Specific Performance – Agreement of Sale – Binding Effect – Partition Property – Karta – Appeal dismissed confirming Trial Court decree – Appellant entered into agreement of sale dated 06.09.2006 with 1st and 2nd defendants and deceased Rangasamy for purchase of agricultural land, paying total advance of Rs. 32,00,000/- in instalments duly endorsed in the agreement – Trial Court decreed the suit only in respect of shares of the 1st and 2nd defendants and Rangasamy and dismissed it against shares of defendants 3 to 6 on the ground that they were not parties to the agreement and held independent shares under partition decree in O.S. No. 805 of 1992 – High Court affirms – Agreement of sale did not contain any recital that 1st defendant and Rangasamy signed as Kartas of their respective Joint Hindu Families, nor any recital of existing debts or family necessity justifying the agreement – Held: Agreement cannot be enforced against shares of defendants 3 to 6 [Paras 35-43].

Joint Hindu Family – Karta's Power – Post-Partition Property – Properties allotted to parties under partition decree in O.S. No. 805 of 1992 became their self-acquired/independent property – 1st defendant and Rangasamy signed the agreement in their individual capacity and not as Kartas – Defendants 3, 4 and 5 held separate and distinct shares allotted to them under the partition decree and the 5th defendant had an undivided ½ share in A Schedule property while 3rd and 4th defendants held undivided 1/3rd shares each in B Schedule property – Held: Once separate and distinct shares are allotted in a partition, such shares become acquired property and allottees have absolute rights over them; 1st defendant and Rangasamy cannot be deemed Kartas of their respective Joint Hindu Families – Dictum in Angadi Chandranna v. Shankar and Others, 2025 SCC Online SC 877 applied [Paras 38-41].

Subsequent Purchasers – Lis Pendens – Even during pendency of the suit, defendants 3 to 6 sold the suit properties to defendants 10 to 13, who further sold to defendants 16 to 19 – No relief was sought in the plaint to declare these sale deeds null and void and no pleading that they are not binding on the plaintiff – Court declines to interfere with findings of Trial Court – Appeal dismissed – No costs [Paras 35-44].

Decision: Appeal suit dismissed – Judgment and decree of the Trial Court confirmed – Connected miscellaneous petition closed – No costs.

Civil Law – Second Appeal – Scope of Interference – Substantial Question of Law – Appellant/plaintiff challenged concurrent findings of trial court and first appellate court dismissing his suit for declaration of ownership and injunction over suit land comprised in Khasra Nos. 76 and 77, Village Bamta, Bilaspur – Plaintiff alleged that Defendant No. 1, in collusion with revenue authorities, got Mutation No. 287 attested in her name for 0-1 bigha of land wrongly carved out of plaintiff's land, and thereafter illegally sold the same to Defendant No. 2 vide sale deed dated 29.01.2001 – Both Courts below found that plaintiff failed to adduce concrete evidence establishing that the area sold to Defendant No. 2 formed part of Khasra Nos. 76 and 77 – Held: All points raised in the second appeal are purely questions of fact; no substantial question of law is involved; no perversity demonstrated in the impugned judgments – Appeal dismissed [Paras 26–35].

Second Appeal – Concurrent Findings of Fact – Limits of High Court's Jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC – High Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC, can interfere with findings of fact only on limited grounds viz. finding based on inadmissible evidence, ignorance of relevant admissible evidence, misreading of evidence, or perversity – A pure finding of fact is not open to challenge in second appeal even if appreciation of evidence is palpably erroneous – First appellate court is the final court of fact – Held: Concurrent findings by Courts below do not warrant interference in absence of any of the recognised exceptional grounds [Paras 30–35].

Substantial Question of Law – Tests and Principles – A question of law becomes a substantial question of law if it is debatable, not previously settled by the law of the land or any binding precedent, and has a material bearing on the decision of the case – There must be a foundation for the question laid in the pleadings, and it must emerge from sustainable findings of fact – An entirely new point raised for the first time before the High Court is not a question involved in the case unless it goes to the root of the matter – Held: No substantial question of law arose in the instant appeal; appellant failed to discharge the sine qua non for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC [Paras 31–35].

Decision: Regular Second Appeal dismissed — Judgments and decrees of the trial court dated 06.12.2007 and of the first appellate court dated 24.12.2024 affirmed — Pending miscellaneous applications disposed of.

GST – Cancellation of Registration – Section 29(2)(a) CGST Act – Input Tax Credit – Fake Invoices – Physical Movement of Goods – Appellant, a proprietorship firm, availed ITC of approximately Rs. 18,62,11,749/- on purchases of goods – During inspection, business premises found insufficient for transactions of such magnitude – Show cause notice issued for non-proof of actual movement of goods – Appellant produced only e-way bill printouts and claimed goods were transported by tricycle/motorcycle – Held: Mere production of e-way bills is not proof of real physical transportation of goods – Proof of freight charges, loading and unloading charges, lorry receipts and way bills necessary to establish physical movement under Section 16(2)(b) – Having failed to produce such documents, cancellation of GST registration under Section 29(2)(a) upheld [Paras 3-5].

GST – Co-location of Premises – Mere Shared Premises Not Sufficient Ground for Cancellation – Appellant contended that sharing premises with M/s Gaurav Metal (a distinct entity which had surrendered GST after dissolving partnership) cannot by itself justify cancellation, absent evidence of overlapping operations, intermingling of stock or common financial nexus – Held: While co-location alone may be insufficient, in the present case cancellation is justified on independent and substantive ground of failure to establish physical movement of goods supporting ITC claims – Constitution guarantees only genuine and honest trade, not illegal and fake trade intended to defraud revenue [Paras 2, 4].

GST – Section 86A – Action Against Fake Suppliers – Consequential proceedings under Section 86A for blocking ITC and action under Section 74 initiated against the suppliers as well – Allegation that no action taken against suppliers found factually incorrect – Appellant's challenge on that score rejected [Para 4].

Writ Jurisdiction – Scope – Concurrent Findings of Fact – Appellant attempted to canvass questions of fact in writ jurisdiction which had been held against it concurrently by both first and second respondents – Held: Learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petition after examining records – Division Bench affirms the order [Para 5].

Decision: Writ Appeal dismissed – Order of cancellation of GST registration affirmed – No costs.

Muslim Personal Law – Partition – Hiba – Partition of property between a Muslim and his legal heirs during his lifetime is impermissible under Mohammedan Law — the only permissible mode of transfer of property by a Muslim owner to his heirs during his lifetime is by way of Hiba (oral gift) — claim of partition effected in 1985, during the lifetime of the common ancestor Umar Khan, rejected as invalid under Mohammedan Law — for a plea of Hiba to succeed, the legal requirements to prove Hiba must be strictly fulfilled by the person asserting such plea [Paras 10, 13].

Mutation Entry – Not Proof of Partition or Gift – Mutation entry Exh. 46 in the names of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 held insufficient to establish either partition or Hiba — defendant No. 1 took inconsistent and contradictory pleas at different stages, claiming the mutation entry to be a gift at one stage and an oral partition at another — no pleading in the written statement that mutation entry was effected pursuant to any oral gift by Umar Khan — defendant No. 2 filed no written statement — evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 showed that the property was allotted only for cultivation purposes to resolve a dispute amicably, not by way of partition or gift [Paras 11–14].

Partition Suit – Limitation – Muslim Law – Rights Devolve Only on Death of Ancestor – Under Muslim Law, rights of heirs devolve only upon death of the ancestor — plaintiffs claimed their rights through Umar Khan who died in 2011 — cause of action arose on 16.11.2015 upon receipt of notice in appeal filed by defendants against Tahsildar's mutation order — suit filed on 04.01.2016 held within limitation — no fixed limitation period applies to a suit for partition by joint owners claiming through a common ancestor [Para 9].

Evidence – Pleadings – Evidence Without Pleading Cannot Be Considered – Evidence led by DW-1 of an oral gift in 1985 could not be considered in the absence of specific pleadings to that effect in the written statement — cross-examination admissions of plaintiffs' witnesses that property was allotted for cultivation do not establish a legally valid partition or Hiba in absence of requisite pleadings and proof [Para 10].

Decision: Second appeal rejected — concurrent findings of Trial Court and First Appellate Court upheld — Civil Application disposed of.

Service Law – Disciplinary Proceedings – Removal from Service – Acquittal in Criminal Trial – Constable alleged to have been intoxicated on duty resulting in accidental gunshot injury to two civilians – Departmental inquiry conducted ex-parte after petitioner failed to participate – Inquiry Officer found petitioner guilty and recommended removal – Disciplinary Authority removed petitioner from service on 19.08.2013 – Appeal and revision both dismissed – Petitioner acquitted in criminal trial for identical allegations – Held: Acquittal in criminal trial does not ipso facto entitle reinstatement; departmental proceedings and criminal trial operate in different spheres with different standards of proof – Petition dismissed [Paras 2-6, 14, 27, 30].

Disciplinary Proceedings – Inquiry Officer's Recommendation in Inquiry Report – Rule 14(1) read with Appendix 1 of 1991 Rules – Petitioner contended that Inquiry Officer's inclusion of punishment recommendation within the inquiry report itself vitiated the entire inquiry – Held: Appendix 1 empowers the Inquiry Officer to recommend punishment after recording guilt; the requirement that such recommendation be made separately is one of convenience and caution, not a mandatory condition going to the root of the inquiry – Argument not sustainable in law [Para 13].

Criminal Trial and Departmental Proceedings – Different Standards of Proof – Preponderance of Probabilities vs. Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt – Settled law that the two proceedings operate independently; acquittal in criminal trial based on benefit of doubt or turning hostile of witnesses does not automatically reverse findings of misconduct in disciplinary proceedings – Examination of whether acquittal was honourable and whether same witnesses and evidence featured in both proceedings is necessary – In the present case, key witnesses turned hostile in criminal trial while inquiry evidence establishing intoxication was cogent and independent [Paras 14-29].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Orders of Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority upheld – No interference warranted.

Customs Law – Export Incentives – RoDTEP Scheme – Sugar Exports – Denial of Benefit – Petitioners engaged in export of white refined sugar (ITC(HS) Code 17011490) availed duty credit under RoDTEP Scheme – Export policy of sugar amended from "free" to "restricted" by Notification No. 10/2015-20 dated 24 May 2022, with exports permitted under specific permission of Directorate of Sugar – Revenue denied RoDTEP benefit treating such exports as ineligible "restricted" exports under Notification No. 76/2021-Customs (N.T.) – Held: Sugar exported with specific permission under prescribed conditions cannot be treated as a totally restricted or prohibited item so as to deprive petitioners of RoDTEP benefits – Petitioners entitled to duty credit under the Scheme [Paras 3-4, 9, 22].

Export Policy – Restricted vs. Prohibited Exports – RoDTEP Ineligibility – Item No. 1 of Table 1 to Notification No. 76/2021 excludes from RoDTEP duty credit goods "restricted or prohibited for export" – Revenue contended that sugar, post-Notification dated 24 May 2022, became blanketly ineligible – Held: The said notification does not impose a total embargo; it permits export with specific permission and prescribed quota – Characterising quota-permitted exports as "restricted/prohibited" is a misreading of the notification – Revenue's position contrary to the policy conditions set out in the notification itself [Paras 19-22].

Precedent – Finality of High Court Decision – Uniform Policy – Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in Shree Renuka Sugars Ltd. and M/s. Satyendra Packaging Ltd. held that RoDTEP benefit cannot be denied to sugar exporters acting under specific Government permission – Department's SLP dismissed by Supreme Court on 26 April 2024 – Department's own communications accepted finality of the Gujarat High Court orders and proceeded to grant benefit to those petitioners – Held: Once an issue has attained finality in view of an authoritative pronouncement by a High Court, the department ought not to re-agitate the same before other High Courts; doing so invites conflicting interpretations and judicial chaos – Principle of inter-High Court comity and uniform policy on Central legislation affirmed following Maneklal Chunilal & Sons Ltd. and Jayantilal Ramanlal & Co. [Paras 23-25].

Relief – Refund with Interest – Petitioners who were not granted RoDTEP benefit directed to be granted the same – Where benefit was already granted but subsequently recovered from petitioners, refund of amount so recovered directed within four weeks along with interest at 6% per annum – No coercive recovery action to be taken where benefit has been granted [Paras 26-27, Order clauses (i)-(iv)].

Decision: Petitions allowed – Petitioners held entitled to RoDTEP benefit – Respondents directed to grant rebate under the Scheme to petitioners who exported sugar under specific permission – Petitioners from whom benefit was recovered directed to be refunded with 6% p.a. interest within four weeks – No coercive action for recovery to be taken – Rule made absolute. No costs.

NDPS Act – Default Bail – Charge-Sheet Without FSL/Chemical Analysis Report – Sections 8(c), 22(c) and 29 NDPS Act – Section 187(3) BNSS / Section 167(2) CrPC – Applicant arrested in connection with recovery of 160 grams of Mephedrone (MD) of commercial quantity – Charge-sheet filed on 21.01.2026 without the Chemical Analysis report, though the said report was prepared on 08.12.2025 and received by the Police Station on 16.12.2025 – FSL report thereafter tendered across the bar by moving a letter on 13.03.2026 without filing a supplementary charge-sheet – Held: Where the FSL report was available with the investigating agency prior to filing of the charge-sheet and was deliberately not included therein, the charge-sheet is liable to be treated as incomplete – The procedure of tendering the FSL report without filing a supplementary charge-sheet is strange and impermissible – Applicant entitled to default bail under Section 187(3) BNSS/Section 167(2) CrPC [Paras 13-16].

Default Bail – Maintainability of Application – Section 483 BNSS / Section 439 CrPC – Whether Application Under These Provisions is Maintainable for Claiming Default Bail Under Section 187(3) BNSS / Section 167(2) CrPC – Prosecution objected that an application under Section 483 BNSS/Section 439 CrPC cannot be construed as invocation of the indefeasible right to default bail under Section 187(3) BNSS/Section 167(2) CrPC – Held: In matters of personal liberty, courts should not be too technical and must lean in favour of personal liberty – Even if an accused makes a written or oral application before the Magistrate seeking release on default bail, the Magistrate is empowered to release him considering the parameters under Section 187(3) BNSS/Section 167(2) CrPC – Application under Section 483 BNSS/Section 439 CrPC, where the averments clearly disclose a claim for default bail, is maintainable – No bar exists in law [Paras 7-11].

Incomplete Charge-Sheet – NDPS Cases – FSL Report – Pending Reference Before Larger Bench of Supreme Court – The question whether a charge-sheet without the FSL/Examiner's Report in an NDPS case can be termed as an incomplete report under Section 173 CrPC/BNSS is pending before the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Arbaz and Others vs. State of NCT of Delhi – Conflicting views of different High Courts noted – The Supreme Court, pending the reference, has granted interim bail to petitioners in similar cases – Held: In the peculiar facts of the present case where the FSL report was available but deliberately excluded from the charge-sheet and subsequently tendered without a supplementary charge-sheet, the applicant is entitled to bail [Paras 12-15].

Decision: Criminal application allowed – Applicant Ashish Prakash Walke directed to be released on regular bail on executing a personal recognizance bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties in the like amount – Stringent conditions imposed including prohibition on similar offences, non-tampering with evidence, attendance at every date of trial, and reporting residential address to the concerned Police Station.

Service Law — Regularisation of Casual Labourers — Scheme of 1993 — Temporary Status — Respondents engaged as daily wage Group-D employees since 1992 claimed regularisation under the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme of Government of India, 1993 — Petitioner-Department contested engagement as part-time and not covered under the Scheme — Internal departmental communications dated 13.03.2014, 28.04.2014 and 09.11.2015 confirmed the names of respondents as casual workers working since 01.09.1993 — Tribunal, on remand, directed grant of temporary status and consideration for regularisation — Held: Communications on record established engagement of respondents and Department itself did not term the appointment as irregular — No impediment in considering claims under the Scheme of 1993 [Paras 6–9].

Part-Time Employees — Regularisation — Applicability of Uma Devi — Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 worked continuously for over 30 years without break — Department did not dispute their continuance — Petitioners' reliance on Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi distinguished — Apex Court in Jaggo v. Union of India held that employees labelled as part-time but performing essential duties continuously and regularly for decades cannot be denied regularisation solely on basis of initial designation — Prolonged, continuous and unblemished service performing tasks inherently required on a regular basis demands fair regularisation — Held: Uma Devi does not penalise long-serving employees in irregular (as opposed to illegal) appointments; writ petition qua Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 dismissed [Paras 9(ii)–9(v)].

Regularisation — Employees Who Have Left Service — Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 — Manohar Singh and Jethu Singh left service voluntarily in 2009 — Regularisation is not a matter of right, especially when the claimant is no longer in service — Once employee leaves, the employer–employee relationship ends and the right to regularisation is linked to ongoing employment — Claim for regularisation becomes infructuous upon leaving — Held: Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 entitled to benefits only for the period of service actually rendered, i.e., up to 2009; writ petition qua Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 partly allowed accordingly [Para 9 — Respondent Nos. 3 & 4].

Decision: Writ petition partly allowed — Dismissed qua Respondent Nos. 1 & 2; Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 entitled to benefits confined to the period up to 2009 only — All pending applications disposed of.

Election Law – Misjoinder of Parties – Election Petition – Representation of the People Act, 1951, Section 82 – Petitioner impleaded not only contesting candidates but also Respondents No. 1 to 9, who are officers/officials against whom allegations of impropriety were levelled – Respondent No. 10 raised preliminary objection of misjoinder contending that only contesting candidates can be parties under Section 82 – Petitioner countered that Section 87 makes CPC applicable to election petitions and thus all necessary and proper parties must be impleaded – Held: Under Section 82 of the Act, only contesting candidates and returned candidates, or candidates against whom allegations of corrupt practice are made, can be impleaded as respondents to an election petition; concept of 'proper parties' as understood under CPC is alien to an election dispute; Respondents No. 1 to 9 ought not to have been impleaded; preliminary issue of misjoinder proved [Paras 6–16].

Election Law – Applicability of CPC to Election Petitions – Section 87, Representation of the People Act, 1951 – CPC applies to trial of election petitions only subject to the provisions of the Act of 1951 – Anything contained in CPC contrary to the Act cannot be invoked to implead a person who cannot otherwise be impleaded under Section 82 – Held: The ring of an election petition contest is closed to all except the petitioner and the candidates at the election; provisions of CPC cannot be used to expand the class of respondents beyond what Section 82 permits [Paras 11–12].

Election Law – Section 99, Representation of the People Act, 1951 – Corrupt Practice – Naming of Non-Candidates – Stage of Impleadment – Persons found guilty of corrupt practice after trial may be named under Section 99(1)(a)(ii), but such impleadment can only occur after conclusion of trial upon notice to show cause – The right given to such persons is limited to showing cause against being 'named' and does not entitle them to participate at all stages of the trial as a regular party – Held: Section 99 does not permit joining non-candidates as parties to an election petition at the stage of filing; it is only at the concluding stage of trial that the Court may issue notice under Section 99 [Paras 13–15].

Effect of Misjoinder – Non-Fatal to Election Petition – Although misjoinder of parties established, the election petition is not liable to be dismissed on this ground – Improperly impleaded respondents are to be struck off the array of parties by amendment – Held: Respondents No. 1 to 9 directed to be deleted from the array of parties; petitioner directed to file amended petition/memo of parties [Paras 17–19].

Decision: Preliminary Issue No. 1 decided in favour of Respondent No. 10 — Misjoinder of parties established — Respondents No. 1 to 9 directed to be struck off from the array of parties — Petitioner to file amended petition/memo of parties by next date of hearing — Matter listed for further proceedings on 11.05.2026.