Civil Law - Condonation of Delay - The Limitation Act 1963 - Section 5 - Appellants sought condonation of 215 days delay in filing appeal against a commercial suit decree - Reasons cited included obtaining legal opinions and internal administrative correspondence within the Ministry of Home Affairs - Respondent contended that the delay was due to bureaucratic red tape and failed to demonstrate sufficient or bona fide cause - Court observed that in the age of modern technology governmental departments cannot rely on impersonal machinery and internal file-pushing to justify inordinate delay - Public interest is better served by timely action rather than condoning repeated lapses in litigation - Held - Application for condonation of delay dismissed as the reasons were unpardonable and failed to show sufficient cause - [Paras 1-10].

Civil Law - Limitation - The Limitation Act 1963 - Section 5 - Commercial Courts Act - Strict adherence to timelines - Court emphasized that the Commercial Courts Act was enacted to ensure timely disposal of commercial disputes - Failure to comply with statutory timelines results in adverse consequences for the contesting party - Held - The state of affairs showing 215 days delay for purely administrative reasons does not satisfy the requirements of the law of limitation - [Paras 7-9].

Decision: Application I.A. No. 2 of 2026 dismissed – Consequently, the main appeal COMCA No. 46 of 2026 is also dismissed.

Civil Law - Condonation of Delay - The Limitation Act 1963 - Section 5 - Appellants sought condonation of 215 days delay in filing appeal against a commercial suit decree - Reasons cited included obtaining legal opinions and internal administrative correspondence within the Ministry of Home Affairs - Respondent contended that the delay was due to bureaucratic red tape and failed to demonstrate sufficient or bona fide cause - Court observed that in the age of modern technology governmental departments cannot rely on impersonal machinery and internal file-pushing to justify inordinate delay - Public interest is better served by timely action rather than condoning repeated lapses in litigation - Held - Application for condonation of delay dismissed as the reasons were unpardonable and failed to show sufficient cause - [Paras 1-10].

Civil Law - Limitation - The Limitation Act 1963 - Section 5 - Commercial Courts Act - Strict adherence to timelines - Court emphasized that the Commercial Courts Act was enacted to ensure timely disposal of commercial disputes - Failure to comply with statutory timelines results in adverse consequences for the contesting party - Held - The state of affairs showing 215 days delay for purely administrative reasons does not satisfy the requirements of the law of limitation - [Paras 7-9].

Decision: Application I.A. No. 2 of 2026 dismissed – Consequently, the main appeal COMCA No. 46 of 2026 is also dismissed.

Criminal Law - Quashing of Proceedings - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 - Sections 8(c) 20(b)(ii)(A) and 27(b) - Petitioner sought to quash FIR alleging false implication based solely on co-accused confession and absence of contraband in possession - Prosecution contended that telephonic conversations and witness statements established a prima facie case - Court held that investigation is at a nascent stage and cannot be scuttled when cognizable offences are disclosed - Power under Section 528 BNSS to be exercised sparingly - Held - Petition dismissed - [Paras 1-14].

Criminal Law - Scope of Interference - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Section 528 BNSS - High Court jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings - Principle that investigation into cognizable offences should not be interdicted at the threshold unless allegations are inherently improbable or mala fide - FIR is not an encyclopedia of all facts - Held - Case does not qualify as rarest of rare to warrant quashing - [Paras 11-13].

Evidence Law - Admissibility - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Confession of Co-accused - Petitioner contended confession of co-accused is inadmissible - Court observed that determination of whether implication is based solely on confession or further incriminating material exists is a matter for investigation - Held - Premature to quash at the stage of investigation - [Paras 6-7].

Decision: Criminal petition dismissed – Miscellaneous applications closed.

Motor Vehicles Law - Permit Variation - Motor Vehicles Act 1988 - Section 80(3) - Application for variation - Petitioner challenged order of RTA granting concurrence for permit extension on a route already identified by the RTA as saturated and detrimental to passengers - RTA had recorded findings that extension would cause unhealthy competition and lack of sufficient time for crews yet proceeded to grant concurrence - High Court observed that order contained internal contradictions and findings militating against the grant of relief - Held - Non-application of mind and improper exercise of jurisdiction by RTA - Order set aside - Matter remanded for fresh consideration - [Paras 10-13].

Administrative Law - Judicial Review - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Alternate remedy - Maintainability - Respondent argued for exhaustion of statutory appellate remedy under Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 - High Court held that where an order demonstrates a patent non-application of mind and exercise of jurisdiction contrary to findings recorded therein it constitutes a fit case for interference under Article 226 despite existence of alternate remedy - Held - Writ petition maintainable - [Para 13].

Decision: Writ petition allowed - Impugned order Ext.P6 set aside - First respondent directed to consider the request for concurrence afresh in accordance with law within two months.

Criminal Law - Murder - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 302 - Appellant-convicted for assaulting room partner with knife following altercation over lifting a bag - Victim succumbed to septicemia and perforative peritonitis fourteen days post-incident - Trial Court convicted Appellant based on three consistent dying declarations made to a waiter-police constable-Investigating Officer - High Court upheld conviction observing that multiple dying declarations were consistent-voluntary-truthful and the causal nexus between the initial stab injuries and subsequent septicemia death was established through medical evidence - Held - conviction sustained - appeal dismissed - [Paras 1-61].

Evidence Law - Dying Declaration - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 32 - Admissibility - Absence of medical certification or Magistrate - Victim made oral statements to a waiter and constable and a written statement to an Investigating Officer - High Court held that neither the absence of doctor’s fitness certificate nor the lack of a Magistrate’s recording invalidates a dying declaration if the court is satisfied it was voluntary and truthful - Held - Section 32 does not require imminent expectation of death for a statement to qualify as a dying declaration - [Paras 30-40].

Criminal Law - Homicidal Death - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 300 - Causation - Victim died due to septicemia resulting from abdominal stab wounds fourteen days after the incident - Appellant argued break in causal chain - High Court held that where death occurs due to septicemia supervening upon fatal injuries, the assailant remains liable under Section 302 IPC - Complications flowing naturally from the injury do not absolve the accused - [Paras 19-21].

Evidence Law - Identity of Accused - Electronic Evidence - IMEI mismatch - CDR and IMEI data used to trace the appellant - Discrepancy in the last digit of the IMEI number - High Court applied the Luhn check digit algorithm logic to conclude that a variance in only the last digit of an IMEI number does not imply a separate device and is likely a typographical error - [Paras 54-55].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC affirmed.

Civil Law - Settled Possession - M.P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam 1993 - Section 56 - Eviction procedure - Plaintiff was in settled possession of land upon which he constructed a structure with permission from the Gram Panchayat Administrator - Despite claims of encroachment and cancellation of lease by the Gram Panchayat the defendant attempted to demolish the structure and dispossess the plaintiff without following the procedure prescribed under Section 56 of the Adhiniyam 1993 or the M.P. Land Revenue Code - Trial court decreed permanent injunction which was reversed by the First Appellate Court - High Court held that a person in settled possession cannot be dispossessed by force even by the true owner without following due process of law - Appeal allowed and trial court decree restored - [Paras 1-27].

Civil Law - Injunction - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order 39 - Settled Possession - The ratio decidendi established is that a person in settled possession of property is entitled to protect that possession against all including the rightful owner until evicted by due process of law - The Gram Panchayat acted in excess of its authority by attempting summary eviction without judicial or revenue proceedings as mandated under Section 56 of the Adhiniyam 1993 - Held - The plaintiff cannot be dispossessed without following due course of law - [Paras 23-26].

Decision: Appeal allowed - Judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court set aside - Judgment and decree of the trial court restored - No order as to costs.

Criminal Law - Excise Offence - Punjab Excise Act 1914 - Section 61(1)(a) - Prosecution alleged recovery of 24 boxes of IMFL from a room rented by the accused - Trial Court acquitted accused noting failure to prove exclusive possession as the room was also used by a third party - High Court in appeal against acquittal held that the prosecution witness PW-4 admitted that the premises were shared with another person - Since the prosecution failed to re-examine or clarify this testimony the benefit of doubt remains with the accused - Appellate court cannot interfere with a reasonable view taken by the trial court unless the judgment is perverse or manifestly illegal - Held - Appeal dismissed - [Paras 8-25].

Evidence Law - Hostile Witnesses - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 154 - Defence reliance on prosecution witnesses - Independent witnesses turned hostile and failed to support the recovery proceedings - Evidence of witnesses who are not declared hostile or whose testimonies support the defence can be relied upon by the accused to discredit the prosecution case - Held - Prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt - [Paras 17-21].

Criminal Law - Appellate Power - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 378 - Principles of interference with acquittal - Double presumption of innocence in favour of the accused - If two views are possible the view favourable to the accused must be adopted - Appellate court should not disturb an acquittal unless it is impossible or perverse - Held - Trial court view was reasonable and not liable for interference - [Paras 14-15].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Respondent directed to furnish bail bonds under Section 437-A CrPC / Section 481 BNSS for a period of six months.

Civil Law - Municipal Law - M.P. Municipal Corporation Act 1956 - Section 307(5) - Locus Standi - Petitioner sought removal of illegal construction by respondents on the ground of contravention of building permission - Trial Court dismissed application for lack of locus standi as petitioner resided in Mhow Cantonment area and not within Indore Municipal Corporation limits - Petitioner contended that 'any person' in Section 307(5) is wide enough to include non-residents - High Court examined Full Bench precedent in Dilip Kaushal vs State of MP - Held - While Section 307(5) grants a right to 'any person' to file for injunction for removal of illegal structures independent of Specific Relief Act or CPC provisions - such locus standi is restricted to persons residing within the area where the Act of 1956 applies - Trial Court order upheld - [Paras 1-15].

Civil Law - Interpretation of Statutes - M.P. Municipal Corporation Act 1956 - Section 307(5) - Meaning of 'any person' - The phrase 'any person' must be read in the context of the legislative intent to regulate 'Building Control' within the specific municipal jurisdiction - Held - The right to sue under this section is statutorily limited to residents within the municipal area governed by the Act - [Paras 10-14].

Civil Law - Territorial Jurisdiction - Cantonment Act 2006 vs M.P. Municipal Corporation Act 1956 - Petitioner claimed residency in Mhow - Held - Areas governed by the Cantonment Act are excluded from the jurisdiction of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act - Therefore a resident of a Cantonment area cannot maintain a suit under Section 307(5) of the Act of 1956 - [Para 12].

Decision: Civil Revision dismissed – The order of the Trial Court is affirmed – No order as to costs.

Civil Law - Matrimonial - Special Marriage Act 1954 - Section 25(iii) - Nullity of marriage on grounds of fraud - Appellant husband sought annulment alleging respondent wife concealed chronic medical condition ITP post-splenectomy - Trial Court dismissed suit finding no active concealment and noting lack of evidence - High Court held that fraud under Section 25(iii) read with Section 17 of the Indian Contract Act 1872 requires active concealment or deliberate suppression - Appellant failed to prove respondent was under duty to speak or that condition was material - Appellant withheld best evidence by not examining his father who conducted negotiations - Held - Decree of dismissal affirmed - [Paras 17-37].

Evidence Law - Burden of proof - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 114(g) - Adverse inference - Appellant withheld his father as a witness despite him being the primary recipient of alleged medical disclosures - Held - Court entitled to draw adverse inference that evidence withheld would have been unfavourable to appellant - [Paras 25-35].

Criminal Law - Perjury - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 340 - Application for prosecution for perjury - Appellant filed application alleging respondent lied about medical disclosure - Held - Section 340 CrPC is an exceptional jurisdiction not to be used to settle personal scores in matrimonial disputes - Mere inconsistency in testimony does not constitute perjury - No prima facie case of deliberate falsehood made out - [Paras 38-41].

Evidence Law - Admissibility - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 65B - Electronic evidence - WhatsApp chats sought to be relied upon by appellant as admission of fraud - Held - Electronic records inadmissible for lack of mandatory certificate and for being produced in a fragmented manner without context - [Para 26].

Decision: Both appeals dismissed with costs of Rs 1,00,000/- imposed on the appellant to be paid to the respondent within four weeks - Trial court judgment affirmed.