Civil Writ - Religious Institution – Malabar Devaswom Board – Scheme of Administration – Temple governed by statutory scheme framed in 1948 – Petitioner claiming hereditary trusteeship and private temple status – Records disclosed existence of valid scheme under HR&CE Acts of 1926 and 1951 – Temple notified under Section 38 of the Act – Suppression of material facts by petitioner – Held: Administration governed by scheme and not by general provisions of Section 39(2) [Paras 46–47, 53–55].

Trustees – Hereditary Trustee vs Non-Hereditary Trustee – Appointment under Scheme – Where a scheme framed under Section 58 is in force – Appointment of non-hereditary trustees and Executive Officer governed by scheme provisions – Compliance with twin conditions under Section 39(2) not required – Reliance on K. Chathu Achan v. State of Kerala – Held: Appointment valid when made in accordance with scheme [Paras 52–54].

Executive Officer – Power of Appointment – Scheme clause empowering Board – Contention that only hereditary trustee can appoint Executive Officer rejected – Scheme having attained finality empowers Board to appoint Executive Officer to prevent maladministration – Held: Appointment within jurisdiction of Board and Commissioner [Paras 54–57].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Section 99 HR&CE Act – Order passed by Joint Secretary – Validity – Section 99 does not specify designation of officer – Government competent to act through authorised officers – Held: Revisional order not vitiated merely because passed by Joint Secretary [Para 49].

Judicial Review – Article 226 – Interference with administrative orders – Long-standing maladministration, absence of accounts, audit objections, prior enquiries – Sufficient material justifying appointment of Executive Officer – Held: No illegality, arbitrariness or procedural impropriety warranting interference [Paras 56–58].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Orders appointing non-hereditary trustees and Executive Officer upheld – Revisional order of State Government sustained.

Civil Law - Compromise Decree – Lok Adalat Award – Bar of Appeal – First appeal filed under Section 96 CPC challenging compromise decree passed in Lok Adalat on ground of fraud – Held: Appeal not maintainable in view of Section 21(2) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 – Lok Adalat award deemed to be a decree and final – No appeal lies therefrom [Paras 2, 8].

Challenge to Lok Adalat Compromise – Permissible Remedies – Law reiterated that a compromise decree passed in Lok Adalat can be challenged only before the same court under Order XXIII Rule 3-A CPC or by invoking writ/supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution on limited grounds – Separate suit or appeal expressly barred [Paras 7(i)–(vi), 8].

Third Party to Compromise – Right to Challenge – Even a third party to the suit cannot maintain a regular appeal against a Lok Adalat compromise decree – Remedy confined to writ jurisdiction or appropriate statutory procedure as settled by Apex Court precedents [Paras 7, 8].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Failure to Exercise Jurisdiction – District Judge erred in rejecting application seeking dismissal of first appeal as not maintainable – Impugned order found contrary to settled legal position – Revisional court justified in interfering under Section 115 CPC [Paras 9–10].

Decision: Civil Revision Allowed – Impugned order dated 06.03.2023 set aside – Application for rejection of appeal allowed – RFA No.40 of 2006 dismissed as not entertainable – Liberty granted to appellant to approach appropriate forum as per law to challenge compromise decree dated 21.03.1993.

Preventive Detention – Validity of Detention Order – Officer's Authority – Detention order issued under Section 3(1) of PIT NDPS Act by Additional Chief Secretary (Home) – Held: Though officer was competent by rank, order was not issued in the name of the State Government nor was it stated to be on behalf of the Government – Procedural irregularity noted but does not render detention illegal where material justifies satisfaction under the Act [Paras 25-29, 34-36].

Preventive Detention – Specification of Place of Detention – Section 5 PIT NDPS Act – No general or special order issued by the State Government specifying designated detention centres – Held: Detention in Lala Lajpat Rai District Jail not rendered illegal due to absence of such notification, but amounts to irregularity that must be rectified by the State – Directions issued accordingly [Paras 28-29, 34-36].

Illegal Detention – Detention Beyond Initial Period – Determination of Detention Period – Detention began on 09.06.2025; extension order passed on 11.08.2025 – Petitioner claimed illegal custody from 06.08.2025 to 11.08.2025 – Held: Detention period counted from actual date of detention (09.06.2025), not from date of order (05.05.2025) – No illegal detention made out, hence compensation denied [Paras 30, 36].

Language of Detention Order – Right to Effective Representation – Article 22(5) – Detention order served in English – Petitioner claimed lack of understanding – Held: While petitioner understood contents sufficiently to file writ, authorities directed to ensure future detention orders and grounds are communicated in Hindi (official language of State) and vernacular language of detenu to comply with Article 22(5) [Paras 20, 36].

Execution of Detention Order – Mode of Arrest – Detention executed while petitioner was being released on bail – Held: Execution valid under Section 4 of PIT NDPS Act read with principles governing post-conviction arrest under Cr.P.C. / BNSS – No procedural illegality [Paras 31-32].

Detention Justified – Material on Record – Multiple NDPS cases registered against petitioner with significant recoveries of contraband and assets disproportionate to known sources – Held: Satisfaction of detaining authority based on sufficient material; detention justified in facts [Paras 4-9, 35].

Directions to State Government – Compliance with Statutory Requirements –

(i) State to issue general/special order specifying detention centres under Section 5 of PIT NDPS Act.

(ii) Order to be issued by 15/01/2026.

(iii) Grounds of detention to be communicated in Hindi and, where required, in vernacular language.

(iv) Right to representation to be clearly conveyed in language known to detenu. [Para 36]

Decision: Detention upheld – Petition dismissed – No compensation awarded – Procedural irregularity in specifying place of detention noted – Directions issued to State for compliance with Section 5 of PIT NDPS Act and constitutional safeguards.

Commercial Law – Rejection of Plaint – Compliance with Section 12-A of Commercial Courts Act – Suit filed on 31st July 2021, registered on 18th December 2021 – High Court had declared Section 12-A mandatory on 1st October 2021 in Deepak Raheja – Held: Since suit was filed prior to that date, plaint cannot be rejected for non-compliance with Section 12-A – Filing of suit is relevant date for determining compliance, not registration [Paras 8, 22(a)-(b), 31].

Civil Procedure – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – No Cause of Action – Plaint alleges plaintiffs were beneficiaries under Master Restructuring Agreement (MRA) and Trust and Retention Account (TRA) agreements – Defendant no. 1 (SBI) was account bank and allegedly withheld funds due to plaintiffs – Suit also based on representations made in Joint Lenders Forum meetings – Held: Cause of action adequately pleaded; whether it is illusory or defective is a matter for trial – Rejection under Order VII Rule 11(a) not warranted [Paras 23–29].

Limitation – Recovery Suit – Article 113 of Limitation Act – Plaintiffs claim right to sue accrued only upon discovery of facts on 21st May 2019 via NCLT proceedings – Suit filed on 31st July 2021 – Held: Cause of action within limitation as pleaded; limitation involves mixed question of fact and law to be determined at trial stage [Paras 30, 22(k), 29].

Mediation – Validity of Private Mediation – Section 12-A of Commercial Courts Act read with 2018 Rules – Pre-litigation mediation attempted privately and failed – Held: Although private mediation does not fulfil mandatory requirement under Section 12-A, since suit was filed before Section 12-A was declared mandatory, rejection not warranted on this ground [Paras 5(a)-(b), 22(c), 31].

Practice and Procedure – Abuse of Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Court discourages frivolous applications for rejection of plaint that delay commercial suits – Reiterates power to reject plaint must be used sparingly and only when clear grounds under Order VII Rule 11 CPC are satisfied [Para 32].

Decision: Application rejected – None of the grounds under Order VII Rule 11 CPC satisfied – Suit to proceed to trial [Para 33].

Criminal Law – Bail – Parity – Accused not named in FIR but arrested along with co-accused from whose possession 40 motorcycles were allegedly recovered – No videography of recovery conducted as required under Section 105 BNSS – Co-accused Shoeb and Owais granted bail on similar grounds – Held: Applicant entitled to bail on grounds of parity and lack of procedural compliance [Paras 3, 5-6]

Evidence – Search and Seizure – Non-Compliance with BNSS – Recovery of motorcycles not recorded via audio-video means as mandated under Section 105 BNSS and Rule 18 of UP BNSS Rules, 2024 – No independent witnesses or uploading on E-Sakshya portal – Held: Creates serious doubt on prosecution version – Non-compliance may benefit accused at bail and trial stages [Paras 12-13, 16, 18]

Police Conduct – Procedural Safeguards – Lack of SOP – Despite clear statutory mandate, no SOP issued by DGP under Rule 18(5) of UP Rules – Court directs DGP to issue detailed SOP for mandatory video recording during seizure – Non-compliance may lead to disciplinary action against erring officers [Paras 17, 19]

Judicial Directions – Systemic Compliance – Registrar (Compliance) directed to forward copy of judgment to DGP, U.P., for issuance of SOP and ensuring compliance with Section 105 BNSS and Rule 18 UP Rules – Objective is to prevent false implication and ensure fair investigation [Paras 19-20]

Decision: Bail granted – Applicant to be released on furnishing personal bond and two sureties – Conditions imposed to ensure cooperation in trial and prevent misuse of bail – Court emphasizes mandatory procedural compliance in future seizures.

Limitation – Condonation of Delay – Second Appeal – Delay of 1221 Days – Appellant sought condonation on the ground that he was residing in Dubai and was unaware of the judgment of the First Appellate Court – Affidavit silent as to the date of return to India – Appellant had earlier prosecuted first appeal from Dubai by engaging counsel – Held: Mere residence abroad without specific explanation does not constitute sufficient cause [Paras 5-7].

Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 – “Sufficient Cause” – Scope – Appellant pleaded ill-health as a reason for delay – No medical records or particulars of illness produced – No plea of hospitalization – Held: Bald and unsupported plea of ill-health cannot justify inordinate delay [Paras 6-7].

Delay After Obtaining Certified Copy – Conduct of Litigant – Even after receipt of certified copy of appellate judgment, appellant delayed filing second appeal by nearly one year – Lack of diligence and bona fides clearly established – Held: Negligence and inaction disentitle discretionary relief under Section 5 [Paras 6-7, 11].

Discretion of Court – Condonation of Delay – Principles – Law of limitation based on public policy – Courts cannot extend limitation on equitable grounds – Liberal approach cannot defeat statutory mandate – Held: Inordinate delay without satisfactory explanation cannot be condoned [Paras 8-11].

Decision:

Interlocutory Application No. 01 of 2018 dismissed – Delay of 1221 days not condoned – Second Appeal rejected – Interim orders, if any, stood vacated.

Family Law – Maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Father's Obligation vis-a-vis Mother's Income – Challenge against Family Court order directing father to pay Rs. 6,500/- per month to each of his two minor children – Father contended liability ought to be apportioned mathematically since the mother earns a substantial income of Rs. 93,991/- per month – Held: Mere earning of the mother does not absolve the father of his statutory and moral duty to maintain his minor children. The obligation of a father is independent and continues as long as children are minors. Section 125 Cr.P.C. does not require arithmetical apportionment of liability. The awarded amount is reasonable and proportionate given the rising cost of living and needs of growing children [Paras 17-18].

Family Law – Maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Plea of Unemployment – Father claimed total unemployment since 2017 due to multiple litigations – Evidence revealed the father, an MCA graduate with substantial experience, had an offer letter reflecting a monthly CTC of Rs. 92,562/- and take-home salary of Rs. 64,000/- – Held: A bald plea of unemployment cannot be accepted at face value for an able-bodied, qualified, and experienced person. Intentional or voluntary unemployment cannot be used as an excuse to avoid statutory responsibility. Adverse inference rightly drawn against the father for concealing true income [Paras 15-16].

Criminal Procedure – Revisional Jurisdiction under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. – Scope of Interference – Minor children sought enhancement of maintenance amount – Held: Revisional jurisdiction is protective and welfare-oriented but limited in scope. It is not an appellate jurisdiction. Interference is warranted only if the impugned order suffers from patent illegality, arbitrariness, or perversity. As the maintenance awarded is not shockingly low or manifestly unjust, enhancement cannot be granted merely on re-evaluation of facts [Paras 13, 20].

Family Law – Maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Effective Date and Adjustment of Prior Awards – Father challenged the direction to pay maintenance from the date of application and non-adjustment of interim maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act – Held: Awarding maintenance from the date of application is within the discretion of the court, and it was exercised judiciously. Any amount already paid under parallel proceedings can be adjusted at the stage of execution. Such grounds do not render the impugned order illegal [Para 19].

Decision: Both Criminal Revisions dismissed – The judgment and order of the Family Court dated 16.07.2022 is affirmed – Amounts already paid shall be duly adjusted in accordance with law – Arrears, if any, to be cleared by the revisionist/father within three months from the date of judgment.

Civil Law - Power of Attorney – Sale Deed – Fraud and Collusion – Loan Transaction Disguised as Sale – Plaintiff pleaded that power of attorney and earlier sale agreement were executed only as security for a loan of Rs.5,00,000/- – Power agent cancelled earlier agreement and executed sale deed in favour of third defendant without plaintiff’s knowledge – Multiple registered documents executed on the same day – Production of life certificate though plaintiff allegedly present – Suspicious circumstances not satisfactorily explained – Passing of sale consideration not proved – Held: Sale deed dated 04.10.2013 invalid and void [Paras 11–28].

Sale Agreement – Sham and Nominal Transaction – Defendants pleaded borrowing of Rs.5,00,000/- but agreement reflected advance of only Rs.50,000/- – Pleadings and evidence mutually destructive – First defendant not examined – Agreement subsequently cancelled during pendency of suit – Held: Agreement not genuine or enforceable [Paras 21–28, 38].

Evidence – Registered Documents – Presumption and Rebuttal – Registration by itself does not sanctify a transaction – Presumption stands displaced where surrounding circumstances indicate fraud and improbability – Section 92 of the Evidence Act does not bar proof of sham or colourable transactions [Paras 15–26].

Receipt for Consideration – Proof – Undated receipt – Material particulars filled subsequently in ink – Plaintiff’s presence not established – Attesting witness did not speak to passing of consideration – Held: Receipt unreliable and insufficient to prove payment of sale consideration [Paras 24–25].

Possession – Vacant Site – Possession Follows Title – Sale deed having been declared invalid, purchaser cannot claim lawful possession – Plaintiff’s title subsists – Held: Plaintiff deemed to be in possession of suit property [Paras 29–30].

Civil Procedure – Relief Beyond Pleadings – Money Decree – Trial Court granted decree directing plaintiff to repay Rs.5,00,000/- though second defendant neither pleaded nor filed counter-claim – Violates principle of judex ne eat ultra petita partium – Decree granted without court fee – Held: Money decree unsustainable and liable to be set aside [Paras 31–37].

Court’s Power to Mould Relief – Limits – Court may grant lesser or appropriate relief but cannot grant a relief not prayed for – Inherent powers under Section 151 CPC cannot be exercised contrary to pleadings and statutory requirements [Paras 34–36].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Declaration that sale deed dated 04.10.2013 is null and void confirmed – Direction of trial court directing plaintiff to pay Rs.5,00,000/- with interest to second defendant set aside – Suit decreed in favour of plaintiff without any relief to defendants – Costs awarded.

Civil Writ - Revenue Records – Mutation Proceedings – Delay and Laches – Exercise of Power after Long Lapse of Time – Revenue authorities entertaining claims after an inordinate delay of 71 years from initial transactions and 26 years from issuance of pattadar pass books held impermissible – Even in absence of prescribed limitation, statutory powers must be exercised within a reasonable time – Entertaining stale claims unsettles settled rights and violates rule of law [Paras 10–13].

Revenue Authorities – Jurisdiction – Title Disputes – Limits – Where complicated questions of title and possession arise, revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to adjudicate such disputes – Role of revenue authorities confined to maintenance of records – Civil Court alone competent forum for adjudication of title – Joint Collector exceeded jurisdiction by virtually deciding title on basis of administrative report [Paras 3–4, 6, 14–16].

Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 – Section 8(2) – Bar of Suits – Scope – Where entries in record of rights deny title, aggrieved party must seek declaration before Civil Court – Revenue remedies not substitute for civil adjudication – Party deliberately bypassing Civil Court cannot seek relief under ROR Act [Paras 14–15].

Mutation Entries – Evidentiary Value – Finality – Long Standing Revenue Records – Revenue entries standing unchallenged for decades carry high evidentiary value – Mutation and pattadar pass books issued after due enquiry cannot be unsettled after prolonged silence – Doctrine of settled rights applies [Paras 9–11].

Suo Motu / Revisional Powers – Reasonable Time – Doctrine of Fair Play – Exercise of revisional or supervisory powers after decades held arbitrary and oppressive – Reliance placed on precedents of Andhra Pradesh High Court and Supreme Court – Administrative action after long delay violates fairness and certainty in land rights [Paras 10–12].

Joint Collector – Impugned Order – Arbitrary and Without Jurisdiction – Order setting aside RDO’s decision and directing alteration of revenue entries based solely on report held illegal – Joint Collector acted beyond statutory authority – Order liable to be quashed [Paras 4, 16].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Impugned Order No. D.Dis.No.3630/2015/D4 dated 19.09.2017 passed by the Joint Collector set aside – No order as to costs – All pending miscellaneous applications closed.