Arbitration – Execution of Arbitral Award – Stay of Award – Modification of Conditions – Petition filed by NHAI under Article 227 seeking modification of order of Additional District Judge, Patiala, which had stayed operation of arbitral award dated 12.07.2019 subject to deposit of 100% of enhanced compensation and release of 50% to land-losers upon furnishing indemnity bonds – High Court modified the condition by directing that 50% amount shall be released instead upon furnishing bank guarantee – Held: Impugned order modified in terms of judgment in NHAI v. Piara Lal, CR-2594-2025 – Release of 50% amount shall await compliance with deposit condition [Paras 2–5]

Article 227 – Supervisory Jurisdiction – Limited Interference – Invocation of Article 227 permitted to seek modification of procedural condition in interest of equity and uniformity – Undertaking given by NHAI to deposit full amount within four weeks accepted – Execution Court directed not to release 50% amount upon indemnity bond during this period – However, land-losers may secure release upon furnishing bank guarantee even before expiry of four weeks [Paras 5–7]

Decision: Petition allowed in part – Impugned order modified – 50% amount to be released upon furnishing bank guarantee instead of indemnity bond – NHAI directed to deposit full amount within four weeks – Execution court restrained from releasing funds under original condition during this period – Miscellaneous applications disposed of.

Family Law – Partition Suit – Legal Heirship Disputed – Respondent-plaintiff claimed share in ancestral property as son of Godari Beeraiah through second wife Banamma – Trial court decreed the suit based on declarations and oral evidence – Appellate court found no conclusive proof of legal marriage between Beeraiah and Banamma – Plaintiff failed to produce birth certificate, school records or examine his mother who was alive – Held: Plaintiff failed to establish status as legal heir – Trial court’s decree set aside [Paras 7, 19–31]

Evidence Act – Section 50 and 60 – Relationship by Conduct – Court reiterated that opinion expressed by conduct must be proved by direct evidence under Section 60 – Conduct must relate to person having special means of knowledge – Held: Mere declarations or documents based on self-declaration (Exs.A7–A17) do not constitute conclusive proof – Referred Dolgobinda Paricha v. Nimai Charan Misra [AIR 1959 SC 914] [Paras 15, 26]

Limitation – Partition Suit Barred – Plaintiff filed suit 13 years after death of alleged father without reasonable explanation for delay – No prior assertion of rights or legal notice issued – Held: Suit barred by limitation and indicates lack of bona fides [Paras 3.1, 30]

Documentary Evidence – Public Documents and Presumptions – Certified copies of voter lists, gas records, and employment documents (Exs.A7–A17) relied on by plaintiff were based on self-declared data – Held: Not sufficient to displace legal burden to prove relationship – Absence of school records, birth certificate, and pedigree registers noted – [Paras 16, 26]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Trial court decree set aside – Respondent-plaintiff’s suit for partition dismissed – No costs – Interim orders vacated – Miscellaneous applications closed [Paras 31–32]

Civil Law – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Rejection of Plaint – Limitation – Illusory Cause of Action – Plaintiffs challenged sale deeds of 2007 and 2014 alleging fraud and misrepresentation – Plaint disclosed plaintiffs’ knowledge of sale transactions since 2012, evidenced by legal notice and participation as confirming parties in 2014 sale deed – Held: Plaintiffs’ averments crafted to bring suit within limitation – Mere use of word “fraud” without specific particulars cannot extend limitation – Plaint disclosed no real cause of action – Suit barred by limitation – Plaint rejected [Paras 38–43, 51–63, 68–69].

Limitation – Article 56 of the Limitation Act – Cause of Action – Knowledge of Registered Instrument – Registered sale deed of 2007 and subsequent deed of 2014 were within plaintiffs’ knowledge; right to sue accrued in 2007 – Suit filed in 2017 beyond three-year limit under Article 56 – Bar of limitation absolute – Trial Court erred in holding issue to be factual – Plaint ex facie barred by law [Paras 65–67].

Consent Decree – Challenge by Non-Party – Maintainability – Section 96(1) CPC – Consent decree in Civil Suit No.381/2013 sought to be set aside by plaintiffs who were not parties when decree passed – Held: Separate suit not maintainable – Remedy lies in appeal under Section 96(1) CPC or review before same court – Relief barred by law – Ratio in Sakina Sultanali Sunesra v. Shia Imami Ismaili Momin Jamat Samaj, 2025 (0) AIJEL-SC-75165 applied [Paras 48–50].

Civil Law – Fraud Allegation – Pleading Requirements – Order VI Rule 4 CPC – Vague and general allegations of fraud without particulars insufficient – Plaintiffs failed to show how they were deceived or induced – Pleadings lacked specific dates and facts – Held: Use of word “fraud” cannot create fresh limitation or a fictitious cause of action [Paras 53, 63–64].

Principles of Order VII Rule 11 – Meaningful Reading – Preventing Vexatious Litigation – Court must reject plaint if it creates illusion of cause of action through artful drafting – High Court relied on Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali, (2020) 7 SCC 366; T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC 467; Uma Devi v. Anand Kumar, (2025) 5 SCC 198 – Held: Trial Court erred in prolonging sham litigation; plaint rejected to prevent abuse of process [Paras 51–56, 64].

Decision: Civil Revision Application allowed - Impugned order dated 04.07.2024 rejecting defendants’ Order VII Rule 11 application set aside - Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC allowed; plaint in Special Civil Suit No. 235 of 2017 ordered to be rejected as barred by limitation and law - Request for stay rejected as plaint itself stands rejected [Paras 69–71].

Criminal Writ – Premature Release – Policy Implementation – Life convict Ramji’s claim for premature release rejected by Government of Punjab despite eligibility under 1991 Policy – Rejection order dated 17.12.2024 found cryptic, unreasoned, and mechanically based on opinion of Presiding Judge and Committee – Held: Rejection order unsustainable for being non-speaking and devoid of application of mind – Matter remanded for fresh decision in accordance with law [Paras 5–10, 13].

Administrative Law – Natural Justice – Speaking Order – Right to Personal Liberty – Court reiterates that administrative/quasi-judicial orders must be reasoned and cannot rest on ipse dixit – Held: Absence of clear reasoning in executive orders, especially those affecting liberty, violates Article 21 and the principles of natural justice – Order must reflect due consideration of facts and relevant policies [Paras 10–11].

Delay and Administrative Apathy – Procedural Lapses – Respondent authorities delayed processing of petitioner’s release case for over 18 months due to repeated inter-departmental lapses – Held: Authorities displayed lackadaisical approach in discharging statutory duties, causing prejudice to petitioner – Costs of ₹25,000 imposed on State of Punjab for delay and administrative torpor [Paras 6, 12–13].

Remand and Relief – Reconsideration Directed – High Court sets aside rejection order and directs State to decide afresh within four weeks – Compliance affidavit to be filed by Home Secretary, Punjab within six weeks, failing which punitive consequences may follow [Para 13].

Criminal Law – Quashing - Defamation – Accused were members of Apartment Owners' Adhoc Committee – Petitioners issued a private letter to complainant’s husband expressing concerns over suspicious activities in the flat, based on reports from security staff – Incident of a man jumping from balcony half-naked cited – Husband allegedly used this letter to publicly malign complainant through Church representatives – Held: Letter addressed privately, not published publicly by petitioners – No evidence of mala fide intent or conspiracy with husband – Protection of Ninth and Tenth Exceptions to Section 499 IPC attracted – Petitioners’ actions done in good faith for safety and interest of residents and children [Paras 6–9]

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of Proceedings – Section 482 CrPC – No prima facie case made out against petitioners for offence of defamation – Letter issued in private, not with intention to defame – Continuation of proceedings against petitioners would amount to abuse of process of law – Held: Criminal proceedings against petitioners quashed [Paras 7–9]

Apartment Governance – Communication with Resident Owners – Responsibility of Association Members – Information about security violations conveyed to one of the owners – Court held that internal communication on issues affecting community safety, even if referring to another resident, is protected if issued in good faith and without malice – Not actionable as defamation when private and non-malicious [Paras 6–8]

Decision: Petition allowed – Criminal proceedings against petitioners (Accused Nos. 5 to 7) in C.C. No. 12 of 2021 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam quashed – Held to be an abuse of process of law [Para 9]

Criminal Procedure – Pre-Arrest Bail – Concurrent Jurisdiction – Requirement to Approach Sessions Court First – Petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS directly before the High Court without approaching Sessions Court — Held: Though High Court and Sessions Court have concurrent jurisdiction, party must ordinarily approach Sessions Court first — Direct invocation of High Court’s jurisdiction permissible only in exceptional or extraordinary circumstances — No such circumstances made out in the present case — Reliance placed on Mohammed Rasal C. v. State of Kerala and Jagdeo Prasad v. State of Bihar [Paras 3–5].

Wildlife Offence – Arms Possession – Applicability of Section 35(3) BNSS – Petitioner alleged to have participated in illegal hunting of Schedule-I species “Chowsingha (Tetracerus Quadricornis)” and possession of prohibited arms under Section 25(1A) of the Arms Act — Contention that offences were punishable below seven years and thus entitled to Section 35(3) BNSS protection rejected — Offence under Section 25(1A) Arms Act punishable up to fourteen years; hence statutory protection inapplicable [Paras 6–7].

Jurisdiction – Discretion under Section 482 BNSS – Limits – High Court reiterated that its inherent powers are to be exercised sparingly — Pre-arrest bail to be granted only on showing special or extraordinary circumstances — Since petitioner neither demonstrated such circumstances nor approached Sessions Court, discretionary relief declined [Paras 5, 8].

Relief – Liberty to Approach Lower Court – Criminal Petition disposed of with liberty to surrender before the Jurisdictional Magistrate within two weeks and move for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Judge — Direction issued to dispose of the application on merits within two days of filing [Para 9].

Decision: Criminal Petition dismissed — No interference under Section 482 BNSS — Liberty granted to petitioner to surrender and seek appropriate relief before Sessions Court — Interim orders vacated [Paras 8–9].

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Court Fee – Suit for Damages – Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Plaintiff claimed damages of ₹2 crore in suit for malicious prosecution but affixed only nominal court fee of ₹100 claiming tentative valuation – Held: When a specific amount is claimed, even if termed “tentative,” ad valorem court fee is mandatory under Section 7(i) of Court Fees Act – Trial Court erred in treating suit under Section 7(iv) and allowing provisional fee – Plaintiff directed to affix appropriate court fee within one month failing which plaint to be rejected [Paras 6–8]

Court Fees Act – Section 7(i) vs. Section 7(iv) – Scope Distinguished – Referring to State of Punjab v. Dev Brat Sharma, 2022 (2) RCR (Civil) 464, Supreme Court clarified that liberty to value relief under Section 7(iv) is limited to specified categories – For suits involving quantified monetary relief, ad valorem fee under Section 7(i) is mandatory – Present case being a damages suit falls within Section 7(i), hence attracts ad valorem fee [Paras 7–8]

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 – Interference Justified – Trial Court wrongly permitted under-valuation of court fee by accepting tentative fee despite specific monetary claim – Discretion misapplied – High Court exercised supervisory jurisdiction to ensure compliance with statutory mandate [Paras 6–8]

Decision: Revision petition allowed – Impugned order dated 12.07.2023 set aside – Plaintiff directed to affix ad valorem court fee on ₹2 crore within one month – Failing which, plaint shall stand rejected

Preventive Detention – Subjective Satisfaction – Validity – Detention order passed under Section 3(2) of MPDA Act against petitioner for causing public disorder and terror – Petitioner challenged order on grounds that prior offences were stale and relied upon improperly – Held: Detention based solely on two recent FIRs and two in-camera statements demonstrating habitual conduct prejudicial to public order – Past offences only referred, not relied – Subjective satisfaction properly arrived at – Detention Order valid [Paras 17–19, 24].

Public Order vs. Law and Order – Distinction – Petitioner contended incidents at most involved law and order issues between individuals – Court held that the petitioner’s repeated public assaults with deadly weapons, extortion, and terrorizing of shopkeepers and vendors created widespread fear – Such conduct disturbs public order and affects even tempo of society – Justifies preventive detention [Paras 16, 22–23].

Eyewitness and In-Camera Statements – Reliance and Admissibility – In-camera statements of two witnesses narrated specific extortion incidents involving threats with weapons and violence in public places – Witnesses feared reprisal and public disorder was evident – Held: Statements credible and material validly relied upon for subjective satisfaction [Paras 13–15, 22–23].

Past Offences – Reference vs. Reliance – Detaining Authority merely referred to past offences to illustrate criminal background – Clearly stated in detention grounds that subjective satisfaction was based solely on recent FIRs and witness accounts – Held: Reference without reliance does not vitiate order – No legal infirmity [Paras 17–21].

Binding Precedents – Coordinate Bench Decision Held Per Incuriam – Judgment relied upon by petitioner in Raju @ Shendi Bhishan Tak (WP No. 311/2025) not considered binding – Held: Decision failed to apply binding precedents including Khaja Bilal Ahmed (2020) 13 SCC 632 – Hence not applicable [Para 21].

Severability – Section 5A MPDA – Even if one ground fails, others sufficient to sustain detention – Court noted each ground independently valid – Detention justified even under severability clause [Para 24].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Detention Order upheld – Rule discharged – No interference warranted [Para 25].

Criminal Law – Murder – Rape – House Trespass – Robbery – Circumstantial Evidence – Accused No.1 sentenced to death and Accused No.2 to life imprisonment by trial court for brutal murder of husband and vegetative-state causing injuries to wife following home invasion – Both accused allegedly fled with valuables – Death sentence reference made for confirmation – Held: Circumstantial evidence including recovery of stolen items, forensic evidence linking both accused, eyewitness testimony (PW11) and CCTV footage established guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction confirmed [Paras 1–25].

Circumstantial Evidence – Validity – Forensic and medical evidence supported theory of joint commission of offence – Recovery of stolen jewellery from accused and CCTV footage of gold exchange soon after crime supported robbery and presence at scene – DNA evidence linked accused No.1 to rape – Statements under Section 313 CrPC corroborated prosecution’s case – Chain of circumstances complete and consistent only with guilt of accused [Paras 10–18, 25].

Eyewitness Testimony – No Test Identification Parade – PW11 (milkman) saw both accused near scene at relevant time under streetlight – Identified them in court – Prior acquaintance with A1 established – Court held that failure to hold TIP not fatal in light of credible, consistent in-court identification – No motive for false implication – Testimony accepted [Paras 13–16].

Recovery under Section 27 Evidence Act – Accused-led recoveries of bloodstained clothes, weapons, and stolen items proved by Investigating Officer – Objections to recording language and translation process not raised in cross-examination – Even assuming irregularity, conduct of accused in leading to recovery admissible under Section 8 Evidence Act – Recovery held valid [Paras 20–24].

Sentencing – Death Penalty – Principles – Although trial court awarded death to A1, High Court considered mitigating factors including background of poverty, abuse, mental illness, and potential for reformation – Reports from jail authorities, probation officer, and NALSAR mitigation study considered – Applied principles from Manoj v. State of M.P. and Swamy Shraddananda (2) – Held: Case not “rarest of rare” – Death penalty commuted to life imprisonment without remission for 30 years [Paras 26–31].

Decision:

Crl.A. No. 79 of 2020 (A1): Conviction confirmed – Death sentence modified to life imprisonment for 30 years without remission for offences under Sections 302 and 376A IPC – Sentences to run concurrently – Appeal partly allowed

Crl.A. No. 401 of 2021 (A2): Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence upheld

D.S.R. No. 3 of 2019: Reference answered in negative – Death sentence not confirmed