Protected Tenancy – Alienation without Prior Sanction – Transfer Invalid – The petitioners, being legal heirs of a protected tenant, challenged the sale of land executed without prior permission of the Collector as mandated under Section 50-B of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 – The Sub-Divisional Officer cancelled the mutation entry of the sale – The Court held that such sale is invalid and incapable of being regularized through post-facto sanction – Orders of Additional Commissioner and Minister granting post-facto regularization were without jurisdiction and contrary to Section 50-B(2) – Orders set aside [Paras 40-45]. 
Jurisdiction – Power of Sub-Divisional Officer under Section 257 – Validity Upheld – The Court held that the Sub-Divisional Officer was duly delegated powers by the Collector under Section 257 to cancel the mutation – The challenge to the officer’s jurisdiction was rejected as baseless – The cancellation of Mutation Entry No.2525 was rightly carried out in accordance with law [Paras 3639]. 
 
Necessary Party – Petitioners Entitled to be Heard – Violation of Natural Justice – Petitioners were necessary parties to the proceedings as Mutation Entry No.4408 stood in their names – Non-joinder of petitioners in proceedings before the Additional Commissioner and Minister resulted in denial of opportunity of hearing – Orders passed without hearing the petitioners were contrary to principles of natural justice and liable to be set aside [Paras 49-54]. 
 
Power of Revenue Authorities – No Power to Grant Post-Facto Sanction – The Court held that Additional Commissioner and Minister lacked jurisdiction to grant post-facto sanction for regularization of sale deed in violation of Section 50-B – The Minister’s view that question of regularization is between the purchaser and government ignoring the rights of petitioners was erroneous – The Additional Commissioner exceeded his jurisdiction by directing regularization [Paras 44-54]. 
 
Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Orders dated 21/10/2013 (Additional Commissioner) and 23/06/2014 (Minister) quashed and set aside – Rule made absolute – Status quo directed to continue for six weeks to enable further challenge [Paras 55-57]. 
 

Civil Law - Res Judicata – Applicability between Specific Performance and Eviction Suit – Not Attracted – The petitioner contended that eviction proceedings were barred by res-judicata due to prior dismissal of the specific performance suit – The Court held that the earlier suit dealt with enforcement of an agreement of sale, while the present suit concerns the petitioner’s liability to be evicted after dismissal of specific performance – Absence of identity of issues between the two suits excludes the applicability of res-judicata [Paras 9-11]. 
 
Order XIV Rule 2 CPC – Preliminary Issue – Scope Explained – The petitioner sought trial of the res-judicata plea as a preliminary issue under Order XIV Rule 2 CPC – The Court clarified that only jurisdictional bars or statutory bars qualify as preliminary issues – The plea of res-judicata in the facts of this case is a mixed question of fact and law, and cannot be tried as a preliminary issue [Paras 10-11]. 
 
Possession and Appeal Pending – Question of Eviction Open – 
Observation – The Court clarified that though res-judicata is not attracted, the effect of the Division Bench’s injunction and the pendency of A.S. No. 326 of 2018 on the petitioner’s right to resist eviction remains open and will be decided appropriately in the eviction suit [Para 11]. 
 
Decision – Civil Revision Dismissed – Civil Revision Petition dismissed – Question of eviction subject to consideration in the pending eviction suit on merits [Paras 11-12]. 
 

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Valid Loan Transaction and Dishonoured Cheque – Conviction Upheld - The petitioner contended that no loan was availed and the cheque was misused – The Court upheld concurrent findings of both courts holding that the accused had availed Rs.1 crore as loan and had issued cheque (Ex.P4) and acknowledgment (Ex.P2 & Ex.P3) – Defence that cheque was issued to one Santhosh for a smaller loan was found unsubstantiated and lacking in evidence – Conviction confirmed [Paras 10-19]. 
 
Evidence – Admission by Accused – Presumption not Rebutted - The accused admitted execution of crucial documents including Ex.P2 (consideration receipt), Ex.P3 (confirmation of balance), and Ex.P4 (dishonoured cheque) – No independent evidence was led to prove the defence that the cheque was given to Santhosh – Admission of execution and failure to examine Santhosh undermined the defence – Presumption under Section 139 of N.I. 
Act stood unrebutted [Paras 14-18]. 
 
Power of Attorney – Substitution of GPA Holder – No Illegality - The petitioner contended that PW1 lacked authority due to subsequent substitution of GPA holder – The Court held that Ex.P1 continued to be valid as no material showed its withdrawal – PW1 was competent to depose on behalf of the complainant – The contention was rejected [Paras 11, 17-18]. 
 
Revision – Limited Scope – No Perversity Found – Dismissed - The Court reiterated that revisional jurisdiction is limited to correcting patent illegality or perversity – Since both courts properly appreciated oral and documentary evidence, no interference was warranted – Revision dismissed [Para 19]. 
 
 

Taxation Law - GST Liability – Deposit of Tax under Wrong Head – Writ Allowed – The petitioner, engaged in renting out commercial property, paid GST to NOIDA, which inadvertently deposited the amount under an incorrect head – Both GST authorities and NOIDA admitted the petitioner’s payment – The Court held that the petitioner could not be penalized for NOIDA’s mistake and cannot be subjected to double taxation and penalty [Paras 3-13]. 
 
Compensation – Mandamus Issued Against NOIDA – Rs.19.22 Lakhs Directed to be Paid – The Court, invoking Article 226, directed NOIDA to compensate the petitioner with Rs.19,22,778/- being the amount of tax and penalty imposed due to NOIDA’s error – NOIDA was given liberty to recover the said amount from the erring officer responsible for the mistake [Paras 14-18]. 
 
Administrative Law – Accountability of Public Authorities – Responsibility Fixed – The Court emphasized that where the loss is caused due to the fault of public authorities, they are liable to compensate the affected party and may recover the amount internally from the responsible officer – Directions also issued to the District Magistrate to ensure compliance in case of NOIDA’s failure [Paras 16-18]. 
 
Decision – Writ Allowed with Directions – Writ petition allowed – NOIDA directed to pay Rs.19,22,778/- within 15 days failing which the District Magistrate is to recover and pay the amount to the petitioner – Compliance affidavit directed [Paras 18-22]. 
 

Criminal Law - Victim Compensation – Enhancement – Application of Gujarat Victim Compensation Scheme – Compensation Enhanced – The trial court awarded Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation to the minor victim of rape without assigning proper reasons – High Court held that as per the Gujarat Victim Compensation Scheme, 2019, considering rape, resultant pregnancy, and the minor status of the victim, she was entitled to compensation of Rs.12,75,000/- including the statutory enhancement of 50% – Compensation enhanced accordingly [Paras 7-12].

Rape – Minor Victim – Applicability of Enhanced Compensation under Clause 9(5) of the Scheme – The Court observed that under Clause 9(5) of the Gujarat Victim Compensation Scheme, 2019, where the victim is a minor, the maximum compensation shall be deemed to be 50% higher than the scheduled amount – Since the victim suffered rape and pregnancy resulting in medical termination, she was entitled to full benefits under the scheme [Paras 8-11].

Non-Speaking Order – Trial Court Erred – Compensation Reassessed – Trial court failed to record reasons for awarding only Rs.3,00,000/- – High Court found the award arbitrary and reassessed it by applying the statutory provisions and guidelines under the Victim Compensation Scheme [Para 9].

Final Order – Compensation Enhanced to Rs.12,75,000/- – Directions to DLSA – The Court modified the judgment and directed the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) and State Legal Services Authority to ensure disbursement of the enhanced compensation to the victim, adjusting any amount already paid [Para 12-14].

Bail Application – Prolonged Incarceration – Right to Speedy Trial – Bail Granted - Applicants had undergone pre-trial incarceration for over 13 years without conclusion of the trial – The Court held that such prolonged detention amounts to pre-trial punishment and violates the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution – The trial was stalled due to multiple pending applications and indefinite delay – Bail granted subject to conditions [Paras 2-8, 16-28]. 
 Parity Principle – Identical Role as Co-Accused – Bail Allowed - The Applicants demonstrated that similarly placed co-accused had been granted bail earlier – The Court accepted the plea of parity and held that denial of bail in such circumstances would amount to unequal treatment [Paras 4.2, 28]. 
 
Medical Grounds – Consideration under HIV Act – Applicant No.2's Bail Supported - Applicant No.2, being HIV positive, invoked Section 34(2) of the HIV Act which mandates priority in disposal of cases concerning HIV positive persons – The Court took judicial notice of his health condition while granting bail [Paras 4.3, 28]. 
 
Bail Principles – Article 21 – Bail as Rule, Jail as Exception – Reiterated - Relying on settled precedents, including Satender Kumar Antil, Maneka Gandhi, and Gudikanti Narasimhulu, the Court reaffirmed that bail is the rule and refusal is the exception – Long incarceration without trial violates constitutional guarantees of liberty [Paras 12-17]. 
 
Decision – Bail Granted - Applicants released on bail subject to strict conditions to ensure presence at trial and prevent interference with the evidence – Application allowed [Paras 2830]. 
 

Criminal Law – Economic Offence – Bail in ₹24.74 Crore - Misappropriation Case – Petitioners accused of misappropriating funds from a co-operative society in conspiracy with staff – Allegations relate to period 2021–2024 – Petitioners are Grama Panchayat and District Panchayat members – Held: Despite gravity, bail granted due to absence of custodial interrogation need and cooperation shown [Paras 1-6]. 
 
Bail Jurisprudence – Custodial Interrogation Not Essential - Bail allowed – Investigating Officer recorded petitioners’ statements; although cooperation was allegedly lacking, no recovery or further custodial step shown as pending – Court relied on principle that mere non-cooperation cannot defeat bail claim – Direction issued for appearance and cooperation [Paras 5-6]. 
 
Personal Liberty – Bail as Rule – Reference to Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement and Siddharth v. State of U.P. – Bail cannot be denied merely on the existence of arrest power – Emphasis on liberty and fair trial – Accused not shown to be flight risk or tampering with evidence – Court reiterated that arrest should not be routine [Paras 7-9]. 
 
Bail Conditions – Preventive Safeguards – Petitioners directed to appear for interrogation, refrain from influencing witnesses, and not leave India – Bail granted subject to execution of bond and compliance with multiple protective conditions to ensure fair investigation [Para 10]. 
 
Decision – Bail Application Allowed – Petitioners to be released on bail in event of arrest on execution of bond of ₹50,000 each with two solvent sureties – Directed to cooperate with investigation – Breach of any condition shall lead to cancellation of bail [Para 10]. 
 

Criminal Law - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Section 9, 10, 11, 12 & 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Lack of Prima Facie Evidence – Case based on CDRs and Transcripts – Quashing Allowed - The petitioners challenged the FIR, charge sheet, and summoning order alleging conspiracy and illegal gratification to obtain a loan from Syndicate Bank – The Court held that there was no corroborative evidence supporting the prosecution's allegations except for CDRs and intercepted conversations – CDRs alone, without independent proof, cannot establish conspiracy – Held: Petitioners cannot be subjected to criminal prosecution based solely on speculative evidence [Paras 80-93].

Vicarious Liability – Absence of Specific Allegations – Managing Director Not Liable – Quashing Allowed - The Court reiterated that vicarious liability cannot be fastened on company officials in the absence of specific statutory provision or clear allegations – Mere designation of Petitioner No.2 as CMD of M/s Prakash Industries Ltd. does not attract vicarious criminal liability – Held: Prosecution failed to demonstrate how the petitioners were involved in the alleged conspiracy [Paras 83-85, 106].

Criminal Conspiracy – No Prior Meeting of Mind – Mere Communication Not Sufficient – Quashing Allowed - Court found that the prosecution failed to prove any prior meeting of minds or agreement between petitioners and other accused – Routine business communication between petitioners and other accused like Pawan Bansal cannot amount to criminal conspiracy – Held: Mere presence of CDRs and conversations without corroboration cannot establish conspiracy under Section 120B IPC [Paras 87-93].

Witness Testimony – Contradictory and Inconclusive – Cannot Be Sole Basis – Quashing Allowed - Statements of key witnesses such as Mr. U.S. Majumdar and Mr. Ghanshyam Mudgal were found to be vague, inconsistent and not incriminating – Court held that such uncorroborated statements are insufficient for framing charges – Held: No prima facie case made out against the petitioners [Paras 109-116].

Commercial Transactions – Routine Loan Processing – Not Indicative of Conspiracy – Quashing Allowed - The petitioners’ engagement with Altius Finserve Pvt. Ltd. for processing a loan was held to be a standard business transaction – Absence of direct evidence linking this arrangement to any illegal gratification – Held: The prosecution’s theory of conspiracy was speculative and unsubstantiated [Paras 117-123].

Decision – FIR, Chargesheet, Cognizance Order Quashed – Proceedings Against Petitioners Terminated - The Court quashed FIR RC No. AC-1/2014/A-0005, the charge-sheet dated 27/09/2017 and the cognizance order dated 09/03/2018 passed by the Special Judge, Patiala House Courts against M/s Prakash Industries Ltd., Mr. Ved Prakash Agarwal, and Mr. Vipul Agarwal – All consequential proceedings also quashed [Paras 148-149].
 

Matrimonial Law – Contempt - Visitation Terms – Alleged Violation of Family Court Order – Contempt Petition Filed – Petitioner alleged that respondent breached visitation conditions by taking videos and disrupting her workplace during court-permitted visitation with children – Held: No merit in allegations; conduct of petitioner and her associates was provocative – Respondent accompanied only by permitted family members and sought peaceful visitation [Paras 1–5, 9].

Evidence Evaluation – Video Footage Presented – Court Reviews Footage in Camera – Petitioner's video showed her group instigating respondent – Respondent's mother seen requesting for calm and respectful conduct – Held: Visitation disrupted due to petitioner's conduct; allegations against respondent unfounded [Paras 7–9].

Costs Imposed – Contempt Petition Dismissed – Misuse of Judicial Process – Petitioner Directed to Pay Costs – Held: Petition lacked merit and was filed with an apparent motive to aggravate the situation – Cost of ₹50,000 imposed: ₹25,000 to be paid to respondent and ₹25,000 to Delhi High Court Advocates Welfare Fund [Paras 10–11].

Contempt Proceedings – Burden of Proof – High Threshold Not Met – No Wilful Disobedience – Held: For contempt to succeed, wilful disobedience must be shown – Present case shows no breach of court order by respondent – Petition dismissed accordingly [Paras 9–10].

Decision – Contempt Petition Dismissed – Costs Imposed – After examining all submissions and evidence including video clips, the Court found that the petitioner’s allegations were baseless – Petition dismissed with directions for cost payment to both respondent and Welfare Fund [Paras 10–11].