SARFAESI Act – Civil Court Jurisdiction – Cancellation of Registered Sale Deed – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Free Consent – Coercion & Misrepresentation – DRT’s Limited Jurisdiction – Bar under Section 34 SARFAESI not attracted – Rejection of plaint set aside – Suit restored [Paras 16–27].

Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Scope – Averments in plaint alone to be considered – Failure to lodge FIR or criminal complaint cannot justify rejection – Allegations of coercion, threats and misrepresentation must be tested at trial – Trial court erred in relying on absence of criminal proceedings to reject plaint [Paras 16–18].

Contract Law – Free Consent – Coercion – Undue Influence – Plea strikes at validity of sale deed – Assertions of threats to family members and coercive execution, if proved, render contract void – Such questions cannot be adjudicated at Order VII Rule 11 stage [Paras 17–18, 22].

Pleading Fraud – Order VI Rule 4 CPC – Non-elaborate particulars not fatal – Complaint is of coercion and misrepresentation coupled with fraud – Deficiency curable by amendment or during evidence – Not a ground for rejection at threshold [Para 19].

Evidence Act – Sections 91, 92 – Bar on oral evidence arises only at evidentiary stage – Cannot be invoked to reject plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Plea of non-payment of consideration coupled with coercion survives [Paras 21–22].

Sale Deed – Non-payment of consideration – Not by itself a ground for cancellation – But where execution alleged to be involuntary and induced by coercion, misrepresentation and threats, plaint discloses cause of action – Cannot be rejected summarily [Paras 22–23].

SARFAESI Act – Section 34 – Bar not applicable – Suit seeks cancellation of a registered sale deed, a relief beyond the jurisdiction of DRT – DRT cannot cancel registered conveyances – Supreme Court decision in Prabha Jain applied – Civil court jurisdiction preserved [Paras 24–25].

Civil Procedure – Threshold Scrutiny – Even remote chances of success cannot be grounds for rejection – Only when plaint is barred on its face can Order VII Rule 11 be invoked – Present plaint discloses cause of action and is not barred by law [Paras 23, 26].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Impugned order rejecting plaint set aside – Suit restored – Trial court to proceed uninfluenced by observations in appellate judgment [Paras 27–30].

Compassionate Appointment – Delay of nine years – SBI scheme withdrawn w.e.f. 04.08.2005 – Death in 2003 but application filed in 2012 – Financial crisis long tided over – No vested right to appointment – Prayer rejected – Bank directed to process ex-gratia claim on submission of documents and to release family pension arrears without life certificate [Paras 10–15].

Service Law – Compassionate Appointment – Delay and Laches – Father died in harness in 2003; petitioner attained majority in 2011 and applied in 2012; scheme for compassionate appointment withdrawn by SBI w.e.f. 04.08.2005 – Held: application filed nearly nine years after death defeats the very object of compassionate appointment which is to alleviate immediate financial crisis – Petitioner’s family having survived the crisis, no right to appointment survives; rejection of request upheld [Paras 10–13].

Compassionate Appointment – Applicability of Scheme – Petitioner argued that scheme prevalent at time of death (2003) should apply – Court: even under earlier scheme, application filed after inordinate delay cannot be entertained in view of principles laid down in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 – Purpose is not employment by succession but immediate relief; delayed claim not maintainable [Paras 12–13].

Ex-Gratia Compensation – SBI Scheme – Petitioner alternatively sought ex-gratia lump sum payment – SBI required certain additional documents (letter dated 15.12.2018) – Held: petitioner to furnish required documents within six weeks; SBI to decide claim within three months and either release admissible amount or communicate a reasoned order [Para 14].

Family Pension – Arrears – Petitioner entitled to arrears of family pension from February 2018 to July 2018 – Since matter remained pending before Court, arrears to be paid without insisting on a life certificate for that period; direction issued to release payment within three months [Para 15].

Decision: Petition partly allowed – Claim for compassionate appointment rejected – Directions issued for processing ex-gratia claim and release of family pension arrears [Para 16].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Cheque Dishonour – Legally Enforceable Debt Not Proved – Non-production of challan and account entries – Adverse inference under Section 114(g) Evidence Act – Prior arbitral award set aside for lack of proof of debt – Suppression of material facts – Acquittal affirmed [Paras 6–9].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Proof of Legally Enforceable Debt – Burden on Complainant – Non-production of essential documents – Complainant failed to produce challan acknowledging receipt of cheque or to show corresponding entries in the account statement (Ex.P9) – Absence of such primary evidence created reasonable doubt about issuance of cheque and alleged liability – Presumption under Sections 118 & 139 NI Act successfully rebutted by accused [Para 6].

Adverse Inference – Section 114(g) Evidence Act – Withholding Best Evidence – Trial Court relied on the principle in Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar v. Mohamed Haji Latif (AIR 1968 SC 1413) to draw adverse inference against the complainant for withholding relevant documents such as cheque receipt register and complete account details – High Court upheld this inference [Para 8].

Arbitral Proceedings – Effect on Criminal Complaint – Earlier Award Set Aside – Findings on Absence of Debt – Arbitration Suit No.18/2016 resulted in setting aside the arbitral award on the ground that the complainant failed to prove legally enforceable debt and had not produced proper accounts – Criminal Court’s acquittal was considered in the arbitral judgment, which attained finality – This supported the defence that no liability of Rs.9,10,000/- existed [Para 7].

Suppression of Material Facts – Complainant’s Conduct – Clean Hands Doctrine – Subsequent arbitration notice dated 19.05.2025 revealed repeated attempts to initiate proceedings despite earlier findings against the complainant – High Court held that the complainant had suppressed material facts and not approached the Court with clean hands, further weakening its case under Section 138 [Para 8].

Appeal Against Acquittal – Scope of Interference – Re-appreciation of Evidence – High Court reiterated that interference with acquittal is permissible only when the findings are perverse or illegal – On re-appreciation, the Court found no infirmity in the trial Court’s assessment – Acquittal affirmed [Para 9].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment of acquittal under Section 138 NI Act sustained [Para 9].

Income Tax – Section 68 – Unsecured Loan – Identity – Creditworthiness – Genuineness – Loan of ₹10 crore received through banking channels from Shashi Foods confirmed by lender in statement during survey and in reply to notice u/s 133(6) – AO doubted creditworthiness based on enquiries into lender’s creditors and allegation of bogus purchases – CIT(A) and ITAT held enquiry into “source of source” impermissible for AY 2014-15 – Held: Assessee discharged initial onus; Revenue failed to rebut evidences; addition u/s 68 unsustainable [Paras 30–38, 41–44].

Source of Source – Amendment by Finance Act 2022 – Prospective – Assessment Year 2014-15 – Court holds that requirement to prove source of source applies only post-amendment – For pre-amendment years, assessee is not required to prove genuineness of lender’s creditors or upstream funds – AO’s reliance on creditors’ non-availability irrelevant [Paras 37, 40, 42, 43].

Search Assessment – Section 153A – Incriminating Material – Revenue argued that addition valid in light of Abhisar Buildwell (SC) – Court notes AO did not rely on any incriminating material for making addition – ITAT rightly deleted addition – On merits also Revenue’s case fails [Para 47].

Burden of Proof – Assessee discharged burden by furnishing lender’s confirmations, ITRs, bank statements, audited accounts, and evidence of repayment with interest – Payment and repayment through banking channels establishes genuineness – AO's suspicion based on unrelated enquiries into lender's purchases and creditors held conjectural [Paras 35–36, 41–44].

Search Enquiries into Lender – Non-availability of lender’s creditors at address – Bills allegedly bogus – Held: These matters pertain to lender’s assessment and cannot be used to draw adverse inference against borrower – AO travelled beyond scope of Section 68 for relevant year [Paras 31–33, 37–38].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Both substantial questions of law answered in favour of assessee and against Revenue – Deletion of addition of ₹10 crore loan and interest upheld [Paras 48–49].

Criminal Law – Bail – SC/ST (PoA) Act – Delay in Filing Complaint – Appellant accused of repeated sexual assault and offences under BNSS, IT Act, and SC/ST Act – FIR lodged after nearly two years of alleged incident – Charge sheet not filed even after 60 days of arrest – Appellant in custody – Held: Delay in filing FIR unexplained – No further custodial interrogation required – Bail granted subject to conditions [Paras 2, 7]

Criminal Procedure – Section 483 BNSS – Bail Rejection by Sessions Court – Set Aside – Appellant alleged victim’s complaint was an afterthought and motivated by extortion attempt – Investigation not yielding further material – Held: No justification for continued incarceration – Sessions Judge’s order rejecting bail set aside [Paras 3, 6, 7]

SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act – Rule 7(2) – Delay in Charge Sheet – Charge sheet not filed within statutory period after arrest – Appellant in judicial custody without prosecution progress – Held: Procedural lapses and delay favour bail – Conditions imposed to safeguard trial [Paras 7]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order dated 03/10/2025 of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District set aside – Bail granted to the appellant on executing self-bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with one surety for like amount – Appellant not to tamper with witnesses or indulge in similar offences [Order portion]

Service Law – Disciplinary Proceedings – Natural Justice – Non-supply of Audit Report & Accounts – Absence of Personal Hearing – Rule 16(ii) of Helpers Service Rules – Opportunity of Hearing Must be Read Into the Statute – Disciplinary Orders Unsustainable – Writ Appeal Dismissed [Paras 7–8].

Natural Justice – Audi Alteram Partem – Even if Statute Does Not Mandate Hearing, Fairness Requires It – Personal hearing mandatory to ensure fair enquiry – Failure to grant hearing before Ext.P5 vitiates proceedings [Para 7].

Disciplinary Proceedings – Supply of Relied-on Documents – Non‐furnishing of audit report and statements of accounts causes serious prejudice – Delinquent deprived of meaningful defence – Violation of natural justice – Orders rightly quashed by Single Judge [Para 8].

Statutory Interpretation – Reading Principles of Natural Justice Into Rules – Following Abdulla T.A. v. Supplyco (2020 (1) KHC 236), Court holds that even in absence of express provision, opportunity of hearing must be read in – Rule 16(ii) does not override natural justice requirements [Para 7].

Decision – No merit in appeal – Single Judge’s findings upheld – Writ Appeal dismissed [Final Para].

Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act – Protected Tenancy – Statutory Purchase – Sections 32G & 32M – Effect of Mutation Entries – Exclusive Title – Civil Court Jurisdiction – Plaintiff (sister) filed suit for partition in 2002 claiming suit property as joint family property inherited from parents who died in 1949 and 1978 – Evidence showed that defendant Krishnabai became protected tenant in 1957 and purchase was duly completed in 1961 after statutory inquiry, issuance of 32G order, fixation of purchase price, and issuance of sale certificate under 32M – Held: Once purchase under 32G/32M fructifies, title statutorily vests in tenant and property ceases to form part of estate of predecessors – Civil Court cannot ignore binding statutory orders – Concurrent findings contrary to statutory record unsustainable [Paras 5.1–5.4, 10–12, 15–16, 25–26].

Tenancy Law – Representative Capacity – Claim of Joint Family Cultivation – No Evidence – Plaintiff failed to prove that Krishnabai’s protected tenancy was in representative capacity for entire family – No evidence of joint cultivation, sharing of produce, or admission by tenant/landlord as required under Ramakant Ganesh Naik precedent – On contrary, evidence and revenue records (Exhs. 41–50) show exclusive cultivation by Krishnabai for decades – Held: Property not proved to be joint family property – Ratio of Ramakant Ganesh Naik inapplicable; reliance misconceived [Paras 12–15, 22–23].

Limitation – Partition Suit – Articles 65-B & 110 – Plaintiff silent from 1957 to 2002 – No steps to challenge mutation, 32G order, or 32M sale certificate despite public notices and statutory proceedings – First challenge raised only via suit in 2002, nearly 41 years after vesting of title – Held: Suit hopelessly barred; plea of exclusion within 12 years unproved – Mere assertion of proposal for partition unsupported by evidence – Plaintiff’s witness admitted complete absence of proof of joint possession – Limitation bars the suit [Paras 16–17, 19–24, 26].

Civil Court Jurisdiction – Sections 85 & 85-A, BT&AL Act – When Bar Applies – Findings of tenancy authorities under 32G/32M are binding – Civil Court cannot reopen or disregard statutory vesting – Trial Court ought to have declined jurisdiction or referred matter appropriately – Failure to consider statutory bar constitutes legal infirmity warranting interference in second appeal [Paras 6.4–6.6, 25–26].

Statutory Proceedings – Public Notice – Non-challenge – Plaintiff’s long silence – Sale certificate shows public notices, individual notices, and participation of interested persons – Plaintiff neither objected nor appealed under tenancy law – Challenge before SDO in 2002 stood rejected – Held: Plaintiff estopped from disputing statutory vesting of title in 1961 [Paras 18–21, 23].

Substantial Questions of Law – Answered in Appellant’s Favour – Courts below ignored binding statutory orders under 32G/32M and misapplied principles of joint family property and limitation – High Court sets aside both judgments [Paras 26–30].

Decision: Second Appeal allowed – Judgments dated 08.02.2006 and 21.01.2017 set aside – Regular Civil Suit No.50 of 2002 dismissed – Record to be returned to Trial Court after appeal period – Parties may act on server copy [Paras 27–30].

NDPS Act – Bail – Commercial Quantity – Grounds of Arrest – Compliance with Article 22(1) – Search at Night – Inventory/Sampling – Section 37 Rigour – Held: Grounds of arrest duly communicated prior to remand; seizure indicates commercial quantity (31.78 g MDMA); quantitative test delay immaterial; Section 37 bar applies – Bail rejected [Paras 12–18].

NDPS Act – Bail – Communication of Grounds of Arrest – Mandatory Constitutional Requirement – Compliance Established – Arrest Not Vitiated – Petitioner contended that he was taken into custody at night without being informed the grounds of arrest – Relying on Ahmed Mansoor, Vihaan Kumar and Mihir Rajesh Shah, Court reiterated constitutional mandate under Arts. 21 & 22(1) – Held, records show written grounds of arrest with petitioner’s signature/LTM furnished before production before Magistrate along with remand papers – Requirement under Mihir Rajesh Shah satisfied; arrest not illegal [Paras 7–14].

NDPS Act – Search Conducted After Sunset – Recording of Grounds of Belief – Compliance with Section 42 NDPS Act – Petitioner argued that search between 11:35 p.m. and 2:15 a.m. was illegal – Court held that mahazar contains recorded grounds of belief for conducting night search – Challenge unsustainable at bail stage [Para 15].

NDPS Act – Inventory and Sampling – Stage of Investigation – Non-Consideration at Bail Stage – Petitioner relied on Bharat Aambale and Nagaraj @ Wilson Garden Naga claiming inventory/sampling not done in his presence – Court held that no material produced regarding sampling process and investigation is ongoing; such objections cannot be adjudicated at bail stage [Para 15].

NDPS Act – Commercial Quantity – FSL Report Available – Quantitative Test Pending – Effect Under Rule 14 of NDPS Rules, 2022 – FSL report shows sample weight before test 31.78 g and positive for MDMA – Held, this constitutes commercial quantity – Delay in quantitative analysis does not dilute seizure or quantity at this stage and does not defeat Section 37 bar [Paras 16–17].

NDPS Act – Rigour of Section 37 – Reasonable Grounds Not Established – Bail Denied – Court held that quantity seized being commercial, Section 37(1)(b) applies – No material to conclude petitioner is not guilty or unlikely to re-offend; possibility of tampering with investigation or witnesses exists – Bail rejected [Para 17].

Bail – Seriousness of Offence – Punishment Extending up to 20 Years – Investigation in Progress – Nature of offence (commercial quantity MDMA) punishable with minimum 10 years and up to 20 years – Grant of bail would prejudice investigation – Bail rejected [Paras 17–18].

Decision: Criminal Petition dismissed – Bail refused [Para 18].

Electricity – Crop Damage – Strict Liability – Respondent’s wheat crop destroyed by fire due to electrical short-circuit from a Three Phase LT Line passing over his field – Writ Court directed compensation of ₹50,400 with 6% interest – Defence of natural calamity (wind storm) raised by State rejected – No proof of windstorm placed on record – High Court upheld finding that Electricity Department failed in its duty to maintain the electric line safely – Held: Transmission of high-voltage electricity is inherently hazardous – Even without negligence, supplier is strictly liable under law of torts for damage caused by uncontrolled discharge of electric energy – Referenced Supreme Court’s judgment in M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumar and J&K High Court’s ruling in Gittan Ram v. State – Appeal dismissed [Paras 7–16].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Writ Court’s award of ₹50,400 compensation with interest upheld – Doctrine of strict liability applied – State liable irrespective of proven negligence.