Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act – Protected Tenancy – Statutory Purchase – Sections 32G & 32M – Effect of Mutation Entries – Exclusive Title – Civil Court Jurisdiction – Plaintiff (sister) filed suit for partition in 2002 claiming suit property as joint family property inherited from parents who died in 1949 and 1978 – Evidence showed that defendant Krishnabai became protected tenant in 1957 and purchase was duly completed in 1961 after statutory inquiry, issuance of 32G order, fixation of purchase price, and issuance of sale certificate under 32M – Held: Once purchase under 32G/32M fructifies, title statutorily vests in tenant and property ceases to form part of estate of predecessors – Civil Court cannot ignore binding statutory orders – Concurrent findings contrary to statutory record unsustainable [Paras 5.1–5.4, 10–12, 15–16, 25–26].

Tenancy Law – Representative Capacity – Claim of Joint Family Cultivation – No Evidence – Plaintiff failed to prove that Krishnabai’s protected tenancy was in representative capacity for entire family – No evidence of joint cultivation, sharing of produce, or admission by tenant/landlord as required under Ramakant Ganesh Naik precedent – On contrary, evidence and revenue records (Exhs. 41–50) show exclusive cultivation by Krishnabai for decades – Held: Property not proved to be joint family property – Ratio of Ramakant Ganesh Naik inapplicable; reliance misconceived [Paras 12–15, 22–23].

Limitation – Partition Suit – Articles 65-B & 110 – Plaintiff silent from 1957 to 2002 – No steps to challenge mutation, 32G order, or 32M sale certificate despite public notices and statutory proceedings – First challenge raised only via suit in 2002, nearly 41 years after vesting of title – Held: Suit hopelessly barred; plea of exclusion within 12 years unproved – Mere assertion of proposal for partition unsupported by evidence – Plaintiff’s witness admitted complete absence of proof of joint possession – Limitation bars the suit [Paras 16–17, 19–24, 26].

Civil Court Jurisdiction – Sections 85 & 85-A, BT&AL Act – When Bar Applies – Findings of tenancy authorities under 32G/32M are binding – Civil Court cannot reopen or disregard statutory vesting – Trial Court ought to have declined jurisdiction or referred matter appropriately – Failure to consider statutory bar constitutes legal infirmity warranting interference in second appeal [Paras 6.4–6.6, 25–26].

Statutory Proceedings – Public Notice – Non-challenge – Plaintiff’s long silence – Sale certificate shows public notices, individual notices, and participation of interested persons – Plaintiff neither objected nor appealed under tenancy law – Challenge before SDO in 2002 stood rejected – Held: Plaintiff estopped from disputing statutory vesting of title in 1961 [Paras 18–21, 23].

Substantial Questions of Law – Answered in Appellant’s Favour – Courts below ignored binding statutory orders under 32G/32M and misapplied principles of joint family property and limitation – High Court sets aside both judgments [Paras 26–30].

Decision: Second Appeal allowed – Judgments dated 08.02.2006 and 21.01.2017 set aside – Regular Civil Suit No.50 of 2002 dismissed – Record to be returned to Trial Court after appeal period – Parties may act on server copy [Paras 27–30].

Criminal Law – Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – Last Seen – Extra-Judicial Confession – Strangulation – Delay/Withholding of Disclosure by Family Witnesses – Motive Absent – Sudden Provocation – Conviction of Ram Avtar Altered to Section 304 Part-II; Co-accused Visharad Acquitted – Last Seen Alone Insufficient [Paras 29–34, 45–51].

Circumstantial Evidence – Last Seen Together – Proof and Reliability – Evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-9 consistently established that appellants were last seen consuming liquor with deceased on the night before death – proximity of time (death discovered next morning) and absence of explanation by accused sustain last-seen theory – immaterial who first discovered body; distinction between ‘last seen’ and ‘first seen’ emphasized [Paras 29–30, 35–38].

Extra-Judicial Confession – Subsequent Disclosure by Son of Deceased – Acceptability – PW-9’s testimony explaining delay due to emotional turmoil (brother-in-law being culprit, father deceased) found natural and credible – confession made on morning after incident; later revealed in supplementary statement after postmortem clarified cause of death – remained unimpeached in cross-examination – held satisfactorily proved [Paras 31–34, 39–40].

Family Members as Witnesses – Alleged Interestedness – Credibility Upheld – PW-2, PW-3, PW-9 (sons of deceased) not discredited; their youth, emotional conflict and familial ties explained initial silence; no motive to falsely implicate appellants, especially son-in-law of deceased [Paras 22–23, 31–33].

Investigation – Allegations of IO Connivance – Rejected – Non-detaining of sons, absence of fingerprints on neck, and failure to trace informant ‘Sita’ do not vitiate prosecution – IO’s explanation on multiple women named Sita accepted – fingerprints on neck medically improbable – investigation found fair [Paras 37, 41–43].

Medical Evidence – Cause of Death – Strangulation Established – Post-mortem report and PW-4 conclusively show death due to asphyxia by manual strangulation – argument that open/closed eyes contradict strangulation rejected; common cultural practice explained [Paras 19, 23, 44].

Motive Absent – Consumption of Liquor Together – Possibility of Sudden Provocation – No motive proved; parties were drinking together regularly; death by manual strangulation without weapon – held consistent with sudden fight under intoxication rather than premeditated intent to kill [Paras 46–47].

Alteration of Conviction – Section 302 to Section 304 Part-II – Ram Avtar – Considering absence of motive, sudden provocation, manner of assault and long passage of time (24 years), conviction converted to Section 304 Part-II IPC – reliance placed on Dattatraya v. State of Maharashtra, (2024) 14 SCC 286 – sentence reduced to period undergone (~5 years) [Paras 46–48].

Acquittal – Co-Accused Visharad – Last Seen Alone Insufficient – No confession or incriminating circumstance against co-accused; PW-9’s confession only implicates Ram Avtar – last-seen alone insufficient for conviction under Sections 302/34 or 304 Part-II – conviction set aside and acquittal granted [Paras 49–51].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – Ram Avtar’s conviction altered to Section 304 Part-II IPC with sentence reduced to period already undergone – Visharad acquitted – Bail bonds discharged [Paras 48, 51–52].

Parole – Incapacitated Elderly Convict – Delhi Prison Rules 2018 – Clemency Delay – Premature Release under Rule 1246A – Humanitarian Relief – Home Confinement Directed Pending Decision on Premature Release; State Directed to Frame Rules for Such Situations [Paras 14–16, 21–25, 30–34].

Parole – Nature, Scope & Limits – Temporary Release Not a Right – Rules 1198, 1212 & 1212A, Delhi Prison Rules – Parole is a privilege facilitating social contact; not remission of sentence – Maximum permissible parole capped at 8 weeks + 8 weeks in emergent situations – Court cannot extend parole indefinitely under Article 226, as this would effectively rewrite statutory rules – Poonam Lata v. M.L. Wadhawan reiterated [Paras 16–19].

Elderly Bedridden Convict – Human Dignity – Inability to Surrender – Humanitarian Principles – Petitioner aged 81, bedridden, unable to move or return to jail – Court emphasises that conviction does not strip an inmate of dignity; prison system unable to provide round-the-clock assistance – Blind insistence on surrender would be inhumane [Paras 20, 23].

Rule 1246A – “Incapacitated Convict” – Premature Release – Feasibility to Be Explored – Rule 1246A (introduced in 2024) covers convicts aged 70+ unable to perform daily tasks and having served ≥50% of actual sentence – Petitioner is eligible – Authorities granted 4 weeks to evaluate case for premature release; however, interim custodial solution necessary because petitioner cannot surrender pending decision [Paras 11–12, 13.1–13.2, 21.1, 23].

Clemency Under Articles 72/161 – Mercy Petition Pending Since 2018 – Judicial Review of Delay – Court Declines to Intervene at This Stage – Though delay is reviewable per A.G. Perarivalan, High Court cannot exercise Article 142-type powers; clemency issue not raised by petitioner; Court declines to call for records or direct consideration of mercy plea at this stage [Paras 13.3–13.6, 22].

Home Confinement – Exceptional Measure for Terminally Ill / Incapacitated Convicts – Calcutta & Madras High Court Precedents – Citing Gautam Navlakha, In re: Overcrowding in Prisons (Calcutta HC), and M. Rajeshwari (Madras HC), Court notes precedent for substituting imprisonment with home confinement in extraordinary medical circumstances – Constitutes deprivation of liberty within supervised framework – Appropriate interim mechanism until premature release evaluation [Paras 13.7–13.8, 25–29].

Direction – Home Confinement Ordered Till Decision on Premature Release – Petitioner to remain confined at home under care of son; cannot leave home except for medical treatment – Personal bond of ₹10,000 with two sureties required – Jail Superintendent to supervise compliance [Para 30].

Direction to Authorities – Expeditious Decision on Premature Release – State directed to decide petitioner’s case under Rule 1246A within 4 weeks [Para 31].

Systemic Direction – Need for Amendments to Prison Rules – Court notes recurring situations where incapacitated convicts cannot surrender despite expiry of parole – Directs GNCTD to frame/amend rules to cover such exigencies, including prolonged medical incapacitation [Paras 32–34].

Amicus Appreciation – Court acknowledges assistance of amicus curiae; DHCLSC directed to pay fee as per rules [Paras 35–36].

Decision – Petition disposed of with directions for home confinement and expeditious consideration of premature release [Para 37].

Hindu Law – Private Debuttar – Building Plan Sanction – Shebaits’ Authority – No Statutory Requirement of Prior Court Permission – Municipality Cannot Demand Civil Court Order for Development of Debuttar Property – Impugned Refusal Quashed – Municipality Directed to Process Plan [Paras 29–37].

Hindu Religious Endowments – Private Debuttar – Nature of Shebaitship – Shebait not a “trustee” under the Indian Trusts Act – Savings clause in Section 1 excludes Debuttar properties – Section 34 inapplicable – Shebait possesses inherent managerial authority to develop property for benefit of the deity – No statutory mandate requiring prior permission of Civil Court for development of private Debuttar estate [Paras 28–31].

Municipal Law – Building Plan Sanction – Scope of Municipal Authority – Municipality cannot insist on production of civil court order as condition precedent for sanctioning building plan of Debuttar property – Function of Municipality is administrative and confined to verifying compliance with building regulations – Municipality cannot adjudicate Shebaitship disputes or validity of Arpannama/Rectification Deed [Paras 29–34].

Administrative Law – Mohinder Singh Gill principle – Authority cannot supplement or improve the impugned order with new reasons during litigation – Municipality’s attempt to add new objections during writ proceedings impermissible [Para 14].

Debuttar Property – Development vs. Alienation – Proposed construction held to be an act of preservation and beneficial utilization, not alienation – Consistent judicial view (Shakuntala Devi Dalmia; Kunal Kumar Adhikary; Risabh Ruia) followed – Court distinguishes precedents relied on by Municipality as inapplicable on facts [Paras 31–33, 35–36].

Shebaitship – Validity of Present Shebaits – Arpannama provides for succession by male heirs – Municipality not competent to question authority of Shebaits – No rival claimants shown – Shebaits’ Development Agreement validly executed for benefit of deity [Para 34].

Decision – Impugned notice quashed – Municipality directed to process the building plan strictly under applicable laws and to take a final decision within 8 weeks – Writ petition allowed [Para 36–37].

NDPS Act – Bail – Commercial Quantity – Grounds of Arrest – Compliance with Article 22(1) – Search at Night – Inventory/Sampling – Section 37 Rigour – Held: Grounds of arrest duly communicated prior to remand; seizure indicates commercial quantity (31.78 g MDMA); quantitative test delay immaterial; Section 37 bar applies – Bail rejected [Paras 12–18].

NDPS Act – Bail – Communication of Grounds of Arrest – Mandatory Constitutional Requirement – Compliance Established – Arrest Not Vitiated – Petitioner contended that he was taken into custody at night without being informed the grounds of arrest – Relying on Ahmed Mansoor, Vihaan Kumar and Mihir Rajesh Shah, Court reiterated constitutional mandate under Arts. 21 & 22(1) – Held, records show written grounds of arrest with petitioner’s signature/LTM furnished before production before Magistrate along with remand papers – Requirement under Mihir Rajesh Shah satisfied; arrest not illegal [Paras 7–14].

NDPS Act – Search Conducted After Sunset – Recording of Grounds of Belief – Compliance with Section 42 NDPS Act – Petitioner argued that search between 11:35 p.m. and 2:15 a.m. was illegal – Court held that mahazar contains recorded grounds of belief for conducting night search – Challenge unsustainable at bail stage [Para 15].

NDPS Act – Inventory and Sampling – Stage of Investigation – Non-Consideration at Bail Stage – Petitioner relied on Bharat Aambale and Nagaraj @ Wilson Garden Naga claiming inventory/sampling not done in his presence – Court held that no material produced regarding sampling process and investigation is ongoing; such objections cannot be adjudicated at bail stage [Para 15].

NDPS Act – Commercial Quantity – FSL Report Available – Quantitative Test Pending – Effect Under Rule 14 of NDPS Rules, 2022 – FSL report shows sample weight before test 31.78 g and positive for MDMA – Held, this constitutes commercial quantity – Delay in quantitative analysis does not dilute seizure or quantity at this stage and does not defeat Section 37 bar [Paras 16–17].

NDPS Act – Rigour of Section 37 – Reasonable Grounds Not Established – Bail Denied – Court held that quantity seized being commercial, Section 37(1)(b) applies – No material to conclude petitioner is not guilty or unlikely to re-offend; possibility of tampering with investigation or witnesses exists – Bail rejected [Para 17].

Bail – Seriousness of Offence – Punishment Extending up to 20 Years – Investigation in Progress – Nature of offence (commercial quantity MDMA) punishable with minimum 10 years and up to 20 years – Grant of bail would prejudice investigation – Bail rejected [Paras 17–18].

Decision: Criminal Petition dismissed – Bail refused [Para 18].

Trademark Infringement – Territorial Jurisdiction – Assessment of Damages – LC Report – Burden of Proof – Arbitrary Quantification – Delhi High Court partially sets aside decree on damages for lack of evidence; territorial jurisdiction upheld; matter remanded for fresh determination of damages/account of profits [Paras 35–36, 39–43].

Trademark Law – Territorial Jurisdiction – Interactive Website – Test Purchase – Sliding Scale and Effects Test – Banyan Tree Doctrine – Jurisdiction Upheld – Defendant’s website enabled actual commercial transactions into Delhi; invoice showing delivery to Bhajanpura constituted sufficient injurious effect – Plaintiff’s presence in forum state established – Held, District Court correctly assumed territorial jurisdiction under Sections 134(2) TM Act & 62(2) Copyright Act – Banyan Tree applied cumulatively (Sliding Scale + Effects test) [Paras 34–36].

Damages – Burden of Proof – Rule 20, DHC IPRD Rules, 2022 – Need for Foundational Facts – No Evidence Led – Damages Cannot Be Based on Speculation – Plaintiff led no evidence for computation of damages; quantification first introduced in written submissions and not subjected to cross-examination – Held, claimant must prove damages with documentary/oral evidence; principle “he who claims must prove” applies – Reliance on Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba v. Tosiba Appliances reiterated that speculative claims cannot sustain a substantial award [Paras 39–41].

Damages – LC Report – Arbitrary Assumptions – No Basis to Treat Seized Stock as One Month’s Supply – No Evidence of Duration of Infringement – District Court assumed (i) seized stock represented one month’s quantity, (ii) defendant operated for two months prior to injunction, (iii) MRP of Rs. 45/- as selling price – Held, each assumption unsupported by evidence; LC report alone cannot justify hypothesized duration or scale of business; award of Rs. 48,35,610/- unsustainable [Paras 41–42].

Trademark Remedies – Section 135 TM Act – Compensatory vs. Punitive Damages – Requirement of Evidentiary Bedrock – Quantum of damages must relate to actual loss or infringer’s profits; absence of rational basis risks unjust enrichment – District Court failed to follow benchmarks under Rule 20 (lost profits, infringer’s profits, duration, intentionality, mitigation, etc.) – Award set aside [Paras 37–38, 42].

Procedure – Appeal – Remand – Limited Remand for Damages – While infringement findings and injunction remain undisturbed, matter remanded solely for fresh adjudication on damages/account of profits; parties permitted to lead evidence; appellant allowed to withdraw deposited decretal amount [Paras 43, 46].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Territorial jurisdiction affirmed – Damages award set aside – Matter remanded for fresh determination of damages/account of profits – No order as to costs [Paras 36, 43–44].

Service Law – BSF – Disciplinary Proceedings – Extra-marital Conduct – Officer engaged in intimate relationship with a female constable while being married – Compromising photographs leaked and circulated on social media – SCOI and ROE conducted – Disciplinary authority found conduct to be unbecoming of an officer in a disciplined force – Held: Relationship, though consensual, constituted grave misconduct warranting action under Rule 20(2) and 20(4)(c) of BSF Rules – Compulsory retirement upheld [Paras 2–6, 18–19, 38–39].

Judicial Review – Scope under Article 226 – Disciplinary Action – High Court reiterates that Court cannot substitute its views unless the decision is illegal, arbitrary, or perverse – Decision to treat holding of GSFC as "inexpedient" is valid if based on material facts and nature of misconduct – Held: No violation of principles of natural justice as officer was heard at multiple stages – No interference warranted under Article 226 [Paras 21–22, 30–31, 34–40].

Interpretation – Rule 20(2) of BSF Rules – Meaning of "Inexpedient" – Court held term "inexpedient" has wider ambit than "not reasonably practicable" – Covers situations where holding GSFC may not be suitable or appropriate to achieve disciplinary objectives – Rule 20(2) intended to give discretion to competent authority in fit cases without mandatory GSFC – Held: Invocation of Rule 20(2) justified in facts of case [Paras 30–37].

Constitutional Law – Distinction from Article 311(2)(c) – Rule 20(2) BSF Rules operates independently and does not require satisfaction on grounds of “security of the State” unlike Article 311(2)(c) – Full Bench decision in Laishram Sushil Singh not applicable to BSF Rule 20(2) – Held: Provisions not pari materia and operate under different legal tests [Paras 28–29].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Court upheld the disciplinary authority’s decision to compulsorily retire the petitioner under Rule 20(4)(c) of the BSF Rules – Held: Decision to invoke Rule 20(2) based on seriousness of misconduct and nature of evidence was lawful – No ground for judicial interference under Article 226 of Constitution of India [Para 41].

Writ Petition – Suppression of Material Facts – Abuse of Process – Clean Hands Doctrine – Petitioners challenged 33KV transmission line being laid through residential area citing safety concerns and violations of Indian Electricity Rules – However, petitioners failed to disclose ongoing civil suit on identical subject matter with interim relief already granted by Trial Court – Held: Non-disclosure of parallel litigation amounts to abuse of process and fraudulent misrepresentation; writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked with unclean hands [Paras 14–26, 30].

Electricity Infrastructure – Safety Standards – Petitioners raised concerns regarding insufficient clearance (less than 3.7 meters) from residential buildings in alleged violation of Indian Electricity Rules – Spot inspection confirmed proximity of lines to houses – However, since matter was already under adjudication in civil court, High Court declined to adjudicate merits under Article 226 [Paras 3–11, 22].

Civil Suit Pending – Parallel Proceedings – Interim relief in civil suit already granted to maintain status quo – Petitioners failed to await outcome and instead filed writ – Held: Filing of writ petition despite pendency of civil proceedings on same cause of action is improper and amounts to forum shopping [Paras 16–20, 24–25].

Costs Imposed – Concealment of Facts – Petition dismissed in limine with cost of ₹20,000 to be deposited in Advocates’ Welfare Fund – Exemplary costs imposed to deter litigants from misleading the Court [Paras 34–35].

Decision: Petition dismissed in limine – Petitioners held to have suppressed material facts – Costs of ₹20,000 imposed for abuse of process – Petition to be listed after two weeks for verification of cost deposit compliance.

Civil Law – Specific Performance – Agreement to Sell – Concurrent Findings – Appellant (Defendant) challenged the decree for specific performance of an agreement to sell land for ₹2,00,000/- – Plaintiff proved payment of ₹1,80,000/- earnest money and execution of agreement via marginal witness and scribe – Defendant admitted signatures but claimed they were obtained on blank papers as security for a loan which was repaid – Trial Court and First Appellate Court decreed the suit – High Court upheld the findings – Held: No substantial question of law arises under Section 100 CPC [Paras 1, 8, 15].

Evidence – Proof of Execution – Defense of Blank Papers – Defendant admitted signatures on the agreement (Ex. P3/PW1) but alleged misuse of blank papers given as security – Plaintiff adduced credible evidence through PW-2 (marginal witness) and PW-3 (scribe) proving due execution and payment of earnest money – Defendant’s claim remained a self-serving assertion without corroborative evidence – Court observed it is improbable for a person of ordinary prudence to repay a loan without retrieving signed blank papers – Adverse inference drawn against the Defendant – Execution of agreement held proved [Paras 12-13].

Contract Law – Readiness and Willingness – Plaintiff attended the Tehsil Complex on the stipulated date with balance consideration and swore an affidavit regarding his presence – Defendant failed to appear – Plaintiff sent legal notice requiring performance – Held: Plaintiff successfully established readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract – Defendant found to be in breach [Para 14].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of the courts below affirmed.