Mortgage – Power of Attorney – Scope of Authority – Invalid Mortgage – Suit filed for recovery of mortgage money on basis of mortgage deed executed by power agent – Power of attorney authorised borrowing only from private financiers or nationalised banks – Mortgage executed in favour of individual plaintiffs and consideration adjusted towards antecedent debts – Held: Agent acted beyond authority conferred – Power agent cannot enlarge scope of mandate – Mortgage deed invalid and not binding on principals [Paras 14–19].

Hindu Law – Ancestral Property – Debt Binding on Coparceners – Suit property ancestral – Mortgage executed by agent of Karta – Debt binding on minor coparceners only if incurred for legal necessity or benefit of estate – Mortgage executed for adjustment of antecedent debts without proof of family necessity – Held: Debt not binding on coparceners (defendants 2 & 3) [Paras 17–18].

Civil Law – Consideration – Adjustment of Antecedent Debts – Major portion of mortgage consideration adjusted towards alleged prior promissory notes – No authority under power deed to discharge antecedent debts – No evidence of actual flow of funds to principals – Held: Absence of valid consideration flowing to defendants – Mortgage unenforceable [Paras 15–16].

Limitation – Mortgage Suit – Part Payment – Section 19, Limitation Act – Mortgage executed in 1998 – Suit filed in 2015 – Plaintiffs relied on alleged part payment by agent in 2004 – Agent not authorised and payment not shown to be from debtor’s funds – Held: Part payment by unauthorised agent does not extend limitation – Endorsement held invalid – Suit barred by limitation [Paras 20–23].

Appellate Jurisdiction – First Appeal – Reappreciation of Evidence – Trial Court dismissed suit after appreciating oral and documentary evidence – Findings found consistent with law and evidence – Held: No perversity or error warranting interference – Judgment and decree affirmed [Paras 24–25].

Decision: Appeal dismissed with costs – Judgment and decree dated 03.12.2019 in O.S. No.177 of 2015 confirmed – Mortgage held invalid and unenforceable – Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition closed.

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act – Bail – Statutory Bar under Section 43-D(5) – Appeal under Section 21(4) NIA Act – Accused No.14 alleged to be District President of PFI and actively involved in conspiracy, radicalisation, recruitment and fund raising for terrorist activities – Trial Court rejected bail holding accusations prima facie true – Held: Material on record discloses reasonable grounds to believe accusations are prima facie true – Bar under Section 43-D(5) squarely attracted – No interference warranted [Paras 4, 10, 21].

Bail – Successive Bail Applications – Change in Circumstances – Accused had earlier bail applications rejected – Subsequent bail petition maintainable only on demonstrable change in fact or law – Grounds urged substantially similar to earlier applications except delay and sanction issues – Held: No substantial change in circumstances justifying grant of bail [Paras 11–12, 21].

UAPA – Sanction for Prosecution – Section 45 – Absence of Sanction under Section 18 – Contention that no sanction granted for offence under Section 18 UAPA – Held: Sanction requirement relates to taking cognizance of offences and not accused-specific – Cognizance already taken for scheduled offences – Absence of sanction qua a particular provision does not ipso facto entitle accused to bail [Paras 14–15].

UAPA – Terrorist Funding – Section 17 – Seizure of Cash – Alleged Non-Compliance with Section 25 – Appellant contended seized cash was legitimate and procedure under Chapter V not followed – Held: Procedural lapses, if any, in seizure do not go to root of prosecution case at bail stage – Allegations and material disclose involvement in fund raising – Whether ingredients satisfied is matter for trial [Paras 16].

Evidence – Bail Stage – Scope of Appreciation – At bail stage under UAPA, Court not required to conduct mini-trial or evaluate sufficiency of evidence in detail – Only prima facie satisfaction required – Held: Trial Court correctly applied settled principles [Paras 16, 21].

Criminal Procedure – Case Diary – Section 172(2) CrPC – Application by Accused to Summon Case Diary – Appellant sought summoning of entire case diary under Section 482 CrPC – Held: Case diary can be called for only by Court for its aid – Accused has no right or locus to demand production – Application rightly dismissed [Paras 17–20].

Delay in Trial – Long Incarceration – Appellant in custody for over two years – Large number of witnesses cited – Held: Mere long incarceration and pendency of trial, in absence of exceptional circumstances, cannot override statutory embargo under Section 43-D(5) UAPA [Paras 6, 21].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Order dated 02.05.2025 rejecting bail in Special Case No.744 of 2023 affirmed – I.A. No.2 of 2025 seeking summoning of case diary dismissed – No relief granted to appellant.

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].

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].

Bail – Murder Case – Section 483 BNSS – Prolonged Custody – Grant of Bail – Petitioner sought regular bail in FIR alleging murder by firearm pursuant to criminal conspiracy – Prosecution case based primarily on two eye-witnesses – One eye-witness (PW-6) turned hostile and did not support prosecution even after cross-examination – Other eye-witness (PW-5) identified accused in examination-in-chief but took a diametrically opposite stand in cross-examination stating assailants had covered faces – Identification of accused rendered doubtful at bail stage – Held: Contradictory and unreliable eye-witness testimony tilts balance in favour of petitioner for bail [Paras 17–21].

Evidence – Electronic Evidence – CCTV Footage – Limited Evidentiary Value – CCTV footage relied upon by prosecution was from camera installed at school gate – Status report itself recorded that crime scene was outside camera range – Footage only showed movement of vehicles and not commission of offence – Held: CCTV footage not of substantive assistance to prosecution case at this stage [Para 22].

Evidence – Mobile Phone – FSL Examination – Inconclusive – Mobile phone of PW-6 could not be examined by FSL as it could not be charged or turned on – Returned unexamined – Held: Such electronic evidence of no avail to prosecution [Para 22].

Bail – Long Incarceration – Right to Speedy Trial – Petitioner in custody for over 6 years and 9 months – Only 6 out of 44 prosecution witnesses examined – Trial not likely to conclude in near future despite directions for expeditious trial – Held: Accused cannot be kept in custody for indefinite period pending trial [Paras 21, 23].

Bail – Criminal Antecedents – Not Sole Ground for Rejection – Petitioner involved in other cases but already on bail therein – Pendency of other cases alone not sufficient to deny bail – Jail conduct satisfactory – Presence during trial can be secured by conditions – Bail granted with stringent conditions [Paras 24–27].

Decision: Bail Application allowed – Petitioner admitted to regular bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety – Subject to conditions relating to movement, contact with witnesses, reporting to IO, and non-tampering with evidence – Clarified that observations are limited to bail consideration and shall not affect trial merits [Paras 27–29].

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].

Motor Vehicles Law – Bike Taxis as Transport Vehicles – Sections 2(7), 2(25), 2(47), 41(4), MV Act, 1988; Rule 2, CMV Rules, 1989; Central Government Notification S.O.1248(E) dated 05.11.2004; Central Government Clarification No. RT-11021/34/2023-MVL dated 22.01.2024 – Affirmative Finding – The High Court held that a motorcycle, capable of carrying a rider and a pillion passenger, falls within the definition of 'motorcab' under Section 2(25) and consequently within 'contract carriage' under Section 2(7) of the MV Act when used for hire or reward – The Central Government's 2004 notification explicitly lists motorcycles for hire to carry one pillion passenger as transport vehicles – This position was further clarified by the Central Government in 2024, advising States/UTs to process permit applications for motorcycles as contract carriages – The argument that CMV Rules' vehicle classification excludes motorcycles from carrying passengers for hire was rejected, as classification is based on construction, not commercial use – A previous Division Bench ruling affirming motorcycles as transport vehicles has attained finality – Motorcycles are legally classifiable as transport vehicles and contract carriages under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Paras 46, 49, 50, 53, 54, 57, 59, 60, 61, 67, 68, 121, 124].

Constitutional Law – Right to Trade and Business – Article 19(1)(g), 19(6), Constitution of India – Legitimate Business – The Court affirmed that operating bike taxis is a legitimate business protected under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, not being inherently dangerous, illegal, or res extra commercium – Any restrictions must be imposed by a valid law, be in the public interest, and be reasonable under Article 19(6) – A complete prohibition, while potentially falling under "restriction," requires strict scrutiny and substantiation by credible material demonstrating that less drastic measures would be insufficient to achieve the public interest objective – A blanket prohibition on bike taxi services, without a valid law and justification for its reasonableness and public interest, infringes Article 19(1)(g) [Paras 69, 73, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 95, 123, 125, 126].

Motor Vehicles Law – State Government's Power to Control Road Transport and Issue Permits – Sections 66, 67, 73, 74, 80, 96, MV Act, 1988; KODTTA Rules, 2016 – State Cannot Impose Blanket Ban – The MV Act, a Central legislation, occupies the field of motor vehicle regulation, preventing the State from enacting repugnant laws or excluding motorcycles as transport vehicles – While Section 67 empowers the State to control road transport and make schemes, this power is not unbridled and must be exercised by gazette notification, guided by objectives like last-mile connectivity and safety, not for a blanket ban on a class of vehicles – Sections 73, 74, and 80 mandate that Regional Transport Authorities (RTAs) shall not ordinarily refuse contract carriage permit applications and must provide written reasons for any denial, precluding a blanket ban – The KODTTA Rules, defining 'taxi' as 'motorcab', implicitly cover bike taxis, meaning aggregators are entitled to operate bike taxi services under existing licenses, provided vehicle details are furnished – The State's contention of a policy prohibiting bike taxis was rejected due to lack of formal notification and contradictory actions like the Electric Bike Taxi Scheme – The State Government cannot impose a blanket ban on bike taxi services or refuse permits for motorcycles as transport vehicles without a valid, reasoned, and publicly notified policy consistent with the MV Act and constitutional rights [Paras 86, 87, 88, 97, 98, 99, 105, 106, 107, 108, 113, 118, 119, 120, 121, 125, 134, 135, 139, 141, 147].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The impugned order of the Single Judge is set aside – Motorcycle owners are granted liberty to file applications for registration as transport vehicles (yellow board) and for contract carriage permits – The State Government is directed to consider these applications without denying them on the ground that motorcycles cannot be operated as transport vehicles or contract carriages – Pending applications of aggregators are to be considered, and fresh applications are permitted, all to be processed in accordance with law and the Court's observations [Paras 149, 151, 152].

Civil Procedure – Appointment of Advocate Commissioner – Mandatory Injunction – Suit initially filed for bare injunction later amended to include relief of mandatory injunction for removal of alleged encroachment and construction – Trial Court allowed application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to measure suit property with help of Surveyor – Held: In a suit seeking mandatory injunction, proper measurement and identification of offending construction is essential to avoid execution difficulties – Appointment of Advocate Commissioner justified [Paras 4–5].

Civil Suit – Bare Injunction vs Mandatory Injunction – Change of Circumstances – Earlier application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner dismissed when suit was only for bare injunction – Subsequently, prayer for mandatory injunction introduced by amendment – Held: Dismissal of earlier application does not bar a fresh application when there is a subsequent change in circumstances – Doctrine of res judicata not attracted [Paras 7–8].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 – Limited Interference – Challenge to interlocutory order appointing Advocate Commissioner – Held: Order passed by Trial Court is neither perverse nor illegal – Appointment would assist Court in adjudicating real controversy – No ground for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution [Paras 8–9].

Measurement of Property – Role of Advocate Commissioner – Direction issued that Advocate Commissioner shall measure suit property with assistance of Surveyor with reference to title deeds of both parties and revenue records – Held: Such exercise would aid effective adjudication and precise identification of disputed constructions [Para 10].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition dismissed – Order appointing Advocate Commissioner upheld – Directions issued regarding manner of measurement – No costs – Connected miscellaneous petition closed.

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.