Tenancy Law - Landlord-Tenant – Bonafide Requirement – Contradictory Pleas – Eviction petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) DRC Act on ground of bonafide need for opening boutique – Tenant granted leave to defend on triable issue of concealment regarding adjacent shop No. 2903 – Held: Learned ARC erred in presuming bonafide requirement without appreciating tenant’s documentary evidence and cross-examination exposing contradictions in landlady’s case – Adjacent shop was let out prior to petition despite being claimed as occupied by son – ARC failed to adjudicate on falsity of eviction petition and omitted key findings – Impugned judgment set aside [Paras 4, 7–13, 21–25, 28].

Rent Control – Revisional Jurisdiction – Misapplication of Law – ARC placed burden of proving lack of bonafide on tenant contrary to settled law – Under Section 14(1)(e) DRC Act, burden lies on landlord to prove genuine, real, and honest requirement – Revisional court justified in interfering where trial court judgment is perverse, arbitrary or ignores material evidence – Cited: Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh [Para 26–27].

Falsehood in Eviction Petition – Artificial Scarcity – Tenant demonstrated landlady’s suppression of letting out premises to Vijay Kumar – Landlady took inconsistent stances in pleadings and cross-examination – ARC ignored contradiction between pleading of staircase conversion and evidence of recent tenancy – Eviction petition based on artificial scarcity held not sustainable unless remanded for proper adjudication [Paras 8–11, 18–24].

Remand – Scope of Reconsideration – Petition allowed – Eviction order dated 07.05.2024 set aside – Matter remanded back to ARC for fresh adjudication on bonafide requirement after considering entire evidence and pleadings – Direction to complete proceedings within six months [Paras 27–28].

Criminal Law – Counterfeit Currency – Interpretation of Section 489B IPC – Possession vs. Trafficking – Mens Rea – Reference Answered by Larger Bench – Where substantial amount of Fake Indian Currency Notes (FICNs) are recovered and the accused offers no explanation during examination under Section 313 CrPC, possession is not dormant but active – Use of phrase “or otherwise traffics in” in Section 489B IPC expands the offence beyond sale or receipt – Held: Quantity or quality of fake notes is immaterial – Transportation of counterfeit notes in concealed manner amounts to trafficking – Conviction under Section 489B can be sustained even in absence of direct transaction [Paras 13-15, 82].

Burden of Proof – Section 106 Evidence Act – Facts Within Accused's Knowledge Must Be Explained – Failure Results in Adverse Inference – Accused must offer explanation for possession of large volume of FICN – Court held that under Section 106 Evidence Act, such facts are within special knowledge of accused – Mere silence under Section 313 CrPC is incriminating and supports prosecution [Paras 15, 82; Ponnusamy; Habibur Rahaman; Jubeda Chitrakar].

Criminal Procedure – Framing of Charges – Trial Must Frame Specific Charges Under Section 489B – Failure to Do So Prejudices Accused – Trial Courts are required to frame intelligible charges clearly indicating the accused is being tried for “trafficking” or “use as genuine” of counterfeit notes – Failure to frame specific charge may vitiate conviction [Paras 13-15, Hoda Sk., Uma Shankar].

Mens Rea – Conviction Under Section 489B Requires Proof of Knowledge or Intention – Mere Possession Not Sufficient – Citing Supreme Court precedents (Uma Shankar, M. Mammutti), Court held that prosecution must establish intention or knowledge to use as genuine – Conscious possession alone is insufficient without supporting circumstances or conduct [Paras 10, 16; Abdul Rahiman; Mukhtarul Islam].

Statutory Interpretation – "Otherwise Traffics In" Not Ejusdem Generis – Includes Solo Possession if Intended for Circulation – Court held: Phrase “or otherwise traffics in” in Section 489B IPC is broader than “sells”, “buys” or “receives” – Includes transporting FICN in large quantity without engaging in direct transaction – Active concealment is indicative of trafficking [Paras 13-15, Jubeda Chitrakar, Rayab Jusab Sama].

Constitutional Protections – Examination Under Section 313 CrPC Must Be Meaningful – Failure to Confront With Incriminating Circumstances Violates Fair Trial – Accused must be given fair opportunity to explain incriminating evidence during Section 313 CrPC examination – Absence of relevant questions weakens prosecution’s case [Paras 16, Md. Morful Haque, Mukhtarul Islam].

Final Determination – Reference Decided – Legal Principles Clarified for Uniform Application – Held:

(i) Quantity or quality of FICN irrelevant under Section 489B IPC

(ii) Large recovery of counterfeit notes is not dormant possession – constitutes trafficking

(iii) Charges must be specific under Section 489B IPC

(iv) Prosecution must establish foundational facts proving knowledge or intent

(v) Accused must explain possession during Section 313 CrPC

(vi) Law applies equally to civilians and government officials [Para 82].

Family Law – Maintenance to Wife and Minor Son – Justified Separation – Wife alleged harassment, extramarital affair, and addiction issues – Husband claimed wife voluntarily deserted him – Family Court accepted wife’s version supported by criminal complaint and lack of evidence of reconciliation from husband – Held: Justified separation established – Past and future maintenance rightly granted [Paras 12–19]

Maintenance – Past and Future Maintenance – Statutory Right – Family Court awarded ₹5,000/month to each of wife and son for past period of 3 years and ₹3,000/month each as future maintenance in addition to previous award under Section 125 CrPC – Held: Statutory entitlement under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act – Maintenance proportionate to earning capacity and cost of living – No interference warranted [Paras 20–21]

Property – Creation of Charge – Maintenance Enforcement – Charge created on appellant’s share (1/3rd) in family properties – Held: Justified under law to secure minor child and wife’s maintenance – Appellant’s means established – No proof to rebut wife’s claim of his property interest [Paras 16, 22]

Interest – Modification of Rate – Applicability of CPC – Family Court awarded 12% p.a. interest on past maintenance – High Court held that Family Courts Act read with Section 34 CPC limits post-decree interest to 6% unless commercial – Modified interest to 9% pendente lite and 6% post-decree – Held: Award of 12% interest excessive in absence of commercial element – Interest must be reasonable and within statutory framework [Paras 28–31]

Burden of Proof – No Evidence by Husband – Husband failed to rebut wife’s allegations or prove counterclaims – No legal notice issued for restitution – No documentary evidence to show wife’s independent income – Held: Oral assertions by husband insufficient – Family Court findings sustained [Paras 14, 17, 19]

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Interest on past maintenance reduced from 12% to 9% (pendente lite) and 6% (post-decree) – All other findings, including award of maintenance and creation of charge over property, upheld – No order as to costs [Para 32]

Family Law - Tribal Succession – Gender Equality – Burden of Proof – Scheduled Tribe (Gond) – Ancestral Property – Daughter’s Right to Inherit – Error in Law by Lower Courts – Appeal Allowed – Matter Remanded – Plaintiff, a daughter of deceased tribal father (Gond community), sought 1/5th share in ancestral house property – Trial Court and First Appellate Court rejected claim holding burden was on her to prove custom allowing daughters to inherit – Held: View contrary to law laid down by this Court in Babulal v. Resmabai and Supreme Court in Ram Charan v. Sukhram – When succession law is silent, burden lies on party asserting exclusion to prove custom – Lower Courts erred in shifting burden on plaintiff – Findings perverse and unsustainable in law – Matter remanded for fresh decision in accordance with principles of justice, equity, and Article 14 of Constitution [Paras 2, 21–26].

Customary Law – Proof of Exclusion – Article 14 – Scheduled Tribe – Constitutional Mandate – Plaintiff Proved Tribal Identity – No Custom Proven by Defendants – Lower Courts Misapplied Law – Plaintiff established she was daughter of deceased tribal father and belonged to Gond ST community – No contrary custom proven by defendants to justify exclusion – In absence of valid customary exclusion, denial of share to tribal women violates Article 14 – Held: Custom cannot be presumed – Must be pleaded and proved by party relying on it – Misapplication of burden of proof rendered concurrent findings unsustainable [Paras 21–24].

Appeal – Concurrent Findings Overturned – Legal Error – Matter Remanded – Though concurrent findings existed, both Courts fundamentally erred in applying incorrect legal principles – Denial of inheritance on basis of misapplied burden caused miscarriage of justice – Matter remanded to Trial Court with liberty to both parties to lead evidence and decision to be made afresh as per settled legal position [Paras 25–27].

Decision: Second Appeal allowed – Judgments of Trial Court and First Appellate Court quashed – Matter remanded to Trial Court for fresh decision after hearing both sides and applying correct legal principles.

Property Law – Injunction – Auction Sale – Challenge to possession – Appellants (legal heirs of original plaintiff) sought permanent injunction against Town Municipal Council (TMC) from interfering with their possession over suit properties – Plaintiffs originally filed suit for declaration of title, injunction and mutation of names in revenue records, but later restricted relief to permanent injunction – Trial court dismissed suit, holding that plaintiffs failed to prove possession – First appellate court concurred – High Court held that findings of both courts below were not perverse and were based on material evidence – Held: Once plaintiffs abandoned plea for declaration and failed to establish possession, suit for bare injunction was rightly dismissed [Paras 13, 15, 52, 57, 68, 86].

Civil Procedure – Abandonment of Relief – Plaintiffs initially sought declaration of title and permanent injunction, but restricted claim to injunction during trial – Held: Abandonment of prayer for declaration estopped plaintiffs from questioning validity of auction sale or claiming title – Suit thereafter becomes one for bare injunction – Courts cannot test title or validity of auction proceedings in such suit unless appropriate pleadings and relief are sought – [Paras 45, 51, 52, 77, 80].

Title and Possession – Hypothecation and Auction – Suit properties mortgaged to Excise Department in 1958 – Upon default, auction held in 1960 and confirmed in 1961 in favour of TMC – Plaintiffs failed to challenge auction – Sale was confirmed twice by Deputy Commissioner and reflected in revenue records – Court held that plaintiffs, who admitted mortgage and auction, cannot seek injunction without establishing legal possession – Possession presumed to follow title, especially in case of vacant land – [Paras 48, 66, 68, 78, 85].

Documentary Evidence – Revenue Records – Plaintiffs relied on revenue entries (RoRs), tax receipts, mutation records and correspondence to prove possession – Courts held entries in plaintiffs’ name were made illegally and set aside in revision – Revenue records (Ex.P31, P32) from 1979-87 reflected TMC’s name in possession columns – Subsequent entries in plaintiffs’ name were obtained fraudulently and without notice to TMC – Order of Special Deputy Commissioner setting aside plaintiff’s mutation was upheld – [Paras 70–76].

Administrative Law – Validity of Auction – Plaintiffs contended that auction violated mandatory procedures under Mysore Land Revenue Code and Rules – Court held: Without seeking declaratory relief and challenging sale proceedings, such contentions cannot be entertained in suit for injunction – Moreover, procedural irregularities, if any, do not vitiate title of auction purchaser when sale is otherwise confirmed – [Paras 18–20, 48, 86].

Doctrine of Acquiescence – Plaintiffs, through plaintiff no.1, participated in multiple litigations and never challenged the auction or its confirmation – Plaintiffs aware of auction since 1960s but took no steps to set aside sale – Court held: Plaintiffs acquiesced to auction and lost right to challenge – [Paras 62, 79, 81, 82].

Concurrent Findings – High Court’s Interference under Section 100 CPC – Held: Interference in second appeal only justified when findings are perverse or based on no evidence – Both courts below assessed pleadings, depositions, documentary evidence and gave reasoned findings – No perversity or error of law found – [Paras 47, 59, 68, 76].

Substantial Question of Law – Answered in Affirmative – Whether courts were justified in denying injunction when auction was not followed by delivery of possession but revenue entries and evidence showed TMC’s title and possession – Held: Plaintiffs failed to prove possession; auction and mutation in TMC’s name valid – Substantial question answered in favour of TMC – [Paras 46, 86].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Findings of trial and appellate court upheld – Plaintiffs failed to establish possession or maintainability of suit for bare injunction – Request for stay of order rejected – [Final Order].

Arbitration – Judicial Interference – Limited Scope under Section 37 – Appeal against judgment upholding arbitral award awarding contractor Rs.6.66 lakhs with interest – Held: Interference under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration Act is narrowly circumscribed – Court cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own view for that of the arbitrator – Award found to be reasoned and based on plausible interpretation – No patent illegality or perversity demonstrated – Appeal dismissed [Paras 10–13, 33–35]

Contract Law – Delay in Execution – Time as Essence – Though the contract originally required completion by 03.07.1992, time was extended until 31.05.1993 – Arbitral Tribunal found delays attributable to Railways’ conduct – Contract rescission held unjustified – Tribunal’s findings on delay and liability upheld as based on evidence and within arbitral jurisdiction [Paras 2(iii)–(v), 31]

Arbitration – Interpretation of Contract – Pricing and Claims – Claims 6 and 7 challenged as contrary to contractual pricing – Tribunal interpreted contract clauses and ISI specifications governing waterproofing and bitumen application – Held: Pricing interpretation was reasonable and within bounds of contract – No ground to interfere on reappraisal of evidence [Paras 32]

Public Policy and Patent Illegality – No Violation – No violation of public policy, fundamental policy of Indian law, or basic morality demonstrated – No fraud, corruption, or procedural impropriety found – Tribunal applied proper reasoning and considered all relevant material – Award immune from curial interference [Paras 13, 27–30, 33]

Arbitration – Interest on Award – Permissibility – Arbitrator awarded 12% interest p.a. on claims and cost of arbitration – Held: Grant of interest in consonance with Section 31(7) of the A&C Act – Contractual bar not absolute – No legal infirmity in award of interest [Para 7]

Judicial Precedents – Conformity with Supreme Court Guidance – High Court reiterates principles from MMTC v. Vedanta, PSA Sical Terminals, Associate Builders, DMRC, and Reliance Infrastructure – Emphasises minimal interference, deference to arbitrator’s findings, and narrow scope of review under Sections 34/37 [Paras 14–26]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No interference warranted with the arbitral award or the District Judge’s judgment upholding it – Award found legally sound, reasoned, and within jurisdiction – No costs imposed – Interim orders vacated [Paras 34–36]

Mines and Minerals – Quarry Lease – Renewal – Delay – Interpretation of Expiry Date – Application for renewal of quarry lease rejected as being filed after expiry of lease term – Lease expired on 29.12.2013 (a Sunday) – Application filed on 30.12.2013 – Held: By operation of Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, where the last day falls on a holiday, act done on the next working day is valid – Application held to be within time – Rejection order unsustainable [Paras 10, 15–17]

Service of Orders – Communication Requirement – Limitation for Revision – Revision petition under Rule 53(1) of 1994 Rules rejected as delayed by more than six years – Petitioner claimed order of rejection dated 18.01.2014 was never communicated and came to know only in 2019 through RTI – Held: No material to show rejection order was ever communicated – Limitation would run from date of communication – Matter remanded for reconsideration [Paras 18–19]

Quarry Lease – Penalty for Delayed Renewal – Acceptance of Application with Fee – Application filed with two demand drafts for renewal fee and security deposit – Prima facie shows compliance with payment requirement – Issue of absence of arrears clearance certificate not sufficient ground for rejection in absence of notice or opportunity – Revisional authority to re-examine [Para 20]

General Clauses Act – Applicability to Lease Renewals – Provisions of Section 10 applicable to statutory time limits for filing applications under mining rules – Sunday falling on last day of lease term entitled petitioner to file application on next working day – Similar approach adopted by High Court in Robo Silicon Ltd. case affirmed [Paras 12–13, 16]

Decision: Impugned order set aside – Matter remanded to Revisional Authority for reconsideration – Petition disposed of with liberty to parties to raise all contentions afresh [Paras 21–22]

Domestic Violence – Delay in Proceedings – Pendency of Case Since 2018 – Petitioner-wife filed complaint under Section 12 of the DV Act on 06.11.2018 – Despite service of notice on 28.05.2019, respondent failed to appear – Trial proceeded ex parte – Respondent appeared only in January 2021 – Interim maintenance of ₹15,000/month awarded but reduced to ₹10,000/month by revisional court – Maintenance never paid despite salary of ₹1.10 lakh/month – Total arrears of ₹4.55 lakh accrued – High Court observed inordinate delay and systemic apathy in enforcement of maintenance orders [Paras 2-6]

Non-Compliance with Judicial Directions – Supreme Court and High Court Precedents Ignored – Neither trial court nor revisional court directed respondent to file affidavit of assets and liabilities as mandated in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324 and Parul Tyagi v. Gaurav Tyagi, 2023 SCC OnLine All 2684 – Prior directive in Rajesh Babu Saxena v. State of U.P., 2024 SCC OnLine All 2260 for recovery from salary also disregarded – Court expressed concern over indifference by trial courts to binding precedents, warning of loss of public confidence [Paras 7-8]

Judicial Accountability – Explanations Called from Magistrate and Revisional Court – Magistrate directed to furnish explanation for failure to seek affidavit of assets/liabilities – Revisional Court to explain basis for reducing maintenance from ₹15,000 to ₹10,000/month – Failure to provide satisfactory reasons may invite administrative action – Registrar (Compliance) directed to communicate order – Registrar General to collect responses before next hearing [Paras 8-9]

Decision: Magistrate and Revisional Court directed to submit explanations through Registrar General – Next hearing fixed for 14.10.2025 – Warning issued that evasive replies may attract administrative action.

Railways Act – Compensation – Untoward Incident – Accidental Fall – Deceased was travelling by train with a valid ticket – Fell from an overcrowded compartment due to sudden jerk – Tribunal dismissed claim on grounds of suicide and absence of proof of bona fide passengership – Held: Once accidental fall is established, statutory liability of Railways is attracted – Finding of suicide is speculative and not based on credible evidence – Death falls within scope of “untoward incident” under Section 123(c)(2) – Compensation payable [Paras 2, 13, 14, 18, 21]

Strict Liability – Section 124A – Presumption of Causation – Section 124A enacts no-fault liability for deaths caused by untoward incidents – Railway Administration's defence based on conjecture and unsupported assumptions about suicidal intent not accepted – Contemporaneous police and medical records confirm fall from train – No exception under proviso to Section 124A applies – Railway liable irrespective of negligence [Paras 12, 14, 20, 21]

Bona Fide Passenger – Valid Ticket – Evidentiary Presumption – Journey ticket number VYA-51990424 issued from Berhampur found in possession of deceased – Not denied or disproved by Railways – Inquest and police report corroborate presence of ticket – Tribunal's finding that deceased was not a bona fide passenger found contrary to record and legally unsustainable [Paras 15, 17]

DRM Report – Evidentiary Value – Administrative Inquiry – Tribunal’s reliance on DRM report misplaced – Lacks probative value and not supported by primary or direct evidence – Contradicted by statutory documents like post-mortem, inquest and final police report – Cannot override contemporaneous official records [Para 3(iii), 17]

Judicial Precedent – Interpretation of Beneficial Legislation – Court follows ratio in Union of India v. Rina Devi and Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijay Kumar – Compensation provisions under Railways Act must be interpreted liberally to effectuate social welfare objective – Restrictive interpretation contrary to legislative intent [Paras 16, 19]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of Railway Claims Tribunal dated 10.01.2020 set aside – Deceased held to be a bona fide passenger – Incident held to be an untoward incident – Railways directed to pay compensation of ₹8,00,000 with 6% interest from date of application till payment – Amount to be deposited before Tribunal within three months for disbursal [Paras 23–25]