Civil Law - Specific Performance – Oral Agreement to Reconvey – Specific Performance Denied – Suit Dismissed – The plaintiffs sought enforcement of an alleged oral agreement to reconvey property allegedly transferred to the defendant to secure a business loan – The trial court disbelieved the oral agreement and upheld the sale deed as valid – Held: Oral agreement not proved and plea of reconveyance not substantiated – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1–4, 7–8, 17, 28].

Inconsistent Pleadings – Reliefs Mutually Contradictory – Suit Improperly Framed – Plaintiff simultaneously sought specific performance, cancellation of sale deed, declaration that it is void, and that it is sham – Held: Reliefs are inconsistent and mutually exclusive – Suit not maintainable as framed [Para 10].

Registered Sale Deed – Consideration Proven – Payments Established – Defendant produced bank records, fixed deposits and documents showing financial capacity and payments made to plaintiff and Preethy – Plaintiff’s alternate claim that payments were for charity was found to be false – Sale deed held valid and supported by consideration [Paras 14, 22–24].

Adverse Inference – Key Witness Withheld – Preethy Not Examined – Despite being central to transaction and added as co-plaintiff, Preethy failed to appear or testify – Held: Adverse inference to be drawn against plaintiffs for withholding material witness [Para 25].

Possession and Title – Defendant Shown in Possession – Mutation Completed – Defendant proved possession and mutation of title through documentary evidence and reliable witness – Plaintiff did not refute mutation or tax payment by defendant – Trial court's finding affirmed [Para 26].

Sham Transaction Allegation – Not Substantiated – Plaintiff's plea that sale deed was sham and without intent to transfer ownership rejected due to lack of proof and inconsistencies in case theory – Defendant’s version supported by surrounding circumstances and payments made [Paras 17–24].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Trial Court Judgment Affirmed – High Court upheld validity of sale deed, rejected plea of reconveyance, and dismissed appeal – Held: No grounds to interfere with findings of trial court – Appeal lacks merit [Paras 27–28].

Criminal Law - Quashing of Proceedings – Commercial Dispute Given Criminal Colour – Allegations Civil in Nature – Proceedings Quashed – Petitioners challenged the criminal case alleging offences under Sections 420/406/422/34 IPC on the basis that there was no fraudulent or dishonest inducement from the inception – Court held that failure to pay outstanding dues in a commercial transaction does not constitute cheating or criminal breach of trust – Held: Allegations do not disclose criminal intent or offence – Proceedings are abuse of process and are quashed under Section 482 CrPC [Paras 1–22].

Cheating – No Dishonest Intention from Inception – Ingredients Not Satisfied – The complaint failed to demonstrate that the petitioners had any fraudulent intention at the time of initiating the transaction – Held: Mere failure to repay or honour a commercial obligation does not imply cheating under Section 420 IPC – No deception or inducement shown at the beginning of transaction [Paras 7, 14–17].

Criminal Breach of Trust – No Entrustment or Misappropriation – Offence Not Attracted – The complaint does not indicate any entrustment of property nor dishonest misappropriation – Held: Section 406 IPC not attracted as essential element of entrustment is absent – Civil dispute wrongly converted into criminal prosecution [Paras 11, 16–17].

Section 202 CrPC – Compliance Satisfied – Cognizance Valid – Petitioners’ claim that Magistrate failed to comply with Section 202 CrPC rejected – Held: Magistrate recorded complainant’s statement and other witness before issuing process – Procedural compliance found proper [Para 6].

Abuse of Process – Criminal Law Misused for Recovery of Dues – Proceedings Quashed – The complainant attempted to pressurise petitioners to settle civil dues by initiating criminal proceedings – Held: Such misuse of criminal process deprecated – Complaint quashed to secure ends of justice [Paras 8, 18–20].

Decision – Complaint Quashed under Section 482 CrPC – Criminal Revision Allowed – Court exercised inherent power to prevent abuse of process – Held: Entire proceedings in CS 41478 of 2017 quashed against the petitioners – All orders passed therein set aside [Paras 21–22].

Bail – Section 20(b)(ii)(A) read with Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act – Small Quantity of Contraband – Bail Granted – Petitioner found in possession of 4 kg of ganja, not a commercial quantity – Detained for 48 days – Material part of investigation completed, charge sheet pending – Court held that no apprehension of absconding or tampering with evidence exists – Bail granted with stringent conditions [Paras 2, 6-8].

Judicial Discretion – Factors for Grant of Bail – Quantity of contraband and duration of custody considered relevant – Court exercised discretion in favour of bail as petitioner was cooperating, and offence did not involve commercial quantity – Conditions imposed to ensure appearance and prevent reoffending [Paras 6-8].

Conditions of Bail – Compliance Directed – Bail granted on execution of personal bond of ₹10,000 with two sureties – Weekly appearance before police mandated – Movement restricted to local district limits without trial court permission – Cooperation with investigation made mandatory [Para 8].

Final Order – Criminal Petition Allowed – Petitioner released on bail under specific conditions – Trial court directed to ensure compliance and monitor conduct [Para 8].

Taxation Law - Capital Gains – Exemption under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act – Investment in Multiple Units – Exemption Allowed – The appellant sold a flat in Mumbai and invested ₹1.08 crore in seven residential units in Pune – Tribunal restricted exemption to one unit – Held: Under the unamended Section 54, the phrase “a residential house” can include multiple units – Exemption granted for full investment – ITAT and Assessing Officer’s orders set aside [Paras 2, 9, 13-15, 19-21, 23-24].

Interpretation – Beneficial Provision – Liberal Interpretation Favoured – Section 54(1) being a beneficial provision must be liberally construed – Held: If two interpretations are possible, the one favourable to the assessee must be adopted – Encouraging reinvestment in housing justified broader reading of “a residential house” [Paras 5, 21].

Statutory Amendment – Prospective Effect – Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 – Court held that the amendment replacing “a residential house” with “one residential house” is prospective from 01.04.2015 – Hence, for AY 1995-96, unamended provision applied, which did not restrict exemption to a single unit [Paras 11-13, 17].

Judicial Precedent – Consistent High Court View – Karnataka and Madras High Courts in similar cases have upheld exemption for multiple units under Section 54 – Bombay High Court agreed with these views and distinguished contrary Special Bench ruling in Sushila Jhaveri – Tribunal erred in ignoring binding precedent [Paras 14-16, 18, 20].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Exemption on Entire Capital Gains – Question of law answered in favour of assessee – Full exemption under Section 54 allowed on capital gains of ₹1,08,30,625/- from investment in seven row houses – Tribunal’s order modified accordingly [Para 24].

Criminal Revision – Conviction under Arms Act – Acquittal Ordered – Petitioner was convicted under Sections 25(1-B)(a) and 26 of the Arms Act for alleged illegal possession of a country-made pistol and cartridges – Trial Court and Appellate Court upheld the conviction – High Court on revision found discrepancies in recovery location and nature of ammunition – Held: Prosecution failed to prove conscious or exclusive possession beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction set aside [Paras 1-5, 11, 13-18].

Contradictions in Seizure – Place of Recovery and Type of Cartridge – Seizure list stated recovery near a cabin on petitioner’s land; however, prosecution witnesses claimed recovery from petitioner’s waist – Cartridge bore also differed between seizure list (8mm KF) and oral evidence (.315 bore) – Court held such material discrepancies go to the root of the prosecution case [Paras 7-10, 16].

Appreciation of Evidence – Revisional Scope Invoked – Though normally limited, Court held revisional interference justified due to perverse findings by lower courts – Misreading of evidence and failure to address contradictions necessitated intervention [Paras 15-17].

Final Order – Conviction Reversed – Accused Acquitted – Revision allowed – Petitioner acquitted and released from bail bond – Trial Court directed to comply and destroy seized material after limitation period for SLP [Paras 18-23].

Criminal Law - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Inherent Powers under Section 482 CrPC – Alternative Remedy Available – The applicant sought quashing of proceedings under Section 406 IPC – Held: In view of recent Supreme Court decisions, inherent jurisdiction should not be exercised when efficacious statutory remedy exists – Application under Section 482 CrPC not maintainable when revision remedy available – Dismissed with liberty to approach revisional court [Paras 1-6].

Principle of Law – Inherent Jurisdiction Should Not Circumvent Statutory Remedy – Referring to judgments in Vipin Sahni v. CBI and Mohit alias Sonu v. State of U.P., the Court reiterated that Section 482 jurisdiction must be invoked sparingly and only in exceptional cases – Present case showed no extreme or unavoidable circumstance warranting intervention [Paras 3-6].

Relief to Applicant – Age and Warrant Consideration – Applicant aged 92 years – Non-bailable warrant issued – Court directed that if revision is filed within 10 days, no coercive action be taken and bail application be considered promptly in accordance with law [Para 8].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Revision Permitted – Application under Section 482 CrPC dismissed as not maintainable – Liberty granted to file revision within ten days – Revisional court directed to decide the matter on merits within six weeks of filing [Paras 7-9].

Arbitration Appeal – Improper Constitution of Arbitral Tribunal – Arbitrator Lacked Jurisdiction – Fresh Commencement Required – After the initial award was set aside, appellants re-approached the same arbitrator without issuing notice under Section 21 or mutual agreement of parties – Held: Arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to recommence proceedings; Single Judge rightly held the award invalid due to defective constitution of the tribunal [Paras 13-29].

Commencement of Arbitration – Section 21 of the Arbitration Act – Notice Requirement Mandatory – No Request Served – Despite Court permitting fresh arbitration, appellants failed to serve Section 21 notice – Held: Substantial compliance absent; failure vitiated the entire arbitral proceedings – Award correctly set aside [Paras 22-28].

Contract Law – Memorandum of Understanding – Not a Concluded Contract – Directions Not Capable of Execution – The MoU lacked clarity on redevelopment terms and depended on uncertain tenant consents – Held: Absence of definitive agreement on demolition vs additional floors and tenant consent obligations meant the MoU was not enforceable – Arbitrator’s award directing specific performance was based on incomplete reading of the agreement [Paras 30-33].

Judicial Review under Section 34 – Arbitrator Ignored Vital Evidence – Perversity of Award – Arbitrator excluded critical clauses and proceeded as if MoU was a binding sale deed – Held: Such exclusion rendered the award perverse; Single Judge acted within Section 34 jurisdiction to set it aside [Paras 32-35].

Final Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Award Held Invalid – No Interference Warranted – The Division Bench confirmed Single Judge’s order setting aside arbitral award; appellants failed to establish jurisdictional or substantive error in findings – Held: No perversity or jurisdictional overreach found in Single Judge’s decision [Paras 35-36].

Criminal Law - Speedy Trial – Senior Citizen Complainant – Section 528 BNSS – Trial Court’s Leniency Towards Accused Decried – Petition Allowed – FIR registered on 31.03.2021 for offences under IPC and IT Act—challan filed 30.09.2021—trial delayed with only two witnesses examined in four years—accused repeatedly absent, granted numerous exemptions (30 to one accused, 10 to another), only bailable warrants issued—High Court held such leniency impermissible in serious crimes—reaffirmed Article 21 right to speedy trial citing Kartar Singh and Abdul Rehman Antulay—Directed trial court to conclude proceedings within eight months—District & Sessions Judge to convene meeting advising judicial officers against casual approach, especially in senior citizens’ cases [Paras 5–12].

Writ Petition – Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Section 230 Rajasthan Tenancy Act – Section 2(2) Hindu Succession Act – Maintainability of ST daughter’s suit for declaration of khatedari rights – Board’s revisional order quashed – Petitioner (sole daughter of a Meena ST father) filed revenue suit for declaration after civil court directed her to seek khatedari declaration – Board allowed O7 R11 relying on Section 2(2) HSA to hold daughters of ST have no succession – Held: In view of Supreme Court in Tirth Kumar and Ram Charan, discrimination against ST daughters is impermissible and rejection at threshold was illegal – SDO’s rejection of O7 R11 restored and suit to be tried on merits with expeditious timeline – Writ allowed [Paras 2, 5-8].

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Section 2(2) – Applicability to Scheduled Tribes vis-à-vis equality – Supreme Court’s rulings in Tirth Kumar (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3810) and Ram Charan (CA No. 9537/2025) – Court reiterates that while HSA is inapplicable to STs per S.2(2), exclusionary customs must be proved and in their absence denial of a daughter’s share violates Articles 14 & 15 – Reliance on S.2(2) to non-suit an ST daughter at the threshold is unsustainable – Board’s order set aside [Paras 6-7, 16-18].

Customary Law – Burden of proof – Where Hindu law is inapplicable by virtue of Section 2(2) HSA, succession among tribals turns on proved custom – Courts cannot presume an exclusionary (patriarchal) custom – In absence of proof of custom excluding female succession, equality principle controls – Outcome: Plaintiff’s claim is maintainable and must be adjudicated on evidence [Para 6].

Procedure – Prior civil suit for cancellation of gift and liberty to seek revenue declaration – Petitioner correctly approached SDO for declaration of khatedari rights – Order 7 Rule 11 cannot be invoked to decide disputed rights or to foreclose claims on a debatable legal position – Direction issued to decide the pending 2018 suit expeditiously, preferably within two years, uninfluenced by observations – O7 R11 application rejected [Paras 2, 5, 8].

Constitutional Law – Articles 14, 15(1), 15(3), 16, 21 & 51-A – Equality and non-discrimination for tribal women – Court echoes and builds on Supreme Court’s recommendation in Kamla Neti urging Union of India to revisit Section 2(2) HSA to secure parity in intestate succession for female tribals – Observation made as a way forward and not as a binding direction on merits of the suit [Paras 10-18].