Civil Law – Declaration of Ownership – Second Appeal – Plaintiffs claimed ownership of ancestral property through succession from father Swaraj – Defendants relied on sale deeds executed by sons of Swaraj during his lifetime – First Appellate Court decreed suit in favour of plaintiffs – Held: Plaintiffs not in possession of suit property at the time of suit – Mere declaratory relief without seeking possession not maintainable under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act – Sale deeds valid to extent of vendor’s subsequent interest – Appeal allowed – Judgment of First Appellate Court set aside – Suit dismissed [Paras 1, 6, 10(f), 11]

Transfer of Property – Sale by Non-Owner – Protection under Section 43 TPA – Sons of Swaraj executed sale deeds in 1980 though property belonged to their father – Father died in 1982 – Plaintiffs (daughters) claimed succession rights – Held: Section 43 TPA not applicable as vendors only had expectancy and not an existing interest – Defendants not entitled to protection under Section 43 – Sale deeds not valid at time of execution – Subsequent acquisition of interest after Swaraj’s death did not cure initial defect – [Paras 10(d), 10(e)]

Transfer of Property – Expectancy of Heirship – Section 6(a) TPA – Sons of Swaraj had only a chance to inherit at the time of executing sale deeds – Such expectancy is not transferable under law – Sale deeds by Tarsem Lal and Naresh Kumar executed in 1980 (during father's lifetime) conveyed no valid title – Property remained with Swaraj until his death in 1982 – [Paras 10(d), 10(e)]

Declaratory Relief – Possession Not Sought – Suit Barred – Plaintiffs admitted that defendant Mool Raj was in possession of suit property and had raised construction – Suit for declaration alone without seeking possession is barred under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act – Reference to Ram Saran v. Ganga Devi, AIR 1972 SC 2685; Vinay Krishna v. Keshav Chandra, AIR 1993 SC 957; Muni Lal v. Oriental Insurance Co., AIR 1996 SC 642; Shakuntla Devi v. Kamla, (2005) 5 SCC 390 – Declaratory decree without consequential relief is not maintainable [Paras 10(f)]

Appellate Court Error – Erroneous Reliance on Local Commissioner’s Report – First Appellate Court found construction to be recent based on Local Commissioner’s report – Held: Local Commissioner unable to determine exact age of construction – Plaintiff admitted construction existed prior to suit – No injunction granted during trial against raising construction – Appellate Court erred in holding that construction occurred during suit – [Paras 7, 9(d), 10(f)]

Bona Fide Purchaser – No Protection – Defendants admitted that Swaraj was the owner of the property – Therefore, purchasers from his sons (Tarsem Lal and Naresh Kumar) cannot claim status of bona fide purchasers without notice – Section 41 of TPA not attracted – Defendants not entitled to equitable protection – [Paras 7, 10(c), 10(e)]

Limitation – No Bar for Inheritance Claim – Plaintiffs claimed inheritance through natural succession – Held: Inheritance rights not barred by limitation – Right to claim title by succession continues until validly extinguished – [Paras 10(a), 10(b)]

Decision: Regular Second Appeal allowed – Judgment of First Appellate Court set aside – Judgment of Trial Court restored – Plaintiffs’ suit dismissed for want of relief of possession and failure to establish their claim against valid construction in possession of defendant – No costs [Paras 10(f), 11]

Criminal Law – Police Harassment – Herbal Hookah in Restaurant – Petitioner alleged police interference with lawful restaurant operation citing alleged sale of tobacco-laced hookah – Petitioner claimed use of only herbal substances without nicotine – Held: Police not to interfere with restaurant business unless illegal activity is found – Direction issued to petitioner to approach FSSAI for certification [Paras 1-3, 7-8]

Tobacco Control – COTPA Act – Section 4A – Hookah Bars – State amendment prohibits hookah bars – Whether petitioner’s hookah product contains tobacco or nicotine is a factual issue to be verified by competent authorities – Held: Court cannot act on mere oral claims – Matter to be decided by FSSAI and not by the Court [Paras 5-6]

Food Safety – Jurisdiction of FSSAI – Products inhaled via hookah without tobacco/nicotine fall within the definition of “food” under Section 2(za) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 – FSSAI to test samples and verify composition – If product is free of tobacco/nicotine, petitioner can continue operating hookah bar [Paras 6-9]

Police Powers – Surveillance vs Harassment – Though restaurant is located near educational institutions, police can only act if illegal activities are found – General interference in routine lawful business not permitted – Police liberty preserved to act if any illegality is detected [Paras 4, 10]

Decision: Petition disposed of – Petitioner directed to approach FSSAI with product ingredients – Police restrained from interference in lawful business unless illegality is found – Petitioner at liberty to continue business if products are certified tobacco/nicotine-free [Para 8]

Employees Compensation – Territorial Jurisdiction – Dismissal of Claim – Appellants challenged dismissal of compensation claim by Commissioner, Thane, for want of territorial jurisdiction – Deceased claimant initially resided in Thane when application was filed but later shifted to Uttar Pradesh – Employer based in Gujarat and accident occurred in Gujarat – Insurance company had branch office at Thane – Held: Though the employer’s registered office was not at Thane, the claimant’s ordinary residence at the time of filing and the insurer’s business presence in Thane established territorial jurisdiction – Commissioner’s rejection on jurisdictional ground was incorrect – Hyper-technical approach must be avoided in beneficial legislation like EC Act [Paras 6, 14, 38-43].

Substantial Question of Law – Appeal under Section 30 EC Act – Whether dismissal on ground of territorial jurisdiction raised substantial question of law – Held: Interpretation of ‘ordinary residence’ and relevance of insurer’s business presence involve substantial legal issues – Commissioner failed to consider this appropriately – Findings liable to be set aside [Paras 8, 11-13].

Insurance Law – Coverage under Vehicle Package Policy – Risk of employment injury covered under Employees’ Compensation Act – Insurer’s liability contractual and enforceable – Presence of insurer’s branch office, though not specified under EC Act, relevant in light of CPC principles – Insurer entitled to support Commissioner’s findings despite not raising territorial objection earlier [Paras 22-28, 40-41].

Remand – Improper Dismissal – Commissioner’s findings on employment and accident not interfered with – Matter remanded to determine compensation and apportionment of liability between employer and insurer – Appeal partly allowed [Paras 43-44].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Dismissal of claim on territorial jurisdiction grounds set aside – Matter remanded to Commissioner for hearing on compensation and liability – Final disposal directed within three months from 23rd November 2025.

Workmen’s Compensation – Liability of Insurance Company – Compensation and Interest – Deceased driver died during employment-related accident – Commissioner held both employer and insurer jointly liable for ₹8,52,160/- with 9% simple interest till award and 7% compound interest thereafter – Held: Insurer liable to pay entire compensation along with 12% interest under Section 4A(3)(a) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act – Joint liability modified accordingly [Paras 1–4, 6–8].

Insurance Law – Scope of Liability – Penalty Exclusion – Reiterated that interest on delayed compensation forms part of insurer’s liability but penalty under Section 4A(3)(b) is not – Penalty arises from employer’s personal fault and cannot be foisted on insurer – Commissioner’s award modified to clarify insurer’s exclusive liability for compensation and interest only [Paras 7, 7.1, 8].

Precedents – Apex Court Binding – Court relied on Supreme Court judgments in Ved Prakash Garg v. Premi Devi (1997) 8 SCC 1, Kamla Chaturvedi v. National Insurance Co. (2009) 1 SCC 487, and New India Assurance Co. v. Harshadbhai Amrutbhai Modhiya (2006) 5 SCC 192 – Held: Legal position settled that insurer covers compensation and statutory interest but not penalty – Binding precedents followed to allow appeal in part [Paras 4, 7–8].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order modified – Insurance company held liable to pay ₹8,47,160/- compensation with 12% interest – Remaining portion of Commissioner’s order unaltered.

NDPS Act – Bail – Section 27A – Illicit Traffic – Misuse of Provision – Bail Allowed – Petitioners, one seeking anticipatory bail and the other regular bail, were arraigned under Section 27A NDPS Act based solely on recovery of heroin (5g and 21g) and INR 1000 in cash – Court found that the investigating agencies invoked Section 27A without prima facie evidence of financing illicit traffic or harboring offenders – Held: Mere possession of small amount of cash, even if seized alongside contraband, does not meet threshold under Section 27A – Drug money must be directly linked to financing of organised illicit traffic – Mechanical invocation of Section 27A to trigger rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act deprecated – Interim bail orders made absolute [Paras 2, 3, 7, 12–15, 21–22, 35, 39–41, 44–45, 50–53]

NDPS Act – Section 37 – Twin Conditions – Non-Applicability Without Evidence Under Section 27A – Court reaffirmed that before applying the twin conditions of Section 37, prosecution must first establish a prima facie case under Section 27A – Held: Absence of foundational evidence linking the recovered cash to financing illicit trafficking disentitles the prosecution from relying on Section 37 to oppose bail [Paras 11, 37–39, 52]

Criminal Jurisprudence – Legal Tender – Presumption of Lawful Possession – Burden on Prosecution – Recovered cash of INR 1000 treated as lawful possession – Held: Currency is legal tender and presumed lawful unless prosecution proves illicit derivation or nexus with drug crime – Strong suspicion cannot substitute evidence – Bail cannot be denied merely because currency was recovered along with narcotics [Paras 20, 26–30, 44–46]

Investigative Abuse – Capricious Use of Section 27A – Judicial Scrutiny Required – Court cautioned against capricious use of Section 27A by police to trigger bail embargo under Section 37 – Held: Courts must lift the veil and demand concrete evidence before endorsing such allegations – Penal provisions must be interpreted strictly and proportionately [Paras 14, 39, 51]

Decision: Bail petitions allowed – Interim orders made absolute – Invocation of Section 27A NDPS Act found unwarranted – Rigours of Section 37 held inapplicable – Pending applications disposed of.

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.

Criminal Procedure – Leave to Appeal Against Acquittal – Right of Victim – Appellant sought leave under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. against acquittal in complaint involving serious offences under IPC – Supreme Court in M/s Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran held that victims have an unconditional right to appeal under proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. – High Court followed the same in Dharampal v. State of Haryana – Held: Application to be treated as an appeal under Section 372 and transferred to Sessions Court for disposal [Paras 3–4]

Limitation – Delay in Filing Appeal – Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of 13-day delay in filing the appeal – Delay condoned for sufficient cause shown [Para 1]

Decision: Application under Section 378(4) treated as appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. – Registry directed to transfer records to Sessions Judge, Mansa – Delay condoned – Appeal to proceed before Sessions Court.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 – Appeal against Acquittal – Dishonour of Cheque – Financial Capacity and Rebuttal of Presumption – Complainant alleged advancing Rs. 10 Lakhs cash loan – Trial Court acquitted accused citing lack of evidence for transaction and probable defence – High Court upheld acquittal – Held: Complainant failed to prove financial capacity or purpose of loan – Defence successfully rebutted presumption by establishing the cheque was likely a security for husband’s transaction – Appeal dismissed [Paras 5, 9, 10, 11].

Evidence – Financial Capacity – Lack of Documentation – Complainant, a financier, claimed to have lent Rs. 10 Lakhs in cash but failed to produce Income Tax records or mention the purpose of the loan – High Court affirmed that advancing such a high amount without documentation renders the initial case of the complainant "wobbly" even before presumption is raised [Paras 5, 9].

Cheque – Material Alterations and Execution – Signature on the cheque was in different ink compared to other entries – Complainant failed to depose that the cheque was filled by the accused in his presence – Circumstances supported the defence version that a blank cheque was issued as security rather than for the alleged debt [Para 10].

Presumption and Rebuttal – Standard of Proof – Accused examined herself (D.W.2) and produced documents relating to connected insolvency proceedings and other transactions involving her husband – Court held that the accused rebutted the statutory presumption to the level of preponderance of probability – Benefit of doubt rightly granted by Trial Court [Para 10].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal confirmed.

Civil Procedure – Counter-claim – Maintainability of Additional Pleading by Co-defendant – Inter-defendant Claims – Rejected – Defendant No.1 sought leave to file a rejoinder/additional written statement in response to counter-claim raised by Defendant No.3 – Held: Under Order VIII Rule 6A CPC, counter-claims can only be made by a defendant against a plaintiff and not inter se between co-defendants – Rule 9 does not permit a co-defendant to reply to such counter-claims, as 'parties' refers only to plaintiff and defendant in this context – Permitting such response would result in an impermissible trial within a trial between defendants – Application dismissed with costs [Paras 14–16, 20–22].

Statutory Interpretation – Ejusdem Generis – Application to CPC – Expression 'parties' under Order VIII Rule 9 to be read in the limited context of counter-claims as defined under Rule 6A – General provision must be interpreted in harmony with specific statutory framework – Co-defendant not a proper party to respond to a counter-claim unless made by or against the plaintiff [Paras 15–16].

Case Law Distinction – Inapplicability of Earlier Precedents – Orissa High Court ruling in Chandra Kishore v. Babulal Agarwala and Supreme Court decision in Noorul Hassan v. Nathakpam Indrajit Singh held inapplicable – The former concerned amendment post-pleadings and the latter pertained to election petition procedure under Representation of the People Act, not regular civil suits – Hence, not relevant to instant commercial suit under CPC framework [Paras 17–19].

Delay Tactics – Abuse of Process – Costs Imposed – Court held the application to be frivolous and a dilatory tactic to stall trial of the commercial suit – Costs of ₹10,000 imposed on Defendant No.1 payable to West Bengal State Legal Services Authority [Paras 21–22].

Decision: Application IA No. GA-COM/7/2025 dismissed – Co-defendant cannot file additional written statement against counter-claim of another co-defendant – Costs of ₹10,000 imposed on Defendant No.1, payable within two weeks.