Lease Agreement – Termination by Lessee – Clause 17 – Lessee issued termination notice citing COVID-19 pandemic and force majeure – Termination under Clause 17 requires three months’ notice – Lease held terminated w.e.f. 15.12.2021 – Acceptance of termination by lessor does not amount to waiver of rent liability prior to termination [Paras 32–38].

Force Majeure – Suspension of Rent – Clause 23(a) – COVID-19 lockdowns treated as force majeure by consent of parties – Rent obligation suspended only for period during which restrictions subsisted – Parties agreed force majeure period of 252 days – Lessee liable to pay rent for balance period prior to termination [Paras 40–47, 55].

Oral Agreement – Reduction of Rent – Plea of One-Third Rent – Lessee alleged oral understanding reducing rent to one-third during pandemic – No documentary evidence – No particulars of alleged oral agreement – Held: Written registered lease cannot be novated by disputed oral understanding – Plea rejected [Paras 48–54].

Arrears of Rent – Findings of Commercial Court – Error – Commercial Court held landlord lost right to claim rent as lease was not terminated by landlord – Held erroneous – Clause enabling landlord to terminate on default does not extinguish right to recover rent – Arrears recoverable despite non-termination by lessor [Paras 56–61].

Payments Received – Nature of Payments – TDS Deduction – Amount of ₹17,24,100 paid by lessee – Deduction of TDS under Section 194-I Income Tax Act established through AIS – Payments held towards rent and not financial accommodation – Adverse inference drawn by Commercial Court held unsustainable [Paras 22–23, 56–57].

Security Deposit – Adjustment – Right to Withhold Possession – Clauses 3 and 16 – Security deposit refundable only on performance of lessee’s obligations – Lessee in arrears of rent exceeding security deposit – Lessee not entitled to withhold possession for non-refund – Withholding possession beyond termination held illegal [Paras 63–73].

Transfer of Property Act – Obligation to Deliver Possession – Section 108(q) – On determination of lease, lessee bound to hand over possession – Tenant cannot retain possession till refund of security deposit – Remedy is to sue for refund after surrender – Principles reiterated [Paras 74–76].

Mesne Profits / Damages – Measure – Agreed Rent – Lessee retained possession till 04.09.2025 – Damages quantified on basis of contractual rent slabs – Interest at 12% p.a. awarded on arrears and mesne profits – Commercial Court judgment set aside [Paras 85–86].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment dated 16.11.2024 set aside – Suit decreed – Respondent liable to pay arrears of rent after excluding 252 days of force majeure, adjust security deposit, and pay mesne profits till 04.09.2025 with interest @ 12% per annum – Costs awarded to appellants.

Death Penalty – Post-Mercy Judicial Review – Article 21 – Even after confirmation of death sentence and rejection of mercy petitions under Articles 72 and 161, the fundamental right to life and human dignity continues to subsist – Constitutional Courts are empowered to examine supervening circumstances affecting fairness, humanity and constitutionality of execution – Scope of judicial review confined to post-conviction events without reopening guilt [Paras 25–27, 52].

Solitary Confinement – Illegal Segregation Prior to Finality of Sentence – Appellants kept in separate cells from 21.12.2006 to 2009 before exhaustion of judicial and constitutional remedies – Such segregation held illegal and violative of Article 21 – Section 30(2) of Prisons Act applicable only when death sentence becomes final, conclusive and executable – Reliance on Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration – Illegal solitary confinement itself a valid ground for commutation [Paras 28–33, 39–43, 53(i)].

Punjab Jail Manual – Statutory Segregation – Constitutional Limits – Provisions permitting confinement “apart from other prisoners” cannot be enforced to impose complete social and sensory isolation – Jail authorities lack power to add punitive solitary confinement beyond judicial sentence – Any segregation resulting in denial of sight and communication with fellow prisoners held unconstitutional [Paras 29–31, 43].

Delay in Disposal of Mercy Petitions – Executive Apathy – Mental Torture – Unreasonable and unexplained delay of more than four years attributable to State authorities at multiple stages – Failure to inform appellants of right to file mercy petitions and denial of legal aid post dismissal of review – Misrouting of mercy petitions, prolonged inaction despite repeated reminders by MHA, erroneous reliance on Sriharan judgment, and one-year delay in communicating rejection by Governor – Held: Delay caused severe mental agony and violated Article 21 [Paras 34–37, 44–49, 53(ii)].

Mercy Petition – Procedural Safeguards – Mandatory Compliance – MHA guidelines requiring immediate intimation to convicts and legal assistance for preparation of mercy petitions are binding – Non-compliance vitiates post-conviction process – Making convicts sign multiple mercy petitions without legal aid held impermissible – Procedural lapses constitute relevant supervening factor for commutation [Paras 44–50].

Gravity of Crime – Irrelevance in Post-Mercy Proceedings – Heinous nature of offence and brutality involved cannot be considered at post-mercy stage – Focus confined to delay, prison conditions, dignity, and fairness – Reliance on Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India [Paras 11, 36, 52].

Long Incarceration on Death Row – ‘Death Row Phenomenon’ – Appellants incarcerated for over twenty years under constant threat of execution – Prolonged uncertainty and psychological trauma recognised as infringement of Article 21 – Mental suffering outweighs relevance of physical health alone [Paras 35–37, 51, 53(iii)].

Maintainability – Letters Patent Appeal – Writ Based on Mercy Delay – Proceedings challenging delay in mercy petitions are independent of original conviction – Intra-court appeal maintainable against dismissal of such writ petitions – Supreme Court remand settled maintainability issue [Paras 7–8].

Sentence – Commutation – Life Imprisonment for Remainder of Natural Life – Cumulative effect of illegal solitary confinement, inordinate delay, prolonged incarceration and procedural lapses warranted commutation – Death sentence substituted with life imprisonment for remainder of natural life – No remission or premature release permissible – Balance struck between constitutional rights of convicts and societal interests [Paras 22, 54].

Decision: Letters Patent Appeals partly allowed – Death sentence commuted to life imprisonment for remainder of natural life – Impugned judgment of Single Judge modified accordingly.

Execution of Decree – Confirmation of Possession – Recovery of Possession Permissible – Decree holder obtained decree for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and permanent injunction – After finality of decree, judgment debtor forcibly entered into possession – Held: Such conduct amounts to obstruction – Executing Court rightly directed eviction to enforce decree – A decree of confirmation of possession, once violated, can be enforced by removal of obstruction [Paras 6, 8, 17–18]

Civil Procedure – Section 47 CPC – Repeated Applications – Judgment debtor filed multiple applications under Section 47 CPC on same grounds after rejection of earlier ones – Held: Such repeated objections barred by principle akin to res judicata – Supreme Court’s directions in Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi followed – Frivolous objections to execution to be sternly dealt with [Paras 5, 14–15]

Limitation – Execution of Decree – Applicability of Article 136 – Petitioners contended execution was barred by limitation – Court held decree also involved permanent injunction, and thus not governed by 12-year limitation under Article 136 – Execution was within time as obstruction occurred post-second appeal – Held: Enforcement of perpetual injunction not time-barred [Paras 8–9, 19]

Interpretation of Decree – Executing Court’s Role – Judgment debtor contended that eviction not permissible as decree lacked specific direction for possession – Court held: Executing Court can interpret decree to determine its enforceability, especially when decree holder’s possession was confirmed and later obstructed – Relief sought does not go beyond decree but seeks its enforcement [Paras 21–22]

Abuse of Process – Judgment Debtor’s Tactics – Repeated filing of objections and technical pleas by judgment debtor seen as an attempt to delay and frustrate decree – Held: Courts cannot allow decree holder to be driven to file fresh suit when earlier decree has attained finality – Conduct of judgment debtor amounted to abuse of process [Paras 1, 17–18, 23]

Decision: Civil Miscellaneous Petition dismissed – Executing Court’s and Revisional Court’s orders upheld – Decree holder entitled to recover possession in enforcement of decree confirming possession and restraining interference – Executing Court directed to conclude proceedings within two months.

Hindu Marriage Act – Divorce on ground of cruelty – Allegations of dowry demand, forced medical tests, attempted strangulation and harassment – Evidence found unsubstantiated – Reliance on evidence from separate proceedings impermissible – No cruelty proved – Dismissal of divorce petition affirmed [Paras 10–26].

Cruelty – Standard of Proof – Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act – Allegations of physical and mental cruelty must be proved by cogent, convincing and independent evidence – Mere allegations without corroboration insufficient to dissolve marriage – Family Court rightly insisted on strict proof [Paras 10, 19–21].

Medical Evidence – Alleged Forced Abdominal Scan – Appellant alleged ultrasound scan conducted to detect premarital abortion – Exhibits P2 to P4 only established that ultrasound of abdomen and pelvis was conducted on doctor’s advice – No indication of purpose being premarital abortion – Doctors not examined – Admission of appellant that respondent accompanied her for general check-up contradicted her plea – Allegation not proved [Paras 11–11.2].

Evidence from Other Proceedings – Limited Use – Appellant relied on depositions and documents from proceedings under Section 125 CrPC (Exs. R30 to R32) – Held: Evidence recorded in separate proceedings cannot be mechanically relied upon in matrimonial proceedings unless witnesses are examined and evidence proved afresh – Supreme Court’s clarification while dismissing SLP reinforced such limitation [Paras 12–12.2, 14].

Attempt to Murder / Strangulation – Lack of Proof – Serious allegation of attempted strangulation unsupported by medical records, police complaint or independent witnesses – Panchayatdars not examined – Mere assertion without contemporaneous evidence insufficient to constitute cruelty [Paras 13, 14].

Dowry Demand and Criminal Proceedings – Pendency Not Proof – Registration of criminal case under Sections 498A and 506 IPC and dismissal of petition under Section 482 CrPC do not by themselves establish guilt or cruelty – Criminal trial pending – Family Court justified in not treating pendency of criminal case as proof of cruelty [Paras 17–18].

Conduct of Parties – Mental Cruelty Alleged by Respondent – Evidence indicated repeated complaints, letters to employer and RTI applications by appellant and her father – Family Court’s finding that respondent was subjected to mental harassment upheld – Appellate court found no perversity in appreciation of evidence [Paras 19–21].

Maintenance and Stridhana – No Automatic Relief – Claim of higher maintenance and non-return of stridhana rejected for want of proof – Maintenance already fixed at Rs.6,000/- per month in separate proceedings – No evidence of change in circumstances or proof of assets and liabilities – Liberty reserved to seek modification in accordance with law [Paras 22–25].

Scope of Appellate Interference – Family Court Findings – Appellate court will not interfere with well-reasoned findings of Family Court unless perversity or misreading of evidence shown – Impugned judgment based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence – No ground for interference made out [Paras 21, 26].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 24/02/2022 passed in M.C.No.241/2017 by the Family Court, Shivamogga upheld – Divorce on ground of cruelty refused – Liberty reserved to appellant to seek modification of maintenance in accordance with law – No order as to costs [Para 26].

Administrative Law – Jurisdiction – Powers under Special Statutes – Rehabilitation Act – Sale Permission – Jurisdictional Error – Divisional Commissioner revoked a sale permission granted under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Rehabilitation Act, 1999 after the transaction was completed via a registered sale deed – Held: The Rehabilitation Act does not confer appellate or revisional powers to the Divisional Commissioner in respect of such permissions – The officer granting permission under the Act acts under special statutory authority, not as a revenue officer under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code – Sections 247 and 257 of the Code are inapplicable [Paras 12-15].

Civil Procedure – Limitation – Appeal Without Condonation – Respondents filed a delayed appeal without obtaining condonation – The Divisional Commissioner proceeded to hear the matter on merits without deciding the delay application – Held: Jurisdiction must be established before adjudication – Proceedings vitiated for lack of jurisdiction and procedural irregularity [Para 16].

Property Law – Transfer of Property – Agreement to Sell – Rights – Respondents claimed through an un-enforced 1995 agreement to sell – No suit for specific performance filed – Held: Mere agreement to sell does not confer ownership or right to object to transfer – Respondents lacked locus and were not “aggrieved persons” under Section 12 of the Act [Paras 17-18, 22].

Administrative Law – Functus Officio – No Power of Review – Once permission was acted upon by execution of sale deed and possession transfer, the authority under the Act became functus officio – There is no power to review or recall such permission under the Act – Cancellation after completion is illegal [Para 19].

Fraud – Allegations Based on Non-Disclosure – Alleged non-disclosure of prior agreement did not amount to fraud – No enforceable rights arose from said agreement – Non-disclosure of an irrelevant fact does not constitute fraud under law [Para 22].

Constitutional Law – Alternative Remedy – Not a Bar – Availability of appeal or revision under Land Revenue Code does not bar writ petition where jurisdiction is wrongly assumed – The petitioner cannot be forced to pursue an alternative remedy under an inapplicable statute [Para 21].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Impugned order dated 1 August 2014 set aside – Sale permission dated 13 December 2010 restored – Registered sale deed held valid – No costs [Paras 24-25].

Administrative Law – Paddy Procurement – Engagement of Women’s Self Help Groups – Policy Decision – Exclusion of WSHGs from KMS 2025–26 – WSHGs engaged continuously since 2019 pursuant to 2019 Guidelines – State undertook performance review in 2024 based on complaints of mismanagement – Decision taken to restrict procurement activities to PACS and selected agencies – Held: Engagement of WSHGs is policy-based and administrative – No vested or indefeasible right to continue indefinitely – Court declines interference under Article 226 [Paras 9–11, 18].

Paddy Procurement Policy – Expression of Interest (EOI) – Non-issuance of fresh EOI – Challenge by new and previously disengaged WSHGs – Held: Issuance of EOI under executive guidelines is not mandatory in all circumstances – Mere willingness to participate does not create enforceable legal right – Mandamus cannot be issued in absence of legal duty [Paras 10, 17].

Natural Justice – Audi Alteram Partem – Disengagement of WSHGs without notice or hearing – Performance-based administrative action – Held: Principles of natural justice not rigid – Application depends on nature of right and consequences – Disengagement not punitive or stigmatic – No blacklisting or civil disability imposed – Individual show-cause notice not mandatory in policy-driven, time-bound procurement decisions [Paras 14–16].

Constitution of India – Article 14 – Classification based on performance – Preference to PACS and continuance of satisfactory WSHGs – Performance-based differentiation has rational nexus with object of ensuring smooth and efficient procurement – No arbitrariness or discrimination established [Paras 13].

Judicial Review – Scope under Article 226 – Policy and administrative decisions – Held: High Court does not sit as appellate authority over policy decisions – Interference permissible only on grounds of arbitrariness, mala fides or statutory violation – None established in present case [Paras 18–19].

Women Empowerment – Observations – While upholding State action, Court observes that Government should consider, at policy level, providing opportunities to new and previously disengaged WSHGs in future procurement years subject to norms and efficiency considerations [Para 19].

Decision: All writ petitions disposed of – No interference with impugned orders dated 16.07.2025 and 22.07.2025 – Policy discretion of State upheld.

Hindu Marriage Act – Divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion – Wife’s abusive conduct, repeated complaints, abandonment of child and refusal to cohabit proved – Custody of minor child with father upheld – Permanent alimony of Rs.20,000 per month justified – Appeals dismissed [Paras 17–24].

Cruelty – Section 13(1)(i-a), Hindu Marriage Act – Mental Cruelty – Evidence established that wife used abusive and derogatory language towards husband and his parents, filed multiple complaints before various forums, disrupted panchayaths and conciliation proceedings, and consistently expressed unwillingness to continue marital life – Conduct not ordinary wear and tear of marriage but grave and weighty – Finding of cruelty by Family Court affirmed [Paras 13–17, 19].

Desertion – Section 13(1)(i-b), Hindu Marriage Act – Animus Deserendi – Wife admitted living separately since 30.04.2014 – Continuous separation for more than two years preceding filing of petition established – No bona fide effort to resume cohabitation – Ingredients of desertion satisfied – Decree of divorce rightly granted [Paras 13.8, 18, 20].

Child Custody – Guardians and Wards Act – Welfare of Child – Minor daughter abandoned by mother in 2014 and remained continuously in custody of father and paternal grandparents – Child cared for by father since infancy – Mother sought custody only after matrimonial dispute escalated – No evidence of incapacity of father or grandparents – Custody with father held to be legal and in the best interest of the child – Only visitation rights to mother upheld [Paras 17–18.1].

Conduct of Mother – Abandonment of Child – Evidence including Ex.P6 showed wife voluntarily relinquished custody of minor child during conciliation proceedings – Lack of emotional attachment and unwillingness to care for child established – Subsequent custody proceedings held not bona fide [Paras 13.2–13.6, 17].

Maintenance – Interim and Permanent Alimony – Sections 24 and 25, Hindu Marriage Act – Husband earning Rs.2,14,398/- per month and wife earning Rs.38,200/- per month – Husband bearing responsibility of minor child and aged parents – Permanent alimony of Rs.20,000/- per month reasonable and proportionate – No material change in circumstances shown – Maintenance order upheld [Paras 21–22].

Appellate Interference – Family Court Findings – Concurrent findings based on oral and documentary evidence – No perversity or misreading of evidence demonstrated – Appellate court declined to reappreciate evidence merely because an alternative view is possible [Paras 14–16, 24].

Decision: MFA No. 645 of 2024, MFA No. 546 of 2024 and MFA No. 1681 of 2024 dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 04/12/2023 passed by the VI Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru affirmed – Decree of divorce upheld – Custody of minor child with father confirmed – Permanent alimony of Rs.20,000/- per month sustained – Pending interlocutory applications disposed of – No order as to costs [Paras 24].

Service Law – Transfer of Bank Officer – Mid-term and Frequent Transfers – Judicial Review – Petitioner, a specialised officer (Senior Manager (Law), Scale-III), transferred thrice within a short span including transfer within two months from Bahraich to Salem, Tamil Nadu – Despite normal tenure of three years prescribed under Bank’s Transfer Policy – Court examined repeated transfers in light of policy provisions and administrative exigency – Held: Frequent mid-term transfers without justifiable exigency violate the Bank’s own transfer policy and warrant interference [Paras 14–16].

Service Law – Transfer Policy – Binding Nature – Bank having framed an exhaustive Transfer Policy is bound to adhere to it – Clauses prescribing normal tenure and endeavour to complete transfers by 30th June cannot be ignored casually – Transfer in July 2025 without demonstrated exigency held contrary to policy – Authorities failed to justify deviation from prescribed norms [Paras 15, 17].

Service Law – Specialised Officers – Misuse of Specialisation – Petitioner transferred on the ground of being a specialised Law Manager – Court held that specialisation cannot be used as a tool for harassment – Frequent transfers of specialists impair efficiency and defeat institutional interest – Balance between administrative interest and humane working conditions emphasised [Para 16].

Service Law – Grievance Redressal – Non-application of Mind – Rejection of petitioner’s grievance and appeal found to be mere reiteration of earlier reasons – Bank failed to consider petitioner’s case afresh despite repeated directions of the High Court – Orders passed by Grievance Redressal and Appellate Authorities vitiated for non-consideration of relevant policy clauses [Paras 17–18].

Service Law – Scope of Interference in Transfer Matters – While transfer is an incident of service under Regulation 47 of the 1979 Regulations, Court can interfere where transfer is frequent, arbitrary or violative of policy – Case distinguished from general principle of non-interference laid down by Supreme Court – Interference justified in peculiar facts [Paras 13, 15–18].

Decision: Impugned order dated 10.11.2025 and consequential orders quashed – Petitioner permitted to submit fresh representation within fifteen days – Competent authority directed to decide the same within six weeks strictly in accordance with law – Operation of transfer order dated 18.07.2025 stayed meanwhile – Writ petition allowed [Paras 18–22].

Election Law – Interlocutory Application – Dismissal of Election Petition – Non-filing of Form-25 Affidavit – Section 83(1)(c) Proviso – Section 86(1), Representation of the People Act, 1951 – Res Judicata and Constructive Res Judicata – Respondent sought dismissal of election petition on ground that allegations of corrupt practice were not supported by affidavit in Form-25 as required under Rule 94A of the Conduct of Election Rules – Similar interlocutory applications seeking dismissal under Section 86(1) earlier dismissed by High Court and affirmed by Supreme Court – Held: Present application not maintainable as issue arose from same pleadings already adjudicated and attained finality – Plea barred by constructive res judicata – Liberty granted by Supreme Court to file future applications cannot be construed as permission to reopen concluded issues [Paras 7–14].

Election Petition – Corrupt Practice Allegations – Requirement of Affidavit – Directory vs Mandatory – Finality of Earlier Adjudication – Earlier order of High Court considered allegations relating to suppression of criminal antecedents, assets and liabilities and declined dismissal of election petition – Supreme Court expunged certain observations but affirmed operative conclusion – Held: Expunging of observations does not reopen or unsettle findings on maintainability – Court becomes functus officio on issues finally decided – Subsequent application raising same foundational objections impermissible [Paras 8–11].

Civil Procedure – Res Judicata – Constructive Res Judicata – Application at Different Stages of Same Proceeding – Principle of res judicata applies not only between two separate proceedings but also at different stages of the same litigation – Grounds which might and ought to have been raised earlier are deemed to have been decided – Respondent having failed to raise Form-25 objection in earlier applications cannot raise it subsequently – Reliance placed on Forward Construction Co. v. Prabhat Mandal and Satyadhyan Ghosal v. Deorajin Debi [Paras 8–10].

Judicial Discipline – Liberty to Mention / File Further Applications – Scope and Limitation – Liberty granted by higher court to file further applications is general in nature – Cannot be used to indirectly seek review or reconsideration of issues already finally decided – Entertaining such application would amount to impermissible collateral review – Reliance placed on Kewal Chand Mimani v. S.K. Sen [Paras 11–12].

Decision: Interlocutory Application dismissed as not maintainable – Election Petition directed to be listed for settlement of issues.