Civil Law - Specific Performance – Agreement to Sell – Admission of Signatures and Receipt of Consideration – Defendant admitted encashment of ₹16 lakh via cheques forming part of earnest money – Agreement bore his signatures on all pages including reverse of stamp papers – Held: Once execution and consideration admitted, burden shifted to defendant to prove fraud or incapacity – No cogent evidence led to discharge burden – Defence of intoxication and fraud rightly rejected by both courts below [Paras 2–4, 8]

Contract Law – Fraud and Incapacity – Mere Plea Without Evidence – Defendant claimed agreement obtained under intoxication and fraud – No medical or documentary proof filed – Testimony of wife (DW2) and own cross-examination failed to support plea – Held: Defence was a mere afterthought and lacked credibility – Concurrent findings based on record require no interference [Paras 4, 8]

Procedural Law – Second Appeal – Concurrent Findings of Fact – Both trial and appellate courts held that plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part and that defendant defaulted without justification – Held: No substantial question of law arises – Second appeal lies only where there is perversity or misapplication of law, not mere reappreciation of facts [Paras 7, 12–13]

Equity – Hardship and Discretion – Defendant claimed hardship and offered to refund double earnest money – Held: No hardship proved – Defendant had history of selling land, was financially sound, and had no equitable claim – Offer to refund does not override valid contractual obligation – Plaintiffs entitled to specific performance based on established readiness and willingness [Paras 10–11]

Evidence – Non-Examination of Scribe – One Attesting Witness Related to Plaintiff – Held: Mere relationship or non-examination of scribe does not vitiate execution once document is proved by party admission and testimony of other attesting witnesses – No inconsistency or contradiction shown – Place of execution and rate variation irrelevant [Paras 5, 9]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No substantial question of law arises – Judgments and decrees of both lower courts affirmed – Pending applications disposed of [Para 13]

Dowry Death – Sentence under Section 304-B IPC – Reduction of Life Imprisonment – Husband Convicted – Sentencing Principles Applied – Appellant-husband convicted under Section 304-B IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment by Trial Court – Appellate Court held that life imprisonment is not mandatory under Section 304-B IPC and sentence must be proportionate to culpability – Appellant was 20 years old at the time of incident, with no criminal antecedents – Already undergone more than 14 years in incarceration – No conviction under Section 302 IPC – Held: Sentence reduced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment while upholding conviction [Paras 25-28, 30, 31, 33, 37].

Criminal Law – Conviction Based on Legal Presumption – Evidentiary Threshold under Section 304-B IPC – Court reiterated that conviction under Section 304-B IPC often rests on legal presumptions unlike Section 302 IPC – Hence, quantum of sentence must account for lack of direct evidence and nature of presumption-based liability – Sentence of life imprisonment not justified in absence of extreme aggravating circumstances [Paras 30, 31].

Criminal Law – Acquittal – Omnibus Allegation Against Mother-in-law – No Specific Role Attributed – Accused mother-in-law convicted under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 4 DP Act – Court found that FIR and testimonies only contained general allegations without any specific overt act against her – Two other co-accused similarly situated (jeth and jethani) exonerated during investigation – Applying parity and settled law, conviction of mother-in-law unsustainable – Held: Appeal allowed, conviction and sentence set aside, appellant acquitted [Paras 28, 32, 33, 35].

Sentencing – Principles of Proportionality and Judicial Discretion – Need to Consider Reformative Theory – Appellate Court reiterated settled law that punishment must be proportionate to the nature and degree of offence – Courts must weigh both aggravating and mitigating factors – Age, background, possibility of reform and factual matrix relevant – Life imprisonment to be reserved for exceptional cases – Reliance placed on Bachan Singh, Machhi Singh, and Nadeem decisions – Held: Undue harshness in sentencing without justification liable to correction [Paras 29-32].

Family Members in Dowry Cases – Caution Against Roping in Relatives Without Specific Allegations – Court emphasized that general tendency to implicate in-laws, especially female relatives, in dowry cases must be curbed unless supported by specific, credible evidence – Parity with similarly exonerated co-accused a relevant factor – Held: Conviction of mother-in-law in absence of specific role violates settled jurisprudence [Paras 28, 32, 33].

Decision:

Appeal of Chandra Pal @ Rachit partly allowed – Conviction upheld – Sentence under Section 304-B IPC reduced to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment – Sentences to run concurrently – Appeal of Smt. Atarkali allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted – Bail bonds discharged.

Family Law – Maintenance to Daughter – Adult unmarried daughter sought past and continuing maintenance and marriage expenses from father – Family Court granted Rs.15,000 per month for 3 years prior to petition and Rs.17,000 thereafter, with Rs.20 lakhs for marriage expenses – High Court held maintenance claim from birth maintainable as petitioner was minor at filing – Applied Section 6 of Limitation Act to override limitation bar – Award of past maintenance from 03.01.2004 allowed – Monthly maintenance revised and apportioned between parents [Paras 4, 16, 22].

Family Law – Quantum of Marriage Expenses – Respondent sought Rs.50 lakhs for marriage expenses based on alleged wealth of father – Family Court granted Rs.20 lakhs – High Court found lack of evidence justifying this sum – Held: Marriage expense award revised to Rs.15 lakhs, balancing reasonable provision with financial position of both parents – No obligation to provide for extravagant expenses [Paras 17–19, 23(a)].

Maintenance – Ability of Father – Impecuniousness Plea – Appellant claimed he earned only Rs.10,000 per month and had no self-acquired property – However, he admitted inheriting substantial ancestral property and failed to disclose full details – Court found no proof of legal encumbrances under Land Reforms Act – Rejected claim of inability to pay – Directed detailed disclosure of assets was lacking – Found appellant capable of providing support [Paras 11–14].

Limitation – Minor’s Right to Maintenance – Claim from Birth – Family Court wrongly limited claim to three years prior to petition – High Court held minor is entitled to maintenance from birth till marriage or self-sufficiency – Section 6 of Limitation Act provides exception where claimant is a minor – Family Court’s rejection of pre-2014 claim reversed [Paras 16, 22].

Family Responsibility – Contribution of Both Parents – Respondent’s mother was a doctor and earning – Court held both parents must share responsibility – Maintenance to be shared equally – Quantified scaled payments from 2004 till marriage or gainful employment [Paras 20–22].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Marriage expense award reduced from Rs.20 lakhs to Rs.15 lakhs – Monthly maintenance revised: ₹2,500 per month from 03.01.2004 to 03.01.2010. ₹5,000 per month from 04.01.2010 to 04.12.2017. ₹10,000 per month from 04.01.2018 till marriage or employment. Maintenance to be shared equally by both parents. No interest if paid within specified periods; otherwise, 6% interest p.a. applies. Cross Objection allowed in part – Claim for maintenance from birth accepted.

Criminal Law – Revisional Powers – Cognizance Based on Additional Documents – Revisional court accepted additional documents not forming part of the police investigation while setting aside the Magistrate’s rejection of protest petition – Held: Revisional court exceeded its jurisdiction in relying on material outside the investigation record – Magistrate can consider only the final report and materials collected during investigation [Paras 1, 6, 7].

Criminal Procedure – Statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. – Relevance and Effect – Statement of prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was not recorded despite issuance of notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. – Held: Non-recording of statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is not fatal – Victim failed to appear despite repeated notices – Absence of statement does not vitiate the investigation [Paras 4, 5, 7].

Criminal Procedure – Parallel Proceedings – Maintainability of 482 Petition – Victim filed revision against rejection of protest petition and simultaneously moved a 482 application seeking reinvestigation – Held: Once revision was filed, 482 petition was not maintainable – 482 Application No. 1281 of 2015 rendered infructuous after revision allowed and now challenged in fresh 482 Application No. 1314 of 2023 – Petitioner cannot pursue parallel remedies [Paras 8, 10].

Criminal Law – FIR Interpolation Allegation – Allegation of interpolation of time in FIR raised belatedly at revision stage – Held: FIR acknowledged by victim with her signature – No objection raised in earlier proceedings including before High Court – Belated challenge held unconvincing and unsupported by prior record [Para 9].

Criminal Procedure – Cognizance by Magistrate – Basis of Protest Petition – Held: Magistrate can take cognizance only on the basis of police report and materials collected during investigation – If protest petition is filed with extraneous material, proper course is to proceed under Chapter XV Cr.P.C. – Magistrate cannot take cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. solely on basis of protest petition and supporting affidavits [Paras 6, 36].

Decision: Matter not finally decided – Directions issued to summon records of protest petition and revision proceedings – Case adjourned to 19/11/2025 for further hearing [Para 12].

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Limitation – Gift Deed – Plaintiff challenged registered gift deed executed in 2010 on ground that it was a sham transaction done only to aid sister’s visa application – Suit filed in 2021 seeking cancellation and declaration – Trial Court and Appellate Court found suit barred under Article 59 of Limitation Act as limitation is 3 years from execution – Held: Execution and registration of gift deed not disputed; absence of fraud plea; cause of action stale – Plaint rightly rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC [Paras 6–9].

Mohammedan Law – Gift of Immovable Property – Plaintiff claimed gift deed lacked essential ingredient of delivery of possession – Court held: Registered deed contained covenant confirming delivery of possession – Gift complete in law under Section 123 of TP Act – Plaintiff continued in possession does not invalidate gift [Paras 3.4, 4.3, 6, 7].

Limitation – Article 59 – Cause of Action – Plaintiff relied on 2021 legal notice from defendant to claim discovery of cause of action – Court found such assertion artificial – Held: Knowledge of gift existed since 2010; no facts pleaded showing discovery of fraud or reason for delay – Delay of 11 years fatal to claim [Paras 3.5, 6–7].

Second Appeal – Scope – Concurrent Findings – Courts below held claim time-barred based on uncontroverted record – No substantial question of law arose – Held: Second appeal cannot be “third trial on facts” or a gamble – Dismissed at admission stage [Paras 11–16].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed at admission stage – No substantial question of law arose – Civil Application also disposed of.

Family Law – Maintenance – Interim Maintenance – Standard of Living – Husband Part of Wealthy Family Business – Suppression of Means – Wife Entitled to Maintenance Reflective of Marital Lifestyle – Husband’s claim of earning only Rs. 6 lakhs annually held prima facie false – Business-family finances inextricably interlinked – Court must consider de facto financial capacity and actual lifestyle, not merely taxable income – Wife after 16 years of marriage cannot be relegated to survival-level maintenance – Held: Maintenance of Rs. 3,50,000 per month awarded as interim measure [Paras 16-20, 22-29, 39-47, 62-66, 69-72].

Maintenance Proceedings – Conduct of Husband – Unclean Hands – Material Suppression – Contrived Ownership Transfers – Prima Facie Manipulation of Shareholdings to Depict Penury – False Pleas of Poverty While Living Lavish Lifestyle – Non-disclosure of properties and bank accounts – Adverse inference drawn – Husband’s claim for cancellation of maintenance rejected [Paras 21-24, 30-38].

Marital Standard of Living – Business Family Dynamics – Income Tax Returns Not Sole Measure – Court must consider entire family business structure; partnership assets not separate from partners – Spouse of family-business member entitled to lifestyle commensurate with integrated business wealth – Narrow focus on taxable income inappropriate [Paras 17-20, 45-47].

Child’s Right to Maintenance – Expenses for Daughter’s Education and Development – Father cannot avoid responsibility merely because mother works multiple jobs – Criticism of daughter’s reasonable expenses (fitness, violin, baking, education) unjustified – Standard of living of child must match the father’s means and prior matrimonial lifestyle [Paras 42-43, 51-54].

Wife’s Income – Not Ground to Deny Maintenance – Wife earning through tutoring and minimal horticulture activity does not negate her right to maintenance – No material showing substantial independent earnings – Husband cannot exploit wife’s struggle to deny statutory support [Paras 48-51].

Maintenance Law – HAMA vs. HMA – Technical Plea Rejected – Application for maintenance under HAMA can be treated as one under HMA in matrimonial proceedings – Welfare legislation to be construed purposively – Incorrect invocation of statute not fatal [Paras 67-68].

Interim Order – Prima Facie Findings – No Set-Off – Claim of set-off based on alleged loan to wife’s uncle rejected as misconceived and patriarchal – Maintenance is not a commercial transaction [Paras 7, 23, 60-61].

Decision – Husband directed to pay Rs. 3,50,000 per month as interim maintenance (Rs. 3 lakhs enhancement + Rs. 50,000 existing) – Husband to deposit Rs. 42,00,000 towards 12 months’ maintenance within four weeks – Both IAs disposed of [Paras 69-72].

Arbitration – Applicability of 1996 Act – Arbitral proceedings initiated by Government of India on 4 April 1996 after the commencement of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Arbitral tribunal wrongly proceeded under the 1940 Act – Held: 1996 Act clearly applies as per Section 21 and Section 85(2)(a) – Liberty Order allowing filing under Section 34 attained finality – District Court’s refusal to entertain Section 34 application on limitation grounds unsustainable [Paras 13–17].

Arbitration – Section 34 Challenge – Liberty Order permitted refiling of challenge under 1996 Act within 30 days – Petition was filed within time – Trial court erroneously ignored binding Liberty Order and proceeded on incorrect premise that 1940 Act applied – Appellate court held that the challenge under Section 34 was maintainable and not barred by limitation [Paras 13–17].

Arbitration – Violation of Natural Justice – Arbitral tribunal denied claimant (Iqbal) access to crucial documents such as supply records, market price data, and procurement vouchers – Tribunal summarily awarded entire claim amount to Government without analysis or reasoning – Breach of audi alteram partem and denial of opportunity to present case – Held: Award vitiated under Section 34(2)(a)(iii) and contrary to public policy [Paras 22–28].

Arbitration – Reasoned Award – Clause 21(g) of contract required reasoned award where amount exceeded Rs. 30,000 – Arbitrator awarded entire damages claimed by Government without discussing market conditions, mitigation, or quantum – Award failed to comply with contractual requirement of a reasoned decision – Held: Award liable to be set aside for failure to adopt judicial approach and provide reasons [Paras 24–30].

Public Policy – Arbitral Award made in summary fashion without examining key evidence or providing adequate reasons – Denial of inspection and discovery rendered award contrary to fundamental policy of Indian law – Held: Arbitral Award is in conflict with public policy and liable to be set aside [Paras 31–34].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – Impugned Order dated 21 October 2011 and Arbitral Award dated 16 January 1998 set aside – No order as to costs [Paras 35–36].

Commercial Courts Act – Jurisdiction – Construction and Infrastructure Contract – Commercial Dispute – Development agreement arising from a tender process for residential housing project – MOU involved construction, infrastructure, and commercial intent – Held: Dispute falls under Section 2(1)(c)(vi) of the Commercial Courts Act – Suit not maintainable before ordinary civil court – Trial Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to entertain the suit or pass orders thereon [Paras 63–67]

Civil Procedure – Return of Plaint – Suit instituted after enforcement of Commercial Courts Act – Held: Trial Court to return plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC for presentation before competent Commercial Court – Section 15 of the Act not applicable as suit was not pending prior to the Act [Paras 69–70, 80]

Injunction – Interim Relief – Monetary Claims – Specific Relief Act – Plaintiffs sought to restrain penalty demands and enforcement under contract – Held: Interim relief sought was contrary to Section 41(b) of the Specific Relief Act – Injunction cannot be granted to restrain monetary claims or enforce specific performance in a money suit [Paras 71, 74–76]

Development Agreements – Not a Joint Venture – Interpretation of MOU – Clauses examined – Held: No sharing of profit/loss or joint control – Project controlled solely by appellants – Respondent had limited supervisory and facilitative role – MOU not a joint venture or partnership – Not covered by sub-clauses (xi) or (xv) of Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act [Paras 45–54]

Immovable Property – Trade and Commerce Use – Relevance under Commercial Courts Act – Held: MOU related to vacant land not "actually used" in trade or commerce at time of contract – Future commercial use irrelevant – Sub-clause (vii) of Section 2(1)(c) not attracted [Paras 41–44]

Decision: Both appeals dismissed – Trial Court’s refusal of ad interim injunctions affirmed – Trial Court directed to return the plaint for presentation before Commercial Court – No order as to costs [Paras 77–82]

Anticipatory Bail – Political Motivation – Petition under Section 482 read with Section 528 BNSS seeking blanket protection from arrest due to political hostility arising from petitioner’s mother contesting assembly bye-election – No FIR registered at time of filing – Apprehension of arrest held speculative – Held: Pre-emptive blanket bail not maintainable in absence of specific case or charges [Paras 1–5, 9]

Anticipatory Bail – Blanket Orders – Legal Bar – Constitution Bench judgment in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia reiterated – Blanket bail covering unspecified future offences not permissible – Courts must ensure anticipatory bail is offence-specific and time-bound – Held: Relief sought would amount to unwarranted interference in lawful police investigation [Paras 6, 8]

Prior Notice Before Arrest – Impermissibility – Petitioner prayed for direction to give 7-day advance notice before any arrest – Held: Granting such direction would amount to judicial overreach and obstruction of investigative powers – Supreme Court in Padam Narain Aggarwal decisively ruled against such blanket safeguards – Court declined to interfere [Para 7, 9]

Decision: Petition dismissed – No merit in plea for blanket anticipatory bail or advance notice before arrest – Court upheld legal position barring such relief in absence of concrete allegations or FIR.