Criminal Law – UAPA – Regular Bail – Section 43-D(5) – Prolonged Custody – Appellant in custody for over 2 years and 10 months without trial due to pendency of sanction under Section 45 of the UAPA – No evidence linking weapons recovered from appellant to terrorist activity or declared terrorists – Held: Long incarceration without trial violates Article 21 – Bail granted despite UAPA charges [Paras 3, 10, 12]

UAPA – Prima Facie Case – Section 43-D(5) – Standard of Review – Prosecution failed to establish reasonable grounds to believe accusations under Chapters IV and VI of UAPA to be prima facie true – No evidence linking accused to any act of terrorism – No record of WhatsApp communication or joint jail presence with alleged terrorists – Court held mere possession of arms without terror link insufficient for continued detention under UAPA [Paras 9-10]

Criminal Law – Parity in Bail – Co-Accused Granted Bail – Appellant's role not graver than co-accused already granted bail – Persons from whom arms were recovered, and others who allegedly supplied the weapons, all released on bail by Trial Court or Coordinate Bench – Held: Parity and lack of distinguishing features support grant of bail [Paras 10, Table under Para 10]

Constitutional Law – Article 21 – Right to Speedy Trial – Bail as Safeguard – Delay in framing charges and conclusion of trial despite completion of investigation violates fundamental right under Article 21 – Supreme Court precedents in K.A. Najeeb, Jalaluddin Khan, Vernon, Shoma Kanti Sen, and Javed Shaikh applied – Held: Bail cannot be denied solely on seriousness of charges where trial is indefinitely delayed [Paras 11–16]

Criminal Procedure – Bail Conditions – Court imposed stringent conditions including ₹10 lakh bond, weekly police attendance, undertaking for trial participation, and prohibition on inducement or fresh offences – Prosecution permitted to seek cancellation if conditions breached [Paras 17–19]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order dated 22.12.2023 denying regular bail set aside – Appellant granted regular bail subject to stringent conditions including high bond, weekly marking, and undertaking for trial compliance – Observations made not to affect merits of trial – Trial Court permitted to impose additional safeguards – Prosecution at liberty to seek cancellation upon breach [Paras 17–21]

Income Tax – Reassessment – Bar of Limitation – Notice under Section 148 issued on 22.04.2024 to reopen A.Y. 2017–18 – Court held that under first proviso to amended Section 149, such notice is time-barred as six-year limitation expired on 31.03.2024 – Fifth and sixth provisos to Section 149 not applicable to extend limitation under first proviso – Held: Notice and reassessment proceedings are barred by law [Paras 9-16, 21]

Tax Procedure – Parallel Proceedings – Pending Rectification – Grounds of reopening (employee PF contribution, depreciation disallowance, unexplained credits) were already pending under Section 154 – Held: Initiating reassessment under Section 148 during subsistence of Section 154 rectification proceedings amounts to impermissible change of opinion – Reliance placed on S.M. Overseas (P) Ltd. [Paras 17-20]

Statutory Interpretation – Effect of Amendments – Court clarified that first proviso to amended Section 149 overrides the saving clauses in fifth and sixth provisos – Cited Delhi, Rajasthan, and Bombay High Court precedents rejecting retrospective application of extended limitation – Reiterated: Notices for pre-2021 assessment years cannot be saved by amended ten-year window unless old limitation was alive on 01.04.2021 [Paras 10-15]

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Order under Section 148A(d) and notice under Section 148 quashed – Reassessment for A.Y. 2017–18 held barred by limitation – No costs [Para 21]

Industrial Disputes – Reinstatement – Back Wages – Absence Without Leave – Reinstatement Without Back Wages Upheld – Petitioner, a temporary Chawkidar whose services were regularised, absented without sanctioned leave from 02.11.1993 to 27.01.1994 – Tribunal found non-acceptance of joining illegal and ordered reinstatement but denied back wages – Held: Absence without leave and failure to inform employer disentitles petitioner from back wages – Reinstatement does not automatically confer entitlement to wages for period of absence [Paras 2, 10-13]

Labour Law – Burden of Proof – Gainful Employment Not Pleaded – No Evidence of Unemployment – Petitioner failed to plead or establish that he remained unemployed during disputed period – Held: Burden lies on workman to assert and prove non-employment; in absence thereof, no back wages can be granted [Paras 12-13]

Back Wages – Principles and Precedents – Flexibility in Relief – No Straightjacket Rule – Citing U.P.S.R.T.C. v. Mithu Singh and Deepali Gundu Surwase, Court reiterated that award of back wages is not automatic – Various factors including nature of absence, length of service, and conduct must be considered – In present case, absence without communication justified denial of wages [Paras 6-9]

Medical Grounds – Mere Production of Medical Certificate Insufficient – No Leave Applied – Petitioner relied on medical certificate to justify absence – Held: Without any application for medical or casual leave or prior intimation to employer, plea of illness cannot be accepted as justification for unauthorised absence [Paras 10-11]

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Award of Industrial Tribunal upheld – No entitlement to back wages – Petitioner found to be at fault for absence without intimation – No interference warranted.

Property Law – Matrimonial Property – Gift – Acceptance – Cancellation – Mandatory Injunction – Title Dispute – Husband claiming purchase in wife’s name; wife asserting exclusive title – Gift Deed executed by husband held accepted by wife; cancellation deed ineffective – Sale by wife upheld – Mandatory injunction claim dismissed [Paras 10–18].

Matrimonial Property – Purchase in Spouse’s Name – Source of Funds – Husband claimed to have paid consideration of ₹3 lakhs to his brother; later sought conveyance from wife or refund; amended claim based on wife’s 12 sovereigns of gold – Court held pleadings themselves defeat husband’s claim of title – Wife proved source of consideration; title vested with her – O.P. rightly dismissed [Paras 3–5, 10].

Gift – Acceptance – Proof – Non-onerous gift – Mere knowledge of gift by donee sufficient – Possession of original Gift Deed by wife strong indicator of acceptance – Gift executed on 26.03.1990; husband’s case that wife informed on 20.11.1998 about intention to cancel – Wife conveyed property on 30.11.1998 – Circumstances show acceptance occurred before cancellation under Ext.A5 – Cancellation void [Paras 11–16].

Gift – Delivery of Possession – Not essential – Delivery not required for a valid gift except under Muhammadan Law – Family Court erred in relying on possession and absence of mutation to hold gift ineffective [Para 17].

Civil Procedure – Family Court – Appreciation of Evidence – Family Court’s finding that gift had not taken effect reversed – Sale Deed (Ext.A8) executed by wife is valid – Husband’s O.P. seeking declaration and cancellation dismissed [Paras 15–18].

Decision – Mat. Appeal No.98/2016 allowed – Judgment in O.P.1282/2003 set aside and petition dismissed – Mat. Appeal No.305/2015 dismissed – Wife’s title over both properties confirmed [Final Para].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Cognizance under Section 186 IPC – Magistrate cannot take cognizance for offence under Section 186 IPC except upon a written complaint by the public servant concerned or their administrative superior as mandated by Section 195(1)(a) CrPC – Police report filed by Sub-Inspector in absence of such complaint cannot be treated as valid – Held: Cognizance taken without satisfying statutory preconditions is illegal and unsustainable [Paras 10–15, 22].

Police Report – Not Equivalent to Valid Complaint – Section 2(d) CrPC defines complaint as distinct from a police report – Though explanation to Section 2(d) allows non-cognizable offence reports to be treated as complaints, such reports must be result of investigation under Section 155(2) CrPC – In present case, no permission sought under Section 155(2), and the report was merely an enquiry, not investigation – Held: Report cannot be deemed a complaint, and Magistrate’s reliance on it was misplaced [Paras 11–12].

Administrative Subordination – Requirement under Section 195 CrPC – Cognizance under Section 186 IPC can only be taken on complaint by public servant concerned or their administrative superior – NVF personnel under West Bengal NVF Act, 1949 are not administratively subordinate to a Sub-Inspector of Police – Held: Sub-Inspector lacked locus to lodge complaint or submit prosecution report – No valid initiation of proceedings possible [Paras 13–15].

Offence under Section 186 IPC – Ingredients Not Satisfied – Allegation merely of use of filthy language and misbehaviour by petitioner – No specific act of obstruction in discharge of duty alleged – Absence of overt act or credible show of force – Held: Allegations vague and insufficient to constitute offence under Section 186 IPC [Paras 16–19].

Malicious Prosecution – Counterblast Theory Accepted – Timeline indicates FIR lodged by petitioner against NVF personnel for assault, followed by complaint against petitioner six days later – Court found complaint likely filed out of vengeance – Held: Proceedings initiated mala fide and in abuse of judicial process – Attracted categories (6) and (7) of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 [Paras 20].

Cognizance Order – Mechanical and Non-Application of Mind – Magistrate’s order taking cognizance lacked judicial reasoning – Merely filled in pre-typed form and signed – Held: Cognizance order bad in law and contrary to Rule 183 of Calcutta High Court Criminal (Subordinate Courts) Rules, 1985 [Para 21].

Criminal Revision – Quashing of Proceedings – In absence of valid complaint, administrative authority, and offence ingredients, continuance of prosecution would be abuse of court process – Held: Entire proceeding quashed under Section 482 CrPC [Paras 22–24].

Decision:

CRR 1926 of 2018 allowed – Proceedings in NGR Case No. 8848 of 2018 pending before CJM, Purba Medinipur, arising out of Kolaghat P.S. NCR No. 185 of 2018 under Section 186 IPC, quashed – Magistrate’s order taking cognizance found illegal – Xerox certified copy to be issued on compliance [Paras 22–24].

Execution – Order XXI Rule 97 CPC – Objector (mother of JD) asserting 1/3rd independent share in auctioned property – Plausible claim based on joint family nucleus – Executing court bound to adjudicate by framing issues and allowing evidence – Summary rejection improper – Matter remanded for full adjudication [Paras 27–36].

Execution of Decree – Obstruction Petition – Order XXI Rule 97 CPC – Scope – Executing court must adjudicate all questions including right, title, interest of obstructionist; separate suit barred – Findings operate as res judicata – Summary dismissal without framing issues impermissible where objector shows prima facie independent right – Matter must be tried as if a suit [Paras 18–25, 33].

Stranger to Decree – Independent Right – Mother of JD – Joint Family Property – Burden of Proof – Though no presumption that property is joint family property, presumption of joint family exists – Objector asserted purchase of property from joint family nucleus; averred father’s thriving business, inheritance of business and assets, JD being 27-year-old businessman at time of purchase – These circumstances sufficient to shift initial onus; objector must be allowed to adduce evidence – Summary rejection unjustified [Paras 28–33].

Order XXI Rule 97/101 CPC – Need for Evidence – Adjudication may be summary only when facts are admitted or obstruction frivolous – Where objection discloses a semblance of right, executing court must frame issues and conduct evidentiary trial – Failure amounts to jurisdictional error – High Court corrects error in second appeal [Paras 12–14, 21, 33].

Joint Family Nucleus – Hindu Law – No presumption that property is joint family merely because family is joint – But where circumstances show existence of a nucleus from which property could be acquired, onus shifts to person asserting self-acquisition – Principles reiterated from Angadi Chandranna v. Shankar (SC 2025), R. Deivanai Ammal, Annamalai Chetti (PC) – Objector’s pleadings justified a full inquiry [Paras 28–32].

Execution Sale – Challenge – Right of Third Party – Objector not challenging auction on grounds under Order XXI Rule 90; seeking only protection of her undivided 1/3rd share – Objection maintainable upon threat of dispossession – Delay in filing objection not fatal; cause arises when warrant of possession issued – Objector is not JD; cannot be penalized for not participating earlier [Paras 34–35].

Substantial Question of Law – Executing Court’s Duty – Whether executing court erred in law by not framing issues and not permitting evidence regarding joint family character of property – Held: Yes; error goes to root of adjudicatory obligation under Rules 97–101 – Substantial question answered in favour of appellant [Paras 7, 36].

Remand – Executing court directed to frame issues, permit evidence, and decide objection under Order XXI Rule 97 within six months – Rights of auction purchaser preserved pending adjudication [Para 37].

Criminal Law – Sections 307, 323, 504, and 506 IPC - Acquittal – Appeal under Section 419 BNSS – Sole testimony of injured complainant not supported by medical evidence – Delay of 16 days in initiating prosecution remained unexplained – No independent witness produced despite being named – Suppression of fact that accused had also sustained injuries and police proceedings were initiated against both sides – Trial court found contradictions in injury narrative and held complainant's version unreliable – Held: No perversity or illegality in acquittal – Appeal dismissed [Paras 13, 21-27, 30-38].

Criminal Procedure – Scope of Appellate Interference in Acquittal – If two plausible views exist, appellate court should not reverse acquittal unless trial court findings are perverse or manifestly erroneous – No such defect found in trial court’s judgment – Findings based on proper evaluation of evidence and consistent with Supreme Court precedents – No ground for interference [Paras 16-20, 39].

Evidence – Sole Injured Witness – Credibility – Injured witness's testimony must be cogent and corroborated – Contradictions between medical evidence and complainant’s version – Injuries found simple and not matching the narrative – Testimony categorised as neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable – Cannot be sole basis for conviction – Held: Trial court rightly disbelieved sole testimony in absence of corroboration [Paras 30-38].

Delay in Lodging Complaint – Complaint filed 16 days after alleged incident – No satisfactory explanation – Alleged application to police not proved – Delay fatal to prosecution as per Supreme Court precedent – Trial court's findings upheld [Paras 22-27].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal confirmed – No ground for interference with trial court judgment under Section 419 BNSS.

Arbitration – Maintainability of Section 34 Petition – MSME Award – Pre-deposit Mandatory – Petition filed to challenge MSME award without deposit of 75% of award amount at time of filing – Deposit made only on 18.06.2025, beyond 120-day limitation under Section 34(3) – Held: Petition not maintainable due to failure to comply with statutory precondition under Section 19 of MSMED Act within limitation – No judicial discretion available to condone this delay [Paras 11, 29, 34–35, 45].

Arbitration – MSMED Act – Harmonious Construction – MSMED Act (special statute) and Arbitration Act (general statute) must be harmonised – Section 19 requiring 75% deposit is mandatory and must be fulfilled within the limitation period under Section 34 – Mere filing of Section 34 petition without deposit does not stop limitation clock – Held: Petition deemed filed only on date of deposit [Paras 29, 31, 33–34].

Statutory Interpretation – “Shall be Entertained” – Phrase in Section 19 MSMED Act interpreted to mean that unless deposit is made within prescribed time, court cannot proceed to entertain petition – Discretion of court limited to method of payment (e.g., instalments), not to waive or extend time for deposit – Petition not entertainable when deposit made after 120-day period [Paras 13, 14, 20–23, 34–35].

Judicial Precedents – Divergent High Court Views – Madras High Court disagrees with views of Bombay and Delhi High Courts which allowed pre-deposit post-filing – Relied on binding ratio of SC in Lakshmiratan Engineering Works Ltd. and Full Bench of Madras HC in E.P. Nawab Marakkadai – Held: Entertainability of petition is dependent on timely deposit [Paras 20–23, 25–28].

Execution – Interim Relief under Section 9 – Respondent filed Section 9 petition seeking deposit of award amount pending challenge – In view of dismissal of Section 34 petition, deposit made by petitioner under Section 19 treated as made in Section 9 proceeding – Court directed release of deposited amount to respondent – Liberty granted to initiate execution for remaining dues [Paras 46–47].

Decision: Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.) No.557 of 2025 dismissed as not maintainable due to failure to deposit 75% of award within statutory period – Court declined to exercise discretion under Section 19 MSMED Act – Arb.Appln.(Com.Div.) No.369 of 2025 disposed – Deposit made in Arb.O.P. directed to be paid to respondent – Liberty granted to initiate execution for balance amount if unpaid [Paras 45–47].

Contract Law – Term Sheet – Specific Performance – Appeal from Order dismissed – Term Sheet between Plaintiff developer and Defendant landowners provided for refundable deposit and joint development of land – Dispute arose on whether Term Sheet was a concluded and enforceable contract or merely an agreement to agree – Held: Validity Clause with Long Stop Date was a condition precedent – Plaintiff failed to perform obligations before Long Stop Date – No extension pleaded or agreed – Term Sheet automatically stood terminated – Plaintiff entitled only to refund of ₹11 crores – No right to seek specific performance survives – Appeal dismissed [Paras 17, 21–31, 35, 50–52, 53].

Contract Construction – Long Stop Date – Significance – Long Stop Date under Clause 12 of Term Sheet operated as contractual deadline for due diligence and execution of transaction documents – Clause began with non-obstante expression – Held: Clause 12 overrode other terms including Clause 11 on enforceability – Failure to comply by Long Stop Date resulted in automatic termination of contract – No open-ended or implied extension recognized in absence of mutual agreement – Court upheld commercial certainty and enforceability of Long Stop Date [Paras 24–34, 51–52].

Evidence – Concluded Contract vs Agreement to Agree – Clause analysis and conduct of parties – Despite use of term "enforceable" in Clause 11, contract was contingent on fulfilment of conditions precedent under Clause 12 – Plaintiff failed to accept title or execute transaction documents – Additional terms like third-party award payment introduced later – Held: No concluded contract – Specific performance not maintainable [Paras 19–20, 36–38, 43–44, 46].

Relief – Refund of Advance – Defendants permitted to deposit ₹11 crores – Trial court's refusal of injunction upheld – Appellant’s claim limited to alternate prayer for refund of deposit – Balance of convenience in favour of Defendants – No prima facie case made out for injunction – No enforceable obligation to convey development rights survives – Injunction rightly refused [Paras 47–49, 53–54].

Specific Relief Act – Contract not Specifically Enforceable – Section 14(1)(a) and (c) – Clause 12 made Term Sheet determinable – Monetary compensation sufficient remedy – Held: Agreement not enforceable in terms of Specific Relief Act – Injunction barred under Section 41(e) [Paras 49].