Property Law – Matrimonial Property – Gift – Acceptance – Cancellation – Mandatory Injunction – Title Dispute – Husband claiming purchase in wife’s name; wife asserting exclusive title – Gift Deed executed by husband held accepted by wife; cancellation deed ineffective – Sale by wife upheld – Mandatory injunction claim dismissed [Paras 10–18].

Matrimonial Property – Purchase in Spouse’s Name – Source of Funds – Husband claimed to have paid consideration of ₹3 lakhs to his brother; later sought conveyance from wife or refund; amended claim based on wife’s 12 sovereigns of gold – Court held pleadings themselves defeat husband’s claim of title – Wife proved source of consideration; title vested with her – O.P. rightly dismissed [Paras 3–5, 10].

Gift – Acceptance – Proof – Non-onerous gift – Mere knowledge of gift by donee sufficient – Possession of original Gift Deed by wife strong indicator of acceptance – Gift executed on 26.03.1990; husband’s case that wife informed on 20.11.1998 about intention to cancel – Wife conveyed property on 30.11.1998 – Circumstances show acceptance occurred before cancellation under Ext.A5 – Cancellation void [Paras 11–16].

Gift – Delivery of Possession – Not essential – Delivery not required for a valid gift except under Muhammadan Law – Family Court erred in relying on possession and absence of mutation to hold gift ineffective [Para 17].

Civil Procedure – Family Court – Appreciation of Evidence – Family Court’s finding that gift had not taken effect reversed – Sale Deed (Ext.A8) executed by wife is valid – Husband’s O.P. seeking declaration and cancellation dismissed [Paras 15–18].

Decision – Mat. Appeal No.98/2016 allowed – Judgment in O.P.1282/2003 set aside and petition dismissed – Mat. Appeal No.305/2015 dismissed – Wife’s title over both properties confirmed [Final Para].

Criminal Law – Dishonour of Cheque – Appeal Against Acquittal – Complainant filed appeal challenging acquittal of accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act – Accused issued cheque for ₹4,00,000 towards alleged discharge of liability – Trial court convicted accused – Appellate court (Sessions Court) acquitted her – High Court held: Acquittal justified – Accused rebutted presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of NI Act through probable defence – Complainant failed to prove legally enforceable debt – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1, 5, 26]

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 – Signature on cheque not disputed by accused – Held: Legal presumption arises in favour of complainant – However, presumption is rebuttable – Accused raised a probable defence supported by testimony and circumstantial evidence – Complainant failed to establish transaction details or source of funds – No documentary or corroborative evidence produced – Presumption rebutted successfully [Paras 8, 10-12, 15-21, 24]

Probable Defence – Entrustment of Cheque as Security – Accused’s husband (DW2) deposed that cheque was handed over to one Robert as security for a loan – Allegation that Robert misused cheque by filing false case through complainant – Complainant (PW1) failed to deny suggestion during cross-examination – Stated he had no knowledge of transaction between Robert and accused’s husband – Held: Defence version consistent and supported by circumstances – Burden shifted back to complainant, who failed to discharge it [Paras 9, 13-14, 23]

Acquaintance with Complainant – No Prior Relationship – Accused specifically denied having any prior transaction with complainant – Complainant admitted he saw accused only once ten years ago – No evidence of prior relationship or loan transaction – Held: Creates serious doubt about existence of legally enforceable debt – Supports defence case [Paras 13, 22]

Source of Funds – Not Proved – Complainant claimed to have given ₹4,00,000 as cash loan – Claimed funds sourced from advance sale consideration of land – No document or witness produced to support this – Produced passbook (Exhibit P6) showing withdrawal of ₹3,85,000 from Co-operative Society, but only after deposit on previous day – Inconsistency undermines version – Held: Financial capacity not proved – Contradicts core allegation [Paras 11-12, 17]

Standard of Proof – Rebuttal of Presumption – Held: Accused need not prove case beyond reasonable doubt – Only required to raise probable defence – Circumstantial inconsistencies in complainant’s version sufficient to discharge evidentiary burden – Cited: Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa, M.S. Narayana Menon v. State of Kerala, Kumar Exports v. Sharma Carpets [Paras 15-21, 24]

Appellate Review – Powers of Appellate Court – High Court reiterated principles from Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka – Double presumption in favour of accused in case of acquittal – If two views possible, appellate court should not interfere – Held: Sessions Court’s view was plausible and based on appreciation of evidence – No interference warranted [Paras 25-26]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal of accused under Section 138 NI Act confirmed – Complainant failed to prove legally enforceable debt – Accused successfully rebutted statutory presumption through probable defence – No interference called for with Sessions Court’s judgment [Para 26]

Contract Law – Term Sheet – Specific Performance – Appeal from Order challenging rejection of injunction and permission to deposit Rs. 11 crores – Term Sheet dated 12.04.2023 entered between Plaintiff and Defendants for proposed joint development of suit property – Plaintiff paid Rs.11 crores as first tranche of security deposit – Plaintiff claimed Term Sheet was a concluded contract and sought specific performance and interim injunction against creation of third-party rights – Trial court rejected injunction and allowed deposit of Rs.11 crores – High Court upheld order – Held: Term Sheet not a concluded and enforceable contract – Clause 12 (Validity Clause) with a non-obstante clause and Long Stop Date (11.04.2024) governed the contract – Since Plaintiff failed to complete due diligence or execute transaction documents within Long Stop Date, Term Sheet stood automatically terminated – Plaintiff entitled only to refund of Rs.11 crores, which was already deposited in Court [Paras 3, 4, 11, 12, 17, 20, 21, 24, 28, 30, 35, 36, 39, 40, 47, 50, 51, 52, 53].

Contract Interpretation – Validity Clause v. Enforceability Clause – Clause 11 of Term Sheet declared it enforceable – Clause 12 began with non-obstante clause and imposed conditions precedent with a Long Stop Date – Held: Clause 12 overrides Clause 11 – On failure to meet conditions by Long Stop Date, Term Sheet automatically terminated – No extension pleaded or agreed – Long Stop Date is a contractual deadline ensuring certainty – Cannot be impliedly waived – No concluded contract existed after 11.04.2024 [Paras 20, 21, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 51].

Specific Relief – Refusal of Injunction – Plaintiff sought injunction to prevent third-party rights pending suit for specific performance – Trial court rejected – High Court affirmed – Held: Contract determinable due to lapse of Long Stop Date – Plaintiff failed to perform conditions precedent – Term Sheet not enforceable under Section 14(1)(a), 14(1)(c) & Section 41(e) of Specific Relief Act – Adequate remedy was refund – No prima facie case or balance of convenience in Plaintiff’s favour [Paras 48, 49, 53].

Contract Law – Concluded Contract – Intention of Parties – Plaintiff argued Term Sheet reflected binding intention – Defendants argued it was agreement to agree – Held: Execution of transaction documents was essential – Identification of phases and land parcels incomplete – No mutual extension of time – Significant terms left undecided – Term Sheet lacked completeness to be enforceable – Reliance placed on Pawan Kumar Dutt, Kalpataru Ltd., and Citadel Fine Pharmaceuticals – Specific performance denied [Paras 36, 37, 38, 42, 43, 44].

Commercial Contracts – Long Stop Date – Legal Significance – Court recognized Long Stop Date as vital commercial safeguard – Term Sheet included sunset clause ensuring automatic termination if pre-conditions not fulfilled – Cited foreign judgment Ruven Cohen v. Teseo Properties and Indian precedents – Held: No enforceable obligations post 11.04.2024 except refund of deposit – Long Stop Date not extended, therefore Term Sheet not in force [Paras 28, 31, 32, 33, 34].

Contingent Contract – Failure of Preconditions – Plaintiff failed to complete due diligence, accept/reject title, and execute transaction documents – Held: Contract became void under Sections 31 and 35 of Indian Contract Act, 1872 – Refund of Rs.11 crores was the only surviving obligation [Paras 46, 47].

Decision – Appeal From Order dismissed – Impugned order upheld – No injunction – Term Sheet not enforceable – Plaintiff only entitled to refund of Rs.11 crores already deposited – Interim protection continued for four weeks to enable Plaintiff to approach Supreme Court [Paras 53, 54, 55, 57].

Industrial Disputes – Reinstatement – Back Wages – Absence Without Leave – Reinstatement Without Back Wages Upheld – Petitioner, a temporary Chawkidar whose services were regularised, absented without sanctioned leave from 02.11.1993 to 27.01.1994 – Tribunal found non-acceptance of joining illegal and ordered reinstatement but denied back wages – Held: Absence without leave and failure to inform employer disentitles petitioner from back wages – Reinstatement does not automatically confer entitlement to wages for period of absence [Paras 2, 10-13]

Labour Law – Burden of Proof – Gainful Employment Not Pleaded – No Evidence of Unemployment – Petitioner failed to plead or establish that he remained unemployed during disputed period – Held: Burden lies on workman to assert and prove non-employment; in absence thereof, no back wages can be granted [Paras 12-13]

Back Wages – Principles and Precedents – Flexibility in Relief – No Straightjacket Rule – Citing U.P.S.R.T.C. v. Mithu Singh and Deepali Gundu Surwase, Court reiterated that award of back wages is not automatic – Various factors including nature of absence, length of service, and conduct must be considered – In present case, absence without communication justified denial of wages [Paras 6-9]

Medical Grounds – Mere Production of Medical Certificate Insufficient – No Leave Applied – Petitioner relied on medical certificate to justify absence – Held: Without any application for medical or casual leave or prior intimation to employer, plea of illness cannot be accepted as justification for unauthorised absence [Paras 10-11]

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Award of Industrial Tribunal upheld – No entitlement to back wages – Petitioner found to be at fault for absence without intimation – No interference warranted.

Criminal Law – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Cognizance under Section 186 IPC – Magistrate cannot take cognizance for offence under Section 186 IPC except upon a written complaint by the public servant concerned or their administrative superior as mandated by Section 195(1)(a) CrPC – Police report filed by Sub-Inspector in absence of such complaint cannot be treated as valid – Held: Cognizance taken without satisfying statutory preconditions is illegal and unsustainable [Paras 10–15, 22].

Police Report – Not Equivalent to Valid Complaint – Section 2(d) CrPC defines complaint as distinct from a police report – Though explanation to Section 2(d) allows non-cognizable offence reports to be treated as complaints, such reports must be result of investigation under Section 155(2) CrPC – In present case, no permission sought under Section 155(2), and the report was merely an enquiry, not investigation – Held: Report cannot be deemed a complaint, and Magistrate’s reliance on it was misplaced [Paras 11–12].

Administrative Subordination – Requirement under Section 195 CrPC – Cognizance under Section 186 IPC can only be taken on complaint by public servant concerned or their administrative superior – NVF personnel under West Bengal NVF Act, 1949 are not administratively subordinate to a Sub-Inspector of Police – Held: Sub-Inspector lacked locus to lodge complaint or submit prosecution report – No valid initiation of proceedings possible [Paras 13–15].

Offence under Section 186 IPC – Ingredients Not Satisfied – Allegation merely of use of filthy language and misbehaviour by petitioner – No specific act of obstruction in discharge of duty alleged – Absence of overt act or credible show of force – Held: Allegations vague and insufficient to constitute offence under Section 186 IPC [Paras 16–19].

Malicious Prosecution – Counterblast Theory Accepted – Timeline indicates FIR lodged by petitioner against NVF personnel for assault, followed by complaint against petitioner six days later – Court found complaint likely filed out of vengeance – Held: Proceedings initiated mala fide and in abuse of judicial process – Attracted categories (6) and (7) of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 [Paras 20].

Cognizance Order – Mechanical and Non-Application of Mind – Magistrate’s order taking cognizance lacked judicial reasoning – Merely filled in pre-typed form and signed – Held: Cognizance order bad in law and contrary to Rule 183 of Calcutta High Court Criminal (Subordinate Courts) Rules, 1985 [Para 21].

Criminal Revision – Quashing of Proceedings – In absence of valid complaint, administrative authority, and offence ingredients, continuance of prosecution would be abuse of court process – Held: Entire proceeding quashed under Section 482 CrPC [Paras 22–24].

Decision:

CRR 1926 of 2018 allowed – Proceedings in NGR Case No. 8848 of 2018 pending before CJM, Purba Medinipur, arising out of Kolaghat P.S. NCR No. 185 of 2018 under Section 186 IPC, quashed – Magistrate’s order taking cognizance found illegal – Xerox certified copy to be issued on compliance [Paras 22–24].

Criminal Law – Murder Trial – Acquittal – Appellants convicted by Trial Court for murder of victim based on eyewitness testimony of victim’s wife and recovery of firearm – Prosecution alleged that appellants came on a black motorcycle and shot the victim in front of his wife – Medical evidence confirmed bullet injuries – High Court found inconsistencies in FIR timing, inquest, and post-mortem records – Serious doubts about identity of assailants – Held: Conviction unsustainable in absence of proof beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 1–3, 40–44, 86].

Investigation – FIR and Inquest Discrepancy – Inquest commenced at 1:15 PM while FIR registered at 1:25 PM – Inquest could not precede general diary entry or FIR – No clear explanation regarding delay of over 3 hours between murder and FIR – Prosecution failed to prove chain of events in proper chronological order – Held: Creates grave doubt on authenticity of investigation and prosecution version [Paras 44–50].

Eyewitness Testimony – Wife of Victim – PW 3 claimed to have witnessed the murder and gave vague description (“tall” and “short”) of assailants – Did not name the accused initially and later stated she could identify them if produced – Refused to admit familiarity with appellants though she knew their deceased brother Biltu – Her retraction about stolen purse and lack of corroboration regarding her presence with victim further weakened credibility – Held: PW 3's testimony insufficient to prove guilt [Paras 10–13, 54–58, 79–82].

Prosecution Witnesses – Hostile and Unreliable – PWs 5, 6, 9, 11 and 12 were all accused in earlier murder case of appellants’ brother Biltu – Their testimonies regarding identification and recovery were viewed with suspicion – Presence of interested witnesses in key procedural events like recovery of weapon and vehicle cast serious doubts on fairness of investigation – Held: Witness pattern indicative of false implication [Paras 59–67].

Recovery of Weapon and Motorcycle – Pipe gun and cartridges recovered from appellant Airuddin – Gun length differed between seizure and trial – Recovery witnesses were co-accused in prior case involving appellants – Black motorcycle recovered from third party’s house without linking ownership – No forensic evidence linking recovered items to crime – Held: Recovery evidence unreliable and not admissible to prove guilt [Paras 64–65, 83–85].

Investigative Lapses – No sketch or forensic match of assailants – IO did not record or compare initial description with accused persons – Acted solely on village suspicion without corroborative evidence – Admitted arrest based on “tip-off” without procedural safeguards – Held: Investigation compromised and identity of assailants unproved [Paras 68–74].

Criminal Trial – Failure to Prove Identity – No credible or direct evidence establishing identity of appellants as assailants – Witnesses’ silence, contradictions, and hostile motives undercut prosecution case – Recovery, motive, and chain of custody not substantiated – Held: Appellants entitled to benefit of doubt – Conviction set aside [Paras 75–86].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction under Sections 302/34 IPC and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act set aside – Appellants acquitted on benefit of doubt – Directed to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case – Bond to be executed under Section 437A CrPC [Paras 87–88].

Arbitration – Maintainability of Section 34 Petition – MSME Award – Pre-deposit Mandatory – Petition filed to challenge MSME award without deposit of 75% of award amount at time of filing – Deposit made only on 18.06.2025, beyond 120-day limitation under Section 34(3) – Held: Petition not maintainable due to failure to comply with statutory precondition under Section 19 of MSMED Act within limitation – No judicial discretion available to condone this delay [Paras 11, 29, 34–35, 45].

Arbitration – MSMED Act – Harmonious Construction – MSMED Act (special statute) and Arbitration Act (general statute) must be harmonised – Section 19 requiring 75% deposit is mandatory and must be fulfilled within the limitation period under Section 34 – Mere filing of Section 34 petition without deposit does not stop limitation clock – Held: Petition deemed filed only on date of deposit [Paras 29, 31, 33–34].

Statutory Interpretation – “Shall be Entertained” – Phrase in Section 19 MSMED Act interpreted to mean that unless deposit is made within prescribed time, court cannot proceed to entertain petition – Discretion of court limited to method of payment (e.g., instalments), not to waive or extend time for deposit – Petition not entertainable when deposit made after 120-day period [Paras 13, 14, 20–23, 34–35].

Judicial Precedents – Divergent High Court Views – Madras High Court disagrees with views of Bombay and Delhi High Courts which allowed pre-deposit post-filing – Relied on binding ratio of SC in Lakshmiratan Engineering Works Ltd. and Full Bench of Madras HC in E.P. Nawab Marakkadai – Held: Entertainability of petition is dependent on timely deposit [Paras 20–23, 25–28].

Execution – Interim Relief under Section 9 – Respondent filed Section 9 petition seeking deposit of award amount pending challenge – In view of dismissal of Section 34 petition, deposit made by petitioner under Section 19 treated as made in Section 9 proceeding – Court directed release of deposited amount to respondent – Liberty granted to initiate execution for remaining dues [Paras 46–47].

Decision: Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.) No.557 of 2025 dismissed as not maintainable due to failure to deposit 75% of award within statutory period – Court declined to exercise discretion under Section 19 MSMED Act – Arb.Appln.(Com.Div.) No.369 of 2025 disposed – Deposit made in Arb.O.P. directed to be paid to respondent – Liberty granted to initiate execution for balance amount if unpaid [Paras 45–47].

Preventive Detention – Verification of In-Camera Statements – Subjective Satisfaction – Petitioner challenged preventive detention under MPDA Act alleging non-compliance with procedural safeguards – Contended that Detaining Authority failed to personally verify in-camera statements of witnesses – Held: It is not a legal requirement that the Detaining Authority must personally verify in-camera statements – Verification by a senior police officer such as Assistant Commissioner of Police suffices and provides necessary procedural safeguard – Assistant Commissioner personally interacted with witnesses, visited incident spot, and verified genuineness of statements – Detaining Authority perused entire record, including verification report, and recorded subjective satisfaction [Paras 4–11].

Preventive Detention – Procedural Safeguards – Compliance with Legal Requirements – Grounds of detention, in-camera statements, and verification report were supplied to the detenu – Detaining Authority noted and considered all relevant material before passing the detention order – Detention order satisfies requirements of Section 8 MPDA Act and Article 22(5) of the Constitution – No breach of procedural safeguards found [Paras 6–10, 12].

Judicial Review – Subjective Satisfaction – Scope – Courts cannot substitute their own opinion for the subjective satisfaction of Detaining Authority – Reasonableness of satisfaction is not to be tested objectively – Judicial interference not warranted unless procedural illegality or arbitrariness is established – Held: No infirmity found in detention order – Petition lacks merit [Paras 5, 12–13].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Rule discharged – Interim application also disposed of as infructuous.

Telecom Law – Jurisdiction of TDSAT – Dispute Between Service Providers – Plaintiff (a Class 'A' ISP) and Defendant No.1 (a Category 'A' ITSP) entered into an Operational Merger Agreement (OMA) for resource and infrastructure integration – Allegations of breach of contract, disruption of services, and withholding of infrastructure affecting thousands of end consumers – Held: Dispute is between service providers and directly impacts users—Squarely falls within exclusive jurisdiction of TDSAT under Section 14(a)(ii) of TRAI Act—Civil suit not maintainable [Paras 3, 22–26, 38–39]

Civil Procedure – Bar of Jurisdiction – Section 15 of TRAI Act – Civil courts barred from entertaining disputes that TDSAT is competent to adjudicate – Inclusion of individual directors and foreign parent company (non-service providers) does not alter the core nature of the dispute – Allegations against Defendants 2–5 arise from their roles within service provider operations – No distinct cause of action independent of the primary dispute – Civil court lacks jurisdiction [Paras 30–35]

Consumer Impact – Scope of TRAI Act – Plaintiff admitted disruption of service to approx. 19,000 residential and commercial users including hospitals, schools, and government bodies – Held: Where dispute affects a large body of consumers, TDSAT as the expert tribunal must adjudicate – Object of TRAI Act is to ensure consumer protection and orderly growth of telecom sector [Paras 24–26]

Contractual Disputes – Private Agreement Between Telecom Operators – Plaintiff argued dispute arose from a private contractual arrangement unrelated to regulatory functions – Court rejected argument citing binding precedent that even private agreements between service providers fall within TDSAT’s domain if consumer interests are affected or sectoral regulation is implicated [Paras 27–29]

Distinction from Precedents – Cases relied upon by plaintiff (e.g., Amrit Aneja, Hathway Digital) held inapplicable – Those disputes involved non-service providers or employer-employee issues – In contrast, current dispute involves operational failures and service disruptions between two licensed service providers [Paras 36–37]

Decision:Suit held not maintainable – Dispute falls within exclusive jurisdiction of TDSAT under Sections 14 and 15 of the TRAI Act – Civil court barred from entertaining the matter – Plaint rejected – Pending applications disposed of accordingly.