Criminal Law - Anticipatory Bail - Punjab Excise Act 1914 - Section 61 - Withdrawal of interim protection - Petitioner sought anticipatory bail regarding recovery of 400 litres of lahan and 10 litres of illicit liquor - Additional Sessions Judge initially granted interim bail and directed petitioner to join investigation - Petitioner joined investigation and recovery was completed - Sessions Court subsequently withdrew interim protection and dismissed application on ground that custodial interrogation was required to ascertain whereabouts of suppliers and buyers - High Court found that inability of investigating agency to trace identities of third parties cannot constitute valid ground for withdrawal of discretionary relief when recovery is complete and petitioner joined investigation - Court observed custodial interrogation cannot be permitted as means to employ coercive methods for extracting information - High Court invoked revisional jurisdiction to set aside order of Sessions Court - Held - Concluding part of Sessions Court order withdrawing interim protection found unsustainable in law - Order set aside - Interim bail made absolute - [Paras 1-12].

Criminal Law - Revisional Jurisdiction - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 442 - Suo Motu Exercise - High Court while dealing with anticipatory bail petition noted that challenging findings of Sessions Court required invocation of revisional jurisdiction - State counsel submitted that such power can be exercised suo motu for examining legality or correctness of subordinate court orders - Held - High Court deemed it appropriate to exercise revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 CrPC corresponding to Section 442 BNSS to examine and set aside the findings recorded by the Court of Sessions - [Paras 4-11].

Criminal Law - Custodial Interrogation - Investigation Procedure - Investigating officer sought custody to trace sources of instruments and intended buyers of illicit liquor - Petitioner had already joined investigation and recovery stood effected - Held - Once recovery is effected the plea for custodial interrogation merely to elicit further information could not by itself justify cancellation of interim anticipatory bail - It is the duty of the investigating officer to conduct fair investigation utilizing professional expertise rather than coercive methods - [Para 10].

Decision: Petition disposed of – Sessions Court order withdrawing protection set aside – Interim anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner made absolute – Petitioner directed to continue joining investigation as required under Section 482(2) BNSS.

Civil Law - Matrimonial Dispute - Family Courts Act 1984 - Section 7 - Return of Gold Ornaments - Petitioner wife sought return of 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments and ₹ 3 lakhs from husband and mother-in-law alleging misappropriation for house construction - Family Court dismissed claim for lack of proof - On appeal High Court found Ext.A2 jewellery certificate unreliable due to recent origin - Reliance placed on Ext.A1 marriage photographs admitted by husband - Court determined wife possessed 30 sovereigns at marriage based on photographic evidence - Deduction made for 5 sovereigns retained by wife as admitted - Held - Respondents directed to return 25 sovereigns of gold or its value - Appeal allowed in part - [Paras 1-11].

Evidence Law - Recovery of Money - Family Courts Act 1984 - Section 7 - Proof of entrustment - Wife claimed ₹ 3 lakhs utilized by husband to discharge debts - No evidence regarding source or payment produced - Held - In absence of any material to find payment the claim was rightly declined - [Para 11].

Evidence Law - Documentary Evidence - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 61 - Reliability of certificates - Ext.A2 certificate from jewellery titled To Whomsoever It May Concern - Court found the document appearance suggested recent origin and lacked credence - Held - Ext.A2 cannot be relied upon to prove quantity of gold ornaments - [Para 6].

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – Respondents directed to return 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments to the petitioner within three months from the date of judgment – Failing return the petitioner is entitled to realise its value at the time of realisation – Decree and judgment of the Family Court regarding the dismissal of the claim for ₹ 3 lakhs affirmed – No costs.

Writ Law - Alternative Remedy - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Maintainability - Petitioners approached the High Court seeking the return of original title deeds and compensation from Canara Bank after depositing a settlement amount of Rs. 70 Lacs as per orders from the Debt Recovery Tribunal - Canara Bank contested the release of documents claiming the existence of four separate loan accounts and a pending statutory appeal before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal challenging the extension of time granted to the petitioners - The High Court observed that factual controversies regarding the quantum of interest and the legality of the settlement extension were pending adjudication in the statutory appeal - Held - High Court should not ordinarily entertain a petition under Article 226 if an effective statutory remedy is available to the aggrieved person - the rule of exhaustion of alternative remedy applies with greater rigour in matters involving recovery of taxes or public money - writ jurisdiction cannot be used to circumvent the detailed mechanism provided under the SARFAESI Act or RDB Act for redressal of grievances - [Paras 17-24 and 27].

Banking Law - Powers of Debt Recovery Tribunal - Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 - Section 17(7) - Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 - Section 19(25) - Release of Documents - Petitioners contended that the relief for return of title deeds and compensation for delay could not be decided by the Debt Recovery Tribunal - The Court noted that Section 17(7) of the SARFAESI Act 2002 makes the provisions of the RDB Act 1993 applicable to the Tribunal for the disposal of applications - Section 19(25) of the RDB Act 1993 vests the Tribunal with residuary powers to make such orders as necessary to give effect to its orders or to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice - Held - The Debt Recovery Tribunal is well equipped and sufficiently empowered to pass directions to the Bank for the release of title documents - petitioners have an efficacious alternative remedy and failed to provide cogent reasons for not approaching the Tribunal - [Paras 25-26].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Liberty granted to petitioners to file an appropriate application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal – Tribunal directed to decide the same on its own merits in accordance with law uninfluenced by High Court observations.

Sports Law - Election of State Association - National Sports Development Code 2011 - Applicability - Appellant state sports association challenged the refusal of Respondent No 1 National Federation to recognize its Executive Committee elected under the supervision of a court appointed Returning Officer - Elections were conducted under Model Election Guidelines instead of the National Sports Development Code based on a non-existent order of the Orissa High Court cited before the Returning Officer - Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition noting that six elected office bearers were ineligible government employees under the Code and the post of Chairman was unauthorized - Appellant argued that the judgment in Rahul Mehra v Union of India was delivered after the elections and could not be applied retrospectively - Court found that the Code was always applicable to constituents of National Sports Federations and subsequent judgments were only clarificatory - Held - No infirmity in the judgment of the Single Judge as elections were in breach of the Code and based on a non-existent order - Appeal dismissed - [Paras 1-33].

Writ Law - Judicial Precedent - Retrospective Application - Clarificatory Nature - Appellant contended that the legal position regarding the applicability of the Sports Code to state associations changed after their elections were concluded - Court observed that the decisions in Rahul Mehra and KP Rao were clarificatory and merely explained existing law rather than creating new law from a specific date - Held - The Sports Code was always applicable to the Appellant and no issue of retrospective application arises - [Paras 20-23].

Evidence Law - Fraud and Misrepresentation - Reliance on non-existent order - Returning Officer proceeded on the premise that the Sports Code was inapplicable based on a purported order of the High Court of Orissa which was later discovered to be fabricated - Respondent No 1 challenged the electoral process upon discovery of the discrepancy - Held - Reliance on a non-existent order vitiated the electoral process from its inception and the Returning Officer was precluded from examining candidate eligibility on the touchstone of the Sports Code - [Paras 26-30].

Writ Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Scope of Enquiry - Disaffiliation - Appellant alleged that it was unlawfully disaffiliated based on a fraudulent communication and alleged mala fides by Respondent No 1 in constituting a parallel body - Held - These issues necessitate an elaborate evidentiary enquiry which cannot be undertaken in exercise of writ jurisdiction - Appellant granted liberty to avail appropriate remedies in accordance with law - [Paras 31-32].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Single Judge judgment affirmed – Appellant granted liberty to seek appropriate legal remedies regarding issues of disaffiliation and alleged fraud requiring evidentiary enquiry.

Civil Law - Specific Endowment - Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1959 - Sections 6(16) and 6(19) - Religious Charities - Suit property described as M schedule in a 1960 partition deed was dedicated for performing charities at temples and feeding pilgrims - Appellants challenged the sale of this property to the 19th defendant - Trial Court dismissed the suit citing maintainability and limitation - High Court analyzed the nature of the endowment - Held - Property dedicated for charities associated with Hindu festivals or religious character constitutes a specific endowment under Section 6(19) - Statutory definitions and Supreme Court precedents confirm that such endowments fall under the exclusive domain of the HR&CE Act - [Paras 8-10].

Civil Law - Jurisdiction - Indian Trusts Act 1882 - Section 34 - Coram Non Judice - The parties had previously obtained permission to sell the property from the Principal Sub Court under Section 34 of the Indian Trusts Act - High Court noted that the Indian Trusts Act is inapplicable to public religious or charitable endowments - Section 108 of the HR&CE Act bars jurisdiction of civil courts when the field is occupied by the HR&CE Act - Held - The order of the Principal Sub Court granting permission for sale was without jurisdiction and coram non judice - Permission for alienation of such property must be obtained from the Commissioner of HR&CE under Section 34 of the HR&CE Act - [Paras 10-11].

Civil Law - Sale by Trustees - Validity - Non-joinder of all trustees - Suit property belonged to a trust where the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 18 were descendants/trustees - Sale deed was executed only by a few defendants - Ratio Decidendi - When a document is executed on behalf of a trust - all trustees must join in the transaction unless delegation is proved - Held - Non-joining of the plaintiffs as signatories to the sale transaction renders the sale void - Sale process was further vitiated by fraud and irregularities in the auction - [Paras 11-13].

Civil Law - Limitation - Limitation Act 1963 - Article 94 - Suit to set aside transfer of immovable property comprised in a religious or charitable endowment - Sale took place in 2010 and the suit was filed in 2015 - Held - Article 94 provides a 12-year limitation period from the date the transfer becomes known to the plaintiff - Suit was filed well within the limitation period - [Para 14].

Civil Law - Maintainability - Recovery of Possession - Possession follows title - Respondents argued suit was not maintainable as plaintiffs did not pray for recovery of possession despite 19th defendant being in possession - Property was vacant land - Held - In cases of vacant land possession follows title - Since the sale was vitiated by fraud and the purchaser had no valid title - he cannot be in legal possession - Plaintiffs as co-trustees are deemed to be in joint possession - Relief of declaration and injunction was sufficient - [Paras 16-17].

Decision: Appeal suit allowed - Judgment and decree of the Trial Court set aside - Suit decreed as prayed for - Sale deed dated 28.06.2010 declared null and void - 19th defendant permitted to withdraw the deposited sale consideration with accrued interest - No costs.

Criminal Law - Summoning of Witnesses - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 311 - Reopening of pre-charge stage - Applicant filed a complaint against opposite parties under Sections 406 504 and 506 IPC - Statements recorded under Section 200 and 202 CrPC - Accused summoned in 2014 - Complainant's statement under Section 244 CrPC recorded in 2020 - Counsel for complainant made a specific written endorsement in 2021 stating no further evidence would be adduced under Section 244 - Discharge application rejected and formal charges framed in March 2022 - Applicant moved application under Section 311 CrPC in December 2025 seeking to examine witnesses under Section 244 stage citing negligence of previous counsel - Trial Court rejected application as being filed long after pre-charge stage was closed - Sessions Judge affirmed rejection in revision - High Court observed that while Section 311 confers wide discretionary power it cannot be used to undo an explicit waiver or alter the statutory structure of trial to the prejudice of the opposite party - Held - Criminal trial cannot move backward to record pre-charge evidence once formal charges exist on record - Allowing such plea after four years would collapse the criminal justice system into endless delays - Application dismissed - [Paras 1-23].

Criminal Law - Warrant Trial Procedure - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Sections 244 and 246 - Admissibility of pre-summoning evidence - Complainant sought to examine witnesses under Section 311 CrPC who were previously examined only under Section 202 CrPC - Held - Only those witnesses who were duly subjected to examination-in-chief under Section 244 before framing of charges can be recalled for cross-examination under Section 246 - Witnesses recorded at pre-summoning stage under Section 202 do not automatically become substantive trial evidence - If complainant fails to examine them under Section 244 they cannot be directly cross-examined under Section 246 - Fairness of trial must be seen from the perspective of the accused and society and not just the victim - Competence of a lawyer is subjective and change of counsel is no ground to seek a de novo trial or reopen closed stages - [Paras 8-21].

Decision: Application dismissed – Orders of the Trial Court dated 20.12.2025 and Revisional Court dated 07.04.2026 affirmed.

Criminal Law - Suspension of Sentence - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita - Section 528 - Simple Injury - Petitioner convicted under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment by the trial court - Lower appellate court admitted the appeal but rejected the petition for suspension of sentence - High Court noted that the petitioner had remained in incarceration for more than six and a half months in the present case - Medical evidence from the doctor PW7 established that the victim sustained only a lacerated injury which was classified as simple in nature - Court emphasized the duration of custody already undergone and the nature of the injury in exercising its discretion - Held - Substantive sentence of imprisonment alone is suspended pending disposal of the criminal appeal - [Paras 1-8].

Criminal Law - Bail and Criminal History - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita - Section 528 - Custody Period - Prosecution opposed the grant of bail citing thirteen cases in the petitioner history - Petitioner demonstrated that he was acquitted in three cases and granted bail on appeal in a POCSO case conviction - High Court considered the incarceration period of over six months and the medical evidence characterizing the injury as simple - Court determined that the petitioner is entitled to bail pending the outcome of the appeal - Held - Petitioner ordered to be enlarged on bail upon executing a bond for five thousand rupees with two sureties - [Paras 3-6].

Decision: Petition allowed – Substantive sentence of imprisonment suspended until disposal of C.A. No. 44 of 2026 – Petitioner enlarged on bail with specific conditions including appearance before the lower appellate court – Liberty granted to file application under Section 317 CrPC for absence.

Civil Law - Second Appeal - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 100 - Recovery of Professional Fees - Appellant engaged Respondent as Advocate in labor litigations - Employer paid Rs 80000 total compensation to Respondent on behalf of Appellant - Respondent retained Rs 60000 and returned only Rs 20000 - Appellant sued for recovery of balance - Respondent filed counterclaim for Rs 36000 as professional fees - Trial Court decreed main suit but dismissed counterclaim citing lack of evidence of fee bill - First Appellate Court upheld main decree but allowed counterclaim finding consensus between parties on fee amount and lack of proof of payment by Appellant - High Court observed that while Respondent conduct in retaining entire amount was unfair the oral evidence established the agreed fee and Appellant failure to pay - Held - No substantial question of law arises as First Appellate Court rightly appreciated evidence regarding non-payment of fees - Second Appeal dismissed - [Paras 1-50].

Civil Law - Counterclaim - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Sections 3 and 101 - Proof of Debt - Respondent-Advocate failed to prove original fee bill Mark DW1/A in accordance with Law - Appellant however did not state in pleadings or evidence that he had paid the agreed fee amount - Oral evidence and party conduct established the professional fee was due and unpaid - Held - Decree of counterclaim is sustainable as non-production of a bill is not fatal when consensus on the debt exists and no proof of payment is rendered - [Paras 47-49].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 22.12.2023 passed by the First Appellate Court stands affirmed.

Writ Law - Delay and Laches - Land Acquisition - Karnataka Acquisition of Land for House Sites Act 1972 - Section 3 - Preliminary notification issued on 09.02.1987 and final notification on 13.08.1987 for residential layout - Landowners filed writ petitions in 2006 and 2008 questioning the acquisition after a gap of 19-21 years - Single Judge quashed the proceedings holding the involvement of a private trust as illegal and a fraud on power - Division Bench found that the Single Judge failed to consider the gross delay and laches - Held - Writ petitions challenging land acquisition proceedings after nearly two decades from the date of final notification are liable to be dismissed on the ground of inordinate delay - [Paras 13-18 and 25].

Civil Law - Estoppel - Approbate and Reprobate - Karnataka Acquisition of Land for House Sites Act 1972 - Rule 10-B - Conduct of landowners - Landowners had executed sale agreements - special power of attorney - and consent statements prior to the notifications - They accepted the consented award and executed indemnity bonds in favour of the Special Land Acquisition Officer - Division Bench held that the landowners having received entire sale consideration and compensation without objection were estopped from challenging the acquisition - Held - Landowners cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate by challenging the acquisition proceedings after voluntarily accepting the benefits of the award - [Paras 9-11 and 21-23].

Writ Law - Maintainability - Non-joinder of necessary parties - Land Acquisition - Trust had developed the land into a residential layout with electricity - roads - and water - Sites were sold through registered sale deeds to third-party purchasers between 1992 and 2006 who constructed houses and resided there - Landowners failed to implead these allottees in the writ petitions - Division Bench held that the allottees were necessary parties as their rights were directly affected - Held - In the absence of allottees of the sites the writ petitions were not maintainable - [Para 24].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Judgment and order of the Single Judge dated 10/02/2012 set aside – Writ petitions dismissed – No order as to costs.