Contempt of Court – Wilful Disobedience – Interim Order Directing Deposit of Compensation – Land Acquisition for National Highways – Interim direction issued to deposit compensation for acquired OSR lands in interest-bearing fixed deposit in name of Registrar General – Despite communication of order and reminders, appellant disbursed nearly Rs.20 Crores to private individuals – Held: Direction was clear and unambiguous – Disbursement in face of subsisting order amounts to wilful disobedience – Finding of contempt justified [Paras 16–20, 22–23].

Scope of Contempt Jurisdiction – Distinction from Merits of Writ Dispute – Appellant contended lands were private lands as per revenue records and not OSR lands – Court held that in contempt proceedings, correctness of original order or merits of acquisition cannot be examined – Only question is compliance with order in force – Authorities cannot interpret order on their own – Proper course was to seek clarification or modification [Paras 19, 21–22].

Knowledge of Court Order – Communication and Subsequent Conduct – Interim order dated 10.02.2020 communicated officially and through District Collector – Further representations and legal notice issued – Despite full knowledge, compensation disbursed – Recovery of amount subsequent to violation does not obliterate contempt once committed [Paras 18, 24].

Sentence – Civil Imprisonment – Proportionality – Appellant sentenced to one month civil imprisonment and had already undergone 19 days – Held: Considering magnitude of amount involved and deliberate breach, sentence not excessive – Appellant directed to undergo remaining period of imprisonment [Paras 25–27].

Decision: Contempt Appeal dismissed – Order dated 04.08.2023 in Cont.P.No.642 of 2020 affirmed – Appellant to undergo remaining period of civil imprisonment as imposed by learned Single Judge.

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Quashing of Process – Nexus with Proceeds of Crime – Property purchased between 2005-2007 – Alleged proceeds of crime generated between December 2020 and February 2021 – No material showing connection between earlier acquisition and scheduled offence – Held: Existence of “proceeds of crime” is sine qua non for offence under Section 3 PMLA – In absence of nexus between property and alleged criminal activity, ingredients of Sections 3 and 4 not made out – Process liable to be quashed [Paras 22, 25, 29, 32].

Money Laundering – Continuing Offence – Scope of Section 3 PMLA – Reliance placed on Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Pavana Dibbur – Court reiterates that offence under Section 3 arises only when a person knowingly deals with proceeds of crime derived from scheduled offence – Though offence may be continuing, there must first exist property derived from criminal activity relating to scheduled offence – In present case, property acquired much prior to alleged generation of proceeds – No prima facie material of Applicant’s involvement in laundering tainted funds [Paras 16-18, 22, 27-29].

Cognizance and Issuance of Process – Requirement of Application of Mind – “Sufficient ground for proceeding” under Section 204 Cr.P.C. – Designated Court’s order reproduced – No specific reasons demonstrating application of mind qua Applicant – Mechanical issuance of process without analysis of role attributed – Order bad in law and liable to be set aside – Reliance placed on Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI [Paras 6, 30-31].

Inherent Powers – Section 482 Cr.P.C. / Section 528 BNSS – Abuse of Process – Where uncontroverted allegations and charge-sheet material do not disclose commission of offence under Sections 3 and 4 PMLA against Applicant – High Court justified in exercising inherent jurisdiction to quash proceedings to prevent abuse of process of law [Paras 32-33].

Decision: Criminal Application allowed – Impugned order dated 16.09.2021 issuing process against Applicant (Accused No. 11) in PMLA Special Case No. 1089 of 2021 quashed and set aside – Complaint under PMLA quashed qua Applicant – Interim Application disposed of – No order as to costs.

Service Law – Departmental Proceedings – Removal from Service – Petitioner, Office Subordinate, repeatedly attended duty in drunken state at different Courts – Medical certificates and breath analyzer reports confirmed consumption of alcohol – Evidence of Presiding Officers, Sub-Inspector of Police and Civil Assistant Surgeons corroborated misconduct – Held: Findings of Enquiry Officer based on cogent evidence – No procedural illegality warranting interference under Article 226 [Paras 11–15].

Misconduct – Government Servant – Attending Duty Under Influence of Alcohol – Abusing advocates and behaving recklessly with family members of Presiding Officers while on guard duty – Conduct amounts to unbecoming of Government servant under Rule 3 of A.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 – Repeated instances demonstrate indiscipline and grave misconduct [Paras 12, 14–15].

Judicial Review – Scope – High Court in writ jurisdiction not to re-appreciate evidence in disciplinary proceedings unless findings perverse or contrary to record – Medical evidence and witness testimony clearly established charge – Plea that smell of alcohol due to liver medication rejected in view of medical certificates confirming intoxication levels [Paras 13–15].

Major Penalty – Proportionality – Considering series of incidents and repeated misconduct across different postings, punishment of removal from service under Rule 9(ix) of APCS (CCA) Rules, 1991 held justified – No ground for interference [Paras 15–16].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Order dated 04.06.2018 imposing removal from service upheld – No costs – Pending miscellaneous applications closed.

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR - Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 – Section 2 – Essential Ingredients – Statutory provision penalizes burning, mutilating, defacing, trampling upon or otherwise showing disrespect to the National Flag in public view – Explanation 4 clarifies instances of “disrespect” including allowing the Flag to touch the ground intentionally – Held: Mens rea is sine qua non – Disrespect must be deliberate and intentional – Absence of intention vitiates prosecution [Paras 9, 44, 47].

National Flag – Alleged Disrespect – Edited Photograph Circulated on WhatsApp – Complaint alleged that petitioner stood with slippers on National Flag during Gandhi Jayanthi celebration – Material on record disclosed that original photograph of petitioner was edited by student and superimposed on image of National Flag – Student admitted mistake and tendered apology – Held: Inherent improbability of petitioner intentionally insulting National Flag – No prima facie material of deliberate act [Paras 3, 10].

Flag Code of India, 2002 – Nature and Enforceability – Flag Code is executive instruction and not “law” within meaning of Article 13(3)(a) – Violation of Flag Code per se does not attract penal consequences under Section 2 of the Act – Relied on Union of India v. Naveen Jindal and consistent High Court precedents [Paras 9.1, 39, 42].

Criminal Jurisdiction – Quashing of FIR – Scope of Interference – Applied principles in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal – Where allegations, even if taken at face value, do not disclose ingredients of offence – Continuation of investigation amounts to abuse of process – Court can exercise inherent powers to secure ends of justice [Paras 10, 102 Bhajan Lal extracted].

Patriotism and Criminal Liability – Intention as True Test – Patriotism not determined by gross physical act alone – Intention behind act is decisive – Criminal law cannot be invoked for innocuous or unintended acts lacking malafide intent – Courts must guard against frivolous or malicious prosecution under national honour legislation [Paras 47, 61-63 (Madras HC principles referred)].

Decision: Criminal Petition allowed – FIR in Crime No.377 of 2024 registered by Bagalagunte Police Station for offence under Section 2 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 quashed – All further proceedings before the XXXI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City set aside.

Land Acquisition – Delay and Laches – Writ Petition Filed After 23 Years – Dismissal Upheld – Appellants, claiming to be legal representatives of late Manchaiah, challenged land acquisition notifications issued in 1991 and 1993 by filing a writ petition only in 2017 – Single Judge dismissed the petition on the ground of inordinate delay while granting liberty to seek compensation – Division Bench upheld the dismissal, holding that a litigant who fails to enforce rights within a reasonable period must be treated as a 'fence-sitter' and cannot challenge completed acquisition proceedings – Held: Inordinate delay without justifiable explanation extinguishes the right to challenge [Paras 2, 13, 24, 26]

Notification Issued in Name of Deceased – Revenue Records Relied Upon – No Fault of Authority – The acquisition notifications named late Manchaiah as khatedar/anubhogdar though he had died on 13.08.1981, a decade before the preliminary notification – Court held that the authority was justified in relying solely on the Record of Rights prevailing on the date of notification and was not obliged to conduct a roving inquiry into title or ownership – Appellants' failure to mutate names in revenue records after a decade disentitles them from challenging the notification [Paras 7, 8, 9]

Constructive Notice – Ignorance of Acquisition Proceedings Not Accepted – Land acquisition for over 1000 acres in Basavanahalli Village constituted 'talk of the town' – Appellants' plea of non-receipt of individual notice rejected as gazette publication and public notice under Section 4 of the LA Act amounts to constructive notice – Held: Appellants cannot plead ignorance to justify enormous delay in filing the petition [Paras 10, 11, 12]

Possession – Mahazar by Revenue Inspector – Valid Taking of Possession – Physical possession taken on 13.08.2001 by Special Revenue Inspector of MUDA under mahazar in presence of villagers, followed by publication of notification under Section 16(2) of LA Act on 13.02.2002 – Objection to competence of revenue inspector raised for first time in appeal and not permissible – Held: Possession duly taken; cyclostyle form of mahazar and absence of land owner at site do not invalidate taking of possession after such lapse of time [Paras 12, 13]

Non-Deposit of Compensation – Does Not Vitiate Acquisition – MUDA admitted non-deposit of compensation due to discrepancies in land extent – Held, following Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, that non-deposit of compensation does not result in lapse of acquisition proceedings once possession has been taken – Appellants granted liberty by Single Judge to submit representation for compensation and compensatory site on par with Smt. Puttamma [Paras 20, 21]

Non-Utilization of Land – Not Abandonment of Acquisition – Appellants argued land remained undeveloped and hence acquisition should be declared abandoned – Held: Once award is passed and possession taken, land vests with the State free of encumbrances and the authority may use vested land for any public purpose – Non-utilization of a portion in a large scheme of over 1000 acres cannot be treated as abandonment of the entire acquisition [Paras 23, 25]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Order of learned Single Judge upheld – Appellants' possession over acquired land after vesting declared unlawful – Respondent authority empowered to dispossess such persons – No order as to costs.

Senior Citizens Act – Scope and Ambit of Section 23 – "Transferee" vs. "Children/Relative" – Property Registered in Name of Wife Not Covered – Senior citizen-Petitioner sought transfer and injunction in respect of two flats standing in the registered name of Respondent No. 3 (wife), alleging that the purchase consideration was paid by him – Tribunals below held that the reliefs sought were beyond the purview of the Senior Citizens Act – Court examined Section 23, which provides that where a senior citizen transfers property subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide basic amenities and physical needs, and the transferee defaults, such transfer may be declared void by the Tribunal – Held: "The sine qua non for invocation of Section 23 of Senior Citizens Act is that the ownership property of a senior citizen has been transferred, in any manner whatsoever, subject to the condition of providing basic amenities and physical needs" – Since the registered documents stood in the name of Respondent No. 3, and no transfer by the Petitioner was established, Section 23 was inapplicable [Paras 14, 15, 22].

Maintenance Under Senior Citizens Act – Wife Not a "Relative" Within Section 2(g) – No Claim for Maintenance Pressed – Section 4 read with Section 2(g) of the Senior Citizens Act entitles a senior citizen to claim maintenance from children or relatives, where "relative" is defined as a legal heir of a childless senior citizen in possession of, or set to inherit, his property – Petitioner had children and therefore his wife, Respondent No. 3, did not fall within the definition of "relative" under Section 2(g) – Further, no claim for maintenance was pressed before the Tribunal or before the High Court – Held: The statutory scheme for maintenance operates within defined categories and the wife cannot be impleaded for maintenance in a case where the senior citizen is not childless [Para 13].

Property Dispute Disguised as Senior Citizens Act Claim – Appropriate Forum is Civil Court – Petitioner's Remedy Lies in Declaration of Title, Not Before Senior Citizens Tribunal – The Petitioner's claim was premised on the assertion that the purchase consideration for the two properties was paid by him, though registered in the name of Respondent No. 3 – Court held that "the Petitioner's claim for ownership right in the properties is premised on the ground that the consideration in respect of the said two premises was paid by him, in which case the remedy of the Petitioner is to approach the Civil Court for seeking declaration of his right, title, and interest in these properties" – Relief of injunction would entail an inquiry into ownership rights, which is entirely outside the purview of the Senior Citizens Act [Paras 15, 16].

Overriding Effect of Section 3 – Misplaced Reliance in Absence of Conflict With Other Enactment – Petitioner invoked Section 3 of the Senior Citizens Act, which grants overriding effect to the Act in cases of conflict with other enactments – Court held that Section 3 is attracted only when a conflict between the Senior Citizens Act and another enactment is demonstrated – In the present case, no such conflict was shown, rendering reliance on Section 3 entirely misplaced [Para 17].

Referred Cases Distinguished – Nayana Sudhir Shah, Ramkrishna Pandey, Sri Venkataiah and Urmila Dixit – None Applied to Present Facts – In Nayana Sudhir Shah & Ors. vs. Sudhir Premji Shah & Ors., the subject properties were self-acquired properties of the senior citizen himself, factually distinct from the present case where the registered title stood in the wife's name – In Ramkrishna Pandey vs. State of Chhattisgarh, a Gift Deed executed in favour of a nephew was challenged under Section 23, constituting a direct transfer by the senior citizen – In Sri Venkataiah vs. State of Karnataka, the Petitioner was the absolute owner of agricultural land and challenged a Gift Deed procured by his daughters after false assurances – In Urmila Dixit vs. Sunil Sharan Dixit & Ors., the Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's power to order eviction where property was gifted by a senior citizen to her son under a condition of maintenance that was breached – Held: All four decisions are clearly distinguishable on facts as none involved a situation where the property was not originally owned or transferred by the senior citizen but was purchased in the name of the respondent [Paras 18, 19, 20, 21].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – No interference warranted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India – Impugned order of the Appellate Authority confirmed – Rule discharged – Petitioner directed to approach the Civil Court for declaration of ownership rights, if so advised [Para 23].

Banking Law - "As Is Where Is" Clause in SARFAESI Auction – Not an Absolute Shield But Not an Absolute Warranty Either – Limits of Secured Creditor's Duty of Disclosure – Bank of Maharashtra, acting as a secured creditor, auctioned leasehold industrial properties under the SARFAESI Act on an "as is where is" and "what is where is" basis – Clause 12 of the auction notice expressly warned that any dues, penalties, or charges levied by any authority on the property would be borne by the purchaser in addition to the sale price – The successful bidder, Respondent, paid ₹6,07,12,000/- and received a Sale Certificate dated 29.12.2018 representing the property to be free from encumbrances "known to the secured creditor" – Upon approaching UPSIDA for mutation of leasehold rights, the Respondent was asked to pay arrears of lease rent and transfer charges of ₹25,06,846/- pertaining to the pre-auction period – Respondent paid these dues under protest and filed a suit for recovery – Commercial Court held the Bank liable, observing that the "As Is" clause did not absolve the Bank of its duty of disclosure – Held: The protection of an "as is where is" clause is not absolute, but its efficacy depends on whether the seller acted bona fide or actively concealed facts – "The finality of a judicial or statutory auction is a matter of public policy" and allowing a purchaser to recover pre-sale dues after unconditional acceptance of the sale certificate would "render the 'as is where is' clause otiose and create perpetual uncertainty for secured creditors" [Paras 9, 10, 13, 14, 20].

Duty of Disclosure Under Section 55(1)(a) of the Transfer of Property Act and SARFAESI Rules – Scope and Limits When "Known Encumbrances" Are Expressly Qualified in Sale Certificate – Under Section 55(1)(a) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, a seller is bound to disclose material defects known to the seller but not to the buyer – Rule 8(6)(f) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 mandates disclosure of "any other thing which the authorised officer considers it material for a purchaser to know in order to judge the nature and value of the property" – The Sale Certificate explicitly qualified the encumbrance-free status as being "known to the secured creditor" – Respondent failed to produce evidence establishing that the Bank had actual knowledge of the specific UPSIDA dues and deliberately suppressed them – Held: In the absence of fraud or active misrepresentation, neither of which was proved, "the contractual terms must be enforced" – The Bank "did not violate its statutory duty of disclosure under the SARFAESI Rules or the Transfer of Property Act" [Paras 11, 16, 19, 21].

Principle of Caveat Emptor and Estoppel of Sophisticated Auction Purchaser – Respondent Estopped From Claiming Reimbursement After Unconditional Acceptance – The UPSIDA dues constituted charges relating to the leasehold nature of the property, which were a matter of public record and discoverable by a simple inquiry with UPSIDA as the lessor – The Respondent, having bid over ₹6.07 Crores, was "presumed to be a sophisticated commercial entity" expected to "exercise due diligence commensurate with the value of the transaction" – Clause 13 of the auction terms placed the onus on bidders to investigate title, statutory dues, and encumbrances prior to bidding – Respondent accepted the Sale Certificate unconditionally and took physical possession on 01.01.2019 without protest – Held: "The Respondent, having voluntarily accepted the risk of unknown encumbrances, is estopped from seeking reimbursement for the UPSIDA dues" [Paras 15, 17, 18, 21].

Commercial Court's Error in Applying Standard of Absolute Warranty of Title to SARFAESI Auction – Impugned Judgment Set Aside – The Commercial Court "erroneously applied the standard of an absolute warranty of title, which does not exist in SARFAESI auctions unless specifically promised" and failed to appreciate that Clause 12 of the auction notice constituted "a specific contractual allocation of risk regarding statutory dues" – The "as is" clause in the present case was "supplemented by a specific warning regarding statutory dues," distinguishing the case from precedents involving active concealment by banks [Paras 14, 15, 19, 22].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned Judgment and Decree dated 31.01.2023 set aside – Suit filed by the Respondent dismissed – Pending application stands closed [Paras 23, 24].

Service Law – Family Pension – Muslim Marriage – Proof of Nikah – Petitioner married deceased employee after death of his first wife – Nikahnama and affidavit of Kazi produced – Husband in Section 125 Cr.P.C. proceedings admitted factum of marriage – Corporation rejected claim citing non-registration of Nikahnama, absence of nomination, lack of entry in service book and objection of children – Held: Registration of Nikah not compulsory under Muslim law unless specifically mandated – Clear admission by deceased husband constitutes best evidence – Impugned orders quashed – Corporation directed to treat petitioner as legally wedded wife and grant family pension with arrears [Paras 9, 12–15].

Pension – Nomination – Effect – Mere absence of petitioner’s name in nomination form or service record cannot disentitle legally wedded spouse from family pension – Nomination not determinative of marital status – Family pension not dependent solely on service book entries – Denial on such grounds arbitrary and unsustainable [Paras 10, 13].

Evidence – Admission – Maintenance Proceedings – In maintenance application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., deceased husband expressly admitted marriage through Nikah ceremony – Such admission amounts to substantive and material evidence of marital relationship – Corporation erred in ignoring judicial record and criminal proceedings between parties [Paras 11–13].

Administrative Law – Compliance with Court Directions – Despite earlier remand directions to reconsider legality of marriage and MoU, Corporation reiterated rejection without appreciating material documents – Non-consideration of relevant evidence amounts to grave irregularity and renders decision arbitrary [Paras 5.4, 13, 15].

Family Settlement – Effect on Pension Rights – Memorandum of Understanding between widow and children regarding retiral dues does not affect statutory right to family pension – Receipt of certain retiral benefits by children pursuant to MoU estops them from disputing petitioner’s marital status – Alleged suppression of receipt of Rs.2,00,000/- held immaterial [Para 14].

Relief – Arrears and Interest – Corporation directed to prepare family pension papers and pay arrears on or before 15.05.2026 – In default, arrears to carry interest @ 6% p.a. from 16.05.2026 till realization – Regular pension to continue thereafter [Paras 15.1–16].

Decision: Petition allowed – Impugned orders dated 17/18.05.2019 and 14.05.2024 quashed and set aside – Petitioner declared legally wedded wife of deceased employee – Corporation directed to grant family pension and pay arrears within stipulated time – Rule made absolute – No order as to costs.

Protection of Young Woman – Custody Restoration – Court’s Preventive Intervention – Petitioner No.1, a 19-year-old girl, produced before Court from Open Shelter for Girls, Srinagar – Court observed that timely judicial vigilance prevented the life of the young girl from going astray – Custody restored to her mother with directions to police to ensure safe return to native place and verification of travel details [Paras 1, 12–13].

Judicial Oversight – Possible Exploitation of Young Girls – Alleged Nikahnama and Role of Religious Preacher – Court expressed concern over alleged involvement of self-proclaimed peers/tantriks and religious intermediaries in luring vulnerable girls – Held: Matter has wider societal implications involving safety and security of young and gullible girls, particularly in rural areas, requiring deeper judicial scrutiny [Paras 6, 8].

Writ Jurisdiction – Continuation of Proceedings Suo Motu – Court declined to treat the matter as a routine custody restoration case – Proceedings directed to continue suo motu to examine larger issues including conduct of individuals involved and systemic concerns relating to protection of vulnerable girls [Paras 6–7].

Role of Advocate – Judicial Scrutiny – Court directed issuance of notice to Advocate who filed the petition, requiring his personal appearance – Court warned that coercive measures may be taken if he evades service of notice [Paras 17–19].

Appointment of Amicus Curiae – Protection of Vulnerable Women – Advocate appointed as amicus curiae to assist Court in examining broader issues related to safety, security, and exploitation of young girls – Social worker requested to assist amicus in the proceedings [Paras 14–16].

Protective Directions – Counselling and Police Protection – Court directed psychological counselling through One Stop Centre authorities and ordered SSP to ensure safety of the petitioner and her mother from any harm or intimidation by the other petitioner or his associates [Paras 23–24].

Decision: Custody of petitioner restored to her mother – Amicus curiae appointed – Notice issued to concerned advocate – Authorities directed to provide counselling and protection – Matter to continue for further consideration.