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].

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].

Criminal Law – Rape – Promise to Marry – Consensual Relationship – False Allegation – Quashing of FIR – Petitioner Advocate accused of rape under false promise of marriage by a married woman who was also his client – FIR and statement under Section 164 CrPC lacked specific dates or particulars of inducement – Relationship continued for over one year during subsisting marriage of prosecutrix – Held: Mature, married prosecutrix, being a lawyer, could not have been misled by promise of marriage – Allegations do not constitute offence under Section 376 IPC – FIR quashed to that extent [Paras 17-28].

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of FIR – Abuse of Process – Prima Facie Offence Not Made Out – Section 482 CrPC Invoked – FIR found to contain exaggerated and inherently improbable allegations against multiple persons including family members – No material or disclosure statement supporting offence under Section 180 IPC – Threat allegations under Section 506 IPC vague and devoid of alarm-causing content – Held: Prosecution under Sections 376, 180 and 506 IPC manifestly malicious – FIR quashed partially under Bhajan Lal principles [Paras 14, 26, 29, 34-35].

Information Technology – Section 67A – Transmission of Obscene Content – Digital Privacy and Consent – Prima Facie Case Exists – Petitioner sent explicit images via WhatsApp, which were later shared with prosecutrix’s husband – Though exchange was private and initially consensual, once shared with third party, offence under Section 67A IT Act attracted – Held: Quashing refused in respect of Section 67A – Trial to proceed on that count [Paras 30-31].

Gender and Law – Misuse of Rape Laws – Relationship Breakdown – Emotional Fallout – Not Basis for Criminal Prosecution – Complaint seen as emotional reaction after petitioner became engaged to prosecutrix's sister – Court cautioned against treating every failed relationship as basis for sexual assault charge – Judicial focus on consent, agency, and legal standards reaffirmed [Paras 27-28].

Decision: Petition partly allowed – FIR and charge sheet quashed qua offences under Sections 376(2)(n), 180, and 506 IPC – Trial to continue only under Section 67A of the IT Act.

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]

Negotiable Instruments – Cheque Dishonour – Secondary Evidence – Original Cheque Lost – Complainant sought to mark photocopy of cheque under Section 65 of Evidence Act after discovering original was missing – Trial Court rejected plea citing lack of explanation and absence of return memo – Held: Respondent had not denied existence of cheque but only disputed ink and handwriting – Court directed that photostat copy be marked as primary evidence – All defences left open for trial [Paras 2, 4, 5]

Criminal Procedure – Revision – Interference with Trial Court’s Discretion – Rejection of secondary evidence without considering surrounding documentary evidence including promissory note, legal notice, reply – Held: Trial Court erred in mechanically rejecting the application – Revision allowed to avoid miscarriage of justice in a long pending matter [Paras 4, 5]

Evidence Act – Secondary Evidence – Photostat Copy – Permissibility – Where original cheque is lost and its existence is corroborated by other documents such as promissory note and notices – Held: Photocopy admissible under Section 65 of Evidence Act – Respondent free to challenge genuineness during trial [Paras 4, 5]

Trial Directions – Expeditious Disposal – Case pending since 2014 – Directed to be posted on day-to-day basis and completed within two months from receipt of order [Para 6]

Decision: Criminal Revision allowed – Order of trial court set aside – Photostat copy of cheque permitted to be marked as primary evidence – Trial Court directed to complete trial within two months – Connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition closed [Paras 5-7]

Service Law – Municipal Recruitment – Sanitation Workers – Daily wage CLR workers with long years of service permitted to participate in selection pursuant to interim court orders – Selection conducted on merits along with Employment Exchange candidates – Wider zone of consideration permissible – No illegality in appointing daily wagers who succeeded in selection – Employment Exchange-only restriction not absolute – Writs by daily wage workers allowed; writs by Employment Exchange candidates dismissed [Paras 19–27].

Regularisation – Daily Wage / CLR Workers – No automatic right to regularisation – However, when daily wage workers were allowed to participate in a full, competitive selection process and emerged successful, their appointment cannot be denied – Distinction drawn between “regularisation as of right” and “appointment after due selection” [Paras 19–21].

Employment Exchange – G.O. dated 22.04.1982 – Employment Exchange sponsorship mandatory in ordinary circumstances – However, following Excise Superintendent v. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao principle, Employment Exchange cannot be sole channel – Fair selection requires wider notification or inclusion of eligible workers – Daily wage workers validly included in selection pursuant to Court order – No bar to considering them on merit [Paras 20–22].

Constitutional Law – Equality in Public Employment – Restricting selection exclusively to Employment Exchange candidates may deprive eligible persons of opportunity – Court relied on Visweshwara Rao to uphold broader zone of consideration – Selection found fair, merit-based, and uniform for both groups [Paras 21–23].

Recruitment Process – Validity – Municipality produced consolidated select list; no allegation of exclusion, bias or mala fides – All candidates (Employment Exchange nominees + CLR workers) evaluated under same criteria – Selection upheld as lawful [Para 23].

Relief – Petitioners (CLR workers) in WP(C) Nos. 15142 & 15146/2023 directed to be appointed as Substitute Sanitation Workers as per merit list – WP(C) 15500/2023 & 20483/2025 (Employment Exchange candidates) dismissed except to extent selected candidates among them will be appointed – WP(C) 37605/2024 partly allowed with direction to include CLR workers with >10 years’ service in future selection in Thrippunithura Municipality [Final Paras].

Telecom Law – Jurisdiction of TDSAT – Dispute Between Service Providers – Plaintiff (a Class 'A' ISP) and Defendant No.1 (a Category 'A' ITSP) entered into an Operational Merger Agreement (OMA) for resource and infrastructure integration – Allegations of breach of contract, disruption of services, and withholding of infrastructure affecting thousands of end consumers – Held: Dispute is between service providers and directly impacts users—Squarely falls within exclusive jurisdiction of TDSAT under Section 14(a)(ii) of TRAI Act—Civil suit not maintainable [Paras 3, 22–26, 38–39]

Civil Procedure – Bar of Jurisdiction – Section 15 of TRAI Act – Civil courts barred from entertaining disputes that TDSAT is competent to adjudicate – Inclusion of individual directors and foreign parent company (non-service providers) does not alter the core nature of the dispute – Allegations against Defendants 2–5 arise from their roles within service provider operations – No distinct cause of action independent of the primary dispute – Civil court lacks jurisdiction [Paras 30–35]

Consumer Impact – Scope of TRAI Act – Plaintiff admitted disruption of service to approx. 19,000 residential and commercial users including hospitals, schools, and government bodies – Held: Where dispute affects a large body of consumers, TDSAT as the expert tribunal must adjudicate – Object of TRAI Act is to ensure consumer protection and orderly growth of telecom sector [Paras 24–26]

Contractual Disputes – Private Agreement Between Telecom Operators – Plaintiff argued dispute arose from a private contractual arrangement unrelated to regulatory functions – Court rejected argument citing binding precedent that even private agreements between service providers fall within TDSAT’s domain if consumer interests are affected or sectoral regulation is implicated [Paras 27–29]

Distinction from Precedents – Cases relied upon by plaintiff (e.g., Amrit Aneja, Hathway Digital) held inapplicable – Those disputes involved non-service providers or employer-employee issues – In contrast, current dispute involves operational failures and service disruptions between two licensed service providers [Paras 36–37]

Decision:Suit held not maintainable – Dispute falls within exclusive jurisdiction of TDSAT under Sections 14 and 15 of the TRAI Act – Civil court barred from entertaining the matter – Plaint rejected – Pending applications disposed of accordingly.

Preventive Detention – Verification of In-Camera Statements – Subjective Satisfaction – Petitioner challenged preventive detention under MPDA Act alleging non-compliance with procedural safeguards – Contended that Detaining Authority failed to personally verify in-camera statements of witnesses – Held: It is not a legal requirement that the Detaining Authority must personally verify in-camera statements – Verification by a senior police officer such as Assistant Commissioner of Police suffices and provides necessary procedural safeguard – Assistant Commissioner personally interacted with witnesses, visited incident spot, and verified genuineness of statements – Detaining Authority perused entire record, including verification report, and recorded subjective satisfaction [Paras 4–11].

Preventive Detention – Procedural Safeguards – Compliance with Legal Requirements – Grounds of detention, in-camera statements, and verification report were supplied to the detenu – Detaining Authority noted and considered all relevant material before passing the detention order – Detention order satisfies requirements of Section 8 MPDA Act and Article 22(5) of the Constitution – No breach of procedural safeguards found [Paras 6–10, 12].

Judicial Review – Subjective Satisfaction – Scope – Courts cannot substitute their own opinion for the subjective satisfaction of Detaining Authority – Reasonableness of satisfaction is not to be tested objectively – Judicial interference not warranted unless procedural illegality or arbitrariness is established – Held: No infirmity found in detention order – Petition lacks merit [Paras 5, 12–13].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Rule discharged – Interim application also disposed of as infructuous.

Employees Compensation – Territorial Jurisdiction – Dismissal of Claim – Appellants challenged dismissal of compensation claim by Commissioner, Thane, for want of territorial jurisdiction – Deceased claimant initially resided in Thane when application was filed but later shifted to Uttar Pradesh – Employer based in Gujarat and accident occurred in Gujarat – Insurance company had branch office at Thane – Held: Though the employer’s registered office was not at Thane, the claimant’s ordinary residence at the time of filing and the insurer’s business presence in Thane established territorial jurisdiction – Commissioner’s rejection on jurisdictional ground was incorrect – Hyper-technical approach must be avoided in beneficial legislation like EC Act [Paras 6, 14, 38-43].

Substantial Question of Law – Appeal under Section 30 EC Act – Whether dismissal on ground of territorial jurisdiction raised substantial question of law – Held: Interpretation of ‘ordinary residence’ and relevance of insurer’s business presence involve substantial legal issues – Commissioner failed to consider this appropriately – Findings liable to be set aside [Paras 8, 11-13].

Insurance Law – Coverage under Vehicle Package Policy – Risk of employment injury covered under Employees’ Compensation Act – Insurer’s liability contractual and enforceable – Presence of insurer’s branch office, though not specified under EC Act, relevant in light of CPC principles – Insurer entitled to support Commissioner’s findings despite not raising territorial objection earlier [Paras 22-28, 40-41].

Remand – Improper Dismissal – Commissioner’s findings on employment and accident not interfered with – Matter remanded to determine compensation and apportionment of liability between employer and insurer – Appeal partly allowed [Paras 43-44].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Dismissal of claim on territorial jurisdiction grounds set aside – Matter remanded to Commissioner for hearing on compensation and liability – Final disposal directed within three months from 23rd November 2025.