Land Acquisition – Valuation – 2013 Act to Apply Despite 1894 Initiation – Compensation Recalculated – Although reference was made under Section 18 of the 1894 Act, since no award had been made when the 2013 Act came into force, the provisions of the 2013 Act applied as per Section 24(1)(a) – Held: Market value to be assessed as per highest pre-notification sale deed (Rs.6,02,500/- less value of structure Rs.49,956/-) resulting in Rs.5,52,544/- per cottah as just compensation – Average pricing discarded; market value under Section 26(1)(a) preferred over average sale price [Paras 21–29, 43–45].

Procedural Fairness – No Objection Filed by State – No Right to Lead Evidence – State failed to file written objections under Section 18 reference; thus barred from introducing additional evidence – Referral Court rightly relied on unopposed documents submitted by claimant – Additional evidence application dismissed [Paras 30–32, 44].

Statutory Interest – Sections 72 and 80 of 2013 Act – Direction to Ascertain Date of Possession – Held: Interest on excess compensation and delayed payment under Sections 72 and 80 is statutory – Referral Court directed to ascertain actual date of possession and award due interest accordingly – Absence of such interest in original award found to be legal error [Paras 56–60].

Date of Award – Governor’s Approval Not Required Under 2013 Act – Argument Rejected – Claimant’s argument that compensation should run till Governor’s assent was rejected – Held: 2013 Act does not require Government approval for validity of award; award date remains July 30, 2015 [Paras 47–55].

Decision – Appeals Allowed in Part – Referral Court Award Set Aside – Matter Remanded – Both appeals partly allowed – Market value fixed at Rs.5,52,544/- per cottah – Solatium under Section 30 and interest under Sections 30(3), 72 and 80 directed to be computed – Matter remanded to Referral Court to determine date of possession and recalculate compensation with multipliers and statutory interest – To be completed within 8 months [Paras 62–64].
 

Matrimonial Law - Territorial Jurisdiction – Determination under Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act – Application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC Dismissed – Appellant claimed parties last resided in Faridabad, Haryana; Respondent claimed last matrimonial residence in Anand Parbat, New Delhi – Divorce petition filed in Delhi based on residence at Anand Parbat – Court found jurisdiction properly vested with Family Court, Tis Hazari, based on averments in the petition and lack of jurisdictional objection in prior restitution petition – Held: Divorce petition was rightly filed at Delhi; Application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC was rightly dismissed [Paras 5–19].

Pleading Standards – Consideration of Jurisdiction at Pleading Stage – Divorce petition’s averments taken as true at preliminary stage – Jurisdiction examined based on plaint only, not defence – Held: Return of plaint not warranted where jurisdiction properly claimed in pleadings [Paras 13–16].

Equitable Clarification – Opportunity to Raise Jurisdiction Later – Dismissal of application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC does not preclude raising territorial jurisdiction objection during trial – Held: Right to contest jurisdiction at later stage preserved [Para 20].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Family Court had territorial jurisdiction based on last matrimonial residence in Delhi – No infirmity found in impugned order – Appeal and pending applications dismissed as meritless [Paras 19–21].
 

Rent Control – Claim of Tenancy and Deposit of Rent – Scope of Section 30(1), U.P. Rent Act – Petition Dismissed – Respondent No.3 filed an application under Section 30(1) claiming tenancy and sought to deposit rent after alleged refusal by landlord – Petitioner objected denying tenancy and ownership – Trial Court allowed the deposit at claimant’s risk and held landlord had no locus to object – District Judge dismissed revision as not maintainable – Held: Section 30 allows deposit by persons “claiming to be tenants” and does not require adjudication on landlord-tenant relationship – Munsif acts as a court, not a persona designata, but powers under Section 30 are confined to permitting deposit without adjudicating rights – No revision lies due to overriding effect of Section 38 of the Act – Petition dismissed [Paras 2–13].

Jurisdiction – Revisional Powers and Bar under Special Act – CPC Overridden – Revision Not Maintainable – The High Court clarified that although Munsif acts as a court, the order passed under Section 30 of the Act is not revisable under Section 115 CPC due to explicit bar under Section 38 of the U.P. Rent Act – Any adjudication on tenancy must be done under Chapters II to IV of the Act and not in proceedings under Section 30 – Order permitting rent deposit has no bearing on substantive rights [Paras 11–13].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Deposit Does Not Confer Tenancy Rights – High Court held petitioner lacked locus as he neither proved ownership nor landlord status – Permitting rent deposit by respondent does not grant tenancy protection – Future eviction proceedings remain unaffected by the deposit order [Paras 16–17].
 

Civil Law - Coparcenary Rights of Daughter – Applicability of Section 6, Hindu Succession Act – Partition Sought by Daughter – Upheld – The daughter, born before the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, sought partition of ancestral property acquired by her father through a registered partition deed dated 04.02.2004 – Held: Since no partition took place between the father and his children before or after the 2005 amendment, the daughter had coparcenary rights by birth and was entitled to a share – The oral partition claimed by defendants was unproven, and absence of father’s testimony weighed against the defense – Section 6(5) did not preclude her claim – Judgment of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court upheld [Paras 17–20, 25–26].

Second Appeal – Scope under Section 100 CPC – Concurrent Findings – Not Interfered – The High Court reiterated the principle that it shall not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on inadmissible evidence – Found that both lower courts had rightly concluded the suit schedule property was ancestral and undivided – No reason to interfere under second appeal jurisdiction [Paras 15–16, 26].

Decision: Second Appeal Dismissed – The High Court upheld the findings of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court, affirming the plaintiff’s right to a share in ancestral property as a coparcener – No substantial question of law was found to merit interference under Section 100 CPC – The concurrent findings were based on proper appreciation of evidence and legal principles – The appeal was therefore dismissed [Para 26].
 

Civil Law – Injunction - Personality and Publicity Rights – Unauthorized Use of Celebrity Name – Interim Injunction Upheld – Respondent No.1, a well-known filmmaker and media personality, sought to restrain the Appellant from using his name “Karan Johar” in the title and promotional content of a film without consent – The Court found prima facie that the Appellant's use of the name in the film “Shaadi Ke Director Karan Aur Johar” was intended to exploit the goodwill and brand value of Respondent No.1 – Held: Use of the name violated personality rights, publicity rights, and the right to privacy of the Respondent No.1 – Interim injunction rightly granted [Paras 1, 5, 13, 16-19].

Celebrity Status – Protection of Brand Identity – Distinction from Generic Use – The Court distinguished the present case from other films like “Karan Arjun”, holding that “Karan Johar” is a unique identifier for the Respondent No.1 – The film’s juxtaposition of “Karan” and “Johar” with “Director” made a direct reference to the Respondent – Held: Respondent’s name forms part of his brand identity which enjoys legal protection [Paras 13-14, 19].

CBFC Certification – No Bar to Enforcement of Personality Rights – Appellant’s argument that CBFC certification precludes court from granting injunction was rejected – Held: CBFC certification does not consider infringement of personal rights including publicity and personality rights – Legal remedies under common law and torts remain enforceable irrespective of CBFC clearance [Paras 23-25].

Disclaimers – Inadequacy in Protecting Personality Rights – Appellant’s reliance on disclaimers in posters and film content disassociating the movie from Respondent No.1 was rejected – Held: Disclaimers are insufficient where the overall title and presentation exploit the celebrity’s identity and create confusion in public perception [Para 26].

Appeal Dismissed – No Interference with Discretion of Single Judge – The Division Bench declined to interfere with the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge, holding that the findings were based on settled legal principles and justified by material on record – Appeal dismissed with disposal of pending interim applications [Paras 29-31].
 

Criminal Law - Bail under PMLA – Continued Incarceration – Right to Liberty – Bail Granted - Petitioner implicated under PMLA for alleged role in diversion of funds through Shivakriti Agro Pvt. Ltd. and facilitating re-acquisition of M/s Sunstar Overseas Ltd. via shell entities – Though alleged to be a close aide of key accused Rohit Aggarwal, petitioner not named in predicate offence FIR or chargesheet – Held: Petitioner had cooperated in investigation and was not found to have personally benefitted from proceeds of crime – Main accused not arrested – Trial in predicate offence and PMLA complaint at nascent stage – Petitioner in custody for over 10 months – Following SC precedent in V. Senthil Balaji and others, continued custody would violate Article 21 rights – Bail granted subject to conditions [Paras 24–38].

Matrimonial Law - Maintenance to Wife – Refusal Based on Decree for Restitution of Conjugal Rights – Decree Not Sufficient by Itself – The Family Court denied maintenance to the wife solely on the ground of her non-compliance with a decree of restitution of conjugal rights – Held: As per Apex Court precedent, mere existence of such decree is not sufficient to disentitle a wife from maintenance – The husband must further establish that wife left without sufficient reason – Failure to consider this led to legal error in the order [Paras 3–4].

Maintenance to Daughter – Inadequate Reasoning for Quantum – Family Court awarded Rs. 2000/month till 06.05.2024 and Rs. 5000/month thereafter to the minor daughter – Held: Trial Court failed to assign reasons or consider father’s income and lifestyle to justify the quantum – Order suffers illegality on this count – Matter remitted for fresh decision [Para 6].

Conflicting Pleas – Incongruity Between Seeking Restitution and Divorce – Husband had sought divorce under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act while simultaneously citing wife’s refusal to comply with decree of restitution – Held: This contradiction casts doubt on husband’s case and should have been considered in evaluating sufficiency of wife’s cause to live separately [Para 5].

Decision – Impugned Order Set Aside – Interim Maintenance Directed – The impugned order of the Family Court is set aside – Matter remanded for fresh disposal within 3 months – Meanwhile, interim maintenance of Rs. 5000/month each to wife and daughter directed from 01.04.2025, to be adjusted in final award [Paras 6–7].

Tenancy Law - Thika Tenancy – Interpretation of Documentary Evidence – Declaration of Thika Tenancy Upheld – The plaintiffs claimed rights as thika tenants over a property comprising 21 rooms based on tenancy of their predecessor Khalil Choudhury – Defendants claimed ownership by purchase deeds and will – Trial Court dismissed suit holding Khalil was not a thika tenant – First Appellate Court reversed the finding, holding Khalil’s name appeared in rent receipts and his possession of 8 rooms indicated tenancy – Held: Appellate Court’s view reasonable, supported by documents and not perverse – Declaration of thika tenancy affirmed [Paras 6, 16–18, 23].

Ownership vs. Tenancy Rights – Simultaneous Vesting Not Permissible – Appellants contended that claim of thika tenancy and ownership could not coexist – Held: Even if ownership by purchase was assumed, in absence of surrender, the thika tenancy rights of Khalil subsist under new landlord – Rights are independent and subsisting unless relinquished [Para 22].

Jurisdiction – Civil Court Competence – Thika Tenancy Disputes Prior to 2010 Amendment – Objection to jurisdiction raised citing amendment to 2001 Act – Held: Since suit filed in 1978, prior to 2010 amendment, civil court was competent to decide thika tenancy rights – Amendment not retrospective – Jurisdiction upheld [Paras 25–26].

Inheritance under Mohammedan Law – Rights of Grandchildren – Respondents claimed ownership under inheritance as residuary heirs – Appellants contested bequest under will to grandchildren – Held: Issue not determinative since suit confined to thika tenancy rights – However, noted that under Sunni Law, grandchildren through predeceased daughter not direct heirs; will cannot operate beyond 1/3rd share without consent [Paras 13–14, 24].

Second Appeal – Scope under Section 100 CPC – Interference with First Appellate Court’s Finding – Appellate Court found Khalil to be thika tenant based on documents and admissions – High Court held such finding was not perverse nor based on inadmissible evidence – Interference not warranted in second appeal – Appeal dismissed [Paras 27–29].

Criminal Law – Regular Bail - Foreign National – Allegation of Illegal Entry – Confession to Police – Accused arrested on suspicion of being a Bangladeshi national without valid documents—Prosecution relied on alleged oral confession—Held: Confession before police inadmissible; prosecution case based only on alleged statement unsupported by valid documentary proof [Paras 2–5].

Constitutional Law – Violation of Articles 21 and 22 – Delayed Production Before Magistrate – Applicant arrested at 12:30 PM on 28.01.2025 and produced before Magistrate at 4:30 PM on 29.01.2025—Held: Custody beyond 24 hours without remand order violates Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution and Section 50 CrPC—Arrest prima facie vitiated; Court has duty to intervene [Paras 5.1–7].

Bail Jurisprudence – Supreme Court Precedents – Duty of Court to Enforce Fundamental Rights – Court followed Directorate of Enforcement v. Subhash Sharma, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 240—Held: When fundamental rights are breached, bail must be granted irrespective of whether the plea was raised during remand—Division Bench ruling in Karan Ratan Rokade not applicable due to factual differences [Paras 5.3–6].

Proof of Nationality – Existence of Indian Identity Documents – Applicant relied on Aadhar, PAN, Ration Card, Voter ID, marriage certificate, and Gram Panchayat certificate to show long-term residence in India—Held: Documents raise triable issue; bail appropriate as prosecution must prove case during trial [Paras 5, 9].

Decision – Bail granted – Applicant to be released on ₹5,000 P.R. bond with two sureties – Provisional cash bail allowed – Conditions imposed including regular court attendance, no tampering with evidence, and restriction on travel outside Maharashtra – Order limited to bail, not merits [Paras 10–12].