Criminal Law – Quashing 0f FIR - Muslim Divorce – Talaq-e-Ahsan – Distinction from Talaq-e-bidat – Quashment of FIR - Applicants demonstrated that the pronouncement of divorce was through Talaq-e-Ahsan and not Talaq-e-bidat which alone is banned – Held: Talaq-e-Ahsan is a recognized mode of divorce under Muslim Personal Law and not punishable under Section 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 [Paras 3-7].

Scope of Section 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act – Offence applies only to husband – No vicarious liability for relatives – Proceedings against parents-in-law quashed - Held: Section 4 applies solely to Muslim husbands; involvement of in-laws is legally untenable, and their prosecution constitutes an abuse of process [Para 6].

Requirement of Immediate or Irrevocable Divorce – Definition under the Act – Instantaneous Divorce Only Punishable - Held: Only Talaq forms having instantaneous and irrevocable effect such as Talaq-e-bidat are punishable; Talaq-e-Ahsan not prohibited as per Supreme Court and Kerala High Court precedents [Paras 7-8].

Abuse of Process – Quashing of Proceedings – Preventing Misuse of Criminal Process - Held: When allegations do not satisfy ingredients of offence and proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide intention, it amounts to abuse of process and deserves quashment [Paras 7-8].

Decision – FIR and criminal proceedings quashed - The Court allowed the application and quashed the FIR registered at Bhusawal Bazar Peth Police Station and Regular Criminal Case No. 1156/2024 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhusawal, against all applicants [Final Order].
 

Civil Writ - Judicial Review – Answer Keys in Competitive Exams – Limited Interference Permissible – The Court reaffirmed the settled legal principles from Ran Vijay Singh and Shubham Pal cases, holding that Courts should exercise restraint and interfere only when answer keys are palpably and demonstrably wrong – Judicial review is not excluded entirely, but limited to rare and exceptional cases where injustice is apparent without inferential reasoning [Paras 5, 10-13].

Out of Syllabus Questions – Legal Reasoning Section – Question Declared Invalid – The Court held that Question No.77 referencing a minor's competence to contract was out of syllabus for requiring prior legal knowledge, contrary to CLAT's declared policy – Question was directed to be treated as withdrawn and excluded from evaluation [Paras 21-23].

Incorrect Answer Key – Admission of Error by Consortium – Benefit Granted – For Questions 115 and 116, the Consortium admitted error in the final key and cross-referencing between sets – The Court directed full marks to be awarded to candidates across all affected sets (B, C, D) regardless of whether the question was attempted or answered correctly [Paras 44-46].

Belated Objections – Not Entertained – Objections raised after the prescribed window without prior challenge were rejected, citing Salil Maheshwari – Held: Litigants cannot raise objections post-result declaration if they failed to utilize the official objection window [Paras 9-10, 27, 29].

Question with Multiple Plausible Answers – Court Deference to Oversight Committee – Where split expert opinion existed (e.g., Questions 91 & 93), the Court upheld the Oversight Committee's resolution favoring the view most supported by the passage – Held: Courts should not substitute their views for those of subject matter experts in ambiguous academic questions [Paras 33-39].

Decision – Answer Key Partially Modified – Revaluation Directed – Final direction to revise marksheets and republish the list of selected candidates within four weeks – Candidates who attempted the affected questions to be evaluated per modified answers or granted full marks where applicable – All connected petitions and appeals disposed of accordingly [Paras 48-49].
 

Civil Law - Specific Performance – Oral and Written Agreement – Burden of Proof – Dismissal of Suit – The appellant sought specific performance based on an oral agreement and a subsequent written agreement dated 30.08.2000 – The Trial Court found that the oral agreement was not proved due to lack of corroborative evidence and the diary produced (Ex.P/1) lacked evidentiary value – Held: Oral agreement could not be established solely by entries without supporting testimony or documents [Paras 22-25].

Execution of Written Agreement – Authority to Execute – Invalidity of Power of Attorney – The written agreement was executed by one Trilok Singh purportedly on behalf of others under a power of attorney, two of the executors having predeceased the agreement – Held: Agreement executed on behalf of deceased persons invalid – No enforceable contract established [Paras 26-28].

Readiness and Willingness – Financial Incapacity – Specific Performance Denied – The appellant failed to demonstrate continuous readiness and willingness, critical for specific performance – Admissions regarding financial incapacity and inability to pay court fees were decisive – Held: Plaintiff failed to establish readiness and willingness as required under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Paras 29-31].

Possession and Adverse Possession Claim – Documentary Evidence – Claim Rejected – The appellant’s possession was not proved through revenue records – Orders of the Tehsildar and SDO dismissed the claim of possession – Held: Mere physical occupation without legal right or acknowledgment by authorities does not confer ownership or protect possession [Paras 32-34].

Application for Additional Evidence – Order 41 Rule 27 CPC – Dismissal – Documents produced at appellate stage (electricity bills, Nagar Palika receipts, etc.) were rejected for not being newly discovered evidence and irrelevant to pronouncement of judgment – Held: No grounds made for admitting additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC [Paras 18-21].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Trial Court’s findings affirmed – The appellant failed to prove oral or written agreement, possession, readiness and willingness; thus, no interference warranted with Trial Court judgment [Paras 37-38].
 

Patent Law – Challenge to Section 53 Patents Act – Appeal Dismissed – Petitioners sought to declare Section 53 unconstitutional for counting patent term from application date despite delays in grant – High Court upheld that Section 53 and Section 11A(7) operate in distinct domains – Section 53 governs term and cessation; Section 11A(7) confers provisional rights without full enforceability until patent is granted [Paras 12–24].

Delay in Grant – No Violation of Constitutional Rights – No Ground for Striking Down Provision – The delay of 7 years in granting the patent, though regrettable, was held not to invalidate the statutory scheme – Representation seeking legislative amendment or compensation was found beyond judicial remit under Article 226 [Paras 6–11, 23–27].

Pre-grant Rights and Enforcement – Limited Scope – Interim Protection Only – Section 11A(7) provides limited privileges but bars infringement proceedings before patent grant – Court reaffirmed statutory rights in patent law are distinct from common law and are enforceable only post-grant [Paras 13–16, 24].

Judicial Review of Legislative Policy – Separation of Powers – Rejected – Court held it cannot direct Parliament to amend legislation or restructure statutory timelines – Reliance on comparative models like the US Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) was held inapplicable in Indian context, as affirmed by expert committee in Nittoo Denko case [Paras 25–26].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Writ Dismissal Affirmed – No conflict found between Sections 53 and 11A(7) – Appellants directed to bear their own costs – Request for certified copy allowed [Paras 27–30].

Tenancy Law - Lease and Eviction – Expired Lease Period – Tenant Liable for Eviction – Second Appeal Dismissed – High Court upheld concurrent findings that the appellant was a tenant under a registered lease deed from 01.11.2002 to 31.10.2008 – Quit notice issued and tenancy not renewed – Appellant held unauthorized occupant thereafter – Eviction decree affirmed [Paras 1–4, 16–21, 26].

No Substantial Question of Law – Second Appeal Not Maintainable – High Court held that no substantial question of law arose under Section 100 CPC – Disputed facts already decided by two courts below based on evidence – Law clarified that factual conclusions not open to re-evaluation in second appeal [Paras 13–15, 26].

Oral Assurances and Construction Investment – No Proof – Tenant’s Claims Rejected – Allegations that landlord permitted continued occupation or rent waiver in lieu of construction by tenant were rejected due to lack of evidence – No documents or credible proof produced by appellant – Oral promises deemed vague and unenforceable [Paras 18–20].

Pendente Lite Transfers – Section 52 TPA – Purchasers Added as Respondents – During pendency of suit, plaintiffs sold property to respondents 7–10 – Purchasers validly impleaded under Section 52 as pendente lite transferees – Entitled to take possession on success of suit [Paras 25, 28].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Possession to Be Delivered – Second appeal dismissed at admission stage – Appellant directed to hand over possession within three months to respondents 7–10 or face legal enforcement [Paras 28–29].

NDPS Act – Bail and Article 21 – Prolonged Incarceration Overrides Section 37 – Held: All petitioners except two had been in custody for nearly two years with trial not yet commenced—Court held that prolonged detention violated their fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21—Bail granted subject to conditions – However, bail denied to petitioners Jithin Cherian and Yash Gupta due to stronger material evidence and greater recovered quantities [Paras 91–103, 124–151].

Evidence and Recovery – Role of Individual Petitioners – Varies Across Accused – Petitioners had differing degrees of involvement—Some linked by parcel addressee name only, others by digital evidence, confession, or contraband recovery – NCB relied on voluntary statements, chats, and forensic data – Bail granted where evidence lacked direct attribution or corroboration [Paras 6–19, 27–29, 76–84, 123–124].

Controlled Delivery – Non-Compliance Not Fatal to Bail – Held: Controlled delivery procedure under Section 50A NDPS is directory and non-mandatory—Failure to undertake the same does not vitiate proceedings, but may affect credibility of prosecution’s case in certain instances [Paras 23, 85, 128].

Procedural Lapses – Irregularities in Seizure, Sampling and Certification – Petitioners cited delay in certification under Section 52A NDPS, improper packaging, sample handling and record-keeping—Court observed such procedural errors need to be tested during trial but factored in overall while granting bail [Paras 63–69, 65–66, 68–69].

Commercial Quantity – Differentiated Treatment Based on Quantity – Bail denied to Jithin Cherian (500 LSD blots) and Yash Gupta (prior similar parcel and digital recovery) – Held: Gravity of offence based on quantity and individual role justified continued detention in their cases [Paras 124–128, 144–151].

Decision – Bail Allowed for Five Petitioners – Petitions of Vaibhav Yadav, Arnav Dhankar, Pritesh Aggarwal, Nishant Rawat, and Avtar Singh allowed – Bail denied to Jithin Cherian and Yash Gupta – Petitioners directed to furnish sureties and comply with strict conditions [Paras 101–103, 124, 151].

Criminal Law - Sexual Assault of Minor – Section 354B IPC and Section 10 POCSO – Conviction Upheld – Based on consistent testimony of the victim and her immediate disclosures to two neighbors, supported by FIR and medical evidence, the High Court confirmed the conviction – Appellant’s act of disrobing the 7-year-old victim after luring her into his room established assault with sexual intent [Paras 1–12].

Penetrative Sexual Assault – Allegation Disbelieved – Section 376AB Charge Not Made Out – Although the victim later alleged penetrative assault, her earlier statement under Section 164 CrPC and neighbors' accounts did not corroborate this – Doctor's finding of ruptured hymen without accompanying injuries led the court to reject rape charge [Paras 5–6, 12].

Medical and Witness Testimony – Inconsistencies Not Material – Court held minor contradictions and absence of medical injuries did not undermine consistent core accusation of sexual assault – Trial court rightly excluded exaggerated claims and focused on credible portion of testimony [Paras 6–8].

Admissibility of Magistrate Statements – Not Prejudicial – High Court rejected challenge that non-examination of Magistrate who recorded Section 164 CrPC statements prejudiced defence – Held: Such statements admissible under Section 80 Evidence Act; Appellant had opportunity to summon magistrate but didn’t [Para 13].

Age of Victim – Proven Through Birth Certificate – Challenge to age dismissed as birth certificate was on record and marked as exhibit without contrary evidence from Appellant [Para 13].

Presumption Under POCSO – Not Rebutted – Section 29 of POCSO invoked to affirm guilt – Appellant failed to rebut presumption or prove any ulterior motive such as property dispute – Contradictions deemed immaterial [Para 14].

Final Decision – Conviction and Sentence Affirmed – CRA (SB) No. 72 of 2023 Dismissed – Judgment of trial court upheld in entirety, with no interference warranted [Paras 15–16].
 

Election Law - Corrupt Practice – Election Manifesto Promises – Not Attributable to Candidate – Petition Rejected - Allegations of corrupt practices arising from the 'five guarantees' made in the INC's election manifesto were held insufficient to constitute corrupt practice under Section 123 of the R.P. Act – The Court relied on S. Subramaniam Balaji v. State of Tamil Nadu and clarified that such promises are considered declarations of public policy and not acts of individual candidates – It was held that mere association with the manifesto or affixing a signature as a CLP leader does not establish personal liability or intent – Petition rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) of CPC for lack of cause of action [Paras 10-19].

Lack of Material Facts – Pleadings Defective – No Specific Allegation – Petition Dismissed - The Election Petition lacked material facts necessary to support allegations under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) – No details provided showing how the alleged conduct materially affected the result – Bald assertions and absence of particulars were deemed fatal – Rejection under Order VII Rule 11(a) confirmed [Paras 23-28].

Non-disclosure of Expenditure – Allegation Against Party, Not Candidate – Rejected - The petitioner alleged non-disclosure of expenditure for manifesto distribution – Held: Promises and related expenses pertained to the political party, not the individual candidate – Hence, no duty of disclosure by the respondent under the R.P. Act [Paras 29-31].

Pleadings After Limitation Period – Rejoinder Cannot Cure Deficiency – Ignored - Petitioner’s attempt to supplement material facts through rejoinder was rejected – Court reiterated that material facts must be present in the original petition filed within limitation – Reference made to Jeet Mohinder Singh v. Harminder Singh Jassi [Para 34-35].

Judicial Discipline – Binding Precedent – Balaji Decision Applicable – Petition Dismissed - The Court emphasized that until overruled, decisions of the Supreme Court such as S. Subramaniam Balaji are binding – Pending review or reference to larger Bench does not dilute binding nature – High Courts must follow settled precedent [Paras 36-38].

Casual Drafting – Lack of Diligence – Grounds Unsubstantiated – Election Petition Rejected - The Court noted careless drafting, factual inaccuracies, and copy-paste pleadings from other petitions – Such defects, combined with legal insufficiencies, led to rejection of the petition in limine [Paras 41-42].

Final Decision – I.A. No. 1/2023 Allowed – Election Petition Rejected - The application under Order VII Rule 11(a) of CPC was allowed – Entire election petition rejected for lack of cause of action and non-compliance with legal requirements [Paras 43-44].

Arbitration Law - Arbitration Clause – Unilateral Termination Option – Clause Upheld – Appointment Directed - Clause allowing only the lender (Applicant) to opt out of arbitration upon becoming a SARFAESI beneficiary was challenged – Delhi High Court's Tata Capital ruling was distinguished as context-specific and not binding in Section 11 proceedings – Held: Existence of arbitration agreement was evident and valid; unilateral opt-out clause not fatal at this stage – Arbitrator appointed [Paras 3-17].

Scope of Section 11 – Limited Review – Existence of Arbitration Agreement Sufficient – Court Not to Assess Validity - Applying precedents including Interplay Judgment (2024) and SBI General Insurance, the Court reiterated that under Section 11(6A), the judicial review is limited to existence, not validity of arbitration clause – Substantive objections must be raised under Section 16 before the Arbitral Tribunal [Paras 18-19].

SARFAESI Proceedings – Not a Bar to Arbitration – Parallel Remedies Permissible - Applicant’s initiation of SARFAESI proceedings does not preclude arbitration – Relying on M.D. Frozen Foods v. Hero Fincorp, dual remedies permissible; arbitration agreement remains intact [Para 19].

Previous Arbitration Lapsed – Fresh Arbitration Not Barred – Unilateral Appointment Void – The Court held that prior arbitration, initiated through a unilaterally appointed arbitrator, had lapsed – Such proceedings were void ab initio due to lack of neutrality – Applicant’s fresh invocation of arbitration allowed under Section 11 [Paras 20-21].

Final Order – Arbitrator Appointed – Objections to Be Raised Before Tribunal - Sole Arbitrator appointed; respondents may raise jurisdictional and substantive issues before the tribunal under Section 16 – No stay granted as Respondents’ interests are protected by arbitral safeguards [Paras 21-24].