Criminal Law - Dowry Death – Acquittal Upheld – Failure to Prove Demand or Cruelty – Appeal Dismissed – The appellant challenged acquittal in a case involving death of his daughter allegedly due to dowry-related cruelty – Trial court found no evidence of dowry demand or proof of homicidal or suicidal death – Prosecution witnesses failed to support allegations during cross-examination – Held: No perversity in trial court findings, hence acquittal sustained [Paras 6–9, 24–25]. 
Presumption under Section 106 Evidence Act – No Automatic Shift in Burden – Section 106 not applicable in absence of foundational facts – Accused present in house at time of incident does not by itself justify drawing adverse inference under Section 106 – Held: Burden of proving guilt remains on prosecution throughout [Para 23]. 
 
Medical Evidence – No Proof of Strangulation – Cause of Death Uncertain – As per PW-4 (doctor), no fresh injury marks or signs of strangulation were found – Postmortem inconclusive and viscera report not produced – Held: Medical evidence contradicts prosecution case, supports trial court’s view [Paras 20–21]. 
 
Illicit Relationship Allegation – Not Substantiated – Alleged affair of accused not proved – No specific details or corroborating evidence produced – Held: Mere allegation without evidence cannot establish motive or cruelty [Para 22]. 
Standard for Interference with Acquittal – No Perversity in Trial Court’s Findings – Supreme Court precedents reiterated that appellate courts must not interfere with acquittals unless findings are palpably wrong or manifestly erroneous – Held: Trial court’s findings sustainable, appeal dismissed [Paras 10–16, 25–26]. 
 

Civil Law - Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC – Scope and Object – Not Merely Punitive – Provision primarily intended to ensure compliance with interim orders passed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 – Court has discretion to opt for attachment of property or detention of violator or both depending on circumstances – Not mandatory to impose punishment in every case – Order to be interpreted purposively to secure compliance and not just punishment [Paras 7-9]. 
 
Violation of Injunction – Respondents Found Guilty – Punishment Avoided Due to Death of Respondents – Trial court rightly refrained from imposing punitive measures as both respondents who violated the injunction were no longer alive – Legal representatives cannot be punished under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC – High Court declined to interfere with the order dismissing the application [Paras 4-5, 10]. 
 
Interpretation – Discretion under Order XXXIX Rule 2A – Purposeful Application Permitted - Court held that once the decree for possession has been granted and respondents are no more, further proceedings under Rule 2A are not required – Discretion exercised by trial court found just and proper [Paras 9-11]. 
 
Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Court refused to impose punishment or revisit the trial court’s order in view of subsequent developments and ends of justice – No costs awarded [Para 11]. 

Land Acquisition – Discriminatory Deletion – Articles 14 and 21 – Acquisition Upheld – The appellants alleged arbitrary and discriminatory deletion of lands from final acquisition without proper justification or uniform criteria – Court held the deletions were made on legitimate grounds including built-up areas, green zones, and government utility purposes – No evidence of mala fide or favoritism found – Held: The deletion of some lands did not render the entire acquisition invalid [Paras 8–10, 30].

Urban Planning – Jurisdiction of BDA – Validity of Acquisition in Panchayat Areas – Jurisdiction Upheld – Appellants challenged BDA’s jurisdiction over non-metropolitan and Panchayat lands – Court held that acquisition sanctioned by the State Government under the BDA Act is valid and within jurisdiction – Referred to Girnar Traders case affirming urban authorities’ acquisition power [Para 34].

Lapse of Acquisition – Delay in Possession and Awards – No Lapse – Appellants contended that acquisition lapsed under Section 27 of BDA Act and Section 24(2) of 2013 Act – Court found possession of 580 acres was already taken, layout formed, and substantial development completed – Acquisition cannot lapse when project is substantially implemented [Paras 14, 31].

Procedural Fairness – Objections and Hearing – Due Compliance – Appellants claimed they were not granted proper hearing under Section 18 – Court held that written objections were invited and considered by BDA in meetings and no requirement of oral hearings under BDA Act – Notification and publication process fulfilled statutory mandate [Paras 22–23, 32].

Public Purpose – Legitimacy of Scheme – Banashankari VI Stage Extension – Valid Public Interest – Formation of layout for residential expansion in Bangalore held as valid public purpose – 5991 sites formed and 4983 allotted – Court held that urban housing need justified acquisition and expenditure of public funds [Paras 35–36].

Relief to Site Owners – Priority Allotment – Equitable Resolution – Court noted that BDA offered alternate site allotment (30’x40’) to site holders per precedent in G.R. Jayamma case – Compensation to be adjusted subject to legal ownership and eligibility criteria – Such scheme considered fair and not a precedent for future cases [Para 33].

Decision – Acquisition Proceedings Upheld – All Appeals Dismissed – The High Court found no merit in the grounds raised by appellants – Acquisition proceedings held legal, fair, and in public interest – Writ appeals dismissed and Single Judge orders upheld [Paras 28–36].
 

Bail – UAPA Offences – Prima Facie Case Established – Bail Rejected – The appellant challenged the NIA Court’s order rejecting bail in FIR for offences under Sections 13, 18, 19, and 39 of the UAP Act – Held: The trial court rightly concluded that the appellant had facilitated foreign terrorists by providing shelter, SIM cards, and other logistic support leading to fatal terrorist attacks – The charges framed stand unchallenged – Material evidence prima facie connects the appellant to the offence attracting the rigour of Section 43-D(5) of UAPA – Bail rightly denied [Paras 13-20]. 
 
UAPA – Section 43-D(5) – Applicability Affirmed – Court rejected the appellant’s plea that rigour under Section 43-D(5) is inapplicable – Held: Offences alleged against the appellant fall under Chapter IV and VI of the UAPA – The appellant is charged under Sections 18, 19, and 39 of UAPA – Prima facie material exists warranting denial of bail – Prosecution apprehensions regarding tampering with witnesses and absconding are justified [Paras 17-18]. 
 
Delay in Trial – No Automatic Bail – The appellant contended prolonged incarceration amounts to pre-trial punishment – Court held that seriousness of charges, nature of allegations, and stage of trial with 26 witnesses still left to be examined outweigh the contention – Bail cannot be granted solely on the ground of delay [Paras 3-4, 18-20]. 
 
Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The appellate court found no illegality or perversity in the NIA Court’s rejection of bail – The appeal was dismissed and the impugned order upheld [Paras 19-20]. 
 

SARFAESI Act – Scope of Security Interest – Security Interest Recognized – The petitioner challenged the proceedings under SARFAESI Act initiated by HDFC Bank on the ground that there was no registered sale deed in favour of the original borrowers – Court held that even in the absence of such deed, the tripartite agreement, promissory note, and financial obligation created an enforceable security interest as per the amended definition under Section 2(1)(zf) – Held: Security interest validly created under SARFAESI Act [Paras 27–30]. 
 
Tripartite Agreement – Legal Effect – Security Right Enforceable – Builder and borrower executed tripartite agreement with bank securing the loan with enforceable commitment – Despite no registered transfer to the borrower, the builder acknowledged the bank’s charge and agreed not to transfer the property without consent – Held: Such contractual arrangement creates security interest [Paras 6–9, 29–
30]. 
 
Subsequent Sale – Bona Fide Purchaser – No Protection Against Bank’s Right – Petitioner purchased the property from a subsequent buyer who in turn purchased it from the builder without informing or obtaining consent of the bank – Court held the sale to the petitioner does not override prior security interest created in favour of the bank – Held: Doctrine of bona fide purchaser not applicable in presence of prior encumbrance [Paras 13–14, 30–32]. 
 
Availability of Alternative Remedy – Dismissal of Writ – Petitioner argued that they were not “any person” under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act – Court rejected this, holding that the term includes any aggrieved party – Remedy under Section 17 before DRT considered efficacious – Held: Writ petition not maintainable due to availability of statutory remedy [Paras 3, 33–34]. 
 
Writ Petition – Dismissed on Merits – Security Interest Upheld – Challenge to SARFAESI measures on grounds of lack of mortgage or registered title rejected – Court upheld bank’s right to initiate proceedings and dismissed the writ petition – Held: Petitioner at liberty to approach DRT under Section 17 SARFAESI Act [Paras 30, 35]. 
 
 

Civil Law – Eviction - Public Premises – Allotment Without Auction – Long-Standing Possession Not a Ground for Extension – The appellant challenged the Single Judge’s order denying extension of fair price shop allotment without auction – Held: Appellant’s initial allotment was made without auction in 1997 and extensions were granted irregularly – Government Order No. 492-HME of 2008 mandates public auction for such allotments – Mere payment of rent and long possession cannot override the statutory auction requirement [Paras 7-11]. 
 
Government Policy – Mandatory Auction for Hospital Premises – Applicability Affirmed – The Court held that the 2008 Government Order applies to all hospital structures including fair price shops – Authorities were unjustifiably allowing the appellant to continue without following the mandatory auction procedure – The appellant cannot claim vested rights against clear public policy [Paras 9-11]. 
 
Equity – No Equitable Consideration Against Express Statute – The appellant’s plea for equity based on past payment of rent and long occupation was rejected – Court emphasized that public property cannot be continued on private arrangements without compliance with government orders – Holding government property for 28 years without following auction violates public interest [Paras 10-11]. 
 
Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The Court upheld the Single Judge’s judgment – Dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal holding that there was no infirmity in the impugned judgment and no right to extension without auction – Directions issued to authorities to follow Government Order No. 492-HME of 2008 [Paras 11-12]. 
 

Taxation Law - Customs – Delay in Adjudication – Rule 16 of Drawback Rules – Notices Quashed – The petitioners challenged show cause notices issued in 2016 alleging misclassification and excess duty drawback, which remained pending till 2023 – Held: Such inordinate delay without adjudication violates principles of natural justice and renders the notices without jurisdiction [Paras 1-20, 33-36].

Export Classification – Final Assessment – No Appeal Filed – Assessment Final – Show Cause Notices Beyond Jurisdiction – Petitioners’ shipping bills were finally assessed with duty drawback granted, and no appeal filed by department – Held: Reopening assessment by show cause notices is impermissible and constitutes review of final order without authority [Paras 12-18, 34, 36].

Call Book Mechanism – Non-Disclosure to Petitioners – Breach of Natural Justice – It was revealed only during court proceedings that the show cause notices were placed under "Call Book" – Held: Non-communication of such placement to petitioners amounts to violation of natural justice [Para 15].

Limitation – Rule 16 of Drawback Rules – Reasonable Time – 3 Years – Gujarat HC Precedent Applied – Held: Although Rule 16 does not specify a limitation period, a reasonable 3-year limitation must be read into it – Notices issued beyond this period are time-barred [Paras 35-36].

Judicial Discipline – Binding Precedents – Non-Following of Previous Rulings – Condemned – Respondents issued notices contrary to established decisions on classification and limitation – Held: Disregard of binding judicial precedent by adjudicating authorities strongly disapproved [Paras 36-37].

Final Decision – Show Cause Notices Quashed – Petitions Allowed – Held: Show cause notices issued in violation of jurisdictional limits and settled law are quashed – Petitioners entitled to relief under Article 226 of the Constitution [Final Para].
 

Criminal Law - Murder  – Appeal against conviction - Circumstantial Evidence – Benefit of Doubt – Acquittal – Accused convicted of murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC based on circumstances after eyewitnesses turned hostile – Court found that circumstances such as previous enmity, presence near the scene prior to the occurrence, and recovery of blood-stained shirt were insufficient to form a complete chain of evidence – Held: Mere presence at the scene and previous enmity without direct evidence or clinching circumstantial evidence cannot sustain conviction – Accused entitled to benefit of doubt and acquitted [Paras 16-25]. 
 
Recovery Evidence – Section 27 of the Evidence Act – Reliability – Recovery of MO1 series choppers and MO2 iron rod at the instance of the accused doubted as weapons did not have traces of blood – Delay in producing recovered weapons before the Court – Held: Recovery not reliable to link accused to crime beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 19-20]. 
 
Ocular Evidence – Hostile Witnesses – Value – PW3 who claimed to be an eyewitness was suffering from psychiatric illness and his statement was inconsistent with prior police statement under Section 161 CrPC – Court refused to accept his version – Other witnesses turned hostile – Held: Conviction cannot be based on the testimony of PW3 or hostile witnesses [Paras 16-17]. 
 
Motive – Proof of Previous Enmity – Absence of Supporting Material – Prosecution failed to produce records of the prior incident that allegedly motivated the accused to commit the offence – Held: Motive not satisfactorily proved [Para 18]. 
 
Decision – Appeals Allowed – Conviction and sentence of accused set aside – Accused acquitted and directed to be released forthwith unless required in other cases [Para 25]. 
 

Constitutional Law - Electricity Connection – Valid Sale Deed in Unauthorized Colony – Cut-off Date for Regularization Arbitrary – Clause Quashed – The petitioner’s request for permanent electricity connection was denied due to a policy restricting registrations to documents executed before 31.07.2024 – Held: The cut-off date fixed in Clause 2.0 of the notification dated 25.11.2024 was arbitrary, lacking intelligible differentia or nexus with the objective of regulating unauthorized colonies – Clause read down and quashed to extent it barred owners with valid sale deeds and sanctioned buildings from receiving basic services like electricity [Paras 1-23].

Fundamental Rights – Article 21 – Denial of Electricity – Notification Held Unconstitutional – The petitioner’s electricity connection was disconnected without cause, and her right to life was compromised – Held: Right to electricity as a basic amenity falls within Article 21 – Authorities directed to release permanent electricity connection and provide other necessary amenities [Paras 7, 22-23].

Regulatory Overreach – Re-Registration Requirement – Unauthorized Colonies – Not Applicable to Validly Registered Sale Deeds – The notification required even those with existing valid sale deeds to re-register to avail services – Held: Such a requirement exceeds statutory power and undermines lawful conveyances – Rescission of registered deeds lies within civil court jurisdiction, not executive action [Paras 18-20].

Administrative Discrimination – Similar Plot Owners Granted Electricity – Unjustified Denial to Petitioner – In the same locality, others were granted connections while petitioner was denied – Held: Unequal treatment without rationale is violative of constitutional equality – Action of respondents unjust and unsustainable [Paras 8-9].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Impugned Clause Quashed – Permanent Electricity Directed – The Court held Clause 2.0 of the notification dated 25.11.2024 as arbitrary and discriminatory – Ordered its quashing and directed the respondent authorities to release the permanent electricity connection and other basic amenities to the petitioner’s house in light of Article 21 of the Constitution [Paras 22-23].