Ex-Parte Injunction – Delay in Seeking Relief – Non-Commercial Suit – Interim Relief Denied – Plaintiff filed suit nearly two years after accepting defendants’ resignation and receiving their clarificatory responses – Court held that such delay defeated claim for urgent, ex-parte relief – Trial Court rightly observed no exceptional urgency warranting ex-parte injunction – Held: Discretion exercised by Trial Court is proper; no perversity found to warrant appellate interference [Paras 12–14.2].

Appointment of Receiver and Commissioner – Ex-Parte Relief – Balance of Convenience – Rejected – Trial Court refused ex-parte appointment of receiver and commissioner, noting plaintiff’s delay and absence of urgent risk of destruction of evidence – Liberty granted to seek such reliefs after serving notice to defendants – Held: Proper exercise of discretion; no exceptional circumstance shown – Appellate Court declined interference under Order 43 and Article 227 [Paras 15–16.2].

Scope of Appellate and Supervisory Jurisdiction – Order 43 and Article 227 – Judicial Discipline Reaffirmed – Appellate court reiterated limited scope to interfere with discretionary orders unless patently perverse or arbitrary – Cited precedents like Wander Ltd., Ramakant Choksi, and Sameer Suresh Gupta – Held: Trial Court's decision within bounds of law; no gross failure of justice made out [Paras 11–11.4].

Decision – Appeals and Writ Dismissed – No error, perversity, or arbitrariness found in Trial Court’s discretionary orders refusing ex-parte reliefs – All appeals and writ application dismissed accordingly [Paras 14.2, 16.2].

Civil Writ - Slum Rehabilitation Scheme – Challenge to Declaration of Land as Slum Area – Absence of Title – Declaration Upheld – Petitioners claimed tribal status and ownership over land declared as slum area in 2016 – Relied on decades-old revenue records and Village Specimen No. 2 – Held: No valid document of title or order of allotment produced – Mere entries in revenue records insufficient to establish ownership – AGRC rightly held Petitioners as unauthorized occupants [Paras 34-49, 50-51].

Delay in Challenge – Eight-Year Delay – Slum Scheme Substantially Progressed – No Interference Warranted – Notification declaring slum area issued in 2016 – Petitioners approached Court and AGRC in 2024 – Meanwhile, 2255 out of 2313 slum structures demolished – Held: Delay defeats equity – Slum scheme too advanced to halt – Reliance placed on Apex Court decision in Mansur Ali Farida Irshad Ali [Paras 57-60].

Scope of Section 3C – Declaration of Slum Area Without Prior Declaration Under Section 4 – Legally

Permissible – Petitioners argued absence of declaration under Section 4 invalidated subsequent steps – Held: Section 3C is independent and not dependent on Section 4 – Supported by precedent in Santosh Tukaram Patil – AGRC decision sustained [Paras 52-53].

Implementation on Gairan Land – Mutation in Government Name – Slum Scheme Valid – Petitioners claimed land was Gairan and not legally available for redevelopment – Held: Mutation Entry No. 4598 records land in Government name – Gairan status no longer applicable – Notification and scheme valid – Cited Santosh Madhukar Bhondve and Jagpal Singh cases distinguished [Paras 54-56].

Eviction Proceedings – Validity of Eviction Orders under Sections 33 and 38 – Confirmed – Petitioners contended eviction orders violated their rights as alleged owners – Held: No ownership proved – Orders passed after due process and rightly upheld by AGRC – No interference required [Paras 61-64].

Final Decision – Petitions Dismissed – Implementation of Slum Scheme Not to Be Halted – Court finds no merit in Petitioners’ claim of ownership or challenge to slum declaration – Petitioners entitled to rehab tenements if eligible – Scheme implementation must proceed for benefit of majority slum dwellers [Para 65].

Civil Writ - Customs Law – Amendment of IGM – Section 30(3) of the Customs Act – Delay and Noncompliance – Amendment Permissible - The Court held that authorities failed in their statutory duty under Section 30(3) of the Customs Act, 1962, to amend the Import General Manifest (IGM) despite a valid Bill of Lading showing Ludhiana as the final destination – Their reliance on a circular requiring shipping company’s request was misplaced – Such delay resulted in hardship to the petitioner importing perishable items [Paras 3-5, 26-28, 30-33].

Transshipment – Refusal to Shift Goods – Negligent Handling – Interim Relief Granted - The Court had to repeatedly intervene due to non-compliance with its directions, including transshipment orders and failure of Customs Officers and shipping line to coordinate – Goods were wrongly shifted to Saurashtra Freight Pvt. Ltd. instead of GRFL ICD, Ludhiana, leading to further delays and obstruction [Paras 11-13, 20-21, 31-33].

Refund of Customs Duty – Perishable Goods – Goods Rendered Unfit – Refund Granted – Despite Section 26A(3) Disallowing Refund - The Court held that when imported goods perish due to official delay and inaction in violation of court orders, refund of customs duty paid under protest is justified – Section 26A(3) does not bar refund in such extraordinary circumstances – The importer had placed sufficient proof of damage and disposal of goods [Paras 25, 36, 49-55].

Compensation for Damages – Negligence of Customs and Shipping Line – Principles of Bailment and Unjust Enrichment Applied – Compensation Allowed - The Court invoked principles of strict liability and unjust enrichment – Held that Customs acted as bailee with duty to preserve goods – Delay in clearance and mismanagement by authorities and shipping line led to destruction of perishable items, warranting compensation for the value of goods (`66,79,674) and refund of customs duty [Paras 50-57].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Court Orders Refund of Duty and Compensation – Customs and Shipping Company Found Liable – Court directed refund of customs duty and awarded compensation for loss of goods due to delay caused by respondents – Held that bureaucratic delay and disregard of orders caused perishable imports to deteriorate and must be compensated in writ jurisdiction [Paras 49-57].
 

Criminal Law – Murder - Appeals Against Conviction  - Sole Eyewitness – Contradictions in Testimony – Conviction Set Aside – Informant (PW3), wife of deceased, alleged dragging and joint assault by accused – Cross-examination revealed inconsistencies regarding sequence and participation – Medical evidence did not support claim of dragging – Held: Sole testimony lacked corroboration and credibility – Conviction based solely on such evidence unsustainable [Paras 60–70, 85–86].

Section 34 IPC – Common Intention – Absence of Overt Act – Applicability Denied – PW3 admitted only one accused (now deceased) struck blows – No specific role or overt act attributed to appellants – Held: Mere presence or instigation insufficient without proof of shared intention or participation – Essential ingredients of Section 34 not satisfied – Constructive liability not attracted [Paras 71–83, 86–90].

Minor Discrepancies vs Material Contradictions – Witness Reliability – Prosecution Version Undermined – Contradictions between FIR and deposition of PW3 on presence of weapons, sequence of events, and number of assailants – Medical evidence did not corroborate dragging – Held: Contradictions went to root of matter, not minor – Witness’s version not wholly trustworthy [Paras 63–70].

Non-Examination of Material Witness – Adverse Inference – Chaukidar Not Examined – Informant stated she first reported to village watchman – Held: Failure to examine first informant in timeline affects prosecution narrative – Independent corroboration missing – Adverse inference justified [Paras 93–96].

Benefit of Doubt – Standard of Proof in Criminal Trials – Conviction Requires Certainty – Prosecution failed to establish guilt of appellants beyond reasonable doubt – Citing principles from Sharad Birdhichand Sarda, Rang Bahadur Singh, Krishnegowda – Held: When two views are possible, one favoring innocence must be adopted – Appellants entitled to acquittal [Paras 97–105].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 302/34 IPC set aside – Anjulas Lakra (in Cr. Appeal No. 1018/2003) and Isdor Lakra (in Cr. Appeal No. 1327/2003) acquitted – Appeals abated qua deceased appellants Kuwar Lakra and Patras Lakra [Paras 106–108].

Civil Writ - Teacher Recruitment – Validity of Selection Advertisement – Supreme Court Binding Directions – Relief Denied - Petitioners sought a direction to commence the recruitment process as per the Advertisement dated 07.12.2012 – Supreme Court in Shiv Kumar Pathak (2018) had already moulded relief by permitting the State to issue a fresh advertisement for remaining vacancies, thereby rendering the continuation of the 07.12.2012 advertisement untenable – Held: Petitioners’ prayer directly contravenes Supreme Court directions and is rejected [Paras 4, 6-9].

Re-Evaluation of OMR Sheets – Allegation of Malpractice in TET 2011 – Barred by Final Judgment – Petitioners prayed for re-evaluation of OMR sheets and cancellation of candidature of those using whitener – Supreme Court in Shiv Kumar Pathak upheld the appointments made, and rejected reopening settled issues – Held: Prayers barred and not maintainable [Paras 5, 10].

Frivolous Litigation – Imposition of Cost – Petitions Held to be Luxury Litigation – Court observed that despite knowing the finality of the Supreme Court judgment, petitioners filed repetitive and baseless writs wasting judicial time – Held: All 6402 petitioners to pay Rs. 100 each as cost to High Court Bar Association, Allahabad, with compliance directed through deponents/pairokars [Paras 11-14].

Final Decision – Writ Petitions Dismissed – All prayers found contrary to binding precedent and settled law – All writ petitions dismissed with cost [Para 11].

Criminal Law - Civil Dispute – Not Criminal – Petition for FIR Quashed – No Case for Cheating - Petitioner sought action against uncles who allegedly sold property in Solan despite prior relinquishment in family settlement – Court found the dispute to be civil in nature, not amounting to criminal fraud or misrepresentation – Held: No ingredients of Section 415 IPC made out [Paras 3, 17, 19–20].

Unregistered Family Settlement – Inadmissible in Law – No Evidentiary Value - Agreement dated 23.09.1987 was unregistered and never acted upon by mutation in revenue records – Court held unregistered document inadmissible under Section 49 of Registration Act and cannot be basis for asserting criminal intent [Paras 14–16].

Jurisdiction – Section 482 CrPC After Rejection in Revision – Permissible in Exceptional Cases Only - Petition filed after dismissal of revision petition – Court reiterated inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC must be sparingly used – No miscarriage of justice found to warrant interference [Paras 8–13].

Fraud Allegation – Co-owner Sale Not Cheating – Only Purchaser Can Complain - Following Jit Vinayak Arolkar v. State of Goa, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 31, Court held that sale of joint property by co-owner without title does not constitute fraud against other co-owners – Complaint, if any, lies with the purchaser [Para 17].

Final Decision – Petition Dismissed – Civil Remedy Available - High Court upheld orders of Trial Court and Revisional Court – Directed complainant to pursue civil suit if aggrieved – No direction for FIR or criminal proceedings [Paras 19–21].

Criminal Law – Appeal against conviction - Sections 363, 366A, and 376(2)(f) of IPC - Testimony of Child Victim – Credibility and Sufficiency – Conviction Upheld – Victim aged 4 at the time of incident and 8 during testimony – Despite lapse of four years, her account was clear, consistent and identified the accused without hesitation – Her version corroborated by her mother and the medical evidence – Held: Victim’s statement found reliable, sufficient for conviction without need for corroboration [Paras 12–17, 23–24].

DNA Evidence – Chain of Custody – No Tampering Proven – Conviction Supported – Appellant raised doubts about integrity of DNA evidence – Court found chain of custody sufficiently established through testimonies of PW10–PW12 and medical records – DNA profile of accused matched swab samples – Held: No evidence of tampering or doubt in handling of samples [Paras 6–7, 18–20].

Panchnama – Hostile Witness – Effect Neutralized by Corroboration – One panch witness turned hostile regarding seizure of clothes – However, recovery corroborated by other panchas and investigating officer – Held: Hostility of one witness does not negate properly corroborated recovery [Para 21].

Statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. – No Explanation by Accused – Adverse Inference Drawn – Appellant failed to explain incriminating circumstances or offer alternate version – No response to the presence of the victim or contradiction of prosecution story – Held: Failure to respond strengthens prosecution case [Para 24].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Conviction Affirmed – Court held that the trial court had properly appreciated the evidence – Accused’s guilt established beyond reasonable doubt through victim's testimony, medical and forensic evidence – Held: Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence confirmed [Paras 23–25].
 

Criminal Procedure – Alteration of Charges – Power Under Section 216 CrPC Exclusive to Court – Petition by Prosecution Impermissible - Court reaffirmed that only the trial court, not any party, can invoke Section 216 CrPC to alter or add charges – Held: Filing of such petitions by prosecution or accused is contrary to the scheme of the Code and delays justice [Paras 16-20].

Misuse of Section 216 CrPC – Prosecution-Led Petition Leading to Charge Alteration Set Aside – Jurisprudence Violated - Investigating officer had proposed specific charges which were directly accepted by the Sessions Judge – Held: Such action is procedurally unsound and violates criminal jurisprudence – Sessions Court erred in abdicating its judicial discretion [Paras 17, 21].

Delay and Prejudice – Reframing Charges After 56 Witnesses – Court Criticized Attempt to Derail Trial - Petition seeking alteration came after extensive trial progress including key witness testimonies – Court held that late-stage charge changes undermine accused’s fair trial rights and prolong litigation unnecessarily [Paras 5, 21].

Final Decision – Order of Sessions Judge Set Aside – Trial to Continue Without Amended Charges - High Court quashed the impugned order passed in Crl.MP.No.308 of 2025 in SC.No.110 of 2016 – Directed trial to proceed without altered charges [Para 22].

Criminal Law - Sections 353 and 504 IPC - Quashing of FIR – Section 482 CrPC – Allegations Vague and Non-Specific – FIR and Charge Sheet Quashed - FIR was registered against the petitioner for allegedly abusing and attempting to assault police officials while being apprehended in connection with another case – Complaint contained vague and generalized accusations without specifying the abusive words used or the nature of the assault – No injuries alleged and no forceful resistance proved – Held: Mere abusive language does not fulfill the ingredients of Sections 353 and 504 IPC – Entire proceedings quashed to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice [Paras 2-7].

Decision: Petition allowed – Entire proceedings in C.C. No.1199/2021 arising from Cr. No.103/2020 of Channapatna East Police Station quashed – Pending interlocutory applications also disposed of.