Civil Writ – Mandamus - Para-athlete Entitlement – Cash Award Under Government Orders – Rightfully Due Benefits Denied – The petitioner, a double upper limb amputee, represented India in various international para-swimming championships winning medals – Despite clear eligibility under GO dated 30.11.2013, the State failed to disburse ₹6,00,000/- – Held: The petitioner is entitled to the full amount, and short payment by the State is illegal and unjustified [Paras 3–10].

Disability Rights – Arbitrariness and Bureaucratic Apathy – Violation of Dignity and Equality – The State’s refusal to honour a decorated disabled sportsperson’s achievements despite policy mandates amounts to inhumane and arbitrary treatment – Held: State actions violate the letter and spirit of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and constitutional equality guarantees [Paras 4, 7, 12–14].

Association Suspension – Not a Valid Ground to Deny Benefits – Government Plea Rejected – The State argued petitioner’s association was suspended, hence full benefit could not be paid – Held: Cash awards are based on athlete’s performance, not association status – State cannot hide behind technicalities to deny rights [Para 11].

State’s Conduct – Model Litigant Principle – Cost Imposed on Officers Personally – For delay and denial of benefits, Court imposed exemplary costs of ₹2,00,000/- to be paid personally by erring government officials – Held: The State must act fairly and responsibly, particularly toward disabled citizens who achieve international glory [Paras 14–16].

Final Relief – Mandamus Issued – Amount Ordered to Be Paid With Penalty for Delay – Writ Petition Allowed – State directed to pay ₹1,26,000/- within 2 weeks, failing which ₹1,000/- per day to be paid until compliance – Officials liable for costs from personal funds [Para 17].

Criminal Law  – Abetment of Suicide – Appeal Against Conviction - Sections 306 and 498A IPC – Acquittal Granted – Appellant was convicted for cruelty and abetment to suicide of his wife based on stale allegations and letters referring to incidents from 1999–2000 – Suicide occurred in 2005 – Court held that the time gap negated any proximate cause or intention required under Section 306 – Conviction set aside, appellant acquitted [Paras 18-24, 30-34].

Legal Presumption – Section 113A Evidence Act Inapplicable – No Reverse Burden – Since suicide occurred over seven years after marriage, the statutory presumption under Section 113A did not apply – Burden remained on prosecution to prove mens rea and abetment – Held: Mere harassment or vague allegations without proximity to suicide do not suffice [Paras 19, 30].

Testimony of Child Witness – Held Unreliable – Testimony of daughter (PW21) alleged daily quarrels – But inconsistencies in cross-examination and evidence of tutoring reduced credibility – Court noted her mother’s erratic behaviour and no corroboration from early investigation records [Para 28].

Section 106 Evidence Act – No Adverse Inference – Appellant was not present at home at the time of suicide – Prosecution failed to rebut alibi – Section 106 not attracted in absence of exclusive knowledge or possession of facts [Para 31].

Appeal Allowed – Conviction and Sentence Set Aside – CRA-S-2271-SB-2008 allowed – Conviction under Sections 306 and 498A IPC quashed – Appellant acquitted – Connected revision and appeal for sentence enhancement disposed as infructuous [Paras 34-36].

Matrimonial Law - Recovery of Istridhan - Ex Parte Decree – Setting Aside on Grounds of Non-Service – Family Court Order Set Aside Against Husband – The husband contended non-service of notice while abroad and sought an opportunity to contest the matter – The Court accepted the general principle favoring adjudication on merits, remanded the case to Family Court on condition of costs payment – Held: Order against husband set aside subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- to wife, fresh opportunity granted [Paras 4-7, 15].

Recovery of Gold Ornaments – Lack of Documentary Proof – Appeal Dismissed Against Father-in-Law – The wife alleged misappropriation of 110 sovereigns of gold by husband and father-in-law – The Court found absence of credible documentary evidence to substantiate quantum of gold and inconsistencies in oral testimony – Found that claims against father-in-law were unsubstantiated – Dismissal of claim against father-in-law upheld [Paras 9-14].

Gold Quantity Discrepancies – Photographic Evidence Inadequate – The Court observed that based on wedding photographs and cross-examination, possession of 60 sovereigns of gold was plausible but not 110 sovereigns as claimed – No satisfactory corroboration produced by petitioner – Claim for 110 sovereigns rejected [Para 10].

Opportunity for Fair Adjudication – Remand to Family Court – Husband Given Chance to Contest on Merits – Court emphasized procedural fairness, permitted husband to participate in trial after costs payment – Remanded for expeditious disposal without ordering de novo trial [Paras 7, 15].

Land Acquisition – Repeated Challenge to Acquisition Proceedings – Section 4(1), Section 6(1), and Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act – Writ Petition Dismissed with Exemplary Costs – The petitioners, legal representatives of original grantees, challenged the acquisition of 2 acres and 20 guntas of land granted in 1979, citing a purported Section 48(1) notification issued in 1993 – The acquisition process had concluded in 1987 with compensation paid, possession taken, and multiple prior petitions dismissed, including by Division Bench and Supreme Court – Held: The current petition, the ninth in succession, amounts to abuse of process of law, is barred by constructive res judicata, and is dismissed with exemplary costs of ₹10,00,000/- [Paras 1-29].

Abuse of Process – Suppression of Material Facts – Petitioners’ Non-disclosure of Eight Prior Litigations – Exemplary Costs Imposed – The petitioners suppressed the history of eight previous unsuccessful litigations, thereby misleading the Court to invoke Article 226 jurisdiction – Held: Approach with unclean hands, suppression of material facts, and vexatious relitigation renders the petition liable for dismissal with exemplary costs to discourage unscrupulous litigants [Paras 23-25].

Constructive Res Judicata – Application of Henderson Principle – Bar on Fresh Plea after Prior Adjudications – Section 11 Explanation IV of CPC – The Court applied the doctrine of constructive res judicata and the Henderson principle to reject the petitioners' belated plea based on a 1993 notification that could and ought to have been raised in earlier proceedings – Held: Re-litigation on same cause of action with new grounds after multiple rounds of adjudication is impermissible [Paras 26-27].

Judicial Policy – Finality of Litigation – Public Policy Against Multiplicity of Proceedings – The Court emphasized that litigation must conclude and cannot be re-opened indefinitely by introducing new grounds – Held: The petitioners’ conduct undermines judicial finality, causes harassment, and wastes judicial resources, warranting dismissal with costs to uphold sanctity of judicial process [Paras 24, 27, 28].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed with Exemplary Costs – ₹10,00,000/- directed to be paid to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority within four weeks from receipt of the order to deter abuse of judicial process [Para 29].

Service Law - Retrenched Employees – Absorption under Rules of 1991 – Denied Due to Repeal – Claims Dismissed – Petitioners, ex-employees of U.P. Cement Corporation, claimed right to absorption citing 1991 Rules and Supreme Court’s ruling in Sunil Kumar Verma – Held: The 1991 Rules were rescinded by 2003 Rules and deemed rescinded retrospectively by Act of 2009 from 09.05.1991; petitioners’ claim extinguished as they were neither absorbed before 08.04.2003 nor party in prior litigation – Petitions dismissed [Paras 1-24].

Applicability of Supreme Court Judgment – Sunil Kumar Verma Judgment Not in Rem – Petitioners Not Entitled to Parity – Held: Supreme Court’s ruling in Sunil Kumar Verma restricted to appellants therein; no direction for general application to all similarly situated retrenched employees; petitioners were fence-sitters and failed to avail remedies in time [Paras 5, 15-18].

Rescission Act, 2009 – Effect of Section 3 – Extinguishment of Absorption Rights – Court held Act of 2009 rescinded 1991 Rules ab initio with saving only for those absorbed before 08.04.2003 – Petitioners’ rights extinguished, no further claim survives, except age relaxation for direct recruitment on Group C & D posts [Paras 8, 19-22].

Distinction from Other Judgments – Shiv Jag Sharma Case Not Applicable – Held: Case of Shiv Jag Sharma pertained to absorbed employees claiming pension, not unabsorbed retrenched employees; not applicable to present petitioners [Para 20].

Binding Precedent – Applicability of Division Bench Judgment – Court followed binding Division Bench decision in State of U.P. v. Shambhu Nath Srivastava, 2019:AHC:98463-DB, which rejected similar claims of unabsorbed retrenched employees of U.P. Cement Corporation after considering Sunil Kumar Verma judgment [Paras 11, 19].

Final Decision – Petitions Dismissed – Court declined interference, citing long unexplained delay, non-participation in previous litigation, and statutory bar under Act of 2009 – All writ petitions dismissed without relief [Paras 23-24].

Civil Law - Dynamic Injunction - Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 and Section 151 of the CPC - Copyright Infringement – Cinematographic Film – Prima Facie Case Established – Plaintiff, a film production house, alleged large-scale online piracy of its film “Kannappa” on platforms including Instagram, Facebook, and X (formerly Twitter) – Allegations supported by over 1776 infringing URLs, with only 191 removed – Held: Prima facie case made out; balance of convenience in Plaintiff’s favour – Unauthorized streaming and sharing of content cause irreparable harm to Plaintiff’s commercial and reputational interests – Ex parte ad-interim injunction granted [Paras 27–31].

Dynamic Injunction – Ex Parte Relief Against Infringing URLs – Court granted dynamic injunction directing Meta Platforms (Defendant No. 2) and X Corp. (Defendant No. 4) to take down specific infringing URLs detailed in the plaint – Directions issued under IT Rules, 2021 – Plaintiff directed to comply with procedural requirements under Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC for Defendant No. 4 [Paras 31–33].

Pre-Institution Mediation – Exemption Granted – In light of urgency and guidance in Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi, (2024) 5 SCC 815 and Chandra Kishore Chaurasia v. RA Perfumery Works Pvt. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3529 – Plaintiff exempted from pre-institution mediation under Section 12-A of Commercial Courts Act [Para 2].

Court Fee and Service Exemptions – Extension of Time and Procedural Flexibility – Plaintiff allowed to file court fees within four weeks – Exemption also granted from advance service on unserved Defendants due to urgency of interim relief sought [Paras 5, 8].

Deletion of Party – Defendant No. 3 Removed – At Plaintiff’s request, Defendant No. 3 deleted from array of parties – Amended memo directed to be filed within two weeks [Paras 11–13].

Procedural Directions – Written Statements and Replications – Defendants directed to file written statements within 30 days with affidavits of admission/denial – Plaintiff may file replications within 30 days thereafter – Summons issued for unserved Defendants returnable before Joint Registrar on 26.09.2025 [Paras 14–20].

Decision – Suit Registered – Ex Parte Injunction Granted – Plaintiff’s suit registered; dynamic injunction granted for immediate take-down of infringing URLs – Further process directed against unserved parties [Paras 10, 31–33].

Civil Law - Property Ownership – Co-ownership Rights – Mandatory Injunction for Rectification of Records – Dismissal of Appeal – The appellant challenged concurrent findings of Trial Court and First Appellate Court which decreed mandatory injunction for rectification of municipal records to reinstate plaintiff’s name as co-owner – Supreme Court found the registered sale deed showed joint purchase of property and no proof was provided by appellant justifying exclusive ownership – Held: Both Courts rightly directed rectification of records in favour of co-owner; second appeal dismissed [Paras 3-11].

Registered Sale Deed – Evidentiary Value – Conclusive Proof of Joint Ownership – The registered sale deed dated 01.05.1996 (Ex.P-2) conclusively proved joint ownership of the suit property by plaintiff and appellant – Held: Official municipal records and RTI information corroborated the joint ownership status, and appellant could not rebut documentary evidence of co-ownership [Para 10].

Res Judicata – Prior Litigation on Distinct Property – No Bar to Current Claim – The Court rejected the plea of res judicata based on a 2004 judgment regarding a different property (common Haveli and flour mill), holding that the suit property was separately purchased by the plaintiff and appellant – Held: Mere pendency of other proceedings regarding different properties does not extinguish rights derived from a valid registered sale deed [Para 10].

Municipal Record Mutation – Mutation Entries Do Not Create Ownership – Mutation Change Invalidated – The Court held that mutation entries changed during a 2002 survey without supporting documentation or legal basis could not override title under a registered sale deed – Held: Mutation entry in favour of appellant without plaintiff’s knowledge is illegal; plaintiff’s name directed to be restored [Para 10].

No Substantial Question of Law – Concurrent Findings Upheld – The High Court found no substantial question of law arose in the matter since the findings were based on clear documentary evidence of ownership – Held: Appeal dismissed as devoid of merit [Para 11].

Decision – Second Appeal Dismissed – High Court affirmed judgments of both lower Courts – Mandatory injunction in favour of co-owner plaintiff upheld, rectification of municipal record ordered, and no merit found in appeal [Paras 10-11].

Writ Petition – Maintainability – Alternate Remedy – Election Dispute – Appeal Lies under Section 38(4) – The petitioner challenged the maintainability of an election petition filed with delay, arguing that the ground of illness was fabricated – The High Court held that the proper remedy was to file an appeal before the District Judge as per Section 38(4) of the Act – Held: Writ petition not maintainable when statutory appellate remedy exists [Paras 3-6].

Statutory Interpretation – Meaning of “All Orders” under Section 38(3) – Includes Interlocutory Orders – The court interpreted the phrase “all orders” to include interlocutory orders, contrary to earlier rulings that restricted appeals to only final orders – Held: Appeal lies even against interlocutory orders under Section 38(4) [Paras 6.3-6.5].

Per Incuriam – Prior Decisions Overruled – Niranjan Sahu and Sasmita Pradhan Cases Held Not Binding – The Court held that prior decisions restricting appeal to final orders only were rendered without considering binding precedents and statutory provisions – Held: These decisions are per incuriam and not binding; correct law stated in Anirudha Jena [Paras 5.1, 6.6].

Doctrine of Precedent – Role of Legislative Intent – Contextual and Holistic Interpretation Mandated – The Court stressed that statutory interpretation must align with legislative intent and context, rejecting isolated or narrow readings of statutory phrases like “all orders” [Paras 5.6-5.10].

Final Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Liberty to File Statutory Appeal – The Court disposed of the writ petition on the ground of maintainability, granting liberty to file an appeal before the District Judge within two weeks – No decision made on merits [Paras 6.7-6.9].

Civil Law  – Declaration and Injunction Suit – Title not established – Appeal dismissed – The plaintiff-appellant sought a declaration claiming ownership over 5 kanals of land on the basis of a sale deed executed by her husband Gurlal Singh, but the lower courts dismissed the suit holding that Gurlal Singh’s ownership was limited to 1/4th share and there was no evidence of ownership of 3/4th share as mentioned in the sale deed – The High Court upheld the concurrent findings observing that execution of a sale deed without lawful title cannot confer ownership – Held: No substantial question of law arises, second appeal dismissed [Paras 2-10].

Sale Beyond Ownership – Effect of Invalid Title – Legal Principle Reaffirmed – The Court reiterated that a vendor cannot sell more than his ownership share – Jamabandi entries recorded only 1/4th share of Gurlal Singh while the sale deed wrongly mentioned 3/4th share – Held: Execution of sale deed by a person without title does not vest ownership rights in vendee [Paras 7-9].

No Proof of Excess Sale by Defendants – Courts’ Findings Upheld – The appellant failed to prove that defendants/respondents had sold land in excess of their share – The courts below rightly relied on revenue records showing that the land sold by respondents was within their recorded share – Held: No illegality in the sale deed executed by respondents, suit rightly dismissed [Paras 9].

Concurrent Findings – No Substantial Question of Law – Appeal dismissed – The Court found no perversity or misapplication of law in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Trial and First Appellate Courts – Held: In the absence of any substantial question of law, second appeal not maintainable and liable to be dismissed [Para 10].

Decision of the Case – Appeal dismissed – The judgments and decrees of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court dismissing the plaintiff’s suit for declaration and injunction are affirmed – Pending applications also disposed of [Para 10].