Tenancy Law - Lease and Eviction – Expired Lease Period – Tenant Liable for Eviction – Second Appeal Dismissed – High Court upheld concurrent findings that the appellant was a tenant under a registered lease deed from 01.11.2002 to 31.10.2008 – Quit notice issued and tenancy not renewed – Appellant held unauthorized occupant thereafter – Eviction decree affirmed [Paras 1–4, 16–21, 26].

No Substantial Question of Law – Second Appeal Not Maintainable – High Court held that no substantial question of law arose under Section 100 CPC – Disputed facts already decided by two courts below based on evidence – Law clarified that factual conclusions not open to re-evaluation in second appeal [Paras 13–15, 26].

Oral Assurances and Construction Investment – No Proof – Tenant’s Claims Rejected – Allegations that landlord permitted continued occupation or rent waiver in lieu of construction by tenant were rejected due to lack of evidence – No documents or credible proof produced by appellant – Oral promises deemed vague and unenforceable [Paras 18–20].

Pendente Lite Transfers – Section 52 TPA – Purchasers Added as Respondents – During pendency of suit, plaintiffs sold property to respondents 7–10 – Purchasers validly impleaded under Section 52 as pendente lite transferees – Entitled to take possession on success of suit [Paras 25, 28].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Possession to Be Delivered – Second appeal dismissed at admission stage – Appellant directed to hand over possession within three months to respondents 7–10 or face legal enforcement [Paras 28–29].

Criminal Law - Sexual Assault of Minor – Section 354B IPC and Section 10 POCSO – Conviction Upheld – Based on consistent testimony of the victim and her immediate disclosures to two neighbors, supported by FIR and medical evidence, the High Court confirmed the conviction – Appellant’s act of disrobing the 7-year-old victim after luring her into his room established assault with sexual intent [Paras 1–12].

Penetrative Sexual Assault – Allegation Disbelieved – Section 376AB Charge Not Made Out – Although the victim later alleged penetrative assault, her earlier statement under Section 164 CrPC and neighbors' accounts did not corroborate this – Doctor's finding of ruptured hymen without accompanying injuries led the court to reject rape charge [Paras 5–6, 12].

Medical and Witness Testimony – Inconsistencies Not Material – Court held minor contradictions and absence of medical injuries did not undermine consistent core accusation of sexual assault – Trial court rightly excluded exaggerated claims and focused on credible portion of testimony [Paras 6–8].

Admissibility of Magistrate Statements – Not Prejudicial – High Court rejected challenge that non-examination of Magistrate who recorded Section 164 CrPC statements prejudiced defence – Held: Such statements admissible under Section 80 Evidence Act; Appellant had opportunity to summon magistrate but didn’t [Para 13].

Age of Victim – Proven Through Birth Certificate – Challenge to age dismissed as birth certificate was on record and marked as exhibit without contrary evidence from Appellant [Para 13].

Presumption Under POCSO – Not Rebutted – Section 29 of POCSO invoked to affirm guilt – Appellant failed to rebut presumption or prove any ulterior motive such as property dispute – Contradictions deemed immaterial [Para 14].

Final Decision – Conviction and Sentence Affirmed – CRA (SB) No. 72 of 2023 Dismissed – Judgment of trial court upheld in entirety, with no interference warranted [Paras 15–16].
 

Civil Law - Lok Adalat – Award Finality and Bar on Civil Court Challenge – Challenge Not Maintainable – Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit or miscellaneous application to set aside a Lok Adalat award, even on grounds of fraud – Only remedy is a writ under Articles 226/227 of Constitution – Application filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC held not tenable [Paras 18–23].

Binding Nature of Lok Adalat Awards – Treated as Civil Court Decree – Lok Adalat award based on Compromise Memo signed by parties and accepted by Presiding Officer – Award deemed final and executable as per Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act – Findings of due procedure and party consent upheld [Paras 14–17].

No Exception for Fraud Allegations – Supreme Court Precedents Binding – Citing State of Punjab v. Jalour Singh and Bhargavi Constructions, Court held even fraud claims must be raised in writ jurisdiction, not through separate suit or civil application – Procedural route used does not affect jurisdictional bar [Paras 18–22].

Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC – Inapplicability to Lok Adalat Awards – Provisions applicable to consent decrees from court proceedings—not to statutory Lok Adalat awards – Attempt to indirectly challenge award under Rule 3 CPC rejected as contrary to Supreme Court rulings [Para 24].

Final Decision – Civil Judge’s Order Set Aside – Miscellaneous Civil Application Rejected – High Court allowed revision and quashed the impugned order – MCA No. 87 of 2021 declared not maintainable [Paras 25–26].

Arbitration Law - Arbitration Clause – Unilateral Termination Option – Clause Upheld – Appointment Directed - Clause allowing only the lender (Applicant) to opt out of arbitration upon becoming a SARFAESI beneficiary was challenged – Delhi High Court's Tata Capital ruling was distinguished as context-specific and not binding in Section 11 proceedings – Held: Existence of arbitration agreement was evident and valid; unilateral opt-out clause not fatal at this stage – Arbitrator appointed [Paras 3-17].

Scope of Section 11 – Limited Review – Existence of Arbitration Agreement Sufficient – Court Not to Assess Validity - Applying precedents including Interplay Judgment (2024) and SBI General Insurance, the Court reiterated that under Section 11(6A), the judicial review is limited to existence, not validity of arbitration clause – Substantive objections must be raised under Section 16 before the Arbitral Tribunal [Paras 18-19].

SARFAESI Proceedings – Not a Bar to Arbitration – Parallel Remedies Permissible - Applicant’s initiation of SARFAESI proceedings does not preclude arbitration – Relying on M.D. Frozen Foods v. Hero Fincorp, dual remedies permissible; arbitration agreement remains intact [Para 19].

Previous Arbitration Lapsed – Fresh Arbitration Not Barred – Unilateral Appointment Void – The Court held that prior arbitration, initiated through a unilaterally appointed arbitrator, had lapsed – Such proceedings were void ab initio due to lack of neutrality – Applicant’s fresh invocation of arbitration allowed under Section 11 [Paras 20-21].

Final Order – Arbitrator Appointed – Objections to Be Raised Before Tribunal - Sole Arbitrator appointed; respondents may raise jurisdictional and substantive issues before the tribunal under Section 16 – No stay granted as Respondents’ interests are protected by arbitral safeguards [Paras 21-24].
 

Civil Law - Public Land Allotment – Burial Ground for Muslim Community – Petition Dismissed - The petitioners challenged the allotment of 0.16 acres of land in Survey No.138/1 in Chinamushidiwada Village for a burial ground on grounds of health risks and procedural lapse – Court found that the site was adjacent to existing Hindu and Christian burial grounds and allotted following due procedure under the Municipal Corporation Act – Held: Petitioners failed to prove any contamination risk or legal infirmity in the allotment process [Paras 2–8].

Health Hazard Allegations – No Evidence Provided – Petition Dismissed - Petitioners’ claim that the burial ground posed a health hazard, especially in light of the Covid-19 pandemic, was unsupported by evidence – No documented complaints or scientific data submitted – Existing neighboring burial grounds never contested earlier – Court rejected unsubstantiated apprehensions [Paras 6–7].

Alternate Land – Shift Due to Master Plan – Allotment Justified – Petition Dismissed - The earlier burial ground for the Muslim community was affected by 60-0 master plan road widening – The authorities identified alternative land based on feasibility and religious parity, as Hindu and Christian burial sites were already nearby – The administrative decision was found reasonable and legally sound [Paras 3, 7].

Decision – No Grounds for Interference – Writ Petition Dismissed - The Court concluded that the petition lacked merit and the land allotment was lawful and justified – No basis for invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 – Petition dismissed and pending applications closed [Paras 7–8].

Civil Law - Specific Performance – Agreement of Sale – Lack of Readiness and Willingness – Suit Dismissed – Plaintiffs claimed execution of sale agreement dated 28-02-1998 and alleged part payment of ₹25 lakhs – Only plaintiff No.5, as attorney holder, was examined; others did not depose – Held: Plaintiffs failed to prove execution, payment, or readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract – Absence of required notices and oral evidence by principal parties fatal to claim [Paras 14–20].

Limitation – Article 54 of the Limitation Act – Barred by Time – Agreement fixed 28-02-1999 as last date for execution of sale deed – Suit filed on 09-01-2003 – Held: Beyond the three-year period prescribed under Article 54 – Plaintiffs' attempt to extend limitation through post-dated documents and MOUs was disbelieved – Suit barred by limitation [Paras 19a–j].

Procedural Requirements – Suit Not in Conformity with CPC Form 47 – Registered Demand Not Issued – Notices issued only by plaintiff No.5 individually and not by all vendees – Held: Suit not in compliance with mandatory Forms 47 and 48 under Appendix A of CPC – Absence of registered demand to perform contract renders the suit defective [Para 18a–e].

Power of Attorney – Attorney Cannot Depose to Pre-POA Events – Evidence of Plaintiff No.5 Inadmissible – Attorney was granted POA in 2001, but testified about transactions in 1998–1999 – Held: Attorney-holder cannot testify to acts done by principals prior to the POA unless he had personal knowledge – Testimony not reliable to prove core allegations [Paras 16e–f].

Adverse Inference – Plaintiff No.2 Signed as Attestor to GPA in Favour of Third Party – Did Not Enter Witness Box – Held: Adverse inference drawn – Weakens credibility of plaintiffs' version and supports defendant’s plea that transaction was for loan and not a genuine sale [Paras 16c–d].

Trial Court Findings – Non-Framing of Key Issues – Reversed – Trial Court failed to frame issues on limitation, validity of agreement, and readiness/willingness – Held: Decree granted without addressing essential legal requirements – Judgment set aside [Para 20].

Final Decision – Appeals Allowed – Trial Court Decree Set Aside – Suit for specific performance dismissed – No order as to costs [Para 22].
 

Patent Law – Challenge to Section 53 Patents Act – Appeal Dismissed – Petitioners sought to declare Section 53 unconstitutional for counting patent term from application date despite delays in grant – High Court upheld that Section 53 and Section 11A(7) operate in distinct domains – Section 53 governs term and cessation; Section 11A(7) confers provisional rights without full enforceability until patent is granted [Paras 12–24].

Delay in Grant – No Violation of Constitutional Rights – No Ground for Striking Down Provision – The delay of 7 years in granting the patent, though regrettable, was held not to invalidate the statutory scheme – Representation seeking legislative amendment or compensation was found beyond judicial remit under Article 226 [Paras 6–11, 23–27].

Pre-grant Rights and Enforcement – Limited Scope – Interim Protection Only – Section 11A(7) provides limited privileges but bars infringement proceedings before patent grant – Court reaffirmed statutory rights in patent law are distinct from common law and are enforceable only post-grant [Paras 13–16, 24].

Judicial Review of Legislative Policy – Separation of Powers – Rejected – Court held it cannot direct Parliament to amend legislation or restructure statutory timelines – Reliance on comparative models like the US Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) was held inapplicable in Indian context, as affirmed by expert committee in Nittoo Denko case [Paras 25–26].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Writ Dismissal Affirmed – No conflict found between Sections 53 and 11A(7) – Appellants directed to bear their own costs – Request for certified copy allowed [Paras 27–30].

Taxation Law - Income Tax – Interpretation of Agreement – Assessment Based on Receipts, Not Gross Bills – Appeal Dismissed - The assessee contended that 5% infrastructure fee should be computed on gross advertising bills; however, the agreement specified 5% of “total receipts” – The Court upheld the lower authorities’ view that only net receipts disclosed in P&L (₹58.77 lakhs) were relevant – Held: Tribunal rightly rejected higher claim based on gross billing not reflected as income [Paras 1-11].

Commercial Expediency – Reasonableness of Expenditure – Judicial Deference to Business Judgment – Tribunal's View Affirmed - The assessee’s plea that AO erred in questioning business decisions was rejected – The Court reiterated principles from Walchand & Co. and J.K. Woollen Manufacturers that expenses must be real and incurred wholly for business – Disallowance of inflated claim upheld in absence of proof or perversity in findings [Paras 6-8].

Appeal under Section 260A – Limited Interference Permitted – No Perverse Finding – No Substantial Question of Law - Findings of AO, CIT(A), and ITAT were based on record and profit & loss statement – No case of perversity or legal misapplication found – Held: No interference warranted in appeal under Section 260A [Paras 9-12].

Final Decision – Question of Law Answered Against Assessee – Appeal Dismissed - The substantial question of law was answered in favour of revenue – Appeal dismissed as devoid of merit [Paras 12-13].
 

Civil Law - Arbitrability of Land Mutation Disputes – Civil Suit Referred to Arbitration – Challenge Dismissed – Petitioners challenged order of Civil Judge allowing application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act referring mutation dispute to arbitration – Held: Dispute arises from a Memorandum of Settlement containing valid arbitration clause – Subject matter is a private dispute over land title and not an action in rem – Suit properly referred to arbitration [Paras 1–3, 20.1–20.3].

Civil vs. Arbitration Forum – Declaratory Relief in Mutation Disputes – Arbitrable – Argument that mutation challenges are governed by Section 45 of the Haryana Land Revenue Act and fall within civil court jurisdiction was rejected – Held: Arbitrator has jurisdiction over claims in personam even if linked to revenue records – Provisions of Section 127 of the Act allow for arbitration of such disputes [Paras 5, 20.4].

Petitioners’ Conduct – Inconsistent Litigation Strategy – Petitioners Themselves Invoked Arbitration – Court noted that petitioners had filed applications under Sections 9 and 11 of the Arbitration Act and raised same mutation dispute in arbitral proceedings – Held: Petitioners estopped from arguing that dispute is non-arbitrable [Paras 2.6, 20.2].

Principle of Minimal Court Interference – Section 8, 11 Jurisdiction Narrow – Citing Vidya Drolia and Emaar India precedents – Held: Judicial review at referral stage limited to prima facie review of arbitration clause and manifestly non-arbitrable cases – No such circumstance present here – Arbitral Tribunal to decide jurisdiction [Paras 12–16, 20.5–20.6].

Scope of Section 8 Application – Erroneous Mention of Order VII Rule 11 – Clarified – Trial Court mistakenly mentioned plaint rejection under Order VII Rule 11(d) despite no such application – Held: Order still valid as only referral to arbitration under Section 8 was granted – No jurisdictional error caused [Para 20.8].

Final Decision – Revision Petition Dismissed – Impugned order upheld – Civil Suit correctly referred to arbitration – No interference warranted under Article 227 of the Constitution [Para 21].