Matrimonial Law  – Domestic Violence Act – Section 12, 19 – Illegal Possession – Police Excess – Alternative Accommodation – The High Court considered multiple connected cases concerning domestic violence, forcible possession, and right to residence under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – The Court held that forcible possession through police assistance without court order is impermissible – The wife’s right to reside in the shared household was subject to balance of rights between in-laws and aggrieved person – Given subsistence of prior marriage of the husband rendering the present marriage void under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the Court upheld lower court orders directing provision of equivalent alternative accommodation under Section 19(1)(f) DV Act while condemning the illegal police action in dispossession of in-laws – The Criminal Revision was dismissed, writ petitions partially allowed, and contempt application disposed of [Paras 54-66, 69-72].

Right of Residence – Non-absolute Right – Shared Household – Section 19 DV Act – Right to residence in a shared household is not absolute and must be balanced with the rights of elderly in-laws – The Court upheld the alternative accommodation arrangement for the aggrieved person while acknowledging the right of peaceful cohabitation for in-laws – Orders of CJM and Appellate Court affirmed [Paras 52-66].

Void Marriage – Section 5(i), 11 of Hindu Marriage Act – Marriage void ab initio where husband had subsisting prior marriage – Wife’s status under DV Act recognised under relationship in the nature of marriage but substantive marital rights were vitiated due to contravention of Section 5(i) Hindu Marriage Act – Consequences of void marriage addressed in residence rights under Section 19 DV Act [Paras 55-60].

Illegal Use of Police Force – Absence of Judicial Authorization – The Court deprecated the police action in forcibly granting possession without court order – Observed police acted beyond authority in forcibly dispossessing other family members – Reaffirmed individual’s right to approach courts for such relief, not through police intervention [Paras 61-63, 69-70].

Maintainability of Writ Petition – Article 226 – Challenge to police atrocities – Writ petitions under Article 226 maintainable where allegations concern misuse of police power – Despite remedies under CrPC, Constitutional Court can intervene in cases of police excess and violation of civil liberties [Paras 67-70].

Criminal Revision – Residence Order – Alternative Accommodation Upheld – Criminal Revision dismissed as no irregularity found in concurrent orders directing wife to vacate shared household and reside in alternate rented accommodation arranged by husband [Paras 65-66].

Decision – Criminal Revision dismissed – Writ Petitions allowed in part – Orders of alternative accommodation affirmed – Directions issued regarding police overreach – Contempt petition disposed of without further directions [Paras 66, 71-72].

NDPS Act – Successive Bail – No Change in Circumstances – Application Dismissed – The applicant moved a second regular bail application under Section 483 BNSS – The court found no change in circumstances since rejection of prior bail – Held: Successive bail not maintainable in absence of fresh grounds; rejection sustained [Paras 1.0, 6.0, 10.0].

NDPS Act – Section 37 – Applicability of Rigorous Bail Conditions – Commercial Quantity – Court reiterated that commercial quantity of Mephedrone was recovered and hence rigors of Section 37 applied – Held: Applicant failed to satisfy dual conditions of Section 37(1)(b) – Not entitled to bail [Paras 7.1–7.5, 8.0–8.6].

Parity in Bail – Not Applicable – Distinguishable Role from Co-Accused – Bail of Co-Accused Ronak Not a Ground – Ronak’s case lacked conscious possession and material link – Here, conscious possession, CDR, and money trail established against applicant – Held: No parity can be claimed [Para 7.3].

Section 29 NDPS Act – Criminal Conspiracy – Supply Chain Established – CDR Records, Bank Transactions and Co-Accused Statements Indicate Nexus – Held: Applicant was active participant in drug supply chain; Section 29 charges sustainable [Paras 7.1–7.2, 7.4–7.6].

Evidence Appreciation at Bail Stage – Premature – Section 52A Compliance a Trial Matter – The applicant’s objection regarding procedural lapses in sampling and evidence was rejected – Held: Evidence appreciation is beyond scope at bail stage; trial court to determine [Paras 9.1, 9.6].

Final Decision – Bail Rejected – Trial to Be Expedited – Court directed trial court to conclude proceedings within 10 weeks and appoint amicus if needed – Held: Application devoid of merits; liberty of accused subordinate to societal interest in drug trafficking matters [Paras 10.0–11.0].

Criminal Law - Acquittal of Accused – Allegations of Sexual Assault under Section 8 POCSO Act and Sections 451, 506 IPC – Acquittal Upheld - The appeal by the State challenged the judgment acquitting the respondent accused of charges of sexual assault and house trespass based on contradictions in prosecutrix’s statements – The High Court, after reappreciating the evidence, affirmed the trial court’s finding that the prosecutrix’s inconsistent versions, lack of corroboration, and absence of medical evidence rendered the prosecution case unreliable – Held: Trial court’s judgment justified; State’s appeal dismissed [Paras 1-43].

Inconsistent Testimony – Variations in Statements of Prosecutrix – Evidence Found Unreliable - The Court found material inconsistencies between the prosecutrix’s FIR statement, Section 164 CrPC statement, and court testimony regarding the nature of assault and sequence of events – Held: Unexplained contradictions raised serious doubt about veracity of allegations; benefit of doubt rightly granted to accused [Paras 22-26, 34].

Lack of Medical and Corroborative Evidence – No Injuries Found – Prosecution Version Weakened - Absence of external or internal injuries on prosecutrix and absence of injuries on accused contradicted claims of physical assault and struggle – MLC records did not support prosecution’s case – Held: Lack of corroborative evidence a significant factor in affirming acquittal [Paras 16, 29-30].

House Trespass Not Established – Section 451 IPC Not Attracted – Voluntary Opening of Door by Prosecutrix - The Court noted that the prosecutrix herself opened the door to the accused and thus the offence of house trespass was not made out – Held: Essential ingredients of Section 451 IPC absent; acquittal correct [Paras 36].

Criminal Intimidation – Section 506 IPC – Intention to Cause Alarm Not Proved – The alleged threats were not proven to be intended to cause alarm or coerce prosecutrix - Held: Mere use of threats without intention to cause alarm insufficient to attract Section 506 IPC [Paras 37-42].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Acquittal Confirmed – No Substantial Error Found - The High Court upheld the trial court’s conclusion that prosecution failed to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt – Held: State’s appeal devoid of merit and dismissed [Para 43].

Taxation Law – Recovery of Tax - GST Liability – Liability of Retired Partner – Section 90 of CGST Act – Petition Dismissed - The petitioner challenged a demand of Rs. 37,84,228/- and land attachment initiated against him under GST laws, arguing he had retired from the partnership firm on 20.04.2021 and was no longer responsible – The Court held that under Section 90 of the CGST Act, a partner remains jointly and severally liable until written intimation of retirement is furnished to the Commissioner – No timely intimation was made – Petitioner's continued reflection as active partner in GST records justified proceedings against him [Paras 5, 10-14].

Alternative Remedy – Maintainability of Writ – Availability of Statutory Appeal under Section 107 of PGST Act – Writ Not Entertained – The Court observed that petitioner had an efficacious remedy under Section 107 of the PGST Act to challenge the assessment and recovery proceedings – Reiterated that writ jurisdiction should not be invoked where statutory remedies exist unless exceptional circumstances are shown – No such circumstances made out [Para 5].

Land Attachment – Validity of Red Entry – Recovery Action Under Section 79 of PGST Act – Upheld – Petitioner's claim that he learned of land attachment only later and did not consent to it was held irrelevant in light of non-compliance with statutory requirements – The Department’s actions in seeking red entry and initiating recovery under DRC-09 and related provisions were found lawful [Paras 3, 6, 8].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Liberty Granted – The writ petition was dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail alternative remedies in accordance with law [Para 16].

Real Estate Project – Right to Withdraw – Section 18 of RERA – Limited Timeframe for Exercise of Right – The Court held that though Section 18 of RERA confers an unqualified right on allottees to withdraw when there is a delay in possession, this right cannot be exercised indefinitely – Where possession is validly offered along with Occupation Certificate (OC), the allottee must make a decision within two months – Failure to do so disentitles the allottee from claiming prolonged interest on refund – Held: Allottees entitled to refund with interest only up to two months from the offer of possession, beyond which the developer is not liable [Paras 18-32, 35-36].

Defective Title Claims – Section 18(2) of RERA – Separate Cause of Action – The Court held that claims regarding defective title of land fall exclusively under Section 18(2) of RERA and must be claimed separately – Such grievances cannot be a ground to indefinitely postpone decision to withdraw under Section 18(1) – Allottees are at liberty to initiate separate proceedings for compensation on the ground of defective title without affecting their limited right to refund [Paras 24-26, 33-34, 36].

Offer of Possession – Validity Despite Litigation – Possession Offer is Valid with OC/CC – Court ruled that pending litigation over land title does not render the possession offer invalid if Occupation Certificate (OC) or Completion Certificate (CC) is obtained and there is no injunction – Statutory requirements are satisfied when the developer discloses litigation status as per Circular No. 28 of 2021 and no legal restraint exists on possession – Hence, possession offer cannot be questioned solely on the basis of litigation pendency [Paras 33-34].

Refund Period – Limitation on Interest Accrual – Developer’s Liability Limited – Bombay High Court held the developer’s liability to pay interest on refunded amounts ceases two months after possession offer with OC – Beyond this period, allottees cannot claim further interest even if they choose not to take possession, ensuring fairness to developers in delayed decisions by allottees [Paras 29-32, 35-36].

Decision – Appeals Partly Allowed – Tribunal’s Order Set Aside – The High Court partly allowed the appeals by quashing the Appellate Tribunal’s direction for prolonged interest and refund, directing refund with interest up to two months post OC offer – Liberty granted to allottees to pursue defective title claims under Section 18(2) separately – Charge on flats to continue till payment – No costs awarded [Paras 35-36].

Civil Law - Negligence – Electrocution Death – Damages - Liability under Fatal Accidents Act – Appeal Allowed – The appellants, legal heirs of deceased Naresh Kumar, sought damages for his death caused by electrocution from a live electric wire on a pole, alleging negligence on part of the electricity board in maintaining safety of electric lines – The Trial Court granted ₹2 lakhs as damages but the First Appellate Court reversed the decree citing lack of conclusive evidence and attributing contributory negligence to the deceased – The High Court, on appreciation of witness testimony, postmortem and viscera reports, held that death was due to electrocution caused by negligent maintenance of electric wires – The absence of burn marks was held not decisive against electrocution in light of medical jurisprudence – No contributory negligence was found on part of the deceased – Held: The electricity department is responsible to ensure public safety, and the First Appellate Court erred in reversing the decree – The judgment of the First Appellate Court is set aside and the Trial Court decree is restored, awarding compensation to the appellants [Paras 4-15].

Arbitration – Legal Heirs as Parties – Clause Permitting Continuation of Firm – Arbitration Agreement Extends – The partnership deed contained a clause (Clause 15) allowing continuation of business with legal heirs after a partner's death – Clause 16 permitted arbitration of disputes – Held: Legal heirs are entitled to invoke arbitration despite absence of reconstitution deed – Dispute maintainable under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act [Paras 3-5, 14, 33-35].

Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Rejection of Petition – No Grounds Made Out – Application Rightly Dismissed – Court found that none of the conditions under Order VII Rule 11 were satisfied – There was a valid cause of action and no legal bar to institution of proceedings – Allegations raised in arbitration petition were not inherently meritless – Commercial Court’s order upheld [Paras 6-7, 22-32].

Partnership Act – Dissolution Not Automatic on Death – Clause in Deed Overrides Section 42(c) – Partnership at Will – Deed explicitly stated that firm would not dissolve on a partner’s death and would continue with successors – Held: Such contractual stipulations prevail over Section 42(c) of the Indian Partnership Act [Paras 33-34].

Commercial Courts Act – Writ Petition Maintainable Despite Section 8 – Constitutional Jurisdiction Not Ousted – Section 8 bars revision/petition against interlocutory orders of Commercial Court – However, High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 227 is constitutional and not excluded by statutory bar – Court may interfere in rare and compelling circumstances [Paras 16-21].

Final Decision – No Interference Warranted – Writ Petition Dismissed – High Court declined to interfere with Commercial Court’s rejection of Order VII Rule 11 application – Matter directed to proceed under Section 9 of Arbitration Act [Paras 36-37].

Criminal Taxation Law - Habeas Corpus – Illegal Detention – Arrest Declared Illegal – Constitutional Safeguards Violated – In a petition under Article 226 seeking release of the detenue, the Court found that the Directorate General of GST Intelligence officials had kept the detenue in custody for over 30 hours without presenting him before a Magistrate and without serving grounds of arrest – The arrest was held to be in clear contravention of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution and also violated mandatory procedures under Sections 69 and 70 of the CGST Act – Held: The arrest was illegal and the detenue is entitled to release – Further, DGGI officials are to show cause why contempt proceedings should not be initiated for obstructing a Warrant Officer appointed by the Court [Paras 1-33].

Illegal Detention – Overnight Custody by DGGI – Violation of Articles 21 and 22 – Detention Unlawful – The detenue was kept in the GST zonal office overnight for more than 30 hours without production before Magistrate – Held: Detention amounts to violation of constitutional protections and is illegal – Consent under coercive circumstances is invalid – Arrest is deemed to have commenced with the unlawful restraint [Paras 13-20].

Section 69 CGST Act – Arrest Authorization Without Application of Mind – Arrest Vitiated – The Additional Director General merely endorsed the proposal for arrest forwarded via the E-office system without independent analysis or satisfaction – Held: Mechanical authorization without reasons to believe or application of mind violates the safeguards under Section 69 and Supreme Court rulings – Arrest declared illegal [Paras 21-25].

Grounds of Arrest – Delay in Communication – Arrest and Remand Vitiated – Although the detenue was restrained at 5:46 PM, grounds of arrest were communicated only at 8:40 PM – Held: Arrest becomes illegal when grounds are not promptly served at the moment of restraint – Subsequent remand proceedings also rendered invalid [Paras 26-29].

CCTV Surveillance – Non-Compliance with Supreme Court Guidelines – Inference of Malafide – Despite court direction, DGGI failed to produce CCTV footage and claimed cameras were dysfunctional – Held: Excuse rejected – Inference drawn that non-compliance was deliberate and intended to conceal illegality – Non-adherence to Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh binding directions [Para 12].

Obstruction of Warrant Officer – Prima Facie Contempt – DGGI Officials Misbehaved and Obstructed Judicial Function – The Court-appointed Warrant Officer was stopped from recording the detenue's statement and had official papers snatched – Held: Prima facie contempt made out – Officials directed to show cause – Law cannot be allowed to be subverted by such conduct [Paras 2.1, 9, 10, 33].

Detenue’s Rights During Interrogation – Statement Must Be Recorded During Office Hours and Under CCTV – The Court reiterated that summoned persons are entitled to legal safeguards during questioning – Held: DGGI must ensure statements are recorded in office hours, preferably under CCTV surveillance, and allow presence of counsel within visible range during investigation – Directions consistent with Mahesh Devchand Gala and Agarwal Foundries cases [Paras 31-32].

Decision – Arrest Held Unlawful – Detenue Entitled to Release – Fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22 were violated by illegal detention and arrest – Authorization under Section 69 was procedurally defective – Arrest and remand are declared null and void – Matter adjourned for final orders on release and contempt action [Paras 30-33].

Civil Law - Second Appeal – Challenge to Declaration and Possession Decree – Section 100 CPC – Second Appeal Dismissed – In a property dispute where the plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property through a registered sale deed under a Lucky Dip Scheme from defendants 1 and 2, the trial court and first appellate court concurrently decreed declaration of title and recovery of possession – The High Court held that concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed in the absence of a substantial question of law – Execution of sale deed, possession of property, and acts of defendants in forming a layout and appointing agents stood proved on record – Held: No interference warranted under Section 100 CPC, second appeal dismissed at admission stage [Paras 1-28].

Substantial Question of Law – Concurrent Findings – Scope of Interference – The High Court reiterated that second appeal lies only on a substantial question of law and courts should not reappreciate facts already concluded by lower courts – Findings based on proper appreciation of evidence are binding in second appeal – Mere alternative view or factual dispute does not constitute a substantial question of law [Paras 15-17].

Execution of Sale Deed – Validity – Payment of Consideration – Sale Cannot Be Invalidated – The court emphasized that even in cases where full sale consideration is disputed, the registered sale deed passes valid title unless legally set aside – Law settled that non-payment of full consideration does not invalidate a registered sale transaction [Para 25].

Title and Possession – Right to Recovery of Possession – Registered Sale Deed Upheld – The plaintiff’s claim of ownership and right to possession was upheld on the basis of registered sale deed, non-dispute of execution, and established possession prior to unlawful dispossession by defendants – Relief granted against all defendants including agents involved in the transaction [Paras 19-24].

Decision – Second Appeal Dismissed – The second appeal was dismissed confirming concurrent decrees of trial and appellate courts in favour of the plaintiff – No substantial question of law found – No costs awarded [Paras 26-28].