Election Petition – Filing Before Incompetent Forum – Limitation Not Condonable – Petition Barred – Petitioner’s election as Ward Member was challenged via an Election Petition filed before a forum lacking jurisdiction and re-presented after almost 2 years and 9 months – Held: Election Petition filed beyond the 30-day limitation was not maintainable; time spent in wrong forum cannot be condoned under Section 14 of Limitation Act as the Municipalities Act is a self-contained code excluding such provisions [Paras 23-31].

Jurisdiction of Election Tribunal – Determined by Rules and Statutory Designation – Filing Before III Additional District Judge Improper – Court ruled that only the Principal District Judge, as per Rule 4(b) of the Rules and Section 233 of the Act, was competent to entertain election petitions – Held: Petition originally filed before the III Additional District Judge was incompetent and improperly entertained [Paras 22-25].

Rejection of Election Petition – Improper Dismissal by Lower Court – Revision Allowed – Principal District Judge erred in dismissing application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of Election Petition on ground of limitation and maintainability – Held: Lower court committed legal error; impugned order set aside and Election Petition rejected [Paras 32-34].

Security Deposit – Not Considered – Issue Rendered Academic – Court refrained from ruling on whether non-deposit of security amount at filing stage was fatal, since the petition was already held barred by limitation and improperly instituted [Para 32].

Decision – Civil Revision Allowed – Election Petition Rejected – High Court allowed revision, holding the Election Petition was time-barred and filed before a court lacking jurisdiction – Held: Impugned order dated 29.11.2023 set aside; application to reject Election Petition allowed [Para 34].
 

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.

Civil Law - Partition Suit – Ancestral Property -  Daughters and Their Heirs Entitled to Share – Ancestral Property – Decree Affirmed - Trial court held that plaintiffs (daughters and heirs of Late Sayanna) were entitled to 1/6th share in the ancestral property despite prior alienation to defendant – High Court upheld decree, applying amended Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act giving coparcenary rights to daughters [Paras 8–11, 17–18].

Applicability of 2005 Amendment – Retrospective Benefit to Daughters – Vineeta Sharma Case Applied - Despite daughter Yadamma predeceasing father Sayanna, Court held that her children (plaintiffs) were entitled to share under amended law—Alienation in 2008 not protected as it was post-2005 amendment—Sale without daughters' consent invalid for their share [Paras 13, 17–18].

Mutation and Possession – Not Conclusive of Title – No Registered Partition Proven - Appellant argued partition and mutation among male heirs occurred in 1989—Court held mere revenue mutation or oral arrangement cannot override inheritance rights without registered partition deed—Constructive possession held in favour of all Class-I heirs [Paras 6–7, 18].

Court Fee – Section 34(2) – Constructive Possession Sufficient – Objection Overruled - Though appellant argued plaintiffs not in possession and court fee insufficient, Court held that in cases of joint family property, co-owners are deemed in constructive possession—Court fee paid correctly [Paras 9, 12].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Decree for Partition and Allotment of 1/6th Share Each to Plaintiffs and Legal Heirs Affirmed – Sale in Favour of Defendant No.6 Not Binding Beyond Vendor's Share – No Costs [Para 19].
 

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].

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 Law – Injunction - Right to Privacy – Unauthorized Recording in Private Space – Consent Required – Partial Relief Granted – Plaintiff had consented to being recorded during the live debate but not after she exited the debate frame – Court held that the recording of the additional 18 seconds after Plaintiff withdrew was done without consent, violating her privacy under Article 21 – Video segment barred from public circulation – Interim relief granted [Paras 19-20].  

Defamation – False Attribution in Quote Tweet – Partially Defamatory – Quote Tweet by Defendant No. 1 accusing Plaintiff of “chucking the mic” and “throwing out” cameraman held untrue and lacking factual basis – Such assertions not protected by the defence of truth and must be deleted – However, statement about “abusing” the cameraman held substantially true – Partial protection granted under fair comment [Paras 22.4-22.7].

 Doctrine of Clean Hands – Suppression of Plaintiff’s Tweets – Cost Imposed – Plaintiff failed to disclose two tweets forming part of the conversation thread relevant to the case – Court held this to be suppression of material facts – Plaintiff directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- in costs to the Delhi High Court Bar Clerks’ Association [Paras 14, 28].  

Doctored Video Allegation – Not Substantiated – Plaintiff’s claim that the impugned video was doctored found to be unsubstantiated – Local Commissioner report found no conclusive evidence of tampering – Allegation held to be an afterthought [Para 24].  

Norms of Journalistic Conduct – Personal Comments Not Covered – Quote Tweet not a journalistic article but a personal comment of Defendant No. 1 – Norms of journalistic conduct not applicable to Defendant No. 1, but applicable to Defendants 6–10 who reposted and amplified the video without verification – Take-down orders confirmed against those defendants [Paras

23.2-23.4].

 Decision – Interim Injunction Partially Allowed – Video with post-debate 18second segment barred – Defendants 1 and 2 restrained from publishing or circulating impugned segment – Defendants 6 to 10 also directed to remove same – Some parts of tweet text to be retained while defamatory phrases to be taken down – Suit to proceed on merits [Paras 25-30].

Consumer Law - Challenge to order of NCDRC – Refund for Delay in Possession – Flat Purchaser Entitled – State Commission Order Upheld – Petitioner Builder failed to deliver flat despite investment of ₹6.5 lakhs by Respondent in 2010-2011 – State Commission ordered refund with 9% interest and compensation – NCDRC rejected delayed appeal – Writ Petition dismissed [Paras 3-7].

Delay Condonation – 1132-Day Delay Not Satisfactorily Explained – Condonation Denied – National Commission found petitioners’ justification (COVID, firm dissolution, health issues, settlement talks) unsubstantiated and casual – Held: Law of limitation requires reasonable, good-faith explanation – No interference warranted by High Court [Paras 8-20].

Consumer Status – Flat Purchaser is a Consumer – Challenge Baseless – Petitioner argued Respondent not a “consumer” under the Act – Rejected: Respondent paid for residential flat and falls within definition under Section 2(7) of Consumer Protection Act [Para 16].

Abuse of Process Allegation – No Evidence – Dismissed as Bald Assertion – Petitioner accused Respondent of fabricating receipts and abusing law – Held: Allegations baseless, unsupported by material – Can't substitute for legal grounds [Para 16].

Writ Jurisdiction – No Relief Without Clean Hands – Supreme Court Precedents Applied – Petitioners failed to act diligently, adopted “wait and watch” approach till settlement failed – Attempt to defeat execution process – Held: Writ remedy cannot aid party lacking bona fides [Paras 20, 23-24].

Consumer Law – Beneficial Legislation – Delay Defeats Purpose – Emphasis on Expeditious Resolution – Referring to Alpha G Corp. and other SC cases, Court reiterated that delay thwarts consumer justice mechanism – High threshold for condonation reaffirmed [Paras 18-29].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – No Interference Warranted – NCDRC acted within law, applied correct principles – Writ petition held misconceived and dismissed without costs [Paras 30-31].
 

Civil Law - Relocation & Rehabilitation Policy – Eligibility for alternate shop – Scope restricted to licensees, lessees, or Tehbazari holders – The appellant, not being a licensee, lessee, or Tehbazari holder, was not eligible for relocation benefits under the Delhi MRTS Project Policy – Held: Scheme was only applicable to shopkeepers having valid legal rights conferred by MCD/NDMC, not to encroachers [Paras 8-15].

 Promissory Estoppel – Applicability – Absence of unequivocal promise or representation – DMRC's proposal for rehabilitation was restricted to license holders – Appellant, lacking any license or recognized right, cannot invoke promissory estoppel against DMRC – Mere participation in the draw of lots and deposit of money did not create an enforceable right – Held: Appellant cannot claim benefit under promissory estoppel [Paras 15-33].  

Administrative File Notings – Value in judicial proceedings – DMRC's internal note of 20.04.2011 suggesting appellant's eligibility is merely an opinion – Held: Eligibility must be determined strictly under the policy and applicable law, not based on internal office notings – Such notings do not bind the corporation or confer any legal right [Para 37].  

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Appellant held ineligible under Relocation and Rehabilitation Policy – Principles of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation held inapplicable – Findings of the learned Single Judge upheld – No interference warranted [Paras 38-40].

Civil Law – Suit for Declaration and Recovery of Possession - Settlement Deed – Title Based on Registered Gift – Decree Upheld – Appeal Dismissed – Plaintiff filed suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession on basis of Ext.A1 registered settlement deed – Defendants claimed title through sale from alleged legal heirs of original owner Ramachandran – High Court held Ext.A1 validly executed and accepted by donee – Original document produced; document writer examined; attesting witnesses deceased – Proof of execution accepted – Trial court decree affirmed [Paras 3–8, 12–14, 18–19].

Gift and Acceptance – No Specific Denial of Execution – Document Writer’s Testimony Sufficient – Court held that where attesting witnesses are deceased and execution is not specifically denied, proof by document writer and donee’s possession suffices – Plaintiff produced original deed and established enjoyment of property – Section 68 of Evidence Act and Section 123 of TPA complied with [Paras 12–14].

Possession and Cause of Action – Constructive Possession Lost Upon Trespass – Letters from neighbor warning of trespass held to trigger cause of action – Defendant’s possession found unauthorized post-sale deeds – Plaintiff's ownership remained intact under Ext.A1 [Paras 17–18].

Bona Fide Purchaser – Encumbrance Ignored – Not Protected – Defendants 1 and 2 claimed status of bona fide purchasers – Held: No encumbrance certificate produced; deed registered and discoverable – Purchasers failed to exercise due diligence – Not entitled to protection as bona fide purchasers [Paras 20].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed with Costs – Decree for recovery of possession, injunction, damages and mesne profits upheld – Appeal dismissed with cost to plaintiff – All pending IAs dismissed, interim orders vacated [Paras 21–22].