attachment – Appellant's pleadings lacked material particulars – Interim relief rightly refused by Single Judge [Paras 30, 49, 57–58]

Arbitration Act – Section 37 – Limited Appellate Jurisdiction – Perversity or Arbitrariness Absent – Division Bench held that appellate interference under Section 37 warranted only if Single Judge’s order suffered from perversity, arbitrariness or violation of legal principles – None found – Appeal dismissed [Paras 31, 61–63]

Claim Nature – Demurrage – Not Adjudicated – Right to Damages Not Actionable – Court reaffirmed that until arbitral tribunal adjudicates liability, demurrage claim remains a mere right to sue for damages – Not an actionable debt to warrant pre-award security [Paras 47–50, 59]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Orders of learned Single Judge upheld – No costs – Pending applications closed.

Criminal Law - Execution Proceedings – Alleged Impersonation of Surety – Offence Relating to Court Proceedings – In execution of money decree, part decretal amount disbursed on furnishing of solvent surety – Allegation that surety was furnished through impersonation and real person never stood as surety – Application filed under Section 379 BNSS seeking prosecution for offences affecting administration of justice [Paras 1–3, 7].

Sections 215 and 379 BNSS – Bar on Police Taking Cognizance – Mandatory Role of Court – Offences alleged to have been committed in relation to proceedings of Court fall within Section 215 BNSS – Police cannot suo motu register FIR for such offences – Court must first form an opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice to inquire into the offence and then follow procedure under Section 379 BNSS [Paras 6–8].

Duty of Court – Preliminary Enquiry and Application of Judicial Mind – Executing Court directed police to investigate and register FIR if offence found, without conducting preliminary enquiry or recording prima facie satisfaction – Held: Court may seek assistance of police for enquiry, but discretion to register FIR cannot be delegated to police authorities – Registration of FIR must follow judicial determination by Court [Paras 8–9].

Modification of Order – Police Investigation Subject to Court’s Direction – Impugned order modified – Police permitted to investigate and submit report – FIR to be registered only upon express orders of Executing Court and not suo motu by police – Compliance with Sections 215 and 379 BNSS ensured [Paras 9–10].

Decision: Impugned order dated 18.11.2025 modified – Police investigation permitted subject to report before Executing Court – FIR to be registered only on direction of Court – Petition disposed of.

Civil Law – Declaration of Title – Burden of Proof – Plaintiffs must succeed on strength of own title – Revenue Records Not Proof of Title – Appeal Dismissed – Plaintiffs sought declaration of title over agricultural lands claiming ancestral ownership based on surname “Matam”, cist receipts and pattadar passbooks – Failed to produce any documentary evidence proving title of ancestors – Trial Court rightly dismissed the suit – Held: In a suit for declaration, burden lies squarely on plaintiffs and weakness of defendant’s case is irrelevant [Paras 21–27, 54].

Declaratory Relief – Ancestral Property – Proof of Lineage and Title – Mere resemblance of surname with religious institution insufficient – Plaintiffs failed to establish pedigree linking their ancestors to ownership of suit lands – Claim that “Matam” property is ancestral property rejected [Paras 26, 31, 54(vi)].

Revenue Records – Pattadar Passbooks – Mutation Entries – Legal Effect – Cist receipts and pattadar passbooks are not documents of title – They only raise a presumption regarding possession for fiscal purposes – Cannot be basis for declaration of ownership [Paras 27, 49–53, 54(iii)].

Evidence Act – Section 110 – Presumption of Ownership from Possession – Scope and Limitations – Presumption is rebuttable and applies only when possession is lawful and no title is shown in any party – Where property stands recorded in name of Endowment/Mutt, presumption that possession follows title cannot be invoked to grant declaration [Paras 38–47, 54(iv)–(v)].

Endowment Property – Competing Claim – Mutt as Recorded Owner – Revenue records and settlement registers showed property standing in name of Sri Pothuluri Veera Brahmendra Swamy Mutt – Plaintiffs failed to rebut documentary evidence produced by defendants – Title held to vest in Endowment Institution [Paras 28, 31–33].

Pleadings – Admission by “Pleading Ignorance” – Interpretation – Pleadings must be read as a whole – Defendant’s plea of “not aware” regarding certain revenue actions does not amount to admission of plaintiffs’ title or possession – No deemed admission inferred [Paras 34–36].

Appellate Review – First Appeal – No Error of Fact or Law – Trial Court’s findings based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence – No perversity or illegality shown – No interference warranted in appellate jurisdiction [Paras 54(viii), 55].

Decision: First Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of Trial Court affirmed – No order as to costs – Pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Civil Law - Hindu Succession – Competing Claims to Ancestral Property – Daughter vs. Sister’s Son – Plaintiff daughter sought declaration of title by assailing two Wills and a registered Gift Deed executed by her father in favour of defendant nephew – Trial Court decreed suit in her favour – High Court reversed findings and dismissed suit [Paras 1–2, 25–28].

Will – Requirement of Probate – Keonjhar District (Gadajat Area) – Probate Not Mandatory – Properties situated in erstwhile Orissa States including Keonjhar exempted from compulsory probate under Section 57 of the Indian Succession Act – Civil Court competent to examine validity and genuineness of unprobated Will while deciding title – Trial Court erred in holding otherwise [Paras 12–14].

Will – Revocation – Subsequent Gift Deed – No Implied Revocation – Execution of registered Gift Deed in respect of part of property covered under Will does not ipso facto revoke earlier Will – Intention of testator is guiding factor – No material to infer implied revocation of Will dated 16.05.1991 [Paras 15–16].

Gift Deed – Validity – Burden of Proof – Plaintiff seeking declaration of gift deed as void must discharge initial burden – Mere allegation of donor’s mental imbalance and undue influence insufficient – Registered gift deed carries presumption of valid execution – Trial Court wrongly shifted burden on donee [Paras 19–22].

Gift – Acceptance – Delivery of Possession – Not Mandatory for Immovable Property – Acceptance can be inferred from conduct – Subsequent sale of gifted property by donee during donor’s lifetime and possession of vendees establishes acceptance and possession – Non-delivery of physical possession not fatal to validity of gift [Paras 17–18, 23].

Undue Influence – Proof – Section 16 Contract Act – Mere relationship or opportunity to dominate will insufficient – Plaintiff failed to prove donor’s incapacity or unfair advantage – No evidence of fraud, coercion or manipulation in execution of gift deed [Paras 21–22].

Sale Deeds by Donee – Consequential Validity – Once gift deed held valid, subsequent registered sale deeds executed by donee in favour of third parties cannot be declared void – Trial Court’s finding setting aside sale deeds unsustainable [Paras 24–25].

Limitation – Challenge to Will – Issue Left Open – In absence of probate proceedings and in view of findings on gift deed, limitation to challenge Will not adjudicated – Question kept open for appropriate proceedings [Paras 26–27].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree dated 12/04/2007 passed in T.S. No. 2/6 of 2007-97 set aside – Plaintiff’s suit dismissed – Parties directed to bear their own costs.

Civil Suit – Declaration of Title – Burden of Proof – Plaintiffs sought declaration of title and injunction claiming ancestral ownership over suit lands – Held: In a suit for declaration, plaintiffs must succeed on the strength of their own title and not on the weakness of the defendants’ case – Failure to prove title of ancestors fatal to claim [Paras 21-23, 54(i)-(ii)].

Evidence – Revenue Records – Pattadar Passbooks and Cist Receipts – Plaintiffs relied on pattadar passbooks, cist receipts and revenue entries to establish title – Held: Revenue records and mutation entries are not documents of title and do not confer ownership – They raise, at best, a presumption of possession for fiscal purposes only [Paras 26-29, 48-53].

Possession – Presumption under Section 110 Evidence Act – “Possession Follows Title” – Scope – Presumption applies only when possession is prima facie lawful and where no party is shown to have title – Where property stands recorded in name of Endowment/Mutt, presumption cannot be invoked in favour of plaintiffs claiming declaration of title without proving ancestral ownership [Paras 38-47, 54(iv)-(v)].

Ancestral Property – Proof of Pedigree and Title – Plaintiffs claimed ancestral title based on common surname “Matam” – No documentary evidence produced to prove that their ancestors were owners of suit lands – Mere similarity of surname insufficient to establish title – Held: Ancestral title must be proved by cogent documentary evidence [Paras 26, 30-33, 54(vi)].

Pleadings – Alleged Admission – Denial by Pleading Ignorance – Defendants pleaded ignorance regarding certain revenue documents and loans – Held: Pleadings must be read as a whole – Plea of “not aware” regarding collateral facts does not amount to admission of title or possession – No admission relieving plaintiffs of burden of proof [Paras 34-36].

Endowment Property – Title of Religious Institution – Evidence showed suit lands recorded in name of Sri Pothuluri Veera Brahmendra Swamy Mutt – Plaintiffs failed to rebut revenue and endowment records – Held: Trial Court rightly held property belonged to religious institution and not to plaintiffs [Paras 28, 31-32, 54(v)].

Decision: First Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 28.07.2011 of the III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal affirmed – Plaintiffs not entitled to declaration of title or injunction – No order as to costs.

Criminal Revision – Cognizance and Framing of Charge – Scope of Interference – Revision filed challenging order of cognizance dated 22.10.2021 and order framing charge dated 24.01.2024 under Section 306 IPC – Held: Revisional jurisdiction is limited and interference warranted only when orders suffer from patent illegality or perversity [Paras 2, 9, 41–42].

Cognizance – Alleged Discrepancy in Dates – Chargesheet and Order Taking Cognizance – Argument that cognizance was taken on 22.10.2021 whereas chargesheet bears endorsement dated 23.10.2021 – Court declined to accept hyper-technical plea – Held: Minor discrepancy in dates attributable to clerical/human error – No material to presume that cognizance was taken without submission of chargesheet – Order taking cognizance upheld [Paras 11–15].

Framing of Charge – Sections 227 & 228 CrPC – Legal Threshold – Court reiterated settled law that at stage of framing charge, detailed appreciation of evidence is impermissible – Charge can be framed on strong suspicion or presumption of commission of offence – Recording of reasons mandatory only for discharge, not for framing of charge – Reliance placed on Ramesh Singh, Amit Kapoor, Dinesh Tiwari and Kanti Bhadra Shah [Paras 16–24].

Abetment of Suicide – Section 306 IPC – Prima Facie Satisfaction – Ingredients of Section 107 IPC to be ultimately proved at trial – At charge stage, Court required only to see whether material raises presumption of abetment – Suicide note naming revisionist as responsible for death coupled with investigation material sufficient to raise prima facie suspicion – Detailed examination of intention, instigation or aid not warranted at this stage [Paras 25–27, 37–39].

Suicide Note – Disputed Authenticity – Limited Scrutiny at Charge Stage – Suicide note contained multiple paragraphs and signatures – Argument that note was fabricated or partly written at different times rejected at threshold – Absence of date on suicide note and conflicting handwriting expert reports held to be matters of evidence – Held: Validity, genuineness and evidentiary value of suicide note to be tested during trial and not at stage of framing charge [Paras 26–31].

Forensic Evidence – Conflicting Reports – No Conclusive Opinion at Pre-Trial Stage – FSL report indicated handwriting similarity but sought more specimen signatures for signature comparison – Private handwriting expert’s report contradicted prosecution case – Held: Contradictory expert opinions require appreciation of evidence at trial – Not a ground for quashing charge [Paras 28–31].

Judgments on Discharge Distinguished – Reliance on Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda, Suresh @ Pappu Kalani, Shashikant Sharma and Satish Mehra distinguished – Held: Those decisions dealt with discharge or different factual matrices – Present case concerns challenge to framing of charge, where presumption and grave suspicion suffice [Paras 32–38].

Witness Conduct and Earlier Statements – Matter for Trial – Delay or reluctance of widow in giving statement and her initial application absolving family members held irrelevant at charge stage – Such inconsistencies to be tested through cross-examination during trial [Paras 40].

Decision – Revision dismissed – Orders taking cognizance and framing charge upheld – Interim order vacated – Observations confined to pre-trial stage and not to influence trial on merits [Paras 41–43].

Criminal Law – Quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Abuse of Process – Accused charged with offences under Sections 332, 353, 354(B), 354(A), 224 and 225(1) IPC alleging assault on woman civil police officer, attempt to disrobe her and rescue of accused from police custody – Petitioners sought quashment contending false implication and police atrocities – District Police Complaints Authority, after detailed enquiry with examination of witnesses, documents, CDs and photographs, found de facto complainant and other police officers guilty of dereliction of duty and police excesses in relation to same incident – Authority recommended disciplinary action – Order of Police Complaints Authority not shown to have been challenged – Held: Findings of competent statutory authority headed by retired District Judge cannot be ignored while considering inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 – Findings clearly disprove prosecution allegations – Continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of court – Ends of justice require termination of prosecution [Paras 3, 5].

Police Atrocities – Evidentiary Value of Findings of Police Complaints Authority – Where independent statutory body, after enquiry, finds police officials guilty of excesses in same transaction forming subject matter of criminal case – Such findings are relevant and persuasive for exercising inherent powers – Prosecution based on version of same police officials rendered unreliable – Proceedings liable to be quashed [Paras 3, 5].

Inherent Powers – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Scope – High Court justified in quashing proceedings where uncontroverted material of sterling quality demonstrates that prosecution case is manifestly attended with mala fides and instituted to shield police misconduct – Preventing miscarriage of justice and abuse of judicial process [Paras 5-6].

Decision: Criminal M.C. allowed – Proceedings against petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 5 in C.C. No.310/2017 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adoor arising out of Crime No.1419/2016 of Pandalam Police Station quashed [Final Order].

Criminal Revision – Rejection of Protest Petition – Final Report Accepted – Petitioner challenged concurrent orders rejecting Narazi petition against closure report submitted by police – Allegations of fraud and conspiracy against bank officials for releasing mortgaged property after auction – Held: Courts below justified in accepting closure report as dispute is purely civil in nature [Paras 1, 7–8, 29].

SARFAESI Act – Right of Redemption – Section 13(8) – Borrower tendered entire dues before issuance of sale certificate – Secured creditor accepted dues and released property – Held: Bank was legally bound to restore property to borrower – Auction purchaser’s right not absolute and subject to mortgagor’s statutory right of redemption [Paras 19–21].

Criminal Breach of Trust and Cheating – Essential Ingredients – Absence of Mens Rea – Mere allegation that bank officials colluded with borrower without cogent material insufficient – No evidence of dishonest intention at inception – Mere non-issuance of sale certificate or alleged delay does not attract Sections 409 or 420 IPC [Paras 25–28].

Civil Dispute – Criminal Colour – Abuse of Process – Dispute arising out of auction, refund of money and settlement under SARFAESI Act – Remedies lie before DRT/DRAT and civil forum – Criminal proceedings cannot be used to pressurise parties in a civil dispute – Continuation of criminal case would amount to abuse of process of law [Paras 25, 29].

Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction – Section 482 CrPC – High Court declined to interfere where no cognizable offence disclosed and concurrent findings of courts below based on proper appreciation of materials – Pending civil proceedings before High Court also noted [Paras 23–24, 31].

Decision: Criminal Revision Dismissed – Impugned order dated 12.02.2018 affirmed – Rejection of protest petition upheld – Concurrent findings of courts below confirmed – Interim orders vacated.

Maintainability – Writ Appeal by Statutory Committee – Quasi-judicial authority not “aggrieved” – Admission Supervisory Committee constituted under Section 3 of Act 15 of 2017 passed orders withholding and cancelling admission under OBC category – Single Judge set aside Committee’s orders and declared student eligible – Committee filed writ appeal – Held: Committee’s functions under Section 8 are adjudicatory with Civil Court-like powers under Section 8(3) – Beneficiaries/adversely affected persons are third parties and not the adjudicator – Adjudicating authority cannot challenge superior court’s interference with its quasi-judicial orders – allowing such appeals would undermine judicial discipline and create anomalous situation of adjudicators routinely appealing adverse decisions – Writ appeal dismissed as not maintainable [Paras 1, 5, 9, 13, 17-18, 20].

Medical Education Admissions – Admission Supervisory Committee – Nature of powers – Section 8 Act 15 of 2017 – Committee’s role includes inquiry into complaints/suo motu action and recommendations including declaration of admissions invalid – powers of Civil Court while conducting inquiry – Held: such statutory scheme indicates adjudicatory and not ministerial character – Committee’s decisions under Section 8 operate as quasi-judicial orders [Paras 9, 13, 17].

Judicial Discipline – Adjudicating authority’s locus to litigate – Proper party vs aggrieved party – Committee was arrayed as respondent in writ petition challenging its orders – Held: mere impleadment does not create duty/right in adjudicator to defend its own decision through appeal – decision may be supported/challenged by persons benefited/adversely affected or by appropriate official respondents having duty to ensure fair admissions – Committee itself cannot be appellant against setting aside of its orders [Paras 18-19].

Statutory Appeal under Section 12 Act 15 of 2017 – Practical filing as writ petitions due to procedural vacuum – Court noted administrative history: nomenclature MFA(KME) introduced, but Division Bench earlier directed return of such appeals due to absence of rules on certified copy/court-fee etc – despite 2021 Rules, appeal procedure still not provided – hence writ petitions continue to be treated as maintainable against committee orders and are rostered to Single Bench under education subject codes – However, this does not confer appellate locus on Committee as adjudicator [Paras 14-16, 18].

Decision: Writ appeal dismissed as not maintainable [Para 20].