Bail – Murder and allied offences – Sections 191, 103, 329 BNS – Accused sought bail under Section 483 BNSS – Prosecution alleged brutal group assault resulting in death – Offences punishable with death or life imprisonment – Held: Gravity of offence alone not decisive for denial of bail when similarly placed co-accused have been enlarged on bail [Paras 3–6].

Bail – Principle of Parity – Co-accused already granted bail – Accused Nos.1 to 3 granted bail by High Court despite specific overt acts involving deadly weapons – Petitioners accused of assault with wooden repiece and crowbar – Held: Overt acts attributed to petitioners are similar in nature to those attributed to co-accused already on bail – Petitioners entitled to bail on ground of parity [Paras 3, 6].

Bail – Considerations – Custody period – Number of witnesses – Petitioners in judicial custody since 30.11.2024 – Charge sheet cites 79 witnesses – Trial likely to take considerable time – No criminal antecedents – Petitioners undertook not to tamper with evidence – Held: Continued incarceration not warranted – Bail granted with stringent conditions [Paras 6–7].

Criminal Procedure – Bail Conditions – Safeguards – Petitioners directed to execute personal bonds and sureties – Attendance before trial court mandated – Liberty reserved to prosecution to seek cancellation of bail in case of misuse – Held: Conditions sufficient to balance liberty of accused and interest of prosecution [Para 7].

Decision: Criminal Petition allowed – Petitioners/Accused Nos.5, 7 and 11 granted bail in S.C. No.105/2025 arising out of Crime No.415/2024 of Bharamasagar Police Station, subject to conditions imposed by the Court.

Civil Law – Rejection of Plaint – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Limitation – Suit for partition and injunction based on inheritance – Defendant sought rejection of amended plaint alleging challenge to Will barred by limitation – Plaintiff pleaded lack of knowledge of alleged Will of 2008 until much later – Held: When plaintiff asserts knowledge of essential facts at a later stage, plea of limitation becomes a mixed question of law and fact and cannot be decided at threshold – Rejection of plaint is a drastic power to be exercised sparingly – Application dismissed [Paras 7, 12–14, 18–19].

Pleadings – Amended Plaint – Alleged contradiction between original and amended pleadings – Defendant contended inconsistent stands on date of knowledge of Will – Held: Entire plaint must be read meaningfully as a whole – Alleged inconsistencies and truthfulness of pleadings are matters for trial and evidence and cannot be adjudicated under Order VII Rule 11 CPC [Paras 9–10, 19].

Civil Procedure – Order X Rule 2 CPC – Scope and object – Defendant sought examination of plaintiff to test veracity of pleadings – Held: Order X Rule 2 is an enabling provision to seek clarification of pleadings and cannot substitute cross-examination or be used to test truthfulness – Court cannot assume role of counsel for a party – Provision not meant for roving enquiry before framing of issues [Paras 11, 14–17].

Succession Law – Will – Attesting Witness – Knowledge of contents – Section 63(c), Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Defendant argued that plaintiff, being attesting witness, must be deemed to have knowledge of contents of Will – Held: Law only requires witness to see testator sign the Will – Attesting witness need not know contents of Will – No presumption of knowledge can be drawn solely from attestation [Paras 20].

Partition Suit – Inheritance Dispute – Alleged fraudulent Will – Threat of alienation – Cause of action – Plaintiff pleaded joint ownership upon death of mother and subsequent coercion by defendants – Held: Plaint discloses triable issues and cannot be termed vexatious or illusory at threshold [Paras 2–4, 14, 19, 21].

Decision: Application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Order X Rule 2 CPC dismissed – Suit to proceed – Matter listed before Joint Registrar on 15.04.2026.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34 and Section 37 – Scope of Interference – Limited Judicial Review – Cross Appeals – Arbitral Award partly set aside by Single Judge – Held: Courts do not sit in appeal over arbitral awards and interference is permissible only on grounds of patent illegality or conflict with public policy – Interpretation of contract lies within the domain of the arbitrator if the view taken is plausible – Appellate jurisdiction under Section 37 is co-extensive with and no wider than Section 34 [Paras 59–66].

Contract Interpretation – Global Rights Agreement – Obligation to Provide International Cricket – Minimum 27 Days per Cricket Season – 135 Days over Five-Year Term – Effect of BCCI Agreement – Appellant contended obligation required proportionate reduction as agreement commenced mid-season – Arbitrator held Global Rights Agreement to be independent of the BCCI Agreement and declined to import definition of “Cricket Season” – Held: Arbitrator’s view that 135 days of international cricket were assured is a reasonable and possible interpretation and does not amount to rewriting the contract [Paras 67–72].

Cricketing Events – Inclusion of India–Australia–New Zealand Triangular Series – Annexure-A only a Proposed Schedule – Arbitrator excluded 10 days of triangular series while simultaneously holding schedule non-binding – Single Judge held exclusion patently illegal – Held: Findings of arbitrator were contradictory and introduced new contractual conditions – Inclusion of triangular series justified – Shortfall reduced from 17 days to 7 days [Paras 74–77].

Arbitral Award – Partial Setting Aside – Severability – Quantification of Surviving Claim – Single Judge set aside award only to the extent of 10 days – Remaining 7 days held severable and enforceable – Pro-rata reduction mechanically calculable from the award itself – Held: Partial setting aside permissible where valid and invalid portions are clearly separable [Paras 100–104].

Quantification of Consideration – International Matches – Pro-rata Reduction – Appellant argued consideration covered both domestic and international cricket – Clause 9.4.2 provided reduction of entire consideration if fewer international matches were played – Held: Entire consideration contractually attributable to international matches – Arbitrator’s valuation upheld [Paras 78–79].

Interest – Award of 18% per annum – Appellant challenged rate as excessive and unsupported by reasons – Appellant itself claimed interest at same rate – No specific challenge raised under Section 34 – Held: No violation of public policy – Doctrine of approbation and reprobation applies – Award of interest upheld [Paras 79–80].

Counter Claim No. 1 – Delayed Payment – Claim for Interest/Damages – Amount deposited in Court prior to due date pursuant to judicial orders – Bank guarantees invoked subsequently – Arbitrator found no loss suffered by appellant – Held: Rejection based on factual appreciation and not perverse – No interference warranted [Paras 82–85].

Counter Claim No. 2 – Domestic Broadcast of Highlights – Delay – Limitation – Abandonment – Appellant failed to pursue arbitration despite interim relief – Counter claim raised belatedly – Held: Claim barred by limitation and rightly rejected [Paras 86–88].

Counter Claim No. 3 – Internet Streaming Rights – Constructive Res Judicata – Appellant aware of alleged breach during earlier arbitration but failed to raise claim – Earlier proceedings upheld respondent’s multimedia rights – Held: Claim barred by constructive res judicata and estoppel [Paras 89–91].

Decision: Cross appeals dismissed – Impugned order of the learned Single Judge upheld – Arbitral award sustained to the extent of 7 days’ shortfall on a pro-rata basis – No order as to costs [Paras 105–107].

Property Law – Sale of Immovable Property – Execution through Power of Attorney – Burden of Proof – Appellant claimed ownership on basis of sale deed executed by alleged power of attorney holder of original owner – Power of attorney neither produced nor proved – Held: In absence of proof of authority, sale deed cannot confer valid title on purchaser [Paras 9–10, 14–15].

Evidence – Non-Examination of Material Witness – Plaintiff did not enter witness box – Evidence led through special power of attorney holder – Principal to sale transaction and executant of alleged power of attorney not examined – Held: Failure to examine material witnesses creates serious doubt regarding execution and validity of transaction [Paras 8, 14–15].

Power of Attorney – Requirement of Registration – Transfer of Immovable Property of value exceeding ₹100 – Sale claimed through power of attorney – Held: For valid transfer of immovable property, power of attorney authorizing sale must be registered – Unregistered or unproved power of attorney cannot be acted upon [Paras 10, 14].

Civil Suit – Ejectment – Title Not Proved – Plaintiff sought eviction of defendant on basis of alleged ownership – Defendant’s possession claimed to be permissive – Held: When plaintiff fails to establish lawful title, suit for ejectment is not maintainable – Trial Court justified in dismissing suit [Paras 14–16].

First Appeal – Scope of Interference – Concurrent findings on appreciation of evidence – No perversity or legal error shown – Held: Appellate Court will not interfere with well-reasoned judgment of trial court [Paras 15–16].

Decision: First Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 05.01.2002 passed by Second Additional District Judge, Harda in Civil Suit No. 24-A/2001 affirmed – Trial Court record directed to be returned.

Civil Law – Review – Scope and limits – Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC – Review sought against dismissal of application for condonation of delay – Held: Review jurisdiction is confined to correction of error apparent on face of record – Reappreciation of facts or rehearing on merits impermissible [Paras 6, 25].

Limitation – Condonation of Delay – Nearly seven years’ delay in filing appeal – Pendency of application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC – Petitioners contended that time spent in prosecuting Order IX Rule 13 proceedings constitutes sufficient cause – Held: Mere pendency of Order IX Rule 13 application does not automatically justify condonation of delay – Bona fides and due diligence of party must be established – Delay need not be condoned where party adopts dilatory tactics [Paras 17–20].

Ex parte Decree – Concurrent Remedies – Order IX Rule 13 CPC and Section 96 CPC – Defendant entitled to pursue both remedies – However, lack of diligence in prosecuting either remedy disentitles party to discretionary relief of condonation of delay – Appeal filed only when execution reached final stage – Conduct indicative of absence of bona fides [Paras 12–15, 20].

Equitable Relief – Suppression of Material Facts – Petitioners failed to disclose adverse orders passed in execution proceedings and connected writ petition involving co-appellant – Held: Suppression of material facts disentitles petitioners from discretionary relief – Court justified in refusing indulgence [Paras 21–24].

Precedents – Applicability – Judgments in N. Mohan v. R. Madhu and Bhivchandra Shankar More v. Balu Gangaram More relied upon – Held: Decisions are fact-specific – Do not mandate condonation of delay in absence of bona fide conduct – No apparent error in impugned order [Paras 17–19, 25].

Specific Performance – Merits not examined – Review petition dismissed without entering into merits of appeal – Held: When delay is not condoned, appeal cannot be examined on merits [Paras 9, 26].

Decision: Review Petition dismissed – No error apparent on face of record – Order dated 14.06.2024 dismissing application for condonation of delay and consequently RFA No.1016 of 2004 upheld.

NDPS Act – Bail – Commercial Quantity – Rigours of Section 37 – Recovery of 960 capsules of Parivon Spas Plus containing Tramadol (480 grams) and 22.92 grams of heroin from vehicle driven by petitioner – Held that Tramadol recovered constitutes commercial quantity – Twin conditions under Section 37 NDPS Act mandatory – Court not satisfied that accused is not guilty or that he would not commit offence while on bail – Bail rejected [Paras 10–11, 17].

NDPS Act – Section 37 – Twin Conditions – Interpretation – Court reiterated that “reasonable grounds” means something more than prima facie satisfaction – In absence of material to show innocence and likelihood of non-repetition of offence, embargo on grant of bail operates – Liberal approach impermissible in NDPS cases involving commercial quantity [Paras 11–16].

Bail – Criminal Antecedents – Likelihood of Repetition – Status report disclosing prior FIR against petitioner resulting in life sentence – Held that antecedents and nature of allegations indicate possibility of re-offending and witness intimidation – Factor weighs against grant of bail [Paras 3, 17].

Bail – Delay in Trial – Right to Speedy Trial – Plea of prolonged incarceration rejected – Petitioner failed to place order sheets to show delay attributable to prosecution – Mere delay cannot override mandatory requirements of Section 37 NDPS Act – Bail cannot be granted solely on ground of delay [Paras 19–21].

Principles of Bail – NDPS Offences – Supreme Court Precedents – Reliance placed on Pinki v. State of U.P., State of Kerala v. Rajesh, Union of India v. Mohd. Nawaz Khan, Union of India v. Ajay Kumar Singh, and NCB v. Kashif – Held that in NDPS cases involving commercial quantity, negation of bail is the rule and grant is an exception [Paras 8–16, 18].

Decision: Bail application dismissed – Observations confined to bail proceedings and not to affect merits of trial [Paras 23–24].

Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Shared Household – Alienation by Husband – Rights of Wife – Bona fide Purchaser – Wife claimed right to continue in matrimonial home after husband sold property to third party during matrimonial dispute – Property sold through registered sale deed – Held: Right of residence under Section 17 DV Act does not confer indefeasible right against a bona fide purchaser – Protection under Section 17(2) operates only against the “respondent” under Section 2(q) DV Act – Purchaser not a respondent – Eviction in due course of law permissible [Paras 21–21.7].

Alienation of Property – Allegation of Collusion – Agreement to sell executed prior to filing of injunction suit and during subsistence of matrimonial dispute – Sale deed executed after compromise in specific performance suit – Evidence showed negotiations conducted openly in presence of both spouses – Held: No material to establish sham or collusive transaction – Purchaser a bona fide purchaser for consideration [Paras 20–20.6].

Shared Household – Effect of Death of Husband – Husband died during pendency of proceedings – Domestic relationship came to an end though wife continued to be an “aggrieved person” – Remedy, if any, lay against legal heirs of husband and not against bona fide purchaser – Section 17 DV Act cannot be stretched to prohibit eviction in due course of law [Paras 21.6–21.8].

Section 26 DV Act – Reliefs in Other Proceedings – Though reliefs under DV Act can be sought in civil proceedings – Same cannot defeat rights of third parties who are not respondents under the Act – Section 26 does not override property rights of bona fide purchaser [Paras 21.7–21.8].

Mandatory Injunction – Maintainability – Permissive Possession – Wife in occupation of property only by virtue of matrimonial relationship – No independent right, title or interest – Title of purchaser clear and undisputed – Held: Suit for mandatory injunction for delivery of possession maintainable – No requirement to file suit for possession [Paras 22–22.3].

Licence – Wife Not a Licensee – Wife cannot be treated as licensee of husband – Occupation permissive but without independent right – Termination notice does not change nature of possession – Suit maintainable despite incorrect nomenclature [Paras 22.1–22.3].

Ancestral Property – Plea Rejected – No evidence to establish property as ancestral or HUF property – Property purchased from funds received by husband from sale of inherited property – Held: Self-acquired property of husband – Findings of courts below upheld [Paras 23–23.1].

Mesne Profits – Assessment – Appellate court awarded mesne profits at Rs.20,000 per month despite absence of specific evidence – Considering location, size and inflationary trends – Held: Assessment reasonable and not excessive – Occupation without payment impermissible [Paras 24–24.2].

Permanent Injunction – Refusal Upheld – Wife not entitled to restrain alienation or dispossession by lawful process – No prima facie right established under DV Act or property law – Dismissal of suit for injunction upheld [Paras 25].

Second Appeal – No Substantial Question of Law – Concurrent findings of fact by courts below based on proper appreciation of evidence – No perversity or legal infirmity shown – All three appeals dismissed [Paras 26].

Disability Pension – Armed Forces Tribunal – Judicial Review – Medical Board Opinion – Constitutional and Lifestyle Diseases – Union of India challenged a batch of orders of the Armed Forces Tribunal granting disability pension to Army and Navy personnel suffering from diseases such as diabetes mellitus, primary hypertension, dyslipidemia, obesity, leukemia, panic disorder, hearing loss and other ailments – Union of India contended that opinion of Invaliding/Release Medical Board declaring such diseases as constitutional or lifestyle-related is final and binding under Pension Entitlement Rules, 2008 and Navy Pension Regulations – Held: Opinion of Medical Board is not sacrosanct and is amenable to judicial scrutiny – Tribunal has jurisdiction to examine whether Medical Board opinion is reasoned, consistent with service records and statutory rules – Mere branding of disease as “constitutional” or “lifestyle” is not sufficient to deny disability pension [Paras 7, 14–18].

Pension Entitlement Rules, 2008 – Interpretation – No Restrictive Departure from 1982 Rules – Contention that Rules of 2008 introduced a stricter regime and diluted presumptions in favour of servicemen rejected – Held: Rules of 2008 expand and clarify entitlement and do not curtail benefits available under pre-2008 regime – Provisions relating to causal connection, manifestation of disease and aggravation are to be applied in a liberal and purposive manner – Rule 5 stating that mere manifestation of disease during service does not per se establish attributability does not negate presumption where service conditions show contribution or aggravation [Paras 10–11, 18].

Attributability and Aggravation – Presumption in Favour of Military Personnel – Burden of Proof – Where no disease is noted at the time of entry into service, presumption is that the serviceman was in sound physical condition – Subsequent deterioration in health during service raises presumption of service-related aggravation – Onus lies on employer to establish that disease is wholly unrelated to service – Serviceman not required to prove exact causation of diseases like hypertension or diabetes – Benefit of reasonable doubt must go to the serviceman [Paras 15, 17].

Medical Board – Requirement of Reasons – Transparency and Fairness – Medical Board must record clear, cogent and intelligible reasons while opining on attributability or aggravation – A bald or mechanical opinion that disease is constitutional or not connected with service, without reasons, vitiates denial of disability pension – Absence of reasons renders decision arbitrary and unsustainable – Tribunal and High Court entitled to interfere in such cases [Paras 14, 16].

Service Records – Evidentiary Value – Operational and Stressful Postings – Service records showing long tenure, postings in field/high altitude/operational areas and exposure to stress have substantial evidentiary value – Diseases arising or worsening during or after such service conditions can reasonably be linked to military service – Tribunal justified in relying upon service records and surrounding circumstances to hold aggravation [Paras 2–3, 13–14].

Low Medical Category – Superannuation / Premature Retirement – Entitlement to Disability Pension – Disability pension not confined only to cases of invalidation – Personnel retiring on superannuation, premature retirement or completion of tenure in low medical category are entitled to disability pension if disability is attributable to or aggravated by service and assessed at 20% or more – Regulations 173 (Army, 1961) and 37 (Army, 2008) affirm such entitlement [Paras 2, 12].

Scope of Interference under Article 226 – High Court will interfere with Tribunal’s orders only if findings are perverse, based on irrelevant material or ignore vital evidence – No perversity or legal infirmity found in Tribunal’s reasoning – Tribunal applied settled principles and beneficial interpretation of pension laws correctly [Paras 18–19].

Decision: All writ petitions dismissed – Orders of Armed Forces Tribunal granting disability pension upheld – Interim orders vacated.

Specific Performance – Proof of Agreement to Sell – Suspicious Circumstances – Plaintiff relied upon two Agreements to Sell dated 21.11.2005 and 16.12.2005 for same property, same parties, same consideration – No plausible explanation for execution of two agreements – Explanation that first was handwritten and second typed found unconvincing – Held: Multiple unexplained agreements for same transaction cast serious doubt on genuineness of contract [Paras 12].

Agreement on Pre-Signed / Blank Papers – Evidentiary Inference – Typed Agreement dated 16.12.2005 showed abnormal narrow gaps in last lines – Thumb impressions only on last page – Admissions by plaintiff that signatures were obtained at village Nihalpura, Rajasthan and attestation done later at Gurgaon – Stamp papers purchased by plaintiff – Held: Strong inference that thumb impressions were obtained on blank papers and agreement typed subsequently – Agreement surrounded by suspicious circumstances [Paras 13–15].

Admissions in Evidence Contradicting Pleadings – Plaintiff denied in replication that agreement was executed at Nihalpura – In cross-examination admitted execution/signatures obtained at Nihalpura and attestation elsewhere – Held: Plaintiff took false stand in pleadings – Such inconsistencies materially affect credibility and proof of contract [Paras 14, 17].

Sale Consideration – Contradictions between Agreement and Sale Deed – Agreement mentioned total consideration of ₹2,00,000/- – Sale Deed prepared by plaintiff mentioned ₹1,50,000/- as full consideration – No pleading or proof as to payment of balance ₹50,000/- – Stamp papers purchased and Sale Deed prepared prior to target date without explanation – Held: Serious discrepancies go to root of transaction and render agreement unreliable [Paras 15, 18].

Readiness and Willingness – Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act – Mere affidavits of attendance before Sub-Registrar insufficient – Plaintiff failed to prove availability of balance consideration – Failed to plead or prove when and how remaining amount was paid – Held: Mandatory requirement of readiness and willingness not satisfied [Para 18].

Burden of Proof – Fraud and Execution – Onus lies first on plaintiff to prove execution of agreement beyond doubt – Only thereafter burden shifts to defendant to prove fraud – Trial Court correctly applied burden of proof – First Appellate Court wrongly shifted burden on defendant merely on admission of thumb impressions [Paras 17, 19].

First Appellate Court – Duty under Order XLI Rule 31 CPC – Judgment of First Appellate Court reversed detailed trial court findings without framing points for determination or discussing evidence – Cryptic reasoning ignoring material discrepancies and trial court analysis – Held: Judgment suffers from patent illegality and non-compliance with Order XLI Rule 31 CPC [Paras 19–21].

Specific Performance – Discretionary Relief – Relief cannot be granted on shaky, inconsistent and suspicious evidence – Courts must examine intention of vendor from attendant circumstances – Grant of specific performance by First Appellate Court held perverse and unsustainable [Paras 15, 22–23].

Second Appeal – Section 100 CPC – Interference Justified – Though scope is limited, interference warranted where findings are perverse, based on no evidence, or ignore mandatory legal requirements – Present case falls within exception – High Court entitled to restore trial court decree [Para 23].

Decision: Regular Second Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree dated 24.12.2011 of First Appellate Court set aside – Judgment and decree dated 03.12.2010 of Trial Court restored – Suit for specific performance dismissed, decree for recovery of ₹50,000/- upheld.