Civil Law - Specific Performance - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 96 and Order XLI Rule 1 - Specific Relief Act 1963 - Section 16(c) - Suit for specific performance of registered agreement of sale dated 17.09.2005 for agricultural lands - Total consideration of Rs.60,41,875 with balance of Rs.50,41,875 payable by 15.11.2005 - Trial Court decreed suit holding time was not essence and defendant failed to obtain mandatory 11-E survey sketch - High Court reversed finding noting agreement explicitly stated time was essence of contract - Plaintiffs failed to produce evidence of financial capacity or availability of funds by deadline - PW-1 admitted in cross-examination that balance consideration was not ready and demand drafts were not obtained - Plea regarding survey sketch and boundary disputes held to be afterthoughts to justify delay - Suit was filed just before expiry of three-year limitation period - Held - Trial Court findings erroneous and contrary to evidence - Plaintiffs failed to prove readiness and willingness - Appeal allowed - Impugned decree set aside - Suit dismissed with costs - [Paras 1-14, 52-64].

Civil Law - Time as Essence of Contract - Specific Relief Act 1963 - Agreement for sale of immovable property - Presumption that time is not essence in immovable property transactions is rebuttable - Clause 1(b) and Clause 8 of Agreement of Sale (Ex.P2) unequivocally provided for payment deadline of 15.11.2005 and consequence of forfeiture/termination - Held - Parties intended time to be essence through explicit and unambiguous language - Finding of Trial Court to the contrary is unsustainable - [Paras 52-56].

Evidence Law - Readiness and Willingness - Specific Relief Act 1963 - Section 16(c) - Proof of financial capacity - Distinction between capacity to generate funds and actual readiness to perform - PW-1 admitted demand drafts for balance consideration were never obtained - No bank statements or financial documents produced to show availability of Rs.50.41 lakhs on or before 15.11.2005 - Held - Mere admission by defendant of plaintiffs' financial status does not relieve plaintiffs of the burden to prove readiness and willingness at the relevant time - Readiness is to be inferred from conduct - [Paras 58-61].

Civil Law - Implied Obligations - Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964 - Section 131(c) - 11-E Survey Sketch - Plaintiffs contended registration was impossible as defendant failed to obtain mandatory survey sketch - High Court found plaintiffs never demanded survey sketch or performance of so-called implied obligations before the expiry of the deadline - Objections raised only after termination of agreement - Held - Alleged non-performance of statutory requirements by vendor does not absolve purchaser from proving their own readiness to pay consideration within time-limits - [Paras 21-25, 62].

Civil Law - Interlocutory Applications - Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC - Additional Evidence - Respondents sought to produce 25 documents to prove financial capacity - Held - Documents were within plaintiffs' reach during trial - No reasons for non-production before Trial Court - Appellate Court not required to conduct retrial - IA dismissed - [Paras 39-43].

Civil Law - Plaint Amendment - Order VI Rule 17 of CPC - Respondents sought to amend plaint to claim refund and damages after 18 years - Held - Post-trial amendment requires proof of due diligence - Amendment would change fundamental nature of controversy at appellate stage - IA dismissed - [Paras 44-51].

Decision: Appeal allowed - Judgment and decree of the Trial Court dated 10.10.2013 set aside - Suit in O.S. No. 297/2008 dismissed with costs.

Criminal Law - Transit Anticipatory Bail - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 482 - Jurisdiction of High Court to grant protection for crimes registered outside territorial limits - Applicants being film actors from Madhya Pradesh residing in Kerala sought transit bail regarding Crime No. 112/2026 registered at Maheshwar Police Station MP - Allegations included kidnapping and child marriage under BNS and SC/ST Act - Applicants contended they were married voluntarily and feared honor killing by fundamentalists in MP - Applicant No. 2 produced Election ID and Bank passbook to prove majority while State alleged forgery of birth certificate - Court applied the ratio of Priya Indoria v. State of Karnataka - Held - High Court is empowered to pass an order of transit bail to protect personal liberty when the applicant shows a well-founded apprehension of inter-state arrest and inability to immediately approach the jurisdictional court - Applicant No. 1 granted protection from arrest for one month to approach the competent court in Madhya Pradesh - [Paras 1-9].

Criminal Law - Personal Liberty - Constitution of India - Article 21 - Transit Bail - Balancing investigative powers with protection against honor killings - Inter-faith couple sought protection citing threat to life in their home state - Prosecution challenged the validity of marriage solemnized in a temple between a Muslim man and Hindu woman - Applicant No. 2 asserted voluntary residence as husband and wife - Held - Grounds raised for transit bail appear reasonable to avoid threat to life and personal liberty in the jurisdiction where the FIR is registered - [Paras 5-8].

Decision: Bail application disposed of – Petitioner No. 1 granted liberty to approach the jurisdictional court in Madhya Pradesh within one month – Petitioner No. 1 shall not be arrested until the expiry of one month.

Criminal Law - Bail - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 - Sections 21, 25, 27-A and 29 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 483 - Arms Act - Section 25 - Petitioner arrested following a tip-off regarding a drone-based smuggling network - Recovery of 1 kg heroin from a car occupied by co-accused Jaskaran and Amritpal while petitioner was later intercepted with 6 pistols and cash - State opposed bail citing the recovery of commercial quantity of heroin and the statutory bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act - Petitioner argued parity with co-accused already released and highlighted 8.5 months of incarceration with the investigation complete - Court observed that the contraband heroin was not recovered from the direct possession of the petitioner and that the trial was unlikely to conclude in the near future - Held - Prolonged incarceration militates against the precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and in such situations the constitutional principles must override the statutory embargo contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act - Petition allowed - [Paras 1-25].

Criminal Law - Statutory Embargo vs Fundamental Rights - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 - Section 37 - Constitution of India - Article 21 - Conflict between the twin conditions for bail in commercial quantity cases and the right to liberty - Court followed the principles laid down in Mohd. Muslim and Rabi Prakash - Grant of bail on account of undue delay in trial is not fettered by Section 37 of the NDPS Act - Right to a speedy trial is a part of reasonable fair and just procedure - Prolonged incarceration and inordinate delay in trial conclusion justify the grant of bail even in commercial quantity cases - Held - Constitutional principles of liberty and speedy trial override statutory restrictions when incarceration is prolonged and trial progress is slow - [Paras 10-15, 21-22].

Criminal Law - Parity and Judicial Discretion - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 483 - Entitlement to bail based on release of co-accused and lack of direct possession - Petitioner sought parity with co-accused Amandeep and Harkirat who were previously granted bail - Court noted that the only allegation against the petitioner involved the recovery of pistols and not the commercial quantity of narcotics - Observed that the detention of the petitioner in judicial lock-up was not serving any further purpose as the investigation was complete - Held - Principles of parity and the fundamental postulate of presumption of innocence necessitate the grant of bail where no evidence exists of potential evidence tampering or flight risk - [Paras 7, 18-20].

Decision: Petition allowed – Petitioner ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing personal bond and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court – Subject to conditions of non-interference with witnesses, notification of address changes, and restrictions on leaving India without prior permission.

Writ Law - Unauthorized Construction - West Bengal Municipal Corporation Act 2006 - Section 2 - Definition of Building - Petitioner challenged order dated 18-05-2026 passed by Commissioner of Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation directing removal of tin shed structure at roof top of Plot No AD-70 Sector-I Salt Lake City - Petitioner contended structure was temporary detachable shed lacking enclosure and not qualifying as building under the Act - Reliance placed on Kishori Lal Poddar vs Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation 2025 SCC OnLine Cal 4087 - Private respondent alleged petitioner constructed three rooms increasing occupancy without sanction - Court found Commissioner failed to consider petitioner reply in reaching conclusion - Held - Impugned order set aside with direction to revisit issue after hearing all parties and considering relevant judicial precedent - [Paras 1-15].

Writ Law - Remand for Fresh Consideration - West Bengal Municipal Corporation Act 2006 - Section 259 - Reasoned Order - Challenge against demolition order where Commissioner failed to address specific defense that structure was not a building within statutory definition - Court observed that physical verification and application of law to facts were necessary for logical conclusion - Held - Respondent No 2 directed to pass reasoned order within four weeks after providing opportunity of hearing to petitioner and private respondent - [Paras 10-14].

Decision: Writ petition disposed of – Order dated 18-05-2026 set aside – Matter remanded to Respondent No. 2 for fresh reasoned decision in light of judicial precedents.

Civil Law - Possession and Recovery of Money - Arrears of Licence Fee - Suit for recovery of money decreed by Trial Court and counter-claim for return of advance dismissed - Appellant-defendant intended to lease premises for automobile service centre and purchased existing machinery from previous tenant - Possession was taken on 01.06.2016 with an agreed monthly rent of Rs 2,50,000 but formal lease deed remained unregistered and unsigned - Appellant contested liability citing lack of physical possession and misrepresentation by landlord regarding availability of statutory licences - Evidence showed appellant kept machinery on premises and engaged security personnel - Advocate Commissioner report and electricity payments confirmed appellant's control over premises - Held - Retention of machinery and deployment of security constitutes actual physical possession making the occupant liable for damages for use and occupation - Trial Court decree affirmed - [Paras 1-13].

Evidence Law - Misrepresentation and Tenant’s Duty - Burden of Proof - Appellant contended that landlord misrepresented the building's suitability for an automobile workshop in a residential zone - DW1 admitted during cross-examination that information about previous tenant's licence was hearsay and that the appellant never actually applied for necessary permits - Building permit and occupancy certificate (Exts. A4 and A5) proved the building was classified as commercial - Held - A landlord cannot be found at fault for a tenant’s failure to conduct due diligence or for the tenant’s folly in not applying for licences - contentions of misrepresentation are devoid of merit - [Paras 9-12].

Civil Law - Unregistered Documents - Indian Registration Act 1908 - Section 49 - Collateral Purpose - Appellant argued that the draft lease deed (Ext. A3) could not be considered due to lack of registration - Court observed that the document was neither signed nor registered - However the terms of occupation and agreed rate of rent were established through admissions in the written statement and oral testimony of DW1 - Held - The absence of a registered deed does not absolve an occupant in actual possession from the liability to pay for use and occupation when the arrangement is otherwise proved by record - [Paras 14-16].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Trial Court decree for realisation of licence fee/damages at the rate of Rs 2,50,000 per month from 01.12.2016 to 04.04.2018 with 6% interest per annum affirmed – Appellant to bear costs of the appeal.

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.

Criminal Law - Rape and Sexual Assault - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 376 - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012 - Section 6 - Appellant-neighbor accused of abducting a 10-year-old girl from her home at midnight and raping her in a village school - Victim found unconscious with multiple internal and external injuries including hymen laceration - Victim identified the appellant by name upon regaining consciousness - Trial Court convicted appellant under Section 376 IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act sentencing him to life imprisonment - Appellant challenged the conviction citing inconsistencies and alleging the victim was a tutored witness - High Court found the victim testimony consistent and medically supported by the testimony of the doctor - Held - Prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt - Conviction and sentence affirmed - Appeal dismissed - [Paras 1-39].

Evidence Law - Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 118 - Sterling Witness - Conviction based on solitary evidence of the victim in sexual offences - High Court revisited the settled law that if the victim evidence is found to be wholly reliable and inspires total confidence it can be made the sole basis for conviction without further corroboration - Court categorized oral testimony into wholly reliable-wholly unreliable-and neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable - Held - The victim was a sterling witness who stood firm during cross-examination - Her evidence was natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution - Minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies should not be a ground for throwing out an otherwise reliable prosecution case - [Paras 24-35].

Criminal Law - Sentencing - POCSO Act 2012 - Objective of Stringent Punishment - Protection of children from sexual abuse - Court noted the gruesome nature of the crime and its lifelong impact on the minor victim mind and growth - Held - The POCSO Act was enacted to provide more stringent punishments for such obnoxious acts to protect children - The severity of the offence and its impact on the victim health and growth justify the stringent life imprisonment sentence - [Paras 36-37].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and order of conviction dated 24.08.2018 affirmed – Appellant directed to serve the remaining sentence.

Civil Law - Specific Performance - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 96 and Order XLI Rule 1 - Appeal against Trial Court judgment refusing specific performance of sale agreement dated 12.01.2005 - Plaintiff and Defendant 7 jointly agreed to purchase agricultural land from Defendants 1-6 - Performance was contingent on an MOU with Defendant 8 to cancel a prior 2004 agreement - Plaintiff's cheques for Rs. 1.11 crores issued to Defendant 8 were dishonoured - Trial Court found Plaintiff lacked financial capacity as his bank balance was only Rs. 4,166 against a required contribution of Rs. 35 lakhs - Trial Court ordered refund of advance with 12 percent interest but denied specific performance - During High Court proceedings parties filed an unsigned joint memo for settlement of Rs. 5 crores - Held - Trial Court correctly found lack of readiness and willingness due to financial incapacity - Appeal disposed of in terms of the settlement for Rs. 5 crores as full and final satisfaction of all claims - [Paras 1-51].

Evidence Law - Readiness and Willingness - Specific Relief - Financial Capacity - Assessment of financial resources - Plaintiff produced a letter from his father-in-law promising financial assistance of Rs. 45 lakhs - Letter was not corroborated and the author was not examined as a witness - Plaintiff's bank statements showed negligible balance during the performance period - Held - Financial capacity is a fundamental requirement to prove readiness and willingness - Mere self-serving documents without corroborative evidence are insufficient to establish the ability to perform a contract - [Paras 25-28].

Civil Law - Conditional Contract - Unenforceability - Linked Agreements - Sale agreement validity was subject to the cancellation of a prior 2004 agreement through a separate MOU - MOU required payment to a third party which failed due to dishonour of cheques - Held - When a contract is contingent upon the performance of a secondary obligation which remains unfulfilled - the primary agreement remains unenforceable - No fraud found in subsequent alienation of property to a third party when the original purchasers failed to perform - [Paras 40-47].

Civil Law - Settlement - Full and Final Settlement - Compromise during appeal - Respondents agreed to pay Rs. 5,00,00,000 to the Appellant via banker's cheque after TDS deduction - Appellant agreed to relinquish all claims over the suit schedule property - Held - Settlement accepted voluntarily without coercion - Respondents directed to pay the amount within four weeks - Trial Court decree modified to reflect the settlement - [Paras 48-51].

Decision: Appeal disposed of in terms of the settlement – Respondents directed to pay Rs. 5,00,00,000 to the Appellant within four weeks – Judgment and decree of the Trial Court affirmed with modification regarding the settlement amount.