Review Jurisdiction – Scope and Limitations – Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC – Review petition filed seeking review of order dropping contempt proceedings – Held: Review jurisdiction is extremely limited and can be exercised only on discovery of new and important matter, error apparent on face of record, or other sufficient reason – Review cannot be treated as an appeal in disguise or for re-argument of issues already decided [Paras 13–15, 17].

Error Apparent on Face of Record – Meaning – Error must be self-evident, glaring, and apparent without elaborate argument – Mere dissatisfaction with reasoning or conclusions of Court does not constitute error apparent – Petitioner failed to demonstrate any such error warranting review [Paras 13–14].

Contempt Proceedings – Compliance with Court Directions – Wilful Disobedience – Earlier contempt petition dismissed after Court found that Opposite Parties had taken bona fide steps to comply with writ directions – Engagement through contractor offered pursuant to Court’s directions – Held: No wilful or deliberate disobedience of Court order established so as to attract contempt jurisdiction [Paras 9–11].

Service Jurisprudence – No Vested Right to Appointment – Direction in writ petition to consider engagement on contractual basis did not confer enforceable right to appointment – MCL having no provision for contractual appointment of Electrician, engagement through contractor could not be said to be non-compliance – Claim based on select list of 1996 held devoid of legal basis [Paras 4, 7–8].

Finality of Litigation – Effect of Supreme Court Order – Any right claimed by petitioner stood extinguished by order of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 27.01.2011 in SLP(C) No.14784 of 2008 setting aside earlier favourable order – Subsequent attempts to reopen settled issues deprecated – Review jurisdiction cannot be invoked to unsettle finality of judicial decisions [Para 16].

Equitable Observation – Opportunity through Contractor – While declining review, Court observed that Opposite Parties may once again extend offer of engagement through third party contractor – Petitioner given liberty to accept or refuse such offer within stipulated time – Such observation not conferring enforceable legal right [Para 18].

Decision: Review Petition disposed of – No ground made out for exercise of review jurisdiction – Order dated 23.02.2024 in CONTC No.3931 of 2023 upheld – No interference warranted.

Criminal Law – Murder of Minor – Circumstantial Evidence – Last Seen Theory – Appellant convicted for murder of 10-year-old boy and for causing disappearance of evidence – Child last seen alive in company of appellant who took him on cycle on pretext of showing exhibition – Deceased later found dead near canal in another district – Medical evidence proved death by strangulation – Chain of circumstances complete and consistent only with guilt of appellant – Conviction upheld [Paras 27–33].

Evidence – Child Witness – Credibility – Deceased last seen with appellant by his younger brother aged about 7 years at time of deposition – Trial Court satisfied about child’s competency – Testimony corroborated by independent witnesses from neighbourhood and other places – Held: Evidence of child witness reliable and admissible when corroborated [Paras 13–16].

Evidence – Last Seen Together – Independent Witnesses – Appellant seen with deceased by neighbour tailor, at railway station and later at village in Sultanpur late night – Witnesses independent and having no animus – Absence of Test Identification Parade immaterial as accused well known to witnesses – Held: Last seen circumstance firmly established [Paras 16–19].

Circumstantial Evidence – Motive – Importance – Appellant had monetary dispute with mother of deceased – Though motive alone not decisive, existence of motive lends support to prosecution case – Absence of recovery not fatal when medical and circumstantial evidence conclusive [Paras 15, 29–31].

Medical Evidence – Cause of Death – Strangulation – Post-mortem proved death due to asphyxia caused by compression of neck – Injuries consistent with manual strangulation – Time of death matching prosecution timeline – Medical evidence corroborated ocular and circumstantial evidence [Paras 7, 25–26].

Criminal Trial – Appreciation of Evidence – Five Golden Principles – Prosecution proved complete chain of circumstances excluding every hypothesis of innocence – No perversity or illegality in findings of Trial Court – Held: Conviction justified [Paras 27–33].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302 and 201 IPC affirmed – Appellant directed to surrender to serve remaining sentence.

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Bail – Section 43D(5) – Statutory Embargo – Appeal under Section 21(4) NIA Act against rejection of bail – Accused alleged to be member of proscribed terrorist organisation Islamic State – Involvement in radicalisation, conspiracy, reconnaissance, arson and terror funding through cryptocurrency – Held: When Court finds reasonable grounds for believing that accusations are prima facie true, statutory bar under Section 43D(5) squarely applies – Bail cannot be granted [Paras 9–11].

Terrorist Activities – Prima Facie Case – Evidentiary Material at Bail Stage – Material on record including voluntary statement, seizure of mobile phone, digital evidence, FSL report and cryptocurrency transactions considered – Images of sensitive locations, arson-related material and news clippings recovered – Evidence showing receipt and transfer of terror funds through crypto wallets – Held: Cumulative material establishes prima facie involvement in terrorist activities and conspiracy – Trial Court justified in rejecting bail [Paras 3–5, 9–11].

Criminal Conspiracy and Support to Terrorist Organisation – Sections 16, 17, 18, 20, 38, 39 & 40 UAPA – Appellant alleged to have facilitated terror funding, shared crypto wallet details, converted funds into cash and assisted co-accused – Participation in reconnaissance and arson held to be acts furthering objectives of terrorist organisation – Contentions that ingredients of Section 15 UAPA not made out rejected – Prima facie satisfaction sufficient at bail stage [Paras 6, 9–11].

Bail Jurisdiction – Scope of Appellate Interference – Appellate Court to examine whether Trial Court’s view is perverse or ignores material on record – Trial Court discussed evidence in detail and recorded reasons for prima facie satisfaction – No ground made out for interference with bail rejection order [Paras 11–13].

Reliance on Supreme Court Precedents – Arrest and Procedural Safeguards – Reliance placed on Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India and Ram Kishor Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement – Held: Observations regarding procedural safeguards do not dilute statutory bar under Section 43D(5) UAPA in presence of prima facie material – Bail rightly declined [Para 12].

Decision: Criminal Appeal dismissed – Order dated 20.05.2025 rejecting bail upheld – Appellant not entitled to enlargement on bail.

Pre-emption – Tenant’s Right – Municipal Area – Extinguishment of Right – Sale of co-sharer’s land effected after inclusion of village within municipal limits – Held: Right of pre-emption stood extinguished – Suit for pre-emption not maintainable [Paras 8].

Tenancy – Proof – Gair Maurusi Entry – Absence of Rent – Revenue records consistently showed plaintiff in possession as gair maurusi with entry “bila lagan bawaja tameer makaan” – No entry of rent, no lease deed, no pleadings or proof regarding creation of tenancy – Held: Possession simpliciter or gair maurusi entry without rent does not establish tenancy – Tenancy being bilateral relationship cannot be inferred merely from possession [Paras 10.1–10.2, 13].

Pleadings and Evidence – Beyond Pleadings – Plaintiff attempted to improve case during evidence by alleging tenancy under Gram Panchayat at nominal rent – Such plea neither pleaded nor supported by documents – Held: Evidence beyond pleadings cannot be considered – No amount of evidence can substitute absence of pleadings [Paras 10.2].

Earlier Judgments – Binding Effect – Parties Not Same – Earlier civil judgment relied upon by plaintiff did not bind defendants who were not parties thereto – Subsequent suit dismissal did not adjudicate nature of possession – Held: Earlier judgments do not conclusively prove tenancy [Paras 10.3, 13].

Second Appeal – Scope – Section 100 CPC – Findings of Fact – First Appellate Court being final court of facts reversed trial court’s finding on tenancy after detailed re-appreciation of evidence – Findings neither perverse nor illegal – Held: No substantial question of law arises – Interference declined [Paras 13–14].

Possession – Protection – Due Process of Law – Though tenancy not proved, plaintiff found to be in settled possession – Held: Plaintiff cannot be dispossessed except in accordance with law [Paras 8, 15].

Contempt Petition – Not Pressed – COCP dismissed as not pressed [Para 16].

Decision: RSA dismissed – Finding affirmed that plaintiff is not proved to be tenant though in possession – Protection against dispossession except by due process upheld – COCP No. 3975 of 2018 disposed of as not pressed.

Motor Accident Compensation – Review of Appellate Judgment – Error Apparent on Face of Record – Review sought of judgment dated 27.07.2017 enhancing compensation marginally – Material evidence regarding employment and income of deceased driver overlooked by Tribunal as well as appellate court – Inquest report and salary certificate established regular government employment – Held: Non-consideration of material evidence constitutes error apparent warranting review [Paras 21–22, 25].

Review Jurisdiction – Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC – Scope – Review not an appeal in disguise – Permissible where manifest error, misapplication of law or overlooking of vital evidence results in miscarriage of justice – Doctrine of actus curiae neminem gravabit applied – Review justified to correct palpable injustice in award of compensation [Paras 14–17, 22].

Additional Evidence – Order XLI Rule 27 CPC – Impermissibility at Review Stage – Application to receive additional evidence after disposal of appeal and while seeking review held impermissible – Additional evidence cannot be the foundation for reopening a concluded appeal – Application dismissed [Paras 10–11].

Enhancement of Claim Amount – Redundancy at Review Stage – Claimants sought enhancement of claim from Rs.15,00,000/- to Rs.26,53,560/- after disposal of appeal – Held: Tribunal/Court empowered to award just compensation even beyond claim – Separate application for enhancement at review stage unnecessary and not maintainable – Application dismissed [Paras 12–13].

Assessment of Income – Government Employee – Salary Certificate and Oral Evidence – Deceased proved to be Government driver with net income of Rs.6,335/- per month – Wife competent witness to speak about earnings – Absence of effective cross-examination – Income accepted with addition of 30% future prospects as per Pranay Sethi [Paras 18–20, 25].

Future Prospects – Multiplier – Standardisation by Supreme Court – Applied principles laid down in Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi – Multiplier of 14 applied for age group 41–45 – Deduction of 1/3rd for personal expenses – Loss of dependency recalculated accordingly [Paras 23–25].

Consortium – Spousal and Parental Consortium – Compensation for consortium awarded to wife and children at Rs.40,000/- each following Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram – Conventional heads applied uniformly [Paras 23, 26].

Just Compensation – Duty of Court – Court emphasised that technicalities should not defeat just compensation – Reliance on Nagappa and Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh – Award must be just, fair and reasonable even if it exceeds original claim [Paras 24–25].

Decision: Review Application allowed – Judgment dated 27.07.2017 modified – Compensation enhanced from Rs.2,30,200/- to Rs.11,52,432/- with interest @ 6% per annum from date of petition – Respondent–Insurance Company directed to satisfy award – Apportionment ordered – Applications for additional evidence and enhancement dismissed – No order as to costs.

Civil Law – Advocate Commissioner’s Report – Evidentiary Value – Application under Section 151 CPC to strike down commissioner’s report – Held: Commissioner’s report is only a piece of evidence and an aid to the Court – It cannot be struck down merely on allegations of collusion or misconduct unless proved by cogent evidence – Objections to report must be examined during trial through evidence and cross-examination [Paras 8, 27–34].

Order XXVI Rule 10 CPC – Scope – Commissioner’s report forms part of record and is non-adjudicatory in nature – Court may accept, reject, vary or order further inquiry – Report does not bind the Court and is subject to scrutiny along with other evidence – Law reiterated [Paras 27–30].

Article 227 – Supervisory Jurisdiction – Interference with Interlocutory Orders – High Court will not interfere unless there is patent illegality, jurisdictional error or perversity – Order refusing to strike down commissioner’s report based on settled principles does not warrant interference [Paras 34–36].

Artificial Intelligence in Judicial Process – Use of AI-Generated Citations – Trial Court relied on non-existent rulings generated by AI tools – Judicial Officer candidly reported bona fide mistake and lack of intent – Held: Mere reference to non-existent citations does not vitiate an order if the correct principles of law are applied and conclusions are otherwise legally sound [Paras 13–15, 25–26, 35–36].

Artificial Intelligence – Cautionary Guidelines – AI may assist in research and organization but lacks judicial reasoning – Courts and advocates must independently verify citations and authorities from authentic sources – Reliance on unverified AI-generated material may undermine integrity of judicial process – Emphasised [Paras 15–24].

Commissioner’s Report – Allegations of Collusion – Burden of Proof – Mere assertions of collusion or deviation from High Court directions insufficient – Such allegations must be established by clear evidence – Appropriate stage for examination is during trial, not at interlocutory stage [Paras 8, 33–34].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition dismissed – Impugned order dated 19.08.2025 upheld – No illegality or jurisdictional error found – No order as to costs – Pending interlocutory applications closed [Paras 36–37].

Civil Procedure – Temporary Injunction – Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC – Scope of Appellate Interference – Appellate court can interfere only when discretion exercised by trial court is arbitrary, capricious, perverse or contrary to settled principles – If the view taken by trial court is a possible view, appellate court cannot substitute its own view [Paras 66–68, 75].

Contract – Memorandum of Understanding for Development of Immovable Property – MOU not signed by all co-owners – No power of attorney in favour of signatory co-owner – Held: MOU not binding or enforceable against non-signatory owners – No prima facie enforceable right created in favour of builder [Paras 16–17, 26–27, 69].

Stamp Act & Registration Act – Unstamped and Unregistered MOU – Clauses creating ownership rights in immovable property – MOU providing for transfer of 42% ownership in land and superstructure – Held: Document compulsorily registrable and chargeable with stamp duty – Unstamped and unregistered MOU inadmissible in evidence and incapable of conferring legal rights unless defect cured [Paras 18–19, 39–46, 70].

Specific Relief – Suit for Permanent Injunction – Absence of Prayer for Specific Performance or Declaration – Plaintiff seeking to restrain true owners from dealing with property – Held: Suit for injunction simpliciter not maintainable when equally efficacious remedy of specific performance available – Bar under Section 41(h) of Specific Relief Act attracted [Paras 47–51, 72].

Possession – Builder Claiming Possession under MOU – Clause showing possession as mere licence for construction – No transfer of possession or interest – Held: Builder not in settled or lawful possession – Injunction cannot be granted against true owners [Paras 19, 52–54, 71].

Arbitration Clause – Effect on Civil Court Jurisdiction – Mere existence of arbitration clause does not bar civil suit – No application under Section 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act filed – Parties waived arbitration – Trial court’s finding on lack of jurisdiction held erroneous but not affecting final outcome [Paras 55–61, 74].

Equitable Relief – Injunction – Discretionary Nature – Plaintiff capable of being compensated by damages – MOU containing penal clauses for monetary compensation – Held: No irreparable injury made out – Balance of convenience not in favour of plaintiffs [Paras 64–65, 75].

Decision: Appeal dismissed with costs – Order rejecting ad-interim injunction affirmed – Interim status quo order vacated – Trial court directed to decide suit expeditiously – Observations confined to appeal and not to prejudice trial [Paras 76–79].

Specific Performance – Proof of Agreement to Sell – Suspicious Circumstances – Plaintiff relied upon two Agreements to Sell dated 21.11.2005 and 16.12.2005 for same property, same parties, same consideration – No plausible explanation for execution of two agreements – Explanation that first was handwritten and second typed found unconvincing – Held: Multiple unexplained agreements for same transaction cast serious doubt on genuineness of contract [Paras 12].

Agreement on Pre-Signed / Blank Papers – Evidentiary Inference – Typed Agreement dated 16.12.2005 showed abnormal narrow gaps in last lines – Thumb impressions only on last page – Admissions by plaintiff that signatures were obtained at village Nihalpura, Rajasthan and attestation done later at Gurgaon – Stamp papers purchased by plaintiff – Held: Strong inference that thumb impressions were obtained on blank papers and agreement typed subsequently – Agreement surrounded by suspicious circumstances [Paras 13–15].

Admissions in Evidence Contradicting Pleadings – Plaintiff denied in replication that agreement was executed at Nihalpura – In cross-examination admitted execution/signatures obtained at Nihalpura and attestation elsewhere – Held: Plaintiff took false stand in pleadings – Such inconsistencies materially affect credibility and proof of contract [Paras 14, 17].

Sale Consideration – Contradictions between Agreement and Sale Deed – Agreement mentioned total consideration of ₹2,00,000/- – Sale Deed prepared by plaintiff mentioned ₹1,50,000/- as full consideration – No pleading or proof as to payment of balance ₹50,000/- – Stamp papers purchased and Sale Deed prepared prior to target date without explanation – Held: Serious discrepancies go to root of transaction and render agreement unreliable [Paras 15, 18].

Readiness and Willingness – Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act – Mere affidavits of attendance before Sub-Registrar insufficient – Plaintiff failed to prove availability of balance consideration – Failed to plead or prove when and how remaining amount was paid – Held: Mandatory requirement of readiness and willingness not satisfied [Para 18].

Burden of Proof – Fraud and Execution – Onus lies first on plaintiff to prove execution of agreement beyond doubt – Only thereafter burden shifts to defendant to prove fraud – Trial Court correctly applied burden of proof – First Appellate Court wrongly shifted burden on defendant merely on admission of thumb impressions [Paras 17, 19].

First Appellate Court – Duty under Order XLI Rule 31 CPC – Judgment of First Appellate Court reversed detailed trial court findings without framing points for determination or discussing evidence – Cryptic reasoning ignoring material discrepancies and trial court analysis – Held: Judgment suffers from patent illegality and non-compliance with Order XLI Rule 31 CPC [Paras 19–21].

Specific Performance – Discretionary Relief – Relief cannot be granted on shaky, inconsistent and suspicious evidence – Courts must examine intention of vendor from attendant circumstances – Grant of specific performance by First Appellate Court held perverse and unsustainable [Paras 15, 22–23].

Second Appeal – Section 100 CPC – Interference Justified – Though scope is limited, interference warranted where findings are perverse, based on no evidence, or ignore mandatory legal requirements – Present case falls within exception – High Court entitled to restore trial court decree [Para 23].

Decision: Regular Second Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree dated 24.12.2011 of First Appellate Court set aside – Judgment and decree dated 03.12.2010 of Trial Court restored – Suit for specific performance dismissed, decree for recovery of ₹50,000/- upheld.

Education Law – Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan – Parent Teachers Association – Occupation of School Premises – Plying of Buses – Learned Single Judge permitted Parent Teachers Associations / Parents Welfare Associations to continue occupation of school premises and operate transport facilities – Directions issued without reference to statutory provisions – Appellate Court held that judgment suffered from non-consideration of Article 147 of KVS Education Code governing constitution, powers and functions of PTA – Impugned judgment set aside and matters remanded for fresh consideration [Paras 1, 12–14].

Education Law – Statutory Framework – Article 147 of KVS Education Code – PTA to consist of parents and all teaching staff with Principal as ex officio Chairman – PTA prohibited from collecting or maintaining funds and limited to objectives enumerated in Code – Prima facie finding that petitioner Associations were not constituted in accordance with Article 147 and activities undertaken were beyond statutory scope – However, appellate court refrained from final adjudication on merits [Paras 12–13].

Administrative Law – Exercise of Jurisdiction – Requirement to Consider Statutory Provisions – Single Judge disposed of writ petitions without reference to governing statutory provisions – Held that adjudication ignoring relevant statutory framework is unsustainable – Proper course is remand for reconsideration in accordance with law [Paras 12, 14].

Education – Student Welfare and Transport Facilities – Balancing statutory compliance with student convenience – Court clarified that no opinion expressed on factual or legal contentions – Liberty granted to writ petitioners to seek interim relief before Single Judge – Status quo regarding plying of buses and unboarding of students directed to be maintained for ten days to enable parties to seek appropriate interim orders [Paras 14–15].

Decision: Writ Appeals allowed – Common judgment dated 25.07.2025 set aside – W.P.(C) Nos. 25921 of 2018, 26907 of 2018 and 25995 of 2018 remanded to the learned Single Judge for fresh consideration in the light of Article 147 of the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Education Code and other relevant statutory provisions – Status quo directed to be maintained for ten days.