Civil Law  – Specific Performance of Agreement to Sell New Tenure Land – Appeal Dismissed – Plaintiff sought enforcement of a 1980 agreement to sell land which was then classified as new tenure agricultural land – No permission under Section 43 of Gujarat Tenancy Act obtained – Both Trial Court and First Appellate Court rejected plaint under Order VII Rule 11 – Held: Agreement was void ab initio, barred by law – No cause of action arose – High Court dismissed Second Appeal, holding no substantial question of law arises [Paras 1-3, 15-17, 24-26].

Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Rejection of Plaint – Enforceability of Agreement Hit by Statutory Bar – Agreement to sell restricted land without Collector’s permission – Held: Agreement void under Section 43 of Tenancy Act – Plaint rightly rejected at threshold – Plaintiff's readiness and possession immaterial in face of statutory bar [Paras 15-17, 22-23].

Tenancy Law – Section 43 of Gujarat Tenancy Act – Agreement to Sell Without Sanction – Barred by Law – Held: Section 43(1) expressly prohibits agreement to sell new tenure land without Collector's sanction – Section 43(2) renders such agreements void – Plaintiff admitted land was new tenure at the time of agreement – Hence, no enforceable right accrued [Paras 14-17].

Specific Performance – Conditional Agreement – Land Not Converted at Time of Agreement – Held: Agreement subject to future conversion of land tenure – Sale unenforceable unless condition fulfilled and permission obtained – Suit filed decades later without evidence of compliance – No cause of action made out [Paras 10-11, 20-21].

Possession and Protection Under Section 53A TPA – Not a Ground to Sustain Invalid Agreement – Plaintiff claimed possession since 1980 – Held: Possession under invalid or illegal agreement not protected under Section 53A – Agreement void from inception due to statutory bar – Ancillary reliefs cannot be granted [Paras 13, 20].

Limitation – Cause of Action Claimed in 2012 – Agreement Dated 1980 – No Continuous Assertion of Right – Held: Plaintiff failed to establish readiness or communication for 32 years – Father of vendor died in 2009 – No demand till public notice in 2012 – Suit time-barred and barred by law [Paras 11, 23].

Substantial Question of Law – None Arising from Concurrent Findings – Enforceability of Void Agreement Not a New Legal Issue – Held: All legal issues settled by Full Bench and Supreme Court – No perversity or error in findings of Courts below – Appeal dismissed at admission stage [Paras 24-26].

Decision – Second Appeal Dismissed – Civil Application Also Disposed – No error in rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 – Agreement held void and suit barred by law – No triable issue or substantial question of law made out [Paras 26-27].

Tender Process – Allegation of Cartelisation – No Illegality Proven – Contract Upheld – The writ petition challenged the award of a work contract to Taibin Warjri on grounds that all other bidders had quoted the same price and colluded to back out, leaving the field open – The Single Judge found the process non-transparent and ordered a fresh tender – The Division Bench held that although the process lacked ideal transparency, no direct proof of cartelisation existed – Held: Award of tender not illegal or arbitrary; contract upheld in public interest.

Legitimate Expectation – Exclusion from Final Negotiation – Compensation Awarded – The appellant Odimar Syiemsad, though bidding ₹1 above others, was not invited to the negotiation meeting – The Court found that exclusion unjustified and deprived him of a fair opportunity to compete – Held: Odimar Syiemsad entitled to compensation of ₹21,59,242 (7.5% of contract value) for denial of legitimate expectation.

Judicial Review – Caution in Interference with Government Tenders – Only Gross Irregularities Warrant Action – The Court reiterated that tender evaluations are commercial decisions and interference is warranted only where the decision is grossly arbitrary or against public interest – Held: Procedural imperfections do not justify judicial interference unless public interest is harmed.

Scope of Writ Appeals – First Appellate Jurisdiction – Findings of Fact Can Be Reappraised – Unlike limited intra-court review, writ appeals before the Division Bench under Chapter V are full-fledged appeals where factual and legal findings of Single Judge may be re-evaluated – Held: Division Bench entitled to substitute findings where justified.

Final Judgment – Contract Sustained – Partial Work Executed – Compensation Directed – The Court acknowledged that work amounting to 7.29% had already been completed without an interim stay – Cancelling the entire tender would be unjust to the contractor – Held: Judgment of Single Judge set aside – Contract upheld – Monetary compensation awarded to aggrieved bidder – Appeals partly allowed.

Criminal Revision – Conviction for Negligent Driving – Revision Dismissed – The petitioner was convicted under Sections 279, 304-A IPC and Section 187 MV Act for rash driving that caused the death of a 4-year-old girl – His conviction and sentence were upheld by the Appellate Court – Held: In revision, re-appreciation of evidence is impermissible unless there is gross miscarriage of justice or perversity – No such infirmity found – Concurrent findings of guilt based on credible evidence upheld [Paras 13-18, 41-46].

Negligent Driving – Hit and Run – Minor Child Crushed on Kachha Portion – Maximum Sentence Justified – Evidence showed that the petitioner drove the vehicle off the pucca road and hit the child standing on the kachha portion – He failed to take the injured child to hospital despite being in close vicinity – Witness testimonies were consistent and corroborated – Defence of alternate route not proven – Held: Maximum sentence under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC justified due to reckless conduct and lack of regard for human life [Paras 38-44].

Eyewitness Testimonies – Minor Contradictions Not Material – Testimonies Consistent on Material Particulars – Held: Minor inconsistencies in time estimates or shop descriptions did not shake core prosecution version – Witness behaviour post-incident cannot be used to discredit testimony – There is no standard reaction expected from eyewitnesses [Paras 21-31].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Not Equivalent to Appellate Power – Evidence Appreciated by Trial and Appellate Courts – Held: The revisional court is not an appellate forum – Revisional powers are limited to correcting jurisdictional or legal errors – Concurrent findings not shown to be perverse, arbitrary or unreasonable – Hence, no interference warranted [Paras 13-18, 42].

Defence Evidence – Testimonies Contradictory – Not Sufficient to Displace Prosecution Case – Defence witnesses claimed alternative route was used – Their accounts were inconsistent and failed to disprove prosecution case – Held: Learned Courts below rightly discarded defence evidence [Paras 32-36].

Sentence – Maximum Punishment – No Leniency Warranted – Victim was a 4-year-old child – Driver showed no remorse or responsibility – Held: Courts justified in imposing maximum sentence under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC in view of gravity of offence and alarming rise in road accidents – Plea for sentence reduction rejected [Paras 42-44].

Decision – Revision Petition Dismissed – Conviction and Sentence Upheld – No illegality, perversity, or miscarriage of justice found in concurrent judgments of Trial and Appellate Courts – Revision dismissed and sentence confirmed [Para 46].

Family Law – Divorce – Grounds of Cruelty and Adultery – Divorce Decree Set Aside – Respondent-husband was granted divorce by Family Court citing cruelty and desertion – High Court on appeal found no specific incidents of cruelty or reliable evidence of adultery – Allegations of illicit relationship with co-respondent were unsubstantiated – Evidence showed wife was willing to resume matrimonial life – Held: Allegations were general, vague, and lacked legal substance – Divorce decree set aside – Appeal allowed [Paras 13, 18-23, 26-27].

Cruelty – Must Be Proved with Specific Incidents – Mere Marital Discord Not Sufficient – Respondent failed to specify dates or incidents indicating mental or physical cruelty – Court held minor quarrels and occasional spats do not constitute legal cruelty – Conduct must be grave, continuous and cause genuine apprehension of harm – No such case made out – Burden of proof not discharged [Paras 18-22].

Adultery – Allegation Must Be Supported by Proof of Voluntary Sexual Relationship – No Evidence of Illicit Relationship – Court observed that adultery must be proved with clear evidence of physical relationship – Mere suspicion or social interaction does not suffice – No independent witness, circumstantial proof, or documentary evidence was produced – Allegation held to be baseless and motivated to create ground for divorce [Paras 24-26].

Repeated Divorce Litigations – Second Petition on Same Facts Not Maintainable – Earlier M.M. Case No. 62 of 2009 was compromised – Fresh divorce case filed on identical allegations without new cause of action – Court disapproved repeated litigation without genuine grievance – Reflects lack of bona fide on husband’s part [Paras 15, 18].

Appellant Willing to Resume Matrimonial Life – Conduct Undermines Ground of Desertion – Wife consistently expressed readiness to cohabit – Court held that readiness of one party to continue the relationship negates allegation of desertion by other spouse – Respondent-husband made no effort for restitution – Did not file petition under Section 9 HMA [Paras 18, 22-23].

Final Decision – Appeal allowed – Divorce decree dated 25.02.2019 set aside – M.M. Case No. 176 of 2011 dismissed – Parties not divorced – Pending interlocutory applications disposed of [Paras 27-29].

Criminal Law - Maintainability of Second Petition – Abuse of Process – Section 482 CrPC – Petition Dismissed - The petitioner, having earlier challenged his arrest and failed, filed a second petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the entire proceedings on similar grounds – Held: Filing successive petitions under Section 482 on same or similar grounds without change in circumstances amounts to abuse of process – Second petition not maintainable [Paras 10-11].

Quashing of FIR – Serious Economic Offences – ₹188 Crore Public Fund Misappropriation – Petition Dismissed - The allegations involved diversion of public funds from a Scheduled Tribes welfare corporation using forged documents and dummy accounts – Petitioner allegedly received proceeds in cash and gold and was later arrayed as Accused No.1 in charge sheet – Held: Prima facie material exists showing petitioner's involvement in conspiracy – Quashing of proceedings refused at pre-trial stage [Paras 12-14].

Illegal Arrest – Transit Warrant and Production – No Violation Found – Despite Lack of Transit Warrant – Petitioner was not named in FIR initially; however, on recovery of ₹8 crores cash and gold, he was taken into custody and produced before jurisdictional magistrate in Bengaluru – Held: Procedural lapse, if any, was cured upon production and remand – No basis to declare arrest illegal or release petitioner on that ground [Paras 15-18].

Constitutional Remedy – Articles 226 and 227 – Scope in Criminal Matters – Relief Denied - Petitioner sought constitutional remedy for quashing criminal proceedings alleging violation of rights under Article 21 – Held: Given the gravity of economic offence and public interest involved, extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 should not be exercised to scuttle criminal proceedings at nascent stage [Paras 19-20].

Final Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – No Interference Warranted – Court held that petition was devoid of merit, repetitive, and an attempt to revisit issues already concluded in earlier proceedings – Entire proceedings to continue uninhibited by the present petition [Para 21].

Civil Law - Motor Accident Claim – Liability of Registered Owner – Vehicle Uninsured – Compensation Liability Affirmed – Offending scooter involved in accident was admittedly uninsured – Registered owner argued that vehicle was taken by respondent-driver without authority and that driver had agreed to bear compensation liability – Held: Registered owner cannot evade liability under Section 2(30) of Motor Vehicles Act – Absence of insurance and failure to prove forcible taking of vehicle makes registered owner liable – Dismissal of appeals upheld by relying on Supreme Court rulings in Naveen v. Vijay and Brij Bihari Gupta v. Manmet – Registered owner may pursue independent remedy against the driver but remains liable to injured parties [Paras 5, 9-12].

Uninsured Vehicle – No Relief Against Compensation Liability – Affidavit by Driver Not a Ground to Discharge Owner – Registered owner relied on driver’s affidavit stating he would pay compensation – Held: Such affidavit does not affect liability of registered owner under the Act – Owner must satisfy award and may seek recovery from driver separately – Tribunal rightly held both owner and driver jointly and severally liable [Paras 5, 11-12].

Appeals Against Compensation – No Enhancement Sought by Claimants – Finding Limited to Owner’s Liability – No appeal for enhancement was filed by claimants – Scope of appeal confined to contest of liability by registered owner – Tribunal award upheld to the extent of holding owner liable – Appeals dismissed [Paras 4, 12].

Contract Law - Recovery Suit under LoC – Rejection of Goods by Importer – Time Not Essence – Appeal Dismissed – In a dispute arising from the appellant’s refusal to accept goods under an irrevocable Letter of Credit, the Court upheld the Trial Court’s decree awarding Rs. 7,89,840/- with interest to the exporter (Respondent No. 1) – It held that the minor delay in shipment did not justify rejection, discrepancies raised by the issuing bank could not be relied upon by the buyer, and time was not the essence of the contract – Application to lead additional evidence was also dismissed – Held: No illegality or perversity in Trial Court’s judgment – Appeal and pending applications dismissed [Paras 1–2, 36–39, 53–59].

Letter of Credit – Separate Contract Doctrine – Buyer Cannot Refuse Delivery Based on Bank’s Objection – Appeal Dismissed – The Court reiterated that obligations under an LoC are independent from those under the sale contract – Appellant’s reliance on discrepancies raised by issuing bank to justify non-acceptance was misplaced – Held: Discrepancies did not impact buyer-seller contract; LoC rejection irrelevant to buyer’s liability [Paras 45–49].

Time of Shipment – Time Not Essence – Delay of Two Days Not Fatal – Conduct Shows Waiver – Appellant had accepted previous late shipments and failed to raise prompt objection upon receipt of goods – Held: Minor delay in shipment of third order did not justify cancellation – Contract did not treat time as essence – Performance deemed within reasonable time [Paras 27–44].

Additional Evidence – Negligence of Counsel Not a Ground – Application under Order XLI Rule 27 Rejected – Appellant’s plea that its previous counsel failed to conduct cross-examination or file affidavit was not accepted – Court found no exceptional circumstance warranting additional evidence at appellate stage – Corporate litigant expected to be vigilant [Paras 53–55].

Electronic Records – Section 65-B Certificate – Procedural Requirement Curable at Appellate Stage – Objection to admissibility of emails raised for first time in appeal – Respondent furnished Section 65-B certificate during hearing – Held: Certificate admissible; appeal being continuation of suit, defect was cured [Paras 50–52].

Standard of Review – No Interference Where Findings are Plausible – Appellate Court's Scope Limited – Trial Court’s findings based on evidence and consistent with legal principles – Held: No perversity or illegality warranting interference – Appeal dismissed [Paras 56–57].

Final Relief – Appeal and Applications Dismissed – Decretal Amount to Be Released – No merit found – Appellant’s deposit to be released to Respondent No. 1 with accrued interest – All pending applications also dismissed [Para 59].

Sales Tax – Exemption on Inter-State Sale – G.O. 3602 dated 28.12.1963 – Claim Rejected – Petitioner purchased gingelly seeds within Tamil Nadu (tax-paid) and from other States; claimed exemption on inter-State sale of locally purchased seeds – Assessing authority found stock mingled on inspection; Tribunal upheld denial of exemption – Held: Mere maintenance of separate accounts insufficient when physical mingling established – Exemption rightly denied – Writ dismissed [Paras 2–10].

Scope of Judicial Review – Article 226 – Court cannot reappreciate factual findings of tax authorities where inspection reports conclusively show mingling of goods – Tribunal’s decision based on evidence upheld – Writ Court’s role limited to examining decision-making process, not merits [Paras 7–9].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Orders of Assessing Authority and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal Confirmed – No costs [Para 10].

Civil Law - Title and Possession – Dismissal Confirmed – The appellants (plaintiffs) sought declaration of title, possession, and alternatively partition, over land alleged to be part of a tank acquired by their father – Trial Court and First Appellate Court concurrently found that the defendants were in possession for over 25 years, pursuant to a 1984 family partition, and plaintiffs failed to prove title or possession – Revenue records relied upon by plaintiffs were held insufficient to establish title – The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose under Section 100 CPC – Second appeal dismissed, confirming concurrent findings [Paras 1–3, 14–26].

Title Suit – Declaration and Possession – Plaintiffs Must Prove Their Own Title – Plaintiffs failed to establish legal ownership or entitlement over the suit land – Defendants proved possession under 1984 partition – Held: In a suit for declaration, plaintiffs must succeed on the strength of their own title and cannot rely on weakness of defendant’s case – Courts below rightly rejected claim [Paras 14, 18, 24].

Adverse Possession – Long Possession by Defendants – Suit Barred – Plaintiffs approached Court after over 25 years – Defendants in open, uninterrupted possession since 1984 – Held: Plaintiffs lost any right over suit land by efflux of time – Suit barred by limitation under Article 65 of Limitation Act [Paras 19, 21, 24].

Unregistered Partition Deed – Ex.B.3 – Admissible as Memorandum of Oral Partition – Partition deed though unregistered was treated as proof of earlier oral partition – Plaintiffs’ witnesses admitted to 1984 partition and continuous possession by defendants – Held: Courts below rightly relied on Ex.B.3 to establish family division [Paras 16, 18].

Co-ownership – Not Established – Plaintiffs and Defendants Not Co-heirs – Plaintiffs not entitled to claim partition or joint possession – Held: Presumption of joint possession or claim of co-heirship not applicable – Alternative relief of partition rightly rejected [Paras 22-23].

Revenue Records – Not Proof of Title – Exs.A1, A2, A6-A9 – Pattadar passbooks and adangals held insufficient to prove legal title or possession – Held: Such records do not confer ownership in absence of supporting title deed or consistent possession [Para 21].

Section 100 CPC – No Substantial Question of Law – Concurrent Findings Upheld – Courts below applied correct legal principles – Held: High Court cannot re-appreciate facts unless findings are perverse or legally flawed – No such error found – Second appeal dismissed [Paras 14-15, 25-26].

Decision – Second Appeal Dismissed – Decrees of Trial Court and First Appellate Court confirmed – No costs awarded – Plaintiffs failed to prove title or possession after 25 years of inaction [Para 26].