Slum Areas – De-notification of Acquired Land – Legality – Petitioner’s land declared as slum in 1976 and later acquired under Section 17 of the Karnataka Slum Areas Act – Respondents issued possession certificates and began rehabilitation projects – State later de-notified the land citing financial burden and lack of finance department approval – Held: Once land is acquired and vests under Section 18, it cannot be de-notified under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act – De-notification is impermissible and ultra vires [Paras 21-29, 38-40]

Land Acquisition – Possession and Compensation – Petitioner, though having executed Power of Attorney and sale agreement, retained ownership as there was no registered transfer – Possession taken under Government Notification dated 18.10.2004 and confirmed by Slum Board through possession certificates – Held: Possession lawfully taken, petitioner's title not extinguished by mere PoA or agreement to sell – Compensation payable under Section 20 [Paras 24-30, 36]

Constitutional Law – Right to Property and Life – Article 300-A and Article 21 – State’s action in occupying private land without compensation and attempting withdrawal of acquisition contrary to law – Held: Property rights cannot be extinguished without compensation – Financial constraints cannot justify breach of constitutional obligations – Right to shelter of slum dwellers must be balanced with property rights of landowners [Paras 19-23, 31-35]

Statutory Interpretation – General Clauses Act vis-à-vis Special Act – Respondents’ reliance on Section 21 of General Clauses Act to cancel acquisition under Slum Act rejected – Slum Act has no provision for withdrawal once land vests with State – General Clauses Act cannot override specific acquisition provisions [Paras 25-27, 39-40]

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – De-notification quashed – State directed to determine and pay compensation to petitioner within 12 weeks with applicable interest – Directions affirmed by earlier coordinate bench and upheld by Division Bench in W.A. No.100107/2025 [Paras 8, 31, 43-44]

Banking Law – Debit Freezing of Accounts – Suspicious Transactions – No Law Enforcement Requisition – Banks froze petitioners' accounts based on internal suspicion of large-value transactions inconsistent with declared income profiles – No directions received from law enforcement or court for account freezing – Held: Though RBI directions do not explicitly authorize debit freezing without law enforcement requisition, such power is implied in light of Section 35A of the Banking Regulation Act and duties under PMLA – Banks can temporarily freeze accounts for a reasonable period (up to 3 months) to prevent dissipation of suspected illicit funds and allow time for investigation [Paras 1, 14–16, 25–26].

Cybercrime – Preventive Banking Measures – Role of RBI and Banks – Need for SOP – Rapid rise in financial cyber fraud and misuse of bank accounts for illegal transactions noted – Court found RBI’s current circulars and directions inadequate in addressing freezing protocol – RBI criticized for casual affidavit disclaiming responsibility – Directed to frame Standard Operating Procedure defining scope and procedure for account freezing by banks in cases of suspected cybercrime [Paras 14, 24, 27(2)].

Constitutional Law – Right to Property – Article 300A – Petitioners challenged prolonged freezing of accounts (over one year) as violation of property rights – Though freezing without requisition prima facie unlawful, petitioners failed to provide credible explanation for high-volume transactions not matching declared income – Held: In absence of satisfactory justification, bank action not arbitrary – Court issued future guidelines but declined to grant immediate relief [Paras 5–6, 15–16, 20–21].

Mandated Eight-Point Freezing Protocol:

Banks can impose a debit freeze without prior notice if there is reasonable suspicion of illegal transactions.

On the same day, the bank must send a communication to the account holder via SMS and registered post, clearly stating the reason for suspicion.

The bank must also inform the jurisdictional cybercrime police and other relevant authorities under RBI guidelines and ensure receipt of such communication.

The account holder has the right to respond with a written explanation to the bank. Upon receiving it, the bank must evaluate it within one week and communicate its decision.

If no explanation is received, or if the bank finds it unsatisfactory, the freeze can continue only for a maximum of three months, starting from the date of communication to law enforcement authorities.

If, within this three-month window, the bank receives no formal direction from the police, cybercrime cell, or court, it must lift the freeze.

After lifting the freeze, the bank may allow the account to function normally or demand its closure, depending on continued risk.

The account holder has a legal remedy and can challenge the bank’s decision if the explanation is rejected.

RBI Guidelines – KYC/AML Circulars – Interpretation of “Appropriate Action” – Circulars cited (Master Direction on KYC, 2016 and others) mandate monitoring of suspicious transactions and reporting to FIU-IND but do not expressly empower banks to freeze accounts – Court interpreted “appropriate action” under Clause 59 to include temporary freezing where justified, in absence of better-defined guidance – However, freezing must follow safeguards including prompt notice to customer and notification to police/cybercrime units [Paras 18–20, 26–27].

Administrative Law – Court-Issued Guidelines in Policy Vacuum – In absence of statutory framework or RBI SOP on freezing accounts for suspicious activity, High Court issued eight-point interim guideline authorizing debit freeze by banks for up to three months, subject to procedural safeguards, until RBI prescribes formal directions [Para 27].

Decision: Writ petitions disposed – Banks directed to follow eight-point guideline laid down by the Court regarding freezing of suspicious accounts – RBI directed to formulate a Standard Operating Procedure on freezing of accounts in cases of suspected financial cybercrime – Petitioners not granted immediate relief as they failed to satisfactorily explain high-value transactions [Paras 27–28].

Criminal Law – Dowry Death – Presumption under Section 113A and 304B IPC – Suicide within 7 Years of Marriage – No Proof of Cruelty or Dowry Demand – Presumption Not Attracted – Deceased committed suicide by consuming Celphos poison within 7 years of marriage – No specific, consistent, or credible evidence of cruelty or dowry demand – Presumption under Section 113A or 113B of Evidence Act not attracted – Conviction under Sections 304B or 306 IPC not sustainable [Paras 10, 14, 15, 39, 41].

Evidence Act – Section 113A – Abetment of Suicide – Discretionary Presumption – Requires Proof of Cruelty – Not Automatic on Death Within 7 Years of Marriage – Prosecution failed to establish cruelty as defined under Section 498A IPC – No proximity between alleged cruelty and suicide – Presumption under Section 113A is rebuttable and not mandatory – Not invoked in absence of foundational facts [Paras 12–14, 25].

IPC Section 498A – Cruelty – Mere Allegations Insufficient – No Specific Instances or Corroboration – Domestic Quarrels Do Not Constitute Offence – Allegations of quarrels and occasional disputes unsupported by specific dates, evidence or consistent witness testimony – General wear and tear of matrimonial life not cruelty under Section 498A IPC – Trial court’s finding of no cruelty upheld [Paras 16–20, 24, 25, 40].

IPC Section 306 – Abetment of Suicide – No Instigation or Intentional Aiding Proven – Suicide Resulted from Trivial Domestic Disagreement – No Evidence of Abetment – Deceased consumed poison after a minor dispute regarding going to a temple – No acts by accused showing instigation or aiding suicide – Abetment not made out under Sections 306/107 IPC [Paras 26–31, 38, 41].

Criminal Law – Sections 201, 176 IPC – Alleged Non-Reporting and Burial Without Post-Mortem – No Intent to Destroy Evidence Proven – Burial Conducted Per Religious Customs – Exhumation and Post-Mortem Later Conducted – Accused did not inform police immediately but offered explanation based on religious urgency – Body was later exhumed and PM conducted – No deliberate intention to screen offenders – Section 201 and 176 IPC not attracted [Paras 32–34, 43, 44].

Criminal Procedure – Appeal Against Acquittal – Scope of Interference – Double Presumption of Innocence – View Taken by Trial Court was Plausible – No Grounds to Interfere – Trial court’s view based on appreciation of evidence – No perversity or illegality demonstrated – Appeal court should not interfere if two views are possible – Acquittal upheld [Paras 33, 35, 36, 45–48].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal confirmed – No offence made out under Sections 498A, 304B, 306, 201, 176 or 114 IPC – No interference warranted in acquittal [Para 48].

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 – Dishonour of Cheque – Conviction – Revisional Jurisdiction – Petitioners convicted for dishonour of cheque amounting to Rs. 25,00,000/- issued as partial refund for unfulfilled property sale agreement – Defence pleaded coercion in obtaining the cheque and refund agreement, and denied receipt of original consideration – Held: Mere lodging of a police complaint by the accused alleging coercion, without further corroborative evidence or legal steps to challenge the agreement, is insufficient to displace statutory presumption – Existence of signed Refund Agreement acknowledging liability of Rs. 1,10,00,000/- weakens defence – Failure to produce financial records to disprove receipt of consideration renders the defence of "no liability" improbable – Concurrent findings of guilt by Trial Court and Revisional Court upheld [Paras 16-19, 24].

Evidence – Statutory Presumption – Rebuttal – Minor Discrepancies – Petitioners argued that the Complainant failed to specify the exact place of signing/handing over the cheque during cross-examination – Held: Once the issuance of the cheque and signature are admitted, technical omissions regarding the place of execution do not constitute material contradictions – Such minor discrepancies cannot defeat the prosecution case when the accused fails to prove their defence affirmatively [Paras 20-21].

Decision: Revisional application dismissed – Judgment and order of conviction and sentence affirmed – Petitioner nos. 2 and 3 directed to surrender within 15 days to serve the sentence – Stay prayer rejected.

Labour Law – Termination – Loss of Confidence – Termination Held Illegal – Reinstatement with Continuity Upheld – Industrial Tribunal found that the plea of “loss of confidence” was unsubstantiated – Termination declared illegal – Workman reinstated with continuity of service – Tribunal awarded 25% back wages – Held: Findings on illegality of termination justified and not interfered with [Paras 1, 10]

Industrial Disputes – Back Wages – No Rigid Formula – Award Enhanced from 25% to 50% – Principles of Equity and Justice Applied – Workman served for three years – Management failed to prove gainful employment of workman during period of enforced idleness – In absence of any proven misconduct or valid justification for termination, denial of higher back wages unjustified – Court enhanced back wages to 50% from date of termination till reinstatement – Payment directed within four weeks with 9% interest on default [Paras 11-13]

Judicial Review – Scope in Reinstatement and Back Wages – Courts Must Consider All Circumstances – Referring to Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya, and Hindustan Tin Works, Court reiterated that reinstatement ordinarily follows full or substantial back wages unless gainful employment shown – Tribunal must consider length of service, nature of termination, and conduct of parties – Denial of back wages penalizes workman despite employer’s wrongdoing [Paras 5, 8-9]

Precedents – Principles Governing Back Wages – Affirmed – Court discussed Supreme Court precedents including U.P.S.R.T.C. v. Mithu Singh, General Manager, Haryana Roadways v. Rudhan Singh, and Deepali Gundu Surwase – Held: No thumb rule exists – Determination must be case-specific, guided by equity, justice, and good conscience [Paras 6-9]

Decision: Writ petition partly allowed – Impugned award modified – Back wages enhanced from 25% to 50% from date of termination till reinstatement – Amount to be paid within four weeks, failing which interest @9% per annum shall apply.

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Dishonour of Cheque – Acquittal – Accused admitted signature on cheque but denied liability – Complainant presented sufficient documents including return memo, legal notice, postal proof, and reply – Trial Court acquitted the accused citing discrepancies and held complainant acted without reasonable cause – Held: Acquittal alone insufficient to invoke Section 250 CrPC – No finding of malicious prosecution – Direction to pay compensation unsustainable [Paras 10–15]

Criminal Law – Compensation to Accused under Section 250 CrPC – Setting Aside – Appellant filed complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 alleging that the respondent issued a cheque for ₹3,00,000/- towards repayment of a hand loan, which was dishonoured for “Insufficient Funds” – Trial Court acquitted the accused but awarded compensation of ₹25,000/- under Section 250 CrPC to the accused, holding that the complaint was filed without reasonable cause – High Court held that although the complainant failed to prove his case, the essential requirements to invoke Section 250 CrPC were not satisfied – No material to show malafide, malicious prosecution, or that the complaint was frivolous – Acquittal alone is insufficient ground for awarding compensation under Section 250 CrPC [Paras 3, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15]

Compensation – Malicious Prosecution – Scope of Section 250 CrPC – High Court analyzed precedents including State of Rajasthan v. Jainudeen Shekh (2016) 1 SCC 514 and Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. (2006) 6 SCC 736 – Reiterated that compensation under Section 250 CrPC can only be awarded if prosecution was without reasonable cause, was malicious or actuated by ulterior motives – Findings of the Trial Court based on presumption, not on cogent evidence of malice – Held: Procedural lapses or acquittal do not justify invoking Section 250 CrPC unless malicious prosecution is established [Paras 9, 13, 14, 15]

Cheque Dishonour – Existence of Reasonable Grounds – Cheque admitted by accused to bear his signature – Dishonour proven by return memo from SBI – Legal notice issued and duly served – Evidence such as postal acknowledgment, receipts, and reply to notice placed on record – High Court found that these materials constituted reasonable grounds to file complaint under Section 138 NI Act – Absence of memo from payee’s bank or discrepancies in endorsement do not amount to frivolous or malicious prosecution [Paras 10, 11, 12, 13]

Trial Court Findings – Held Perverse – Trial Court placed undue emphasis on evidentiary gaps like lack of bank memo from Nishant Society and endorsement by third-party bank – Found complainant had misused cheque without concrete evidence – High Court noted such findings were based on surmises – Witness from credit society admitted blank cheques are not permitted, contradicting respondent’s defence – No finding of malice or ill-intent against complainant – Invoking Section 250 CrPC unjustified [Paras 11, 13, 14, 15]

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Trial Court’s order dated 16/03/2017 awarding compensation of ₹25,000/- under Section 250 CrPC quashed and set aside – Acquittal of respondent under Section 138 NI Act remains undisturbed – No compensation payable to respondent – Appeal disposed accordingly [Para 15, Final Order]

Criminal Law – Robbery – Doubtful Identification – Nighttime Crime – Conviction Set Aside – Petitioners (A1 & A3) convicted for stabbing and robbing two employees carrying ₹16 lakhs – Conviction confirmed by appellate court – However, eye-witnesses (PW1 & PW2) admitted to contradictions regarding identity, absence of lighting, prior exposure to accused photographs, and conflicting testimonies on sequence of events – Test Identification Parade conducted 45 days post-arrest after exposure to accused undermined its probative value – Held: Identification highly doubtful – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 13-18, 22].

Evidence – Eye-Witness Testimony – Contradictions – Lack of Corroboration – Acquittal Justified – Evidence of PW1 and PW2 contradictory and unsupported by independent witnesses – Medical records silent on crucial aspects such as chilli powder allegedly used – Doctor did not confirm stated injuries or circumstances – PW3 and PW5 claimed to have transported victims to hospital but hospital registers mention different names – Place of occurrence itself in dispute – Held: Trial and appellate courts failed to appreciate contradictions – Evidence insufficient for conviction [Paras 12, 15-16, 18].

Criminal Trial – Parity Principle – Similar Role, Disparate Outcome – Conviction Discriminatory – Co-accused A2 and A4–A8 acquitted despite similar evidence – No weapon recovery traced to petitioners – No specific overt act attributed to them – Conviction based solely on disputed identification – Held: Principle of parity mandates that petitioners be given same benefit of doubt as others – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 23-26].

Investigation – Recovery and Confession – Procedural Irregularities – Witness Credibility Doubtful – Confession and recovery allegedly made in presence of PW7 (VAO) and PW8 (Village Assistant) who admitted to being stock witnesses – No independent witness or house owner (Rajendran) examined – Typed confessions using laptop and mobile printer at scene not supported by evidence – Held: Recovery procedure artificial and unsupported – Evidence unreliable [Paras 19-21].

Decision: Revision allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Petitioners acquitted – Fine, if paid, to be refunded – Petitioners to be released forthwith unless required in any other proceedings.

Administrative Law – Termination of License – Writ Against APTDC – Maintainability – Petitioner challenged termination of license granted under agreement dated 03.10.2020 for operation of shop at Rushikonda Beach – Held: Though APTDC is ‘State’ under Article 12, disputes arising from license agreements are contractual and remedy lies in civil suit for damages – Writ not maintainable to challenge termination of license [Paras 9, 16]

Contract Law – License Agreement – Nature of Rights – Licensee Cannot Seek Interim Relief Against Termination – Petitioner admitted arrears of rent and operational default – Clause 7 of license agreement permits termination for non-compliance – Law well settled that licensee has no vested right to prevent termination – Once terminated, continued occupation is unlawful – Licensee may claim compensation but cannot seek injunction or continuation [Paras 4, 9-14, 16]

Distinction Between Lease and License – License Does Not Confer Interest or Possession – Agreement was clearly a license and not a lease – Reference to “lease” in correspondence was casual – Legal possession remains with licensor – Licensee has only a personal right which ceases upon termination – Petitioner cannot assert tenancy-like rights after expiration or cancellation [Paras 7, 12-14]

Writ Jurisdiction – Commercial Contract Disputes – No Public Law Element – Alternative Remedy Available – Court held that licensee’s grievance is private in nature – Remedy lies in filing a civil suit for compensation – No violation of constitutional or public duty shown – Writ jurisdiction not to be invoked for enforcing purely contractual rights [Paras 16-17]

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Termination of license upheld – Interim order dated 06.10.2025 vacated – Petitioner may seek compensation by filing civil suit – No costs [Paras 17-18]

Civil Law – Ownership Dispute – Relief of Mandatory Injunction – Appeal Dismissed – Plaintiff, sole owner of the property by virtue of registered gift deeds dated 6.7.2009 and 9.5.2014 executed by his mother Smt. Santosh Kumari, filed suit seeking possession from his brother (defendant) who was residing in a portion of the house as a licencee – Defendant contested, claiming co-ownership and challenged validity of gift deeds alleging fraud, coercion and undue influence – Trial court decreed the suit for mandatory injunction – Appeal by defendant dismissed – Held: Defendant failed to prove co-ownership or any title – Gift deeds validly executed – Suit for mandatory injunction maintainable post revocation of licence [Paras 1, 2, 5, 13, 14, 45, 49, 66, 73].

Transfer of Property – Valid Gift Deeds – Challenge to Gift by Sibling – Defendant claimed mother was not in sound mind and gift deeds were fraudulently executed – Plaintiff proved execution through attesting witness and documentary evidence – Both gift deeds executed in compliance with Section 123 of Transfer of Property Act – Gift valid even if possession not delivered at the time – Defendant’s allegations of fraud, coercion, and undue influence not proved – No specific pleadings or evidence to substantiate claim – Held: Gift deeds legally valid and enforceable [Paras 50–54, 58–66].

License – Nature of Possession – Permissive Possession of Defendant – Plaintiff’s brother allowed to stay as licencee – Relationship of licensor and licencee existed post-execution of gift deeds – Licence revoked via legal notice dated 4.8.2014 – Defendant failed to vacate – Held: Defendant's occupation was permissive and post-termination, plaintiff entitled to seek possession through mandatory injunction – Plaintiff rightly proceeded under Specific Relief Act and not for recovery of possession – Apex Court precedents relied upon [Paras 67–79].

Construction by Licencee – Irrevocability of Licence – Defendant alleged raising permanent structure in suit premises – No sanctioned plan or evidence produced – Plaintiff filed sanctioned plans in name of mother – Held: Defendant failed to prove that any construction raised by him – Licence not rendered irrevocable [Paras 80–81].

Registered Documents – Allegation of Interpolation – Defendant alleged manipulation in sale and gift deeds – Plaintiff produced originals – Every cutting signed – Held: No adverse inference – Registered documents carry presumption of genuineness – Defendant failed to rebut it [Paras 82–84].

Non-Exhibition of Documents – Procedural Lapse – Documents submitted in sealed cover for safe custody – Trial court failed to mark exhibits – Defendant did not object before trial court – Held: Procedural lapse by court – No prejudice caused – Plaintiff proved documents and execution through oral and documentary evidence – Decree not liable to be reversed merely for non-exhibition [Paras 85–95].

Mesne Profits – Appellate Court's Power Under Order 41 Rule 33 CPC – Trial court denied mesne profits @ ₹30,000/month for lack of proof – During appeal, stay granted on condition of ₹10,000/month deposit – Held: Appellate court can award mesne profits at ₹10,000/month as condition of stay – Defendant bound by the order – Plaintiff entitled to receive damages for use and occupation till actual handover of possession [Paras 96–100, 106].

Caretaker/Trespasser – No Title by Long Possession – Defendant residing gratuitously – No tenancy or lease established – Apex Court in Maria Margarida and Behram Tejani reiterated caretaker acquires no right – Held: Long possession does not confer any right – Defendant must vacate [Paras 101–103].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 01.07.2019 upheld – Plaintiff entitled to possession via mandatory injunction and damages @ ₹10,000/month from 01.07.2019 till delivery of possession – Interim orders vacated [Paras 104–109].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of trial court affirmed – Defendant to hand over vacant possession to plaintiff – Plaintiff entitled to ₹10,000 per month as damages from date of decree till possession is handed over.