Civil Law - Recovery of Possession - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 100 - Appellant sought possession of a room from the respondent who was the husband's brother and a gratuitous licensee - Appellant claimed title through GPA and Agreement to Sell executed by her husband in 2005 - Trial Court decreed the suit finding the respondent failed to prove inheritance and was a licensee - First Appellate Court set aside the decree holding that unregistered documents cannot confer title per Suraj Lamp and respondent was in settled possession - High Court found First Appellate Court erred in applying Suraj Lamp retrospectively to a 2005 genuine family transaction - Held - Suit for possession can be maintained on better possessory title even without absolute proprietary title - Licensee cannot invoke the doctrine of settled possession against a licensor as such possession is juridically referable to the licensor - Appeal allowed - [Paras 1-75].

Civil Law - Validity of Unregistered Documents - Registration Act 1908 - Sections 17 and 49 - Admissibility for collateral purpose - First Appellate Court held notarized documents could not grant possessory rights - High Court observed that while title may not pass without registration - such documents can be relied upon to establish better possessory title vis-a-vis a person with no right - Supreme Court in Suraj Lamp recognized exceptions for genuine transactions between relatives - Held - Transaction between husband and wife falls within the carve-out and supports a claim for possessory title - [Paras 64-70].

Civil Law - Possessory Title vs Proprietary Title - Limitation Act 1963 - Articles 64 and 65 - Relative strength of claims - Trial Court and High Court found respondent failed to prove inheritance from father - High Court emphasized that in a suit for possession simplicitor the court must examine the relative strength of parties' claims - A person in peaceable possession has good title against the world except the rightful owner - Held - Appellant demonstrated a superior entitlement to possession compared to a licensee whose license was revoked - [Paras 49-56].

Civil Law - Settled Possession - Doctrine as a shield not a sword - First Appellate Court protected respondent on grounds of settled possession - High Court clarified that the doctrine protects against forcible dispossession but does not defeat a suit for possession filed through due process of law - Due process includes a regularly instituted civil suit - Held - The doctrine cannot be used to prevent eviction of a licensee through legal means - [Paras 58-63].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of the First Appellate Court set aside – Trial Court decree for possession restored – Respondent granted six months to vacate.

Criminal Law - Dishonour of Cheque - Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 - Section 138 - Forum for Appeal - Appellant filed appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC challenging judgment dated 26.08.2025 in C.C.No.19 of 2022 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class Gannavaram acquitting accused under Section 255(1) CrPC - Appellant requested return of grounds to file before Sessions Court as per proviso to Section 372 CrPC citing Supreme Court precedent - Court observed that if the complainant is also a victim they can prefer appeal under the proviso to section 372 CrPC even in cases of dishonoured cheques - Held - Registry directed to return the original bundle to the appellant to represent the appeal within four weeks before the concerned Sessions Court - [Paras 1-7].

Criminal Law - Victim Right to Appeal - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 372 - Applicability to NI Act - Complainant in a proceeding under Section 138 NI Act who is also a victim is entitled to prefer an appeal against acquittal before the Sessions Court under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC which is equivalent to Section 413 BNSS 2023 - Held - Complainant can prefer appeal before Sessions Court instead of High Court under Section 378(4) CrPC - [Paras 4-5].

Decision: Appeal returned – Registry directed to return the original bundle to the appellant to represent the appeal before the concerned Sessions Court within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

Civil Law - Limitation - Limitation Act 1963 - Section 5 - Condonation of delay - Appellant insurance company preferred an appeal with a delay of 320 days - Reason cited was official processing of the file and related exigencies - Court observed that while delay can be considered liberally it should not be treated lightly if attributable to negligence - Appellant being a scheduled insurance company and statutory body cannot be treated like an illiterate litigant - Insurance company deals with such matters regularly and had contested the claim diligently before the Tribunal - High Court proposed condoning delay on payment of Rs 100000 cost but appellant refused to pay any cost - Relying on Supreme Court rulings the Court noted that bureaucratic methodology and procedural red tape are not acceptable explanations in the age of modern technology - Held - Delay not condoned as it was a product of negligence - [Paras 1-5].

Civil Law - Motor Accident Claims - Motor Vehicles Act 1988 - Section 173 - Beneficial Legislation - Compensation to victims of motor accidents must be liberally construed to prevent destitution and vagrancy - Law of limitation binds everyone including Government bodies and statutory agencies - Condonation of delay is an exception and cannot be used as an anticipated benefit for Government departments - Impersonal machinery or inherited bureaucratic methodology of making multiple notes cannot be accepted as reasonable grounds for delay - Held - Application for condonation of delay in I.A. No. 39 of 2025 dismissed - [Paras 3-5].

Decision: Petition for condonation of delay dismissed – Consequently the appeal stands dismissed – Statutory deposit to be refunded to the appellant insurance company with accrued interest.

Writ Law - Constitutional Validity - Interpretation of Statutes - Karnataka Civil Courts (Amendment) Act 2023 - Section 4 - Retrospective operation - Amendment increased pecuniary jurisdiction of Civil Judges and transferred first appeals from High Court to District Courts with retrospective effect from 2007 - Petitioners argued that absence of saving clause would nullify 17 years of High Court judgments and take away vested rights - Single Judge had set aside retrospectivity as arbitrary - Division Bench analyzed legislative competence under Entry 11-A of Concurrent List and doctrine of purposive interpretation - Court noted that the amendment followed recommendations to reduce High Court pendency - Held - Legislature has competence to enact laws affecting jurisdiction - Forum of appeal is a matter of procedural law and not a vested substantive right - However - literal interpretation leading to nullification of thousands of concluded cases is manifestly absurd and unintended by the legislature - Section 4 of the Amendment Act is read down to exclude concluded matters and orders passed in pending proceedings from its retrospective operation - Retrospectivity confined only to the transfer of pending appeals to be governed by amended provisions from current stage - Single Judge order modified - [Paras 1-124].

Civil Law - Forum of Appeal - Procedural Law vs Substantive Right - Karnataka High Court Act 1961 - Sections 2 and 5 - Litigants contended that right to a specific forum for appeal is a vested right accruing on the date of suit institution - Reference made to Neena Aneja and SEBI v. Classic Credit Limited - Held - Right to appeal is substantive but the forum of appeal is procedural - Change in forum applies retrospectively to pending actions unless a contrary intention appears - Amendment by substitution implies the new rule replaces the old ab initio for pending matters - [Paras 49-60].

Writ Law - Equality Clause - Constitution of India - Article 14 - Reasonable Classification - Challenge to High Court Amendment Act for treating Bengaluru Urban District differently where first appeals continue to lie to High Court from City Civil Court - Held - There is a clear distinction between Senior Civil Judges in districts and Judges in Bengaluru City Civil Court who are in the cadre of District Judges - Classification based on cadre and nature of jurisdiction is reasonable and has a nexus with the object of administration of justice - No discrimination found - [Paras 116-117].

Interpretation of Statutes - Purposive Interpretation - Doctrine of Reading Down - Language of Section 4 provided for retrospective effect from 28.08.2007 without any savings clause - Held - Courts are not powerless to read in words or restrict operation to avoid manifest absurdity or injustice - Legislative intent was to harmonize with the 2007 amendment and tackle pendency - Statutory provisions must be interpreted to serve their rightful purpose and spirit over literal wording - Retrospective operation restricted to save previous operations and things duly done - [Paras 64-90].

Decision: Writ Appeal (W.A No.200260/2025) disposed of – Writ Petition (W.P No.17588/2024) dismissed – Order of the Single Judge modified to the extent that Section 4 of the Civil Courts Amendment Act is read down rather than set aside – Concluded matters and prior orders in pending proceedings are saved – Pending first appeals to be transferred to jurisdictional courts as per the amendments.

Criminal Law - Contempt of Court - Contempt of Courts Act 1971 - Section 15(2) - Scandalising the Court - Petitioner filed a sanction petition before the Advocate General regarding a public speech delivered by the respondent on 03.08.2019 - Respondent used derogatory expressions to describe a judgment in W.A. No. 628 of 2018 - Advocate General accorded sanction to initiate proceedings finding the statements to be scandalising in nature - Respondent subsequently appeared in person and submitted that the remarks were impulsive and spontaneous utterances made in anger without malicious intent - Respondent filed an affidavit tendering an unconditional and unqualified apology asserting high esteem for the judiciary - Court evaluated the sincerity of the regret and the commitment to exercise restraint in future - Held - The apology tendered is bona fide and genuine - Respondent discharged and case closed - [Paras 1-11].

Criminal Law - Acceptance of Apology - Contempt of Courts (High Court of Kerala) Rules 1988 - Rule 14(a) - Discharge of Contemnor - Rule 14(a) provides that if a respondent tenders an unconditional apology after admitting he has committed the contempt the Court may proceed to pass such orders as it deems fit - Respondent reiterated statements of regret and described the speech as an isolated utterance during personal appearance - Court found the apology to be in consonance with the requirements of Rule 14(a) - Held - Unconditional apology accepted and respondent discharged - [Paras 8-11].

Decision: Case closed – Unconditional apology accepted – Respondent discharged.

Family Law - Divorce - Hindu Marriage Act 1955 - Sections 13(1) and 23(1)(a) - Cruelty and Desertion - Appellant-wife filed for divorce alleging physical violence dowry demand and false aspersions on character - Trial Court dismissed the petition finding allegations unproved and omnibus in nature - In a separate criminal trial initiated by appellant against third parties for offences including rape she was found to be a consenting party to physical relations with another man post-marriage - Trial Court invoked Section 23(1)(a) holding she cannot take advantage of her own wrong - High Court affirmed the findings noting appellant voluntarily left matrimonial home and was involved in an adulterous act - Held - Trial Court committed no error in rejecting the divorce petition - appeal dismissed - [Paras 3-12].

Family Law - Desertion - Hindu Marriage Act 1955 - Section 13(1) - Appellant claimed she was forced to leave matrimonial house - Cross-examination revealed she left with her brother who was not examined as a witness - Affidavit of appellant suggested she left on her own volition without compulsion or torture - Held - issue of desertion not proved against respondent - [Paras 11-12].

Decision: Appeal dismissed - Trial Court judgment and decree affirmed - Record of the trial court to be remitted back along with a copy of the judgment.

Criminal Law - Bail - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 - Section 50 - Mandatory procedure for personal search - Applicant was accosted by police during patrolling and found in possession of 100 grams of Mephedrone - Prosecution claimed that a notice under Section 50 was served and the Applicant provided an oral waiver of his right to be searched before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer - Trial Court rejected the bail application - Applicant contended that the search was illegal as the waiver was not reduced to writing and signed by him in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court - Applicant remained in custody for three and half years without the examination of any witnesses despite the framing of charges - High Court noted that the oral waiver recorded in the Panchnama lacked the necessary signature of the Applicant on the notice or a separate document - Held - Procedural non-compliance with Section 50 and long period of incarceration justify the grant of bail - Application allowed - [Paras 1-7].

Criminal Law - Search and Seizure - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 - Section 50 - Procedure for search of person - Waiver of right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate - Requirement of written documentation - Mere oral statement of waiver recorded by the police is insufficient - The empowered officer must reduce any such waiver into writing and obtain the signature of the suspect in the presence of witnesses to ensure strict compliance with statutory safeguards - Reliance placed on the decision in Rajan Kumar Chadha v. State of Himachal Pradesh - Held - Failure to properly record the waiver in writing supports the Applicant's case that the search was not conducted as required by law - [Para 6].

Decision: Application allowed – Applicant released on bail on executing a P.R. Bond of Rs.50,000/- with one or two sureties – Applicant directed to mark attendance at RAK Marg Police Station on the first and third Sunday of every month.

Criminal Law - Narcotics - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 - Sections 22(c) 29 37 42 and 43 - Search and seizure - Mandatory procedure - Private vehicle - Night search - Accused No 1 was intercepted in a Baleno car at 9:40 PM and found in possession of commercial quantities of narcotic drugs while Accused No 2 was arrested for conspiracy - Prosecution alleged the seizure took place on a public road - Petitioners contended that the detecting officer failed to record and forward grounds of belief as mandated under the proviso to Section 42(1) for searches conducted between sunset and sunrise in private vehicles - Court held that for searches in private vehicles even at public places based on prior information at night the provisions of Section 42 and not Section 43 apply - Total non-compliance with Section 42 mandates regarding recording grounds of belief vitiates the proceedings and can be considered at the bail stage to bypass the rigour of Section 37 - Held - Petitioners entitled to bail - [Paras 1-7].

Evidence Law - Procedural Compliance - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 - Section 42 - Search between sunset and sunrise - Private vehicle versus public conveyance - Search and seizure conducted in a private vehicle at a public place between sunset and sunrise requires strict compliance with the proviso to Section 42(1) which mandates recording grounds of belief - Failure to show such recording in the seizure mahazar constitutes total non-compliance - Such procedural infirmity is a valid ground for granting bail in cases involving commercial quantities - Held - Bail granted - [Paras 5-7].

Decision: Applications allowed – Petitioners directed to be released on bail upon executing a bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- each with two solvent sureties and fulfilling conditions including weekly appearance before the investigating officer and non-tampering of evidence.

Writ Law - Right to Information - Public Authority - Definition and Scope - Petitioner association challenged the order of the Tamil Nadu Information Commission and a consequential circular issued by the Director of Private Schools which directed all private matriculation and CBSE schools to display their fee structures at school entrances and on websites - Petitioner contended that private unaided educational institutions are not public authorities as defined under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act since they are not owned-controlled-or substantially financed by the Government - Respondents argued that education is a public service and fee disclosure is a regulatory requirement for transparency - Court analysed the exhaustive definition of public authority under Section 2(h) and applied the ratio in Thalappalam Ser. Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala - Held - Private educational institutions which are not owned or substantially financed by the Government do not fall within the ambit of public authority - Mere statutory supervision or regulatory oversight by the State does not render an institution a public authority for the purposes of the RTI Act - Consequently the Information Commission lacked jurisdiction to pass sweeping directions against private schools - [Paras 46-54].

Writ Law - Jurisdiction of Information Commission - Legislative vs Adjudicatory Powers - RTI Act 2005 - Sections 19 and 20 - Commission issued directions to the Director of Private Schools to ensure fee display in all private schools and imposed penalties on educational officials - Petitioner argued the Commission exceeded its adjudicatory mandate by passing legislative-style directions beyond the scope of the specific RTI application - Held - The jurisdiction of the Information Commission is limited to adjudicating the specific case before it and it cannot issue sweeping legislative directions or appoint officers from other departments as Public Information Officers as a remedial mechanism across the State - The direction of the Commission resulting in the impugned circular by the second respondent was beyond its competence and failed the test of legal scrutiny - [Paras 55-60].

Writ Law - Regulatory Powers - Education Law - Fee Disclosure - Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Rules 2023 - Rule 17(3) - Conflict between RTI jurisdiction and State regulatory framework - While the Court found the Information Commission's order without jurisdiction it observed that private schools are independently bound by Rule 17(3) of the 2023 Rules - This rule mandates every private school to display fee structures and other infrastructure details on notice boards and websites one month before the academic year - Held - Notwithstanding the lack of jurisdiction of the Information Commission the Director of Private Schools independently possesses regulatory and supervisory jurisdiction to enforce Rule 17(3) - The disclosure of fees is a benevolent provision helping parents make informed decisions without being exploited - Court invoked its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 to direct all private schools to comply with the statutory mandate of Rule 17(3) while setting aside the penalties imposed under the RTI Act - [Paras 67-77].

Writ Law - Privacy and Reasonable Restriction - Constitutional Law - Articles 14-19(1)(g) and 21 - Petitioner argued that compelling fee disclosure violates informational privacy and the right to establish institutions - Ratio in T.M.A. Pai Foundation and P.A. Inamdar discussed - Held - Education is not a business and is subject to reasonable regulation to prevent profiteering - Fee structures determined by the statutory Fee Determination Committee are already in the public domain on the Committee’s website and thus no proprietary or confidential interest is violated by school-level display - The requirement for display is a reasonable regulatory measure in the interest of the general public - [Paras 21-40, 75].

Decision: Writ petition disposed of - The portion of the Information Commission's order imposing penalties and compensation is set aside - The direction to ensure display of fee structure is modified - Court directs the Director of Private Schools to ensure all private schools comply with Rule 17(3) of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Rules 2023 by displaying the approved fee structure on notice boards and websites annually.