Preventive Detention – PITNDPS Act – Territorial Jurisdiction – Forum Conveniens – Writ Petition Dismissed – Petitioner challenged detention order passed by Joint Secretary, Department of Revenue, Government of India and rejection of representations – Though detention order and memoranda were issued from Delhi, predicate offences, sponsoring authority, records and petitioner’s residence were all situated in West Bengal – Held: Delhi High Court possessed jurisdiction as part of cause of action arose in Delhi, but declined to exercise discretionary jurisdiction applying doctrine of forum conveniens – Petition dismissed with liberty to approach appropriate High Court [Paras 1, 5, 9, 17–18].

Article 226(2) – Cause of Action in Part – Not Determinative – Mere existence of jurisdiction under Article 226(2) does not mandate exercise thereof – Even if a minuscule part of cause of action arises within territorial jurisdiction, High Court may refuse to entertain petition if another forum is more appropriate and convenient – Jurisdiction and exercise of jurisdiction distinguished [Paras 9–13, 16].

Forum Conveniens – Discretionary Refusal to Entertain Writ – Doctrine permits Court to decline adjudication where lis has closer and more substantial nexus with another jurisdiction – Factors considered include location of parties, sponsoring authority, pending criminal cases, records and evidence – High Court of Calcutta or Rajasthan held to be more appropriate forums [Paras 6, 12–13, 17].

Preventive Detention – Sponsoring Authority and Predicate Offences – Relevance to Forum – Detention based on criminal cases registered in West Bengal – Sponsoring authority (NCB Kolkata) and relevant material located in West Bengal – Held: These constitute integral and dominant part of cause of action outweighing issuance of detention order from Delhi [Paras 2–3, 17].

Reliance on Precedents – Forum Conveniens Doctrine Reaffirmed – Court relied upon Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India, Ambica Industries v. CCE, Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. v. Union of India and Bharat Nidhi Ltd. v. SEBI – Principles reiterated that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary and guided by convenience of parties and interests of justice [Paras 10–15].

Liberty to Approach Appropriate Forum – Dismissal on ground of forum conveniens does not bar petitioner from challenging detention order on merits before jurisdictional High Court – Liberty expressly reserved [Paras 18–20].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed on ground of forum conveniens – Delhi High Court declined to exercise discretionary jurisdiction – Liberty granted to petitioner to approach appropriate High Court/forum – Pending applications disposed of.

Criminal Law – Bail – Recall of Bail Order – Distinction Between Recall and Cancellation – Petition under Section 482 CrPC filed by CGST Department seeking recall of bail granted by learned CMM – Held: Challenge to grant of bail on merits stands on a different footing from cancellation of bail based on supervening circumstances – Bail order can be interfered with only if found illegal, perverse, arbitrary or based on irrelevant considerations [Paras 38–40].

Economic Offences – GST Evasion – Gravity of Allegations – Bail Considerations – Allegations of clandestine manufacture and sale of banned gutka with alleged GST evasion of Rs. 831.72 crores – Court observed that seriousness of offence alone cannot justify recall of bail when investigation is primarily documentary and material already in possession of Department – Prolonged incarceration not warranted merely on basis of estimated figures founded on assumptions [Paras 45–46].

Bail Order – Exercise of Judicial Discretion – No Perversity or Illegality – Learned CMM considered nature of allegations, role attributed to accused, period of custody, stage of investigation and material collected – Bail granted after due application of mind – Held: Discretion exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily or capriciously [Paras 44–45].

Confessional Statements – Evidentiary Value – Bail Stage – Department relied heavily on voluntary statements recorded under CGST Act – Respondent claimed retraction and relied on law laid down in Toofan Singh – Court held that veracity and evidentiary value of such statements is matter for trial and cannot be conclusively adjudicated at bail stage [Paras 26, 46].

Bail – No Misuse of Liberty – Absence of Supervening Circumstances – Bail granted in March 2021 and no allegation of violation of bail conditions, tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses or obstructing trial – Held: In absence of misuse of liberty or supervening circumstances, recall of bail is not justified [Paras 47–48].

Socio-Economic Offences – Bail Jurisprudence – While economic offences require careful scrutiny, courts must still balance gravity with personal liberty – Bail once granted should not be interfered with mechanically or as a retaliatory measure by investigating agency [Paras 41–43].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Bail order dated 17.03.2021 upheld – No ground made out for recall or interference – Pending applications disposed of.

Criminal Law - Prevention of Corruption Act – Demand and Acceptance of Bribe – Proof – Conviction Upheld – Accused, Village Man, alleged to have demanded and accepted ₹500 as illegal gratification for facilitating transfer of Jama rights and land revenue mutation – Prosecution relied on evidence of complainant (PW1), decoy witness (PW2) and trap proceedings – Phenolphthalein test positive and tainted currency recovered from accused – Held: Evidence of PW1 regarding demand and acceptance remained unshaken – Foundational facts proved beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) PC Act sustained [Paras 9–20].

Public Servant – Competence to Perform Official Act – Irrelevant for Bribery Offence – Defence contention that accused was not competent authority to measure land rejected – Held: Even if accused was not statutorily empowered, demand and acceptance of bribe for influencing official process attracts offences under PC Act – Complainant entitled to rely on representations made by public servant [Paras 14, 20].

Trap Case – Minor Contradictions – Effect – Alleged inconsistencies in testimonies of prosecution witnesses regarding handing over of money and positioning during trap – Held: Minor discrepancies not affecting core prosecution case – No material contradiction to discredit demand and acceptance [Paras 6, 20].

Legal Principles – Demand as Sine Qua Non – Application of Neeraj Dutta Doctrine – Court reiterated that proof of demand and acceptance is essential for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) – Reliance placed on Constitution Bench decision in Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi) – Found that prosecution satisfied twin requirements through cogent oral and circumstantial evidence [Paras 17–19].

Sentence – Appellate Interference – Leniency – Considering facts and circumstances, sentence reduced to minimum permissible while maintaining conviction – Rigorous imprisonment reduced while fine maintained – Substantive sentences to run concurrently [Paras 21–22].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction confirmed – Sentence modified – Bail cancelled – Accused directed to surrender to undergo modified sentence.

Civil Law - Probate Proceedings – Revocation of Probate – Scope and Limitations – Appeal filed challenging dismissal of application for revocation of probate granted in respect of a registered Will – Held: Probate Court is concerned only with proof of due execution and attestation of the Will – Issues relating to title, possession of property documents, or validity of adoption are beyond the scope of probate jurisdiction [Paras 3, 10].

Caveatable Interest – Remote Heirs – Effect of Adoption – Appellants were widow and son of brother’s son of husband of testatrix – Second respondent was adopted son of testatrix – Adoption admitted in earlier civil proceedings and not specifically denied – Held: By virtue of Section 12 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, adopted son becomes Class I heir – Remote Class II heirs stand excluded and have no caveatable interest [Paras 6–7, 19–20].

Pleadings – Admission – Effect of Non-Denial – In earlier partition suit, appellants had admitted relationship showing second respondent as adopted son of testatrix – No specific denial in written statement – Held: In view of Order VIII Rule 5 CPC and Section 53 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, admitted facts need not be proved and cannot be reagitated in subsequent proceedings [Paras 7–11].

Revocation of Probate – Section 263 Indian Succession Act – ‘Just Cause’ – Grounds such as defective proceedings, fraud, concealment, untrue essential allegations, or inutilisation of grant examined – Held: None of the statutory grounds for revocation established by appellants – Mere allegations regarding adoption or possession of title deeds insufficient [Paras 13–15].

Limitation – Application for Revocation of Probate – Article 137 Limitation Act – Probate granted in 2009 – Application for revocation filed in 2022 after nearly 13 years – No explanation for delay – Held: Application hopelessly barred by limitation – Article 137 applies to applications under Indian Succession Act as settled by Supreme Court [Paras 16–18].

Adoption – Effect on Succession – Exclusion of Collateral Heirs – Once adoption is admitted and not challenged by independent proceedings – Adopted son deemed natural son for all purposes – Collateral relatives cannot claim succession or caveatable interest [Paras 19–20].

Decision: Appeal dismissed with costs – Order of learned Single Judge upheld – No interference warranted.

Criminal Law – Robbery – Chain Snatching – Acquittal – Appellants convicted under Section 392 IPC for robbing victim of 4 sovereigns of gold chain using a cutter – Victim died during investigation and was not examined – Only eyewitness (PW11) did not witness the actual snatching – No test identification parade held – Accused were strangers to the area – Held: Identification not established beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 5, 12]

Confession – Recovery Based on Confession – Accused allegedly confessed to the offence during a road check conducted over a year after the incident – Witnesses to the confession and recovery admitted they were unaware of the contents and merely signed at the request of the police – Recovery made from Muthoot Fincorp without any supporting records, identity documents, or CCTV footage – Held: Confession and recovery not proved in the manner known to law – Cannot form basis for conviction [Paras 6, 7, 13, 14]

Evidence – Burden of Proof – Courts below wrongly held that petitioners did not cross-examine key witnesses on arrest and recovery – Held: Prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Burden cannot be shifted onto the accused – Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court erred in law by relying on uncorroborated evidence and improperly proved confession [Para 15]

Decision: Criminal Revisions allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 392 IPC set aside – Petitioners acquitted of all charges – Fine amount, if paid, to be refunded – Bail bond, if any, to stand cancelled [Para 16]

Civil Law - Court Fees – Cancellation of Document – Declaratory Relief – Executant of Document – Plaintiff, who executed a deed of guarantee for ₹30 crores, sought declaration that the guarantee was void ab initio and impossible of performance – Though relief couched as declaration, substance of relief amounted to cancellation of the guarantee deed – Held: When executant seeks to avoid or nullify a document executed by him, suit falls under Section 40(1) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act and not under Section 25 [Paras 7–9, 15, 19].

Valuation of Suit – Substance Over Form – Pecuniary Jurisdiction – Suit valued at ₹25,01,000/- despite guarantee value being ₹30 crores – Court held that valuation must be based on value of subject document sought to be annulled – Incorrect valuation deprived Commercial Court of pecuniary jurisdiction – Plaint rightly returned under Order VII Rule 10 CPC for presentation before competent court [Paras 7–9, 14–15].

Distinction Between Declaration and Cancellation – Applicability of Section 25 and Section 40 – Section 25 applicable where declaratory relief sought without seeking cancellation and plaintiff is not party to document – Section 40 specifically governs suits for cancellation of documents creating rights in money or property – Held: Since appellant was executant of guarantee, Section 40 squarely attracted [Paras 14–17].

Guarantee Deed – Declaration of Voidness – Effect – Declaration that guarantee is impossible of performance under Section 56 of Contract Act necessarily results in nullifying the document – Such relief cannot be granted without cancelling the document in law – Court fee therefore payable on full value of guarantee [Paras 15, 19].

Precedents – Non-Executant vs Executant – Judgment in M/s. Siddha Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. M. Shanmugam distinguished – In that case plaintiff was not party to sale deed – Present case involved executant himself – Earlier decisions including A.P. Arulandum Perumal Pillai and Raju v. Venkataswami Naidu followed [Paras 16–20].

Decision: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal dismissed – Order returning plaint upheld – Appellant directed to re-present plaint before competent court after valuing suit at ₹30 crores and paying court fee under Section 40(1) of the Act.

Motor Vehicles Act – Claims Tribunal Procedure – Deletion of Party – Prematurity – Order Quashed – Claimants challenged MACT order deleting insurer (Respondent No.2) at preliminary stage on ground that policy covered only own damage – Tribunal passed order before completion of pleadings, framing of issues and recording of evidence – Held: MACT cannot decide insurer’s liability piecemeal without full inquiry as mandated under Sections 168 and 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act – Impugned order contrary to statutory scheme and Rules – Deletion set aside [Paras 3–4, 15, 18].

Claims Tribunal – Applicability of CPC – Order I Rule 10 CPC – Not Applicable – Goa Motor Vehicles Rules specify limited application of CPC provisions to MACT proceedings – Order I Rule 10 CPC not extended to Tribunal under Rule 300 – Tribunal lacks power to drop or implead parties based on preliminary examination without inquiry – Pleas regarding liability must be adjudicated after evidence [Paras 14–15].

Insurance Liability – Determination Requires Evidence – Contract of Insurance – Dispute whether vehicle was insured only for own damage or also for third party risk – Existence of multiple insurers pleaded – Held: Determination of inter se liability of insurers depends on proof of insurance contracts and evidence – Such issues cannot be decided at threshold [Paras 5, 7, 15, 18].

Summary Procedure – Not Piecemeal Adjudication – Though MACT follows summary procedure, it must decide all issues together in one inquiry – Reliance placed on Bimlesh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. – Tribunal erred in deciding maintainability and liability in isolation – Inquiry must culminate in a comprehensive award [Paras 16, 18].

Deletion of Party – Demurrer Principle – Premature Exercise of Power – Plea that claim discloses no cause of action against insurer must be tested assuming pleadings to be true – Following Om Prakash Jaiswal v. Manish Kumar – Deletion at preliminary stage before evidence held impermissible [Paras 17–18].

Consequential Directions – Recasting of Issues and Fresh Inquiry – Respondent No.5 later filed written statement during pendency of writ petition – Issues framed in absence of Respondent No.2 held unsustainable – Tribunal directed to recast issues after restoring Respondent No.2 and proceed with evidence and final award [Paras 19–20].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Order dated 10.08.2023 deleting Respondent No.2 quashed and set aside – MACT directed to recast issues after completion of pleadings and decide claim petition after recording evidence of all parties – Rule made absolute [Para 20].

Civil Law – Ownership of Immovable Property – Licensee versus Owner – Respondent claimed exclusive ownership of suit property on basis of perpetual lease deed and conveyance deed – Appellant claimed ownership as HUF property and by oral partition – Allotment card of 1950 conferred only tenancy rights and not ownership – Proprietary rights accrued only on execution of perpetual lease deed in 1971 and conveyance deed in 1999 – Other legal heirs relinquished their shares in favour of respondent – Held: Respondent proved absolute ownership; appellant failed to establish HUF or joint family property [Paras 18–26, 41–45].

Hindu Law – Hindu Undivided Family – Burden of Proof – Mere existence of joint family or migration together does not raise presumption of HUF property – Burden lies on person asserting joint family property to prove nucleus and acquisition from joint family funds – Appellant led only bald averments without documentary evidence – Held: Suit property not proved to be HUF property [Paras 42–44].

Contract Law – License Agreement – Revocability – Agreement dated 24.09.1996 permitted appellant to occupy front portion of property during his lifetime – Agreement expressly recognised respondent as owner and excluded rights of appellant’s legal heirs – No interest in property created – Held: Agreement constituted a bare and revocable license under Section 52 of Easements Act [Paras 27–28, 52–59, 62–63].

Will – Nature and Effect – Will dated 24.09.1996 executed by respondent in favour of appellant admitted by appellant – Will revoked in 2009 – Will operates only after death of testator – Testator alive and beneficiary predeceased – Held: No rights accrued to appellant under Will; admission of Will amounts to admission of respondent’s ownership [Paras 29–31, 35–36, 50–51].

Admissions – Estoppel – Appellant and his son admitted execution and contents of Agreement and Will acknowledging respondent as owner – Earlier suit filed by appellant based on same documents claiming only possessory rights – Held: Appellant estopped from disputing respondent’s ownership [Paras 30–37].

Res Judicata – Amendment Application – Rejection of amendment application in earlier suit seeking declaration of ownership does not operate as res judicata – No adjudication on merits regarding ownership in earlier proceedings – Held: Trial Court erred in applying res judicata, but finding did not affect final conclusion on merits [Paras 38–40].

Limitation – Suit for Possession by Licensor – Cause of action arose upon cancellation of Will in 2009 and revocation of license by notice dated 03.05.2010 – Suit filed in 2010 within limitation – Article 59 and Section 65 of Limitation Act not applicable – Held: Suit not barred by limitation [Paras 65–69, 71].

Displaced Persons Law – Section 29 of 1954 Act – Applicability – Protection under Section 29 applies only to evacuee properties or notified classes – Suit property not evacuee property – Appellant neither tenant nor allottee under Act – Held: Section 29 inapplicable [Para 70].

Evidence – Interested Witnesses – Testimony of respondent’s siblings relied upon by appellant suffered from contradictions and admitted strained relations – Evidence required heightened scrutiny – Held: Trial Court rightly discarded their testimony [Paras 45–49].

Mesne Profits – Proof Required – Respondent sought enhancement of mesne profits beyond Rs. 5,000 per month awarded by Trial Court – No evidence led regarding prevailing market rent of comparable properties – Held: Enhanced mesne profits cannot be granted without evidence; liberty granted to initiate separate proceedings [Paras 73–75].

Relief – Possession and Injunction – License validly revoked – Appellant in unauthorised occupation thereafter – Respondent entitled to possession, damages, interest and permanent injunction – Appeals dismissed [Paras 76–79].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 16.05.2013 affirmed – Respondent held absolute owner – Appellant directed to hand over possession – Decretal amount with interest to be released to respondent – Liberty granted to seek mesne profits separately.

Criminal Law - Sexual Offences – Rape – Deaf and Mute Victim – Conviction under Section 376 IPC challenged – Victim was deaf and dumb – Her testimony was recorded without following mandatory requirements of Section 119 of Indian Evidence Act – No videography, no record of signs/gestures, no oath administered to interpreter – Held: Evidence of victim inadmissible due to non-compliance with procedural safeguards – Conviction under Section 376(1) IPC set aside [Paras 17, 21].

Testimony of Disabled Witness – Section 119 of Evidence Act – Interpretation Requirements – Proviso mandates assistance of interpreter and video recording – Multiple interpreters used at different stages – No proof of oath to interpreters or record of gestures – Held: Trial vitiated for failure to adhere to statutory procedure in recording evidence of disabled witness [Paras 20-21].

Delay in Lodging Complaint – Inconsistencies in Date of Occurrence – Victim’s mother gave contradictory versions – Statements under Section 164 CrPC and oral testimony at variance – Evidence raised serious doubt whether rape occurred on 18.11.2015 or 27.11.2015 – Held: Unexplained delay and contradictions weaken prosecution case [Paras 10, 18, 19].

Circumstantial Evidence – Relationship between Parties – Victim was a major – Appellant’s marriage proposal to victim’s sister rejected – Panchayat held to compel appellant to marry victim – Medical report confirmed sexual intercourse but no injuries or signs of force – Held: Facts indicate prior relationship rather than forcible act – Offence made out under Section 417 IPC, not rape [Paras 22–24].

Decision: Conviction under Section 376(1) IPC modified to Section 417 IPC – Sentence reduced to period already undergone – Appellant directed to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation to victim under Section 357(3) CrPC – Criminal Appeal partly allowed [Paras 24–26].