Civil Procedure – Review of Judgment – Omission to Answer Substantial Question – Review Partially Allowed – Applicants sought review of judgment dated 16.12.2024 for failure to address substantial question of law (e) regarding possession – Court found omission to answer question (e) constituted error apparent on face of record – Held: Question (e) answered in favour of respondents; valid prior sale deed proved by plaintiffs rendered later sale deed ineffective; no need to claim possession separately under Section 31 of Specific Relief Act [Paras 2–5, 17].

Possession – Consequences of Sale Deed Cancellation – No Further Relief Required under Section 31 – Held: Once a sale deed is cancelled as void or ineffective, possession derived or retained under such deed has no legal sanctity – Section 31 does not require further relief like Section 34; thus, plaintiff not barred from succeeding without separately claiming possession – Distinction drawn from declaratory suits and Deccan Paper Mills ruling [Paras 12–15].

Deccan Paper Mills Case – Inapplicable – Section 31 Specific Relief Act Distinguished – Court held that ratio in Deccan Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. Regency Mahavir Properties, (2021) 4 SCC 786 was based on context of court fees and suits by non-executants under Section 34 – Not applicable where plaintiff with title seeks cancellation of subsequent void deed under Section 31 – Reiterated that a transferee with prior valid title can seek cancellation without being executant [Paras 15–16].

Decision – Review Allowed in Part – Question (e) Answered – Final Dismissal of Appeal Unchanged – Review granted only to address missed question (e), which is now answered in favour of respondents – However, original decision dismissing Second Appeal No. 2565 of 1984 stands affirmed – Execution proceedings directed to conclude by 15.07.2025 [Paras 17–19].

Land Acquisition – Valuation – 2013 Act to Apply Despite 1894 Initiation – Compensation Recalculated – Although reference was made under Section 18 of the 1894 Act, since no award had been made when the 2013 Act came into force, the provisions of the 2013 Act applied as per Section 24(1)(a) – Held: Market value to be assessed as per highest pre-notification sale deed (Rs.6,02,500/- less value of structure Rs.49,956/-) resulting in Rs.5,52,544/- per cottah as just compensation – Average pricing discarded; market value under Section 26(1)(a) preferred over average sale price [Paras 21–29, 43–45].

Procedural Fairness – No Objection Filed by State – No Right to Lead Evidence – State failed to file written objections under Section 18 reference; thus barred from introducing additional evidence – Referral Court rightly relied on unopposed documents submitted by claimant – Additional evidence application dismissed [Paras 30–32, 44].

Statutory Interest – Sections 72 and 80 of 2013 Act – Direction to Ascertain Date of Possession – Held: Interest on excess compensation and delayed payment under Sections 72 and 80 is statutory – Referral Court directed to ascertain actual date of possession and award due interest accordingly – Absence of such interest in original award found to be legal error [Paras 56–60].

Date of Award – Governor’s Approval Not Required Under 2013 Act – Argument Rejected – Claimant’s argument that compensation should run till Governor’s assent was rejected – Held: 2013 Act does not require Government approval for validity of award; award date remains July 30, 2015 [Paras 47–55].

Decision – Appeals Allowed in Part – Referral Court Award Set Aside – Matter Remanded – Both appeals partly allowed – Market value fixed at Rs.5,52,544/- per cottah – Solatium under Section 30 and interest under Sections 30(3), 72 and 80 directed to be computed – Matter remanded to Referral Court to determine date of possession and recalculate compensation with multipliers and statutory interest – To be completed within 8 months [Paras 62–64].
 

Environmental Law – PIL - Marine Fishing – LED Fishing, Bull Trawling and Pair Trawling Ban – Rule Made Absolute – Petitioners challenged large-scale illegal fishing using LED lights, DG sets, and banned trawling methods despite statutory prohibitions – Held: Ban orders issued in 2016 (State) and 2017 (Centre) were binding – DG sets were found used only to power LED lights for illegal fishing – Authorities failed in enforcement – Court issued comprehensive directions for enforcement, inspections, and coordination among DOF, Coast Guard and Coastal Police [Paras 3–5, 43–49].

Precautionary Principle – Marine Resource Depletion – Right to Life under Article 21 – State Duty to Protect Environment – Court invoked precautionary principle and sustainable development as part of environmental jurisprudence – Noted depletion of marine life due to banned fishing practices, affecting livelihood and ecological balance – Directed urgent enforcement to prevent irreversible damage [Paras 29–31].

Decision – Rule Made Absolute – Enforcement Directions Issued – Authorities Mandated to Act – High Court allowed the petitions, made rule absolute in key prayer clauses from both petitions – Issued binding directions to State Government, DOF, Coast Guard, and Police to implement inspection regime, equip enforcement bodies, and maintain compliance registers – DG sets not banned due to absence of legal mandate, but court acknowledged their misuse for LED fishing [Paras 51–52].

Company Law – Criminal Complaint – Vicarious Liability Absent – Summons Quashed – Petitioners challenged prosecution under Section 147(2) of the Companies Act for failure to display company name and address as per statutory requirement – Held: Directors not holding office at the time of alleged default cannot be held liable – Complaint lacked specific averments of role or responsibility of accused in day-to-day affairs – Judicial mind not applied by Magistrate in issuing summons – Proceedings quashed [Paras 11–14, 17–19].

Criminal Procedure – Limitation under Section 468 CrPC – Cognizance Beyond Prescribed Period – Proceedings Barred – Alleged violation took place between 2003–2004 and came to knowledge on 24.06.2005 – Complaint filed only on 05.09.2006 – Held: Action barred under Section 468 CrPC which mandates six-month limitation where maximum sentence is fine only – Magistrate failed to consider bar of limitation – Complaint not maintainable [Paras 5, 16].

Issuance of Process – Mechanical Exercise Without Prima Facie Case – Proceedings Liable to be Quashed – Held: Summons cannot be issued without specific material showing role and liability – Complaint was vague, lacked particulars, and no role of individual Directors shown – Reference made to Supreme Court precedents on necessity of specific allegations and active role in conduct of business [Paras 13, 18–19].

Decision – Criminal Revisions Allowed – Entire Proceedings Quashed – Magistrate's Order Set Aside – Calcutta High Court allowed all criminal revisions, quashed complaint and all proceedings in C/9496/2006 pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 10th Court, Calcutta – Noted failure of prosecution to show vicarious liability or file within limitation period – Magistrate’s order issuing process held mechanically passed [Paras 20–21].
 

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Matrimonial Dispute and Digital Harassment – Bail Granted – Petitioners sought anticipatory bail in relation to FIR No. 119/2025 involving serious allegations by complainant-wife including physical assault, snatching of mobile phone, coercion, and unauthorized financial transactions – Court held that, despite nature of allegations, custodial interrogation of limited duration would suffice for investigation – Bail granted with conditions including cooperation, surrender of electronic devices, and periodic attendance [Paras 3–12].

Investigative Cooperation – Conditional Bail – Electronic Evidence to be Surrendered – Petitioners directed to appear before investigating officer, undergo custodial interrogation, and then be released on bail – Conditions included surrendering electronic devices (phones, laptops), regular attendance before IO, and restriction on tampering with evidence or leaving jurisdiction – Violation to invite cancellation of bail [Para 12].

Decision – Bail Granted with Stringent Conditions – Petition Allowed – Court allowed the anticipatory bail petition, permitted limited custodial interrogation, and imposed strict conditions including bail bond of ₹50,000 each, cooperation with investigation, and weekly police attendance – Clarified that violation of conditions may result in bail cancellation [Para 12].

Defamation – Injunctive Relief – Prima Facie Defamatory Content on Social Media – Ad Interim Injunction Granted – Plaintiff, a sitting Cabinet Minister, filed suit against Defendants for uploading multiple YouTube videos containing reckless and baseless allegations targeting his character and conduct – The Court noted that the defamatory nature of the videos was prima facie evident from the transcripts and that publication continued even after a cease-and-desist notice – Held: Defendants No.1 and 2 restrained from publishing or republishing defamatory content about the Plaintiff and directed to take down the six offending videos pending final adjudication – Ad interim injunction granted in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (c) [Paras 4–11].

Civil Law – Impleadment of Parties – Necessary vs. Proper Parties – Impleadment Set Aside – Petitioners challenged the trial court’s order permitting respondents No. 8, 9, and 10 to be impleaded as defendants in ongoing suits over Trust property on the basis of an unprobated Will by Rajmata Sushila Kumari Ji – Held: The added respondents were neither necessary nor proper parties – Their claim under the unprobated Will was hopelessly barred by limitation under Article 137 of the Limitation Act – Impleadment would unduly expand the scope of the litigation and was an abuse of process – Petition allowed and trial court’s order quashed [Paras 11–22, 25–28].

Matrimonial Law - Territorial Jurisdiction – Determination under Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act – Application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC Dismissed – Appellant claimed parties last resided in Faridabad, Haryana; Respondent claimed last matrimonial residence in Anand Parbat, New Delhi – Divorce petition filed in Delhi based on residence at Anand Parbat – Court found jurisdiction properly vested with Family Court, Tis Hazari, based on averments in the petition and lack of jurisdictional objection in prior restitution petition – Held: Divorce petition was rightly filed at Delhi; Application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC was rightly dismissed [Paras 5–19].

Pleading Standards – Consideration of Jurisdiction at Pleading Stage – Divorce petition’s averments taken as true at preliminary stage – Jurisdiction examined based on plaint only, not defence – Held: Return of plaint not warranted where jurisdiction properly claimed in pleadings [Paras 13–16].

Equitable Clarification – Opportunity to Raise Jurisdiction Later – Dismissal of application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC does not preclude raising territorial jurisdiction objection during trial – Held: Right to contest jurisdiction at later stage preserved [Para 20].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Family Court had territorial jurisdiction based on last matrimonial residence in Delhi – No infirmity found in impugned order – Appeal and pending applications dismissed as meritless [Paras 19–21].
 

Matrimonial Law - Maintenance to Wife – Refusal Based on Decree for Restitution of Conjugal Rights – Decree Not Sufficient by Itself – The Family Court denied maintenance to the wife solely on the ground of her non-compliance with a decree of restitution of conjugal rights – Held: As per Apex Court precedent, mere existence of such decree is not sufficient to disentitle a wife from maintenance – The husband must further establish that wife left without sufficient reason – Failure to consider this led to legal error in the order [Paras 3–4].

Maintenance to Daughter – Inadequate Reasoning for Quantum – Family Court awarded Rs. 2000/month till 06.05.2024 and Rs. 5000/month thereafter to the minor daughter – Held: Trial Court failed to assign reasons or consider father’s income and lifestyle to justify the quantum – Order suffers illegality on this count – Matter remitted for fresh decision [Para 6].

Conflicting Pleas – Incongruity Between Seeking Restitution and Divorce – Husband had sought divorce under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act while simultaneously citing wife’s refusal to comply with decree of restitution – Held: This contradiction casts doubt on husband’s case and should have been considered in evaluating sufficiency of wife’s cause to live separately [Para 5].

Decision – Impugned Order Set Aside – Interim Maintenance Directed – The impugned order of the Family Court is set aside – Matter remanded for fresh disposal within 3 months – Meanwhile, interim maintenance of Rs. 5000/month each to wife and daughter directed from 01.04.2025, to be adjusted in final award [Paras 6–7].