Property Law – Mutation – Supreme Court Judgment Recognizing Ownership – Municipal Records to Reflect Non-Thika Status – Writ Petition Allowed – Petitioner purchased property via registered deed and obtained amalgamation order – Property mutated in its favour in 2008 – Thika Controller later declared respondents’ predecessor as Thika tenants – This was challenged and ultimately reversed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2022, confirming that the premises was not Thika – Respondent Corporation’s reliance on Thika Controller’s order to alter mutation entry was held unlawful – Held: Municipal records must be corrected to show Petitioner as owner and remove Thika classification – Respondents’ civil claim for adverse possession is pending and will not affect current ownership mutation [Paras 1, 8–10, 27–37]

Municipal Law – Scope of Mutation – Title Dispute Not to Be Decided – Mutation Based on Lawful Ownership Recognized by Supreme Court – Corporation argued it cannot determine title – High Court held that where ownership is already determined by the Supreme Court, Corporation is bound to act accordingly – Pending civil litigation on adverse possession does not preclude mutation in favour of Petitioner as rightful owner – Corporation directed to act in compliance with Supreme Court judgment [Paras 18, 28, 32, 36]

Constitutional Law – Article 226 – Availability of Alternate Remedy Not a Bar Where Supreme Court Judgment Ignored – Despite availability of alternate statutory mechanism under KMC Taxation Rules, High Court exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 as municipal authority failed to act on Supreme Court’s final judgment – Held: Inaction despite final adjudication of title and property classification justifies writ remedy [Paras 18, 21, 35]

Tenancy Law – Thika Tenancy – Claim Rejected by Supreme Court – Mutation Based on Thika Tenancy Set Aside – Property Declared Non-Thika – Thika Controller had declared respondents’ predecessor as Thika tenant – Supreme Court conclusively ruled that property is not Thika – Held: All entries treating property as Thika and mutation in favour of private respondents based on Thika status are illegal – Property to be recorded as non-Thika [Paras 6–7, 28–30]

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Respondent Corporation directed to:

(i) Record the property as a non-Thika premises

(ii) Restore mutation in the name of the Petitioner as lawful owner

(iii) Give effect to any civil court decree in favour of private respondents, if passed in future [Paras 36–37]

Arbitration – Jurisdiction Challenge – Section 16 A&C Act – Arbitrator appointed with party consent under Section 11 – Petitioner raised preliminary objection claiming dispute was non-arbitrable as it involved dissolution and asset distribution of a firm "at will" – Held: The existence of an arbitration clause and disputed dissolution status made arbitral jurisdiction tenable – Application rightly rejected by Arbitral Tribunal [Paras 6, 9–10]

Non-Arbitrable Subject – Winding Up of Partnership Firm – Petitioner argued that post-dissolution, dispute involved rights in rem, requiring court-supervised winding up – Held: In absence of a concluded dissolution or involvement of third-party claims, dispute over distribution of assets remains inter se between partners – It is an action in personam and thus arbitrable [Paras 5.2, 9.1]

Maintainability – Writ Petition Against Arbitral Order – Court held petition under Article 226/227 challenging rejection of jurisdictional plea is not maintainable except in exceptional rarity – Interference permitted only when order is perverse or passed in bad faith – Mere disagreement with arbitral ruling does not suffice [Paras 7.1, 8, 12–13]

Partnership Deed – Interpretation of Arbitration Clause – Clauses 12 and 13 considered – Clause 12 provided for arbitration of disputes relating to business or deed – Court found dispute within ambit of Clause 12 and not falling under exclusionary Clause 13, as the existence and dissolution of the firm were still contested [Paras 9–9.1]

Judicial Interference – Arbitration Framework – Strong reaffirmation of minimal interference principle under Section 5 A&C Act – Citing recent and binding SC precedents including Serosoft Solutions, Bhaven Construction, and SBI General Insurance – Court emphasized the legislative mandate of autonomy and efficiency in arbitral proceedings [Paras 5.4, 7.1, 8]

Decision: Petition dismissed – Held not maintainable under Articles 226/227 – No interference warranted with order of Arbitral Tribunal rejecting Section 16 application – All contentions on merits including jurisdictional objections left open for consideration under Section 34 A&C Act post award [Paras 13–14]

SARFAESI Act – Civil Court Jurisdiction – Fraud Pleaded Without Details – Bar Under Section 34 Ignored – Trial Court Order Set Aside – Respondent-plaintiff filed civil suit challenging SARFAESI possession proceedings by alleging fraud in relinquishment deed – Trial court granted ex parte stay against possession without considering bar of jurisdiction under Section 34 of SARFAESI Act – Held: Mere pleading of fraud without detailed particulars does not automatically confer jurisdiction on Civil Court – Trial court erred in failing to examine statutory bar or precedent – Order unsustainable [Paras 15, 22–24, 28]

Article 227 – Scope – Trial Court Failed to Examine Legal Bar – High Court Intervention Justified – Parties Relegated to Trial Court – Petitioner invoked Article 227 against ex parte proceedings and interim stay – Though High Court noted that petitioner could have sought remedy before trial court, intervention deemed appropriate as trial court’s order ignored jurisdictional bar and prior inconsistent pleadings – Matter remanded for fresh adjudication on jurisdiction and injunction after hearing both parties [Paras 25–28]

Civil Procedure – Ex Parte Order – Service Valid but Pleadings Withheld – No Illegality in Ex Parte Proceedings – Petitioner Free to Move Trial Court for Relief – Trial court proceeded ex parte after service was effected on petitioner – High Court held there was no illegality in procedural aspect – However, petitioner allowed to move appropriate application before trial court for recall or stay variation – Trial court to decide expeditiously [Paras 21, 25, 28–29]

Pleadings – Contradictory Stand – Civil Suit Alleging Fraud after Prior Writ Petition Affirming Voluntariness of Relinquishment – Relevant for Trial Court Consideration – Respondent earlier admitted in writ petition that relinquishment deed was voluntary – Subsequently challenged the same as fraudulent in civil suit – Held: Contradictory stand must be evaluated by trial court while deciding injunction and maintainability [Paras 16–17, 27]

Decision: Impugned order dated 03.03.2025 set aside – Petitioner permitted to move application before trial court – Trial court directed to decide on maintainability and injunction in view of Section 34 of SARFAESI Act and relevant precedents – Hearing to be completed expeditiously and decision on or before 24.12.2025 [Paras 28–30]

Property Law – Unregistered Sale Deed – Section 17 & 49 Registration Act – Section 53-A TPA – Document Written as Sale Deed, Not Agreement – No Registration – No Title or Possession Rights – Ex.B1 executed in 1983 for Rs.1100 treated as sale deed by defendant but unregistered – Held: Unregistered sale deed cannot convey title; inadmissible to prove transfer of property; cannot be converted into sale agreement for invoking Section 53-A – Defendant’s plea inconsistent and self-contradictory – First Appellate Court erred in granting protection of part performance [Paras 10–16, 20–21].

Part Performance – Section 53-A TPA – Applicability Prior to 2001 Amendment – Only Available for Genuine, Lawful, Uncompleted Contract – Burden on Transferee to Prove Valid Contract and Free Consent – Evidence shows Ex.B1 written in two inks, suspicious thumb impression placement, possibility of interpolation – No proof that contract executed with free will – Held: Defendant not entitled to benefit of Section 53-A even under pre-amendment law [Paras 11, 18–19, 22].

Title & Possession – Plaintiffs’ Possession Established – House Tax Receipts (Ex.A3 & Ex.A4) in joint names – Defendant failed to prove vendor (2nd plaintiff) was exclusive owner – Defendant’s claim of prior possession and renovation not credible – First Appellate Court misdirected itself by treating defendant’s possession as part performance without establishing contractual foundation [Paras 10, 16, 19].

Interpretation of Precedents – Reliance on Guman Singh v. Manga Singh, MANU/SC/0872/2016 & Ranchhoddas Chhaganlal v. Devaji Supdu Dorik, (1977) 3 SCC 584 – Part performance can be used only as a defence, not as a basis for claiming title – Ex.B1 cannot operate as both sword and shield – Defendant’s attempt rejected [Para 20–21].

Decision: Second Appeal Allowed – Judgment of First Appellate Court set aside – Trial Court decree restoring plaintiffs’ title and recovery of possession revived – Defendant directed to hand over possession within one month [Paras 23–25].

Assisted Reproductive Technology – Eligibility Criteria – Age Restriction – Respondent No.1 (wife) sought IVF treatment using donor sperm despite her husband (Respondent No.2) being aged 55 years – ART clinic denied service citing ineligibility of the couple as a whole under Section 21(g) of the ART Act – Held: The age restriction under Section 21(g)(ii) applies only where the male’s gamete is used – Where donor sperm is used, only the woman’s age is relevant – Married woman cannot be denied ART access on the sole ground of husband’s age if she seeks to use donor sperm with his consent [Paras 5, 20, 30]

Equality and Non-Discrimination – Married vs. Single Women – ART Act interpreted to avoid unconstitutional classification – Denial of ART services to married woman using donor sperm, while allowing access to single woman of same age, held discriminatory – Such a reading would place married women at unfair disadvantage – Held: Law must be interpreted harmoniously to uphold equal rights irrespective of marital status [Paras 5, 30]

Statutory Interpretation – Legislative Intent – Composite age restriction not prescribed in ART Act – Court refused to read additional conditions into clear statutory language – Held: When ART Act separately defines “woman” and “commissioning couple” and does not impose joint age criteria, it cannot be inferred that both spouses must individually satisfy age limits in all circumstances [Paras 21–23, 29–30]

Judicial Review – Appellate Interference – Court found no legal error or perversity in Single Judge’s interpretation – Appellate Court upheld reasoning that statute must not be interpreted to produce inequitable or absurd results – Writ Appeal dismissed [Paras 31]

Decision: Writ Appeal dismissed – Married woman held entitled to undergo ART procedure using donor sperm if within age limit under Section 21(g)(i) – No illegality found in the judgment of the learned Single Judge.

Criminal Law – Sections 353 and 354 IPC - Assault on Public Servant – Outraging Modesty – Acquittal Upheld – Accused allegedly obstructed traffic while drunk, assaulted a Home Guard (PW.1), and outraged the modesty of his mother (PW.2) – Sessions Court found that independent witnesses (PWs.3 to 9) turned hostile – Observation report and seizure of torn clothes lacked credibility – Accused 3 and 4’s identity not established – No test identification parade held – Held: Evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 uncorroborated – No intent (mens rea) shown to outrage modesty – No proof beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 15–23, 27–31]

Evidence Law – Hostile Witnesses – Evidentiary Gaps – Key prosecution witnesses denied knowledge of incident or signing observation reports – No diary entries recording initial complaint or follow-up – Sessions Court found investigation perfunctory and evidence insufficient – Held: Trial Court rightly disbelieved evidence that lacked corroboration – Presumption of innocence rightly extended to accused [Paras 15–19, 29–31]

Criminal Procedure – Appeal Against Acquittal – Appellate Standards – Appellate Court must defer to Trial Court’s findings unless conclusions are perverse or manifestly illegal – Trial Court’s reasoning found to be sound and based on proper appreciation of evidence – No compelling reason to overturn acquittal – Held: Even if two views possible, view favouring accused must prevail – Appeal dismissed [Paras 12–14, 32–36]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal in Sessions Case No. 262 of 2005 confirmed – No interference warranted.

Civil Law - Evidence – Secondary Evidence – Admissibility – Application Allowed Without Pleading Custody of Original – Order Set Aside – Plaintiffs sought to prove registered Will dated 17.11.1979 by secondary evidence, claiming original was with defendant – No such averment made in plaint – Application moved after closure of evidence at rebuttal stage – Trial Court allowed application – Held: No foundational pleading or timely action to justify late-stage application – Application wrongly allowed – Trial Court directed to determine admissibility and proof of Will under Evidence Act independently [Paras 1, 5–6, 9, 21–23]

Civil Procedure – Order 18 Rule 3 CPC – Scope for Rebuttal Evidence – No Automatic Right to Produce Secondary Evidence – Application to lead secondary evidence filed at rebuttal stage under Order 18 Rule 3 CPC – Held: Rule permits rebuttal evidence but does not override requirements of Sections 65–66 of Evidence Act – Application required prior foundational pleadings and timely disclosure – Delay and lack of basis rendered application untenable [Paras 10–11, 21]

Documentary Evidence – Will – Secondary Evidence – Legal Standards – Filing Application Not Mandatory Where Document Already Exhibited – Will already marked as Exhibit PW5/2 (certified copy) and Mark-G (photocopy) – One attesting witness examined as PW5 – Held: In such circumstances, no separate application under Section 65(c) required – Trial Court must evaluate evidence on merits as per settled legal standards without being influenced by application or order – Application and trial court’s order set aside [Paras 13–16, 20–23]

Judicial Discretion – Procedural Technicalities vs. Substantive Justice – Procedural Lapse Cannot Supplant Statutory Requirements – Though courts should not non-suit parties on technicalities, procedural laxity cannot override specific legal requirements under Evidence Act – Trial Court erred in allowing application based on equitable considerations without legal foundation – Held: Admissibility and probative value of the Will must be tested under law [Paras 12, 18, 22–23]

Decision: Revision petition allowed – Order dated 13.09.2024 permitting production of Will by secondary evidence set aside – Application dismissed – Trial Court directed to examine admissibility and proof of Will under Evidence Act on merits without being influenced by prior order [Paras 23–24]

Gram Nyayalayas Act – Appeal Bar under Section 34(2)(b) – Valuation Below ₹1,000 – Exception for Questions of Law – Appeal Held Maintainable – Original suit filed in 2000 for cancellation of will valued at ₹200 – Transferred to Gram Nyayalaya under Section 16 – Gram Nyayalaya declared will void – Appeal filed before District Judge challenged by petitioner on ground of Section 34(2)(b) bar – District Judge held appeal maintainable as it raised a question of law – High Court affirms view, noting that Section 34(2)(c) permits appeal where legal question is involved even if valuation is below ₹500 – Dismissal of petition upheld [Paras 3, 4, 25, 27].

Appeal – Right of Appeal – Substantive Right – Vested at Time of Suit – Cannot Be Taken Away Retrospectively Unless Expressly Provided – Court reiterates settled law that right of appeal is a vested and substantive right, accruing on the date of institution of the suit – Refers to landmark decisions including Colonial Sugar Refining Co. v. Irving, Garikapatti Veeraya v. N. Subbiah Choudhury – Held: Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008 does not operate retrospectively – Right of appeal governed by law prevailing on date of suit in 2000 – District Judge rightly entertained the appeal [Paras 13–24].

Question of Law – Maintainability of Suit Before Gram Nyayalaya – Matter to Be Decided by Appellate Court – Though High Court notes that suit for cancellation of will may not lie before Gram Nyayalaya as per Second Schedule – Leaves the issue open for appellate court to determine – Declines to adjudicate maintainability in Article 227 jurisdiction [Para 26].

Judicial Review – No Jurisdictional Error – Rejection of Objection by Appellate Court Not Illegal – High Court finds no illegality in District Judge’s decision to entertain the appeal – Rejects petitioner’s contention that appeal was barred by Section 34(2)(b) – Writ petition under Article 227 dismissed [Paras 24–27].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – District Judge’s order upholding maintainability of appeal affirmed – Question of whether suit for cancellation of will is maintainable before Gram Nyayalaya left open to be decided by appellate court.

Taxation Law - Customs and Excise – Debonding from 100% EOU – Payment of Duty – Use of CENVAT Credit – Respondent EOU paid countervailing duty using accumulated CENVAT credit at the time of debonding from EOU scheme – Department contended such duty must be paid in cash under Section 28 of the Customs Act and Rule 3(4) of CENVAT Credit Rules – Tribunal relied on interim High Court order in Dishman Pharmaceuticals case – High Court now confirms the final ruling in Dishman Pharmaceuticals – Held: Amount of excise duty (equal to customs duty) payable on debonding can be discharged using validly accrued CENVAT credit – No requirement to pay in cash – Show cause notice and demand unsustainable [Paras 1–6]

Limitation – Extended Period – Show cause notice issued after more than two years from date of debonding – No suppression of facts alleged or proved – Held: Extended period of limitation not invokable [Para 3F]

Doctrine of Precedent – Dishman Pharmaceuticals Case – Tribunal relied on interim relief – High Court confirms that final judgment now holds the field – Same question of law involved – Appeal dismissed following binding precedent [Paras 1, 5–6]

Transitional Law – GST Regime – Section 142(6)(a) of CGST Act, 2017 – CENVAT credit admissible under old law to be refunded in cash if not utilizable – Reaffirmed that respondent entitled to use credit or receive refund – No bar under GST framework [Para 14–15]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Question of law answered in favour of respondent – Demand and penalties set aside.