Criminal Law – Quashing - Domain Name Dispute – Criminal Charges Quashed – Civil Dispute Mischaracterized – The petitioner was accused of impersonating the Chancellor of Alliance University and fraudulently attempting to take control of the university’s domain name – Held: Allegations arise from civil dispute over institutional control post-termination – Even if accepted at face value, do not disclose ingredients of forgery or cybercrime – Proceedings quashed [Paras 3–11, 27].

Cyber Offences – Section 66, 66D of IT Act – No Mens Rea or Unauthorized Access – Petitioner operated domain email claiming status as Chancellor, which he asserted under Section 15(2) of Alliance University Act – Held: No dishonest or fraudulent intention established – Use of email to claim disputed position does not constitute cybercrime under Sections 66 or 66D IT Act [Paras 9–10].

Forgery – Sections 465 and 468 IPC – No Falsification Proven – Court examined definition and precedents on “forgery” and “false documents” – Held: Mere assertion of status or domain management without proving false intent or fabrication does not meet threshold – Proceedings would amount to abuse of process [Paras 10–12].

Misuse of Criminal Law – Civil Dispute Converted into Crime – High Court Criticizes Vexatious Prosecution – Referring to SC judgments in Mahmood Ali, Deepak Gaba, and Randheer Singh, held that criminal law cannot be weaponized for private vendetta or ongoing institutional rivalry – Allegations lacked prima facie criminality [Paras 11–12, 27].

Decision – Proceedings Quashed – Cognizance in C.C. No. 3218/2021 set aside – Petition allowed under Section 482 CrPC [Para 27].
 

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].

Civil Law - Stamp Duty – Refund on Security Deposit – Misapplication of Article 35(c) – Refund Ordered – Petitioner entered into a sub-lease and paid refundable security deposit of ₹1.61 crore – Registering authority included this amount as consideration and levied excess stamp duty under Article 35(c) – Held: Refundable security deposit is not ‘money advanced’ in addition to rent – Stamp duty should have been levied under Article 57 read with Section 5 of the Indian Stamp Act – Authorities directed to refund excess duty [Paras 4–7].

Lease Consideration – Definition Under Transfer of Property Act – Security Deposit Not Consideration – Court referred to Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act – Held: Only two types of consideration in lease—‘premium’ and ‘rent’ – Refundable security deposit not part of either – Cannot be treated as money advance attracting duty under Article 35(c) [Paras 4.1, 5].

Interpretation of Stamp Duty – Security Deposit vs. Money Advance – Delhi High Court Precedent Followed – Relying on Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Delhi v. Marshal Produce Brokers Co. Pvt. Ltd., 1978 SCC OnLine Del 157 – Held: Refundable deposits not subject to stamp duty under Article 35(c) – However, such security deposits may be chargeable under Article 57 as security for due performance [Paras 5, 6].

Applicability of Article 57 & Section 5 of Stamp Act – Composite Instrument Analysis – Held: Since the lease deed contains distinct matters (rent and security), security deposit is chargeable under Article 57 and not Article 35(c) – Thus, adjustment and refund of differential stamp duty directed [Paras 6, 7].

Final Decision – Writ Allowed – Stamp Duty Misapplied – Authorities Directed to Refund Differential Amount – Orders under Annexure-1 quashed – No order as to costs [Para 7].
 

Taxation Law - Income Tax – Interpretation of Agreement – Assessment Based on Receipts, Not Gross Bills – Appeal Dismissed - The assessee contended that 5% infrastructure fee should be computed on gross advertising bills; however, the agreement specified 5% of “total receipts” – The Court upheld the lower authorities’ view that only net receipts disclosed in P&L (₹58.77 lakhs) were relevant – Held: Tribunal rightly rejected higher claim based on gross billing not reflected as income [Paras 1-11].

Commercial Expediency – Reasonableness of Expenditure – Judicial Deference to Business Judgment – Tribunal's View Affirmed - The assessee’s plea that AO erred in questioning business decisions was rejected – The Court reiterated principles from Walchand & Co. and J.K. Woollen Manufacturers that expenses must be real and incurred wholly for business – Disallowance of inflated claim upheld in absence of proof or perversity in findings [Paras 6-8].

Appeal under Section 260A – Limited Interference Permitted – No Perverse Finding – No Substantial Question of Law - Findings of AO, CIT(A), and ITAT were based on record and profit & loss statement – No case of perversity or legal misapplication found – Held: No interference warranted in appeal under Section 260A [Paras 9-12].

Final Decision – Question of Law Answered Against Assessee – Appeal Dismissed - The substantial question of law was answered in favour of revenue – Appeal dismissed as devoid of merit [Paras 12-13].
 

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].
 

Civil Law - Lok Adalat – Award Finality and Bar on Civil Court Challenge – Challenge Not Maintainable – Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit or miscellaneous application to set aside a Lok Adalat award, even on grounds of fraud – Only remedy is a writ under Articles 226/227 of Constitution – Application filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC held not tenable [Paras 18–23].

Binding Nature of Lok Adalat Awards – Treated as Civil Court Decree – Lok Adalat award based on Compromise Memo signed by parties and accepted by Presiding Officer – Award deemed final and executable as per Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act – Findings of due procedure and party consent upheld [Paras 14–17].

No Exception for Fraud Allegations – Supreme Court Precedents Binding – Citing State of Punjab v. Jalour Singh and Bhargavi Constructions, Court held even fraud claims must be raised in writ jurisdiction, not through separate suit or civil application – Procedural route used does not affect jurisdictional bar [Paras 18–22].

Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC – Inapplicability to Lok Adalat Awards – Provisions applicable to consent decrees from court proceedings—not to statutory Lok Adalat awards – Attempt to indirectly challenge award under Rule 3 CPC rejected as contrary to Supreme Court rulings [Para 24].

Final Decision – Civil Judge’s Order Set Aside – Miscellaneous Civil Application Rejected – High Court allowed revision and quashed the impugned order – MCA No. 87 of 2021 declared not maintainable [Paras 25–26].

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].
 

Child Custody – Habeas Corpus – Foreign Custody Order – Enforcement Directed – The biological mother sought custody of her Canadian minor child retained by father in India in defiance of Ontario Family Court order dated 13.11.2024 – Held: The retention is illegal, child's Indian VISA has expired, and father's actions amount to forum shopping – Repatriation to Canada ordered in interest of child’s welfare and legal comity [Paras 1–3, 14–27].

Jurisdiction – Writ Maintainable Despite Foreign Nationals – Writ of Habeas Corpus Lies – The petitioner (Brazilian national) and respondent (Canadian national) had a Canadian-born child brought to India under a short visit order – Held: Indian courts can issue writs in such cases if custody violates lawful foreign decrees and child's welfare is compromised – No bar under Article 226 [Paras 15–16].

International Comity – Canadian Court Order Given Effect – Indian Court Upholds Foreign Decree – Respondent failed to disclose Canadian Court’s order while seeking VISA extension – Held: Misuse of Indian jurisdiction and breach of foreign court undertakings cannot be condoned – Indian courts must respect international child custody norms [Paras 17–20].

Best Interest of the Child – Paramount Consideration – Child's Comfort with Mother Noted – Court observed interaction between child and mother as warm and reassuring – Held: Tender age, emotional bonding, and stable upbringing in habitual residence in Canada warrant returning custody to mother [Paras 22–24].

Judicial Discretion – Not a Custody Battle but Illegal Detention – Respondent’s Plea Rejected – Argument that this is a custody dispute not warranting habeas corpus was rejected – Held: Breach of undertaking and expired VISA render continued stay unlawful – Courts must prevent jurisdictional manipulation [Paras 21, 26].

Decision – Repatriation Ordered – Continued custody of child by father declared unsustainable – Child to be repatriated to Canada in custody of mother – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 27–29].
 

Civil Law - Arbitrability of Land Mutation Disputes – Civil Suit Referred to Arbitration – Challenge Dismissed – Petitioners challenged order of Civil Judge allowing application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act referring mutation dispute to arbitration – Held: Dispute arises from a Memorandum of Settlement containing valid arbitration clause – Subject matter is a private dispute over land title and not an action in rem – Suit properly referred to arbitration [Paras 1–3, 20.1–20.3].

Civil vs. Arbitration Forum – Declaratory Relief in Mutation Disputes – Arbitrable – Argument that mutation challenges are governed by Section 45 of the Haryana Land Revenue Act and fall within civil court jurisdiction was rejected – Held: Arbitrator has jurisdiction over claims in personam even if linked to revenue records – Provisions of Section 127 of the Act allow for arbitration of such disputes [Paras 5, 20.4].

Petitioners’ Conduct – Inconsistent Litigation Strategy – Petitioners Themselves Invoked Arbitration – Court noted that petitioners had filed applications under Sections 9 and 11 of the Arbitration Act and raised same mutation dispute in arbitral proceedings – Held: Petitioners estopped from arguing that dispute is non-arbitrable [Paras 2.6, 20.2].

Principle of Minimal Court Interference – Section 8, 11 Jurisdiction Narrow – Citing Vidya Drolia and Emaar India precedents – Held: Judicial review at referral stage limited to prima facie review of arbitration clause and manifestly non-arbitrable cases – No such circumstance present here – Arbitral Tribunal to decide jurisdiction [Paras 12–16, 20.5–20.6].

Scope of Section 8 Application – Erroneous Mention of Order VII Rule 11 – Clarified – Trial Court mistakenly mentioned plaint rejection under Order VII Rule 11(d) despite no such application – Held: Order still valid as only referral to arbitration under Section 8 was granted – No jurisdictional error caused [Para 20.8].

Final Decision – Revision Petition Dismissed – Impugned order upheld – Civil Suit correctly referred to arbitration – No interference warranted under Article 227 of the Constitution [Para 21].