Criminal Law - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Inherent Powers under Section 482 CrPC – Alternative Remedy Available – The applicant sought quashing of proceedings under Section 406 IPC – Held: In view of recent Supreme Court decisions, inherent jurisdiction should not be exercised when efficacious statutory remedy exists – Application under Section 482 CrPC not maintainable when revision remedy available – Dismissed with liberty to approach revisional court [Paras 1-6].

Principle of Law – Inherent Jurisdiction Should Not Circumvent Statutory Remedy – Referring to judgments in Vipin Sahni v. CBI and Mohit alias Sonu v. State of U.P., the Court reiterated that Section 482 jurisdiction must be invoked sparingly and only in exceptional cases – Present case showed no extreme or unavoidable circumstance warranting intervention [Paras 3-6].

Relief to Applicant – Age and Warrant Consideration – Applicant aged 92 years – Non-bailable warrant issued – Court directed that if revision is filed within 10 days, no coercive action be taken and bail application be considered promptly in accordance with law [Para 8].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Revision Permitted – Application under Section 482 CrPC dismissed as not maintainable – Liberty granted to file revision within ten days – Revisional court directed to decide the matter on merits within six weeks of filing [Paras 7-9].

Arbitration Appeal – Improper Constitution of Arbitral Tribunal – Arbitrator Lacked Jurisdiction – Fresh Commencement Required – After the initial award was set aside, appellants re-approached the same arbitrator without issuing notice under Section 21 or mutual agreement of parties – Held: Arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to recommence proceedings; Single Judge rightly held the award invalid due to defective constitution of the tribunal [Paras 13-29].

Commencement of Arbitration – Section 21 of the Arbitration Act – Notice Requirement Mandatory – No Request Served – Despite Court permitting fresh arbitration, appellants failed to serve Section 21 notice – Held: Substantial compliance absent; failure vitiated the entire arbitral proceedings – Award correctly set aside [Paras 22-28].

Contract Law – Memorandum of Understanding – Not a Concluded Contract – Directions Not Capable of Execution – The MoU lacked clarity on redevelopment terms and depended on uncertain tenant consents – Held: Absence of definitive agreement on demolition vs additional floors and tenant consent obligations meant the MoU was not enforceable – Arbitrator’s award directing specific performance was based on incomplete reading of the agreement [Paras 30-33].

Judicial Review under Section 34 – Arbitrator Ignored Vital Evidence – Perversity of Award – Arbitrator excluded critical clauses and proceeded as if MoU was a binding sale deed – Held: Such exclusion rendered the award perverse; Single Judge acted within Section 34 jurisdiction to set it aside [Paras 32-35].

Final Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Award Held Invalid – No Interference Warranted – The Division Bench confirmed Single Judge’s order setting aside arbitral award; appellants failed to establish jurisdictional or substantive error in findings – Held: No perversity or jurisdictional overreach found in Single Judge’s decision [Paras 35-36].

Writ Petition – Ex-parte Decree – Order 5 Rule 17 CPC – Section 96(2) CPC – Section 224 Rajasthan Tenancy Act – Three impugned judgments quashed – Petitioner assailed ex-parte decree (09.05.2002) and affirming appellate orders (21.07.2004; 22.09.2020) on ground of defective service and denial of hearing – Held: Appeal under Section 96(2) CPC against an ex-parte decree is a substantive statutory remedy; where service via affixation lacked compliance with Order 5 Rule 17 (no witness identification/signature), service was incomplete and ex-parte proceedings unsustainable – Matter remitted to Assistant Collector for de novo trial; decide expeditiously, preferably within two years – Writ disposed of [Paras 6-8, 10-11, 15-16].

Service of Summons – Affixation without witness identification – Non-compliance with Order 5 Rule 17 CPC vitiates service – Process Server failed to obtain signature of any witness identifying the house; treating such unverified affixation as complete service was erroneous – Ex-parte proceedings could not have been drawn [Paras 8-10].

Appeal Against Ex-parte Decree – Dual remedies – Section 96(2) CPC vs. Order 9 Rule 13 CPC – Defendant may file either an application under Order 9 Rule 13 or a regular appeal under Section 96(2) challenging the decree on merits – Right of appeal is substantive and cannot be denied merely because no Order 9 Rule 13 application was filed – Respondents’ objection to maintainability rejected [Paras 6-7, 12-13].

Appellate Scrutiny – Technical rejection unsustainable – RAA erred in rejecting appeal on the technical count that no written statement was filed and no issues framed; record showed written statement existed – Failure to address improper service and ex-parte nature amounts to material irregularity [Para 11].

Natural Justice – Audi alteram partem – Passing ex-parte decree without proper service violates principles of natural justice; sufficient cause shown for non-appearance where summons service is doubtful – Ex-parte decree not sustainable [Para 14].

Decision – All three impugned judgments dated 09.05.2002, 21.07.2004 and 22.09.2020 set aside – Suit remitted to Assistant Collector for fresh decision after framing issues and granting opportunity to both sides; trial to be concluded expeditiously, preferably within two years from receipt of certified copy – Writ petition disposed of; pending applications also disposed [Paras 15-16].

Criminal Law - Interim Bail – Appeal for Extended Duration – Modified for Travel – Appellant accused of grave offences under UAPA and IPC sought interim bail to attend his daughter’s marriage – Trial Court had limited the bail only to the event hours on 26th and 27th July – Held: Given distance from Chennai to Bengaluru, and humanitarian nature of the request, interim bail modified to cover 25th to 28th July for travel and participation – Conditions imposed [Paras 1-2, 6-10].

Terrorism Charges – Alleged Links with ISIS – No Regular Bail – Appellant involved in two separate NIA cases alleging conspiracy to wage war against the nation and radicalization of youth for terrorist acts – Interim relief granted solely for family ceremony – Regular bail not considered due to seriousness of allegations [Paras 2-4, 9].

Scope of Judicial Discretion – Trial Court Bound to Assess Independently – The Court clarified that bail granted in a parallel NIA case in Chennai does not bind the Bengaluru Court – Each case to be evaluated independently based on its own facts and context [Para 9].

Conditions of Bail – Escort Mandated – Court directed execution of ₹1,00,000 personal bond with two sureties – Escort police to avoid handcuffing at venue, and to maintain vigil at all times – Escort charges to be borne by appellant – Movement coordinated between prisons and police of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu [Para 10].

Final Order – Appeal Partly Allowed – Impugned order modified – Interim bail extended from 10:00 a.m. on 25.07.2025 to 10:00 a.m. on 28.07.2025 for marriage attendance – Trial Court and prison authorities directed to ensure security compliance [Para 10].

Criminal Law - Speedy Trial – Senior Citizen Complainant – Section 528 BNSS – Trial Court’s Leniency Towards Accused Decried – Petition Allowed – FIR registered on 31.03.2021 for offences under IPC and IT Act—challan filed 30.09.2021—trial delayed with only two witnesses examined in four years—accused repeatedly absent, granted numerous exemptions (30 to one accused, 10 to another), only bailable warrants issued—High Court held such leniency impermissible in serious crimes—reaffirmed Article 21 right to speedy trial citing Kartar Singh and Abdul Rehman Antulay—Directed trial court to conclude proceedings within eight months—District & Sessions Judge to convene meeting advising judicial officers against casual approach, especially in senior citizens’ cases [Paras 5–12].

Family Law - Domestic Violence – Right to Appeal – Section 29 of the DV Act – Leave to Appeal Denied – The petitioner, mother-in-law of the aggrieved woman, filed for leave to appeal against an order passed by the Trial Court under Section 12 of the DV Act – Held: She did not qualify as an “aggrieved person” under Section 2(a) and was not a party to the proceedings nor subject of the impugned order – Consequently, she lacked locus to maintain an appeal under Section 29 [Paras 2, 4-5].

Aggrieved Person – Interpretation of Section 2(a) of DV Act – Limitation on Scope – The Court reaffirmed that “aggrieved person” under the DV Act only includes a woman who has been in a domestic relationship and subjected to domestic violence – Held: Petitioner, being a mother-in-law and not the victim of violence, did not fall within this definition and thus could not invoke the appellate mechanism under Section 29 [Paras 3-5].

Alternative Remedy – Liberty Granted to Seek Impleadment – The petitioner sought liberty to move the Trial Court for impleadment as a party – Held: Liberty granted – The Trial Court to consider any such application after hearing objections and decide as per law [Paras 7-8].

Final Decision – Petition Disposed of with Liberty – The revision petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to move an application for impleadment before the Trial Court – No opinion expressed on merits – Trial Court directed to decide such application in accordance with law [Para 8-9].

Criminal Revision – Conviction under Arms Act – Acquittal Ordered – Petitioner was convicted under Sections 25(1-B)(a) and 26 of the Arms Act for alleged illegal possession of a country-made pistol and cartridges – Trial Court and Appellate Court upheld the conviction – High Court on revision found discrepancies in recovery location and nature of ammunition – Held: Prosecution failed to prove conscious or exclusive possession beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction set aside [Paras 1-5, 11, 13-18].

Contradictions in Seizure – Place of Recovery and Type of Cartridge – Seizure list stated recovery near a cabin on petitioner’s land; however, prosecution witnesses claimed recovery from petitioner’s waist – Cartridge bore also differed between seizure list (8mm KF) and oral evidence (.315 bore) – Court held such material discrepancies go to the root of the prosecution case [Paras 7-10, 16].

Appreciation of Evidence – Revisional Scope Invoked – Though normally limited, Court held revisional interference justified due to perverse findings by lower courts – Misreading of evidence and failure to address contradictions necessitated intervention [Paras 15-17].

Final Order – Conviction Reversed – Accused Acquitted – Revision allowed – Petitioner acquitted and released from bail bond – Trial Court directed to comply and destroy seized material after limitation period for SLP [Paras 18-23].

Civil Law  – Declaration and Injunction Suit – Title not established – Appeal dismissed – The plaintiff-appellant sought a declaration claiming ownership over 5 kanals of land on the basis of a sale deed executed by her husband Gurlal Singh, but the lower courts dismissed the suit holding that Gurlal Singh’s ownership was limited to 1/4th share and there was no evidence of ownership of 3/4th share as mentioned in the sale deed – The High Court upheld the concurrent findings observing that execution of a sale deed without lawful title cannot confer ownership – Held: No substantial question of law arises, second appeal dismissed [Paras 2-10].

Sale Beyond Ownership – Effect of Invalid Title – Legal Principle Reaffirmed – The Court reiterated that a vendor cannot sell more than his ownership share – Jamabandi entries recorded only 1/4th share of Gurlal Singh while the sale deed wrongly mentioned 3/4th share – Held: Execution of sale deed by a person without title does not vest ownership rights in vendee [Paras 7-9].

No Proof of Excess Sale by Defendants – Courts’ Findings Upheld – The appellant failed to prove that defendants/respondents had sold land in excess of their share – The courts below rightly relied on revenue records showing that the land sold by respondents was within their recorded share – Held: No illegality in the sale deed executed by respondents, suit rightly dismissed [Paras 9].

Concurrent Findings – No Substantial Question of Law – Appeal dismissed – The Court found no perversity or misapplication of law in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Trial and First Appellate Courts – Held: In the absence of any substantial question of law, second appeal not maintainable and liable to be dismissed [Para 10].

Decision of the Case – Appeal dismissed – The judgments and decrees of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court dismissing the plaintiff’s suit for declaration and injunction are affirmed – Pending applications also disposed of [Para 10].

Employment Law - Reservation of Municipal Wards – Rotation of SC/ST Seats – Rotation Not Mandatory – Appeal Allowed – The High Court reversed the order of the Writ Court which had quashed the reservation notification for municipal wards in Indore on grounds of failure to rotate reserved seats – Held: Rotation principle under Article 243T and Rules applies only to OBC and Women categories, not to SC/ST seats where reservation is based on concentration of population – Writ Court erred in interpreting rotation as mandatory for SC/ST seats [Paras 1-32].

Article 243T Interpretation – Use of “May” Indicates Discretion – Not Compulsion – The Court held that the term “may” in Article 243T relating to rotation of SC/ST reserved seats signifies discretion and not a mandatory obligation – Held: Legislative intent was to ensure reservation in proportion to concentrated SC/ST population; rotation is not a constitutional mandate for SC/ST seats [Paras 20-30].

Reservation Rules of 1994 – Rule 3 and 4 Distinguished – Rotation Limited to OBC and Women Categories – Court found that Rule 3 provides reservation of SC/ST wards based on population concentration in descending order while Rule 4 applies rotation principle only to OBC and Women reservations – Held: No legal requirement to rotate SC/ST wards during successive elections [Paras 24-30].

Reliance on Supreme Court Precedent – K. Krishna Murthy Judgment Not Applicable to SC/ST Ward Rotation – The Court clarified that reliance on K. Krishna Murthy’s judgment by writ petitioners was misplaced as it pertains to broader policy issues and not specific application of rotational reservation under local municipal statutes – Held: Supreme Court rulings do not mandate compulsory rotation of SC/ST wards [Paras 12-13, 28].

Overruling of Writ Court – Prior Division Bench Judgments Affirmed – High Court reaffirmed earlier judgments (Sunil v. State of M.P.; Mohammad Azad v. State of M.P.) holding non-applicability of rotation to SC/ST wards – Held: Writ Court’s contrary interpretation erroneous, appeal allowed [Paras 26-27, 31].

Final Decision – Writ Court Order Quashed – State’s Appeal Allowed – Notification Restored – High Court allowed appeal, set aside Writ Court judgment, upheld validity of Gazette Notification dated 06.11.2020 regarding ward reservations in Indore – Writ Petition dismissed [Paras 31-32].