Civil Law - Money Lending – Exorbitant Interest – Applicability of TN Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act – Borrower filed O.P. seeking to restrict interest on ₹75 lakhs mortgage loan to 9% p.a. under Tamil Nadu Money Lenders Act and Act 38 of 2003 – Respondent contended loan was via cheque, based on commercial agreement, and petitioner was not eligible for benefit under said Acts – Held: Loan disbursed by negotiable instrument exceeding ₹10,000 is excluded from definition of “loan” under TN Money Lenders Act – No evidence of kandu vatti, daily/hourly interest, or informal lending practices – Act 38 of 2003 does not apply – Petition rightly dismissed by Trial Court [Paras 8–21]

Jurisdiction – Suit under Order 34 CPC – Mortgage-based dispute – Trial Court noted respondent had already filed mortgage recovery suit under Order 34 CPC – Held: Original Petition under Act 38 of 2003 misconceived and not maintainable when parallel mortgage suit is pending – Remedy lies within civil suit framework, not under special statutes [Paras 13, 22]

Contractual Interest – Limitation of Statutory Cap – Petitioner argued that interest above 9% p.a. is usurious – High Court reiterated settled law that contractual terms between parties govern when loan is outside scope of Money Lenders Act – Petitioner must contest such terms in civil suit, not by invoking inapplicable statutory remedies [Paras 4–6, 22]

Decision – No perversity in Trial Court order – Civil Revision Petition dismissed – Petitioner permitted to raise defences in pending mortgage suit – Principal District Judge, Thiruvallur directed to dispose suit by 31.12.2025 [Para 23]

Civil Law - Partition Suit – Rejection of Plaint – Limitation and Misjoinder Grounds Rejected – Defendant sought rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC citing limitation and non-joinder – Held: Suit for partition discloses cause of action; right to partition is a continuing cause of action – No plea of ouster or adverse possession by defendant – Hence, limitation does not bar the suit – Further, misjoinder is not a ground for rejection under Order VII Rule 11 – Revision dismissed [Paras 6–8].

Limitation – Article 65 of the Limitation Act – Partition Suit Not Time-Barred – Legal notice issued in 2014 by plaintiffs did not start limitation – Held: In absence of any assertion of exclusive right or ouster by defendant, mere issuance of legal notice cannot bar a partition suit – Plaintiff deemed in constructive possession due to family relationship – Right continues till actual partition [Paras 7–8].

Constructive Possession – Physical Possession Not Required in Partition – Plaintiff need not be in actual possession of suit property to maintain partition suit – Held: Entitlement to share and family relationship sufficient to infer joint or constructive possession – Right to partition accrues even if plaintiffs are not in residence or use of property [Para 7].

Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Scope – Grounds for Rejection Must Appear from Plaint – Court reaffirmed that in deciding applications under Order VII Rule 11, only averments in plaint can be considered – Defences, written statement, or documents cannot be relied upon – Dismissal of application proper [Para 6].

Decision – Revision Petition Dismissed – No merit found in contentions of limitation or misjoinder – Dismissal of rejection application by Trial Court upheld – Connected Miscellaneous Petition also dismissed – No costs awarded [Para 8].

NDPS Bail – Recovery from Premises – Section 42 NDPS Act – Bail Denied – The petitioner was arrested based on disclosure of co-accused and 30 grams of heroin was recovered from her premises – The Court found prima facie compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act, noting that prior information was recorded in the Daily Diary and appropriate permission was obtained for the search – Held: Search was legally conducted under supervision of an empowered officer [Paras 20–25, 30–35].

Section 50 NDPS Act – Applicability Limited to Personal Search – No Violation Found – The petitioner argued non-compliance with Section 50 – The Court held that since the recovery was from premises and not person, Section 50 was not attracted – Relying on Baldev Singh and Prabhu decisions, Court clarified that protection under Section 50 applies only to personal search and not to residential premises [Paras 36–44].

Conspiracy under Section 29 NDPS Act – Prima Facie Material – Calls, Confession, Recovery – The petitioner was implicated based on CDRs showing 56 calls with co-accused and a disclosure statement admitting she received the heroin – Her prior involvement in similar offences and familial links to NDPS cases supported the prosecution’s theory of a drug network – Held: Prima facie role made out under Section 29 [Paras 20–21, 46–48].

Medical Grounds – No Immediate Risk – Jail Facilities Adequate – The petitioner cited serious eye ailments and filed jail medical records – Court acknowledged the health condition but found no imminent threat or unavailability of treatment in custody – Medical ground not sufficient to override gravity of offence [Paras 26, 49].

Previous Offences – Bail Refused – Prior Involvement in NDPS and IPC Cases – Petitioner had FIRs from 2019 and 2016, and family members were similarly involved – Court viewed this as indicative of continued criminal conduct – Held: Applicant posed a threat to society and was undeserving of bail [Paras 17, 47–48].

Decision – Bail Application Dismissed – Court found no merit in pleas regarding procedural violations or medical urgency – Recovery, disclosures, CDRs and antecedents cumulatively justified rejection of regular bail [Paras 50].

Arbitration Law – Scope of Judicial Review – Section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act – Limited Interference – Court reiterated that scope under Section 34 is narrow – Award can only be set aside on grounds specified such as conflict with fundamental policy of Indian law or violation of most basic notions of justice – Court does not sit in appeal or re-appreciate evidence if Arbitrator has taken a plausible view [Paras 25-28].

Counter-Claim – Requirement of Pleadings – Section 23(2A), Arbitration Act – Arbitrator Erred – Petitioner had specifically pleaded counter-claim of Rs. 11.88 crores in reply with basis of calculation – Respondent in rejoinder categorically denied same – Held: Existence of averments and denial created a dispute requiring framing of an issue – Arbitrator’s refusal to frame issue only because counter-claim was not in prayer clause was erroneous – Pleadings to be read as whole, not in bits – Failure to frame issue violated principles of adjudication [Paras 29-32, 41-42].

Counter-Claim – Opportunity to Cure Defect – Arbitrator’s Duty – Even if defect of absence of prayer was present, Arbitrator ought to have directed petitioner to rectify pleading rather than reject counter-claim outright – Reliance placed on Union of India v. Tata Teleservices (Maharashtra) Ltd., (2007) 7 SCC 517 – Held: Denial without affording opportunity shocks conscience of Court [Paras 15-16, 45-46].

Evidence – Non-Framing of Issue – Effect – Once counter-claim was not made an issue, petitioner had no opportunity to lead evidence – Arbitrator’s later observation that petitioner failed to prove loss untenable – Evidence can only be led on framed issues – Finding against petitioner unsustainable [Paras 47-48].

Public Policy – Fundamental Policy and Notions of Justice – Award set aside – Failure to frame issue on counter-claim despite specific pleadings and rejoinder denial constitutes violation of fundamental policy of Indian law and most basic notions of justice – Award held unsustainable [Paras 50].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Arbitral Award dated 18.06.2010 set aside for being contrary to fundamental policy of Indian law and violative of principles of justice – Petition disposed of [Para 50-51].

Criminal Law – Challenge Conviction under Sections 392/34 and 397 IPC – Acquittal on Account of Unreliable Testimony – Judgment Set Aside – The appellants Naushad and Salman were convicted for robbery under Section 392/34 IPC, with Naushad also convicted under Section 397 IPC based on the complainant’s testimony alleging robbery at gunpoint – The Trial Court relied primarily on the complainant's deposition, despite no recovery of stolen articles or weapon, no independent witness, and inconsistencies between the complainant’s version and the police account – The High Court found material contradictions and improvements in the complainant's statements, including the delayed mention of a firearm, lack of description of the accused, and failure to explain urgency for delay in reporting – Held: Prosecution evidence unreliable and not of sterling quality – Conviction set aside – Both appellants acquitted [Paras 1–15].

Criminal Trial – Inconsistent Testimony – Conviction Set Aside – The complainant made material improvements during court deposition which contradicted his initial statements to the police – The use of a pistol was introduced much later – Court held such discrepancies and omissions as significant, rendering the testimony untrustworthy [Paras 6, 9–10].

Evidence – Identification and Test Identification Parade (TIP) – Refusal Not Fatal When Explained – Although appellants declined to participate in the TIP, they stated that police had shown their photographs to unidentified individuals – Court accepted this explanation and noted the complainant had not described the accused initially, making in-court identification unreliable [Para 12].

Recovery – Absence of Weapon and Stolen Property – Prosecution Failed to Establish Link – No recovery of robbed articles or the weapon allegedly used in commission of offence – Pistol found in another FIR was not exhibited in this case – This weakened the evidentiary value of prosecution’s case [Paras 5, 12].

Non-Joining of Public Witnesses – Further Weakening of Prosecution Case – Despite the incident occurring in a public area during the day, no effort was made to include independent witnesses – Court noted that where the sole witness lacks credibility, such omission becomes significant [Paras 7, 13–14].

Decision – Considering the material contradictions, delayed reporting, unreliable testimony, and lack of corroborative evidence, the High Court set aside the conviction under Sections 392/34 IPC (both appellants) and Section 397 IPC (Naushad) – Appeals allowed – Appellants acquitted [Paras 14–15].

Judicial Service Law  – Appointment from Waitlist – Rule 18 of DJS Rules – Petition Dismissed - The petitioner, waitlisted at Rank 5 under unreserved category in Delhi Judicial Services Exam 2022, sought appointment upon resignation of a selected candidate who had already joined – Held: Rule 18(vi) permits appointment from waitlist only in case of non-joining, not post-joining resignation – Petitioner not entitled to claim appointment based on resignation of a joined candidate [Paras 1-6, 14-16, 22-23].

Validity of Select List – Rule 18(vii) vs 18(vi) – Dichotomy in Rules – No Right Accrued - Though the Select List remains valid till publication of a new list (Rule 18(vii)), its use for appointment is confined to vacancies from non-joining (Rule 18(vi)) – Court observed an internal inconsistency but declined to extend interpretation in favour of petitioner – Appropriate remedy lies in rule amendment, not judicial interpretation [Paras 15, 25].

Resignation after Joining – Not a Vacancy to be Filled via Waitlist – Judicial Precedents Applied - Referring to Sudesh Kumar Goyal v. State of Haryana, (2023) 10 SCC 54 and Rakhi Ray v. High Court of Delhi, (2010) 2 SCC 637, Court reiterated that vacancies arising post-joining (due to resignation, etc.) are to be treated as fresh vacancies and cannot be filled from the existing waitlist without fresh recruitment [Paras 16, 19].

DoPT OM Dated 13.06.2000 – Inapplicable to Judicial Services – Separation of Judicial Administration - Court rejected analogy with Central Government recruitment governed by DoPT rules – Held: Delhi Judicial Services governed by separate state-specific rules – DoPT OMs and UPSC-based interpretations not binding on judicial recruitment [Paras 17-18].

Allegation of Misconduct in Joining – Not Justiciable in Present Petition – Issue Left Open - The Court declined to enter into the question of whether the resigned candidate (Ms. Riya Goyal) concealed facts relating to appointment in Punjab Judicial Service – Held: Not relevant for deciding entitlement of petitioner to appointment from waitlist [Para 24].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – No Right to Appointment - Petition seeking appointment against vacancy arising due to resignation after joining held not maintainable – Court recommended placing judgment before the Rules Committee for consideration of amending DJS Rules to resolve existing ambiguity [Paras 23, 25].

Family Law - Section 14 and 23 of the Hindu Succession Act – Right of Residence – Married/Destitute Daughters – Decree for Eviction Set Aside – The plaintiffs sought possession from female heirs (daughters of Rama) alleging they were gratuitous licensees – Defendants claimed possession since before 1956 on property allotted by their father Rama for maintenance – High Court held that even prior to Hindu Succession Act, 1956, there was a moral obligation on the father to maintain his daughters – Held: Under Section 14 of the Act, such rights mature into absolute ownership – Section 23 (pre-2005) affirmed their right of residence – Plaintiff’s suit for possession unsustainable [Paras 5-21].

Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act – Scope and Applicability – Property possessed by a Hindu female – Absolute Ownership – It was held that Section 14(1) has wide scope and converts limited rights (even arising from moral obligations) into absolute ownership – No restrictive covenant under Section 14(2) shown in this case – Hence, defendants' right to residence matured into ownership [Paras 13-15, 17].

Moral Obligation to Maintain – Converts to Legal Obligation – Where a father allows destitute or widowed daughters to reside on property, such a moral obligation matures into a legal right when acknowledged – This principle extends to heirs inheriting the property – The court reaffirmed that legal obligations flowing from moral duties remain valid under Hindu law [Paras 14-17].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Decrees of Trial Court and First Appellate Court Set Aside – Defendants’ right to reside upheld – Plaintiff’s claim for eviction rejected as unsustainable under law [Paras 21-22].

Bail Appeal – Section 14-A(2) SC/ST Act – Appeal Allowed – The appellant challenged rejection of his bail applications in offences under IPC including Section 376, 376D and SC/ST Act – Victim’s statement under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS contained contradictions; no supporting medical evidence; trial yet to commence – Court found that essential ingredients of SC/ST Act not prima facie established – Held: Appellant made out a case for bail; rejection orders set aside; bail granted with conditions [Paras 1, 3-7].

Sexual Offence Allegations – Evidentiary Contradictions – Victim’s Testimony – The Court noted that the prosecutrix aged 29 years had inconsistencies in her statements and absence of medical corroboration weakened the prosecution’s version at the bail stage – Bail cannot be denied solely on allegations when evidence is doubtful and trial delayed [Paras 3-4, 7].

Grant of Bail – Conditions Imposed – The appellant directed to be released on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions: (i) not to tamper with evidence; (ii) not to intimidate witnesses; (iii) to appear before trial court unless exempted; (iv) not to commit similar offences; (v) not to induce/threaten persons acquainted with facts – Prosecution given liberty to seek cancellation of bail in case of breach [Paras 8-10].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Impugned bail rejection orders dated 13.01.2025 and 05.02.2025 set aside – Bail granted to appellant Abdul Raseed [Paras 8-10].

Theft Case – Conviction under Section 379 IPC – Sole Reliance on Recovery Evidence – Not Sustainable – Petitioner convicted for snatching ornaments from complainant’s wife – Neither complainant nor witness identified accused – No test identification conducted – Conviction rested entirely on recovery of ornaments under Section 27 Evidence Act – Court held recovery is not substantive evidence and cannot by itself establish guilt – Conviction and sentence set aside [Paras 6-9, 11].

Recovery under Section 27 – Corroboration Required – Supreme Court Precedent – Court relied on Manoj Kumar Soni v. State of M.P., AIR 2023 SC 3857, holding that disclosure statements and recovery under Section 27, though relevant, cannot be the sole basis for conviction unless corroborated by independent evidence – Here, absence of corroboration rendered conviction unsustainable [Paras 9, 11].

Presumption under Section 114(a) Evidence Act – Cannot Be Drawn in Isolation – Prosecution urged conviction at least under Section 411 IPC for possession of stolen property – Court held presumption under Section 114(a) must be based on corroborative material – Sole reliance on disclosure/recovery insufficient – Conviction under Section 411 also impermissible [Paras 10-11].

Appellate and Trial Courts – Error in Law – Correction by High Court – Both trial and appellate courts erred in sustaining conviction on recovery evidence alone – High Court intervened in revision, holding absence of substantive evidence linking accused to theft warranted acquittal [Paras 7, 11].

Final Decision – Conviction and Sentence Set Aside – Accused Acquitted – High Court allowed revision petition – Petitioner acquitted of all charges under Sections 379/34 IPC – Held recovery evidence alone insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Para 11].