Civil Law - Specific Performance - Registration Act 1908 - Section 49 - Unregistered Agreement to Sell - Trial Court rejected plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC on grounds that an unregistered ATS involving delivery of possession is inadmissible under Section 17(1-A) read with Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 - High Court set aside the order holding that while an unregistered ATS cannot be used to claim protection of part performance under Section 53-A of the TP Act it is admissible under the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance - Held - Suit is maintainable and not barred by law - [Paras 13-17].

Civil Law - Stamp Duty - Indian Stamp Act 1899 - Sections 33 and 35 - Insufficiency of stamping - Trial Court rejected plaint erroneously citing insufficient stamping and holding it inadmissible even upon curing defects - High Court ruled that insufficiency of stamp duty is not a ground for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC as the Court has the authority under proviso (a) to Section 35 of the Stamp Act to admit an instrument in evidence upon payment of deficient duty and penalty - Held - Plaintiffs directed to deposit deficient stamp duty and penalty before the Trial Court to proceed with the suit - [Paras 18-24, 35].

Civil Law - Stamp Duty - Indian Stamp Act 1899 - Article 23-A - Conveyance in nature of part performance - Court clarified that an ATS contemplating delivery of possession attracts stamp duty as per Article 23-A of Schedule-I - Computation of duty to be based on concessional rates applicable to joint ownership by male and female - Held - Deficient duty to be calculated on the total consideration amount - [Paras 25-31].

Civil Law - Penalty - Indian Stamp Act 1899 - Section 40 - Discretionary power - While affirming the mandatory payment of penalty under Section 35 of the Act the High Court clarified that parties may apply to the Collector for refund of penalty in accordance with the principles in H.C. Dhanda Trust vs. State of Madhya Pradesh - Held - Payment of penalty is a pre-condition for proceeding but does not preclude subsequent application for refund - [Paras 32-33].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned Judgment and Decree set aside – Suit restored to its original number – Appellants directed to deposit deficient stamp duty and penalty within one month – Matter remanded to Trial Court for disposal on merits.

Civil Law - Property Law - West Bengal Land Reforms Act 1955 - Sections 8 and 9 - Pre-emption application - Trial Court allowed pre-emption finding the applicant was a co-sharer in an unpartitioned plot and that the deed registration occurred during the pendency of the suit effectively curing limitation - Appellate Court affirmed these findings - Petitioner challenged order under Article 227 alleging non-joinder of vendor and lack of partition proof - High Court held that the vendor is not a necessary party to pre-emption proceedings and that concurrent findings of fact regarding co-sharer status and lack of partition cannot be interfered with under supervisory jurisdiction - Held - Petition dismissed - [Paras 9-19].

Civil Law - Procedural Law - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Limitation Act 1963 - Pre-emption - Registration of impugned deed of transfer completed during the pendency of the suit - Trial Court held suit filed within period of limitation - High Court affirmed - Held - Registration occurring during pendency satisfies limitation requirements - [Para 9].

Civil Law - Civil Procedure - Parties to Suit - Necessary Party - West Bengal Land Reforms Act 1955 - Sections 8 and 9 - Whether vendor/transferor is a necessary party - Petitioner contended non-joinder of vendor - Court held vendor is not a necessary party in a proceeding for pre-emption - Held - Application not bad for non-joinder - [Para 11].

Civil Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 227 of the Constitution of India - Supervisory Jurisdiction - Scope of interference - High Court held that it is not entitled to re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own conclusions for concurrent findings of fact reached by lower courts unless there is grave dereliction of duty or perversity - Held - No grounds for interference established - [Paras 16-19].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Impugned orders of the Trial Court and Appellate Court affirmed – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law - Quashing of Proceedings - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 406 and 420 - Director's Liability - Petitioners challenged summoning order alleging they were merely nominal directors without involvement in day-to-day affairs and that the dispute was purely civil- The Court held that while directors cannot be held vicariously liable merely by their designation- prosecution cannot be quashed when material prima facie connects the individual to the company's management- financial transactions- and specific acts of inducement- Court emphasized that whether the material establishes dishonest intention at inception or specific roles is a matter for trial - Held - Petition dismissed - [Paras 45-50].

Criminal Law - Cognizance and Summoning - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 528 - Scope of Revisional and Inherent Jurisdiction - Petitioners challenged the summoning order as cryptic and the revisional order as failing to independently scrutinize the specific roles- The Court held that at the stage of issuing summons- the Magistrate is not required to conduct a mini-trial or record exhaustive findings but must only be satisfied that prima facie material exists- interference in revisional jurisdiction is not warranted unless the order suffers from patent illegality or jurisdictional error - Held - Orders affirmed - [Paras 58-62].

Criminal Law - Nature of Offence - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 406 and 420 - Distinction between Civil Dispute and Criminal Breach - Petitioners argued that failure to deliver flats and pay subvention amounts constitutes a breach of contract and not criminal offence - Court observed that while mere breach of contract is not criminal- the allegations regarding structured inducement- diversion of funds- and non-fulfilment of subvention schemes prima facie disclose ingredients of cheating and breach of trust - Held - Criminal proceedings cannot be quashed merely because a transaction has a contractual element - [Paras 51-54].

Decision: Petitions dismissed – Impugned orders dated 22.03.2025 and 30.03.2026 affirmed – Interim orders vacated – Trial Court directed to proceed in accordance with law.

Tax Law - Deduction - Income Tax Act 1961 - Section 80P - Regional Rural Bank - Assessee claimed deduction under Section 80P as a co-operative society by virtue of the deeming fiction under Section 22 of the Regional Rural Banks Act 1976 - Revenue sought to deny benefit by invoking Section 80P(4) introduced by Finance Act 2006 - Revenue argued that RRB activities are akin to banking and thus excluded - High Court held that the deeming fiction under Section 22 of the RRB Act remains in force and is not overridden by Section 80P(4) - Assessee is not a primary co-operative bank or primary credit society as defined in the Banking Regulation Act - Held - Assessee entitled to deduction under Section 80P - [Paras 1-25].

Tax Law - Revisional Jurisdiction - Income Tax Act 1961 - Section 263 - Validity of revision - Commissioner initiated proceedings to reverse deduction granted by Assessing Officer - Tribunal quashed the order citing that the original view taken by the Assessing Officer was a probable and legal view - High Court upheld the Tribunal order stating that Section 263 jurisdiction cannot be invoked when the Assessing Officer has adopted a view consistent with the governing statute - Held - Order of Tribunal confirmed - [Paras 24-25].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – The substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the assessee.

Competition Law - Impleadment - Competition Act 2002 - Section 26(1) - Competition Commission of India (General) Regulations 2009 - Regulation 25(1) - Appellant challenged the order of the CCI allowing the impleadment of the Builders Association of India in a suo moto investigation into cement manufacturers - Trial Court dismissed the writ petition holding that impleadment was a procedural step to aid the commission in its inquiry - Appellant contended the order was unreasoned and violated principles of natural justice - Division Bench held that the Commission is not a trial court and the principles of dominus litis under CPC do not apply to anti-competition proceedings - Held - The Commission's decision to permit a consumer body with substantial interest to participate is in furtherance of public interest and does not violate any statutory right of the appellant - Appeal dismissed - [Paras 30-43].

Competition Law - Natural Justice - Competition Act 2002 - Section 18 - Right to hearing - Appellant argued that no notice was given prior to the impleadment order - Court noted that the Commission had previously directed that the non-confidential version of the DG report be shared with the parties - Held - Mere impleadment for the purpose of submitting an opinion on the investigation report does not constitute an adverse order affecting the legal rights of the appellant and participation was sufficiently signaled to the appellant - [Paras 36-39].

Competition Law - Procedure - Competition Act 2002 - Section 26(1) - Confidentiality of records - Appellant apprehended that the intervener would access confidential business information - Court noted that in a related matter the Hon'ble Supreme Court recorded a statement on behalf of the intervenor that it would not seek access to confidential documents - Held - The apprehension of prejudice stands allayed by the protective conditions regarding confidential records - [Paras 27-28].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – The order of the Commission and the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge are upheld – No order as to costs.

Civil Law - Limitation - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 5 Limitation Act 1963 - Restoration application - Petitioner challenged Trial Court order allowing restoration of Judicial Misc Case 1 of 2013 after five years delay - Opposite parties claimed lack of knowledge of dismissal despite participating in concurrent proceedings including Executive Magistrate case and High Court Writ petition where subject matter was disclosed - Trial Court erroneously allowed restoration without considering suppression of facts or lack of sufficient cause - High Court held that courts must ascertain bona fides before employing liberal approach and that unexplained inordinate delay coupled with suppression of material facts disentitles a party to discretionary relief - Held - Impugned order set aside - [Paras 16-27].

Civil Law - Discretionary Relief - Section 5 Limitation Act 1963 - Sufficient Cause - Concept of sufficient cause cannot be construed so liberally as to reward negligence or lack of bona fides - Applicant must show they were prevented by cause beyond control - Mechanical condonation of delay without cogent reasoning defeats object of Limitation Act - Held - Application for restoration dismissed - [Paras 23-26].

Civil Law - Practice and Procedure - Clean Hands - Suppression of material facts regarding knowledge of legal proceedings renders a party disentitled to relief under Order IX Rule 9 CPC - Where parties actively participated in other litigation mentioning the dismissed case they cannot plead ignorance to justify delay - Held - Conduct of parties and suppression of facts is fatal to the application - [Paras 21-25].

Decision: Revision allowed - Impugned order dated 17.11.2025 set aside - Application for restoration dismissed.

Criminal Law - Murder - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 302 - Prosecution alleged A1 to A3 committed murder and A4 abetted - Trial Court convicted all appellants based on eyewitness testimony - High Court found medical evidence inconsistent with the involvement of A2 and A3 and rejected the extra-judicial confession as unreliable due to prior police custody - Held - Conviction of A1 sustained based on consistent eyewitness accounts and medical evidence - A2 to A4 acquitted due to lack of credible evidence regarding their overt acts - [Paras 1-41].

Evidence Law - Res Gestae - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 6 - Admissibility of hearsay statements - Witnesses reaching the crime scene immediately after the incident and receiving spontaneous accounts from eyewitnesses - Held - Statements made by eyewitnesses to those arriving at the spot are admissible as part of the same transaction as there was no interval for fabrication - [Paras 28-34].

Evidence Law - Extra-Judicial Confession - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 24 - Reliability - Confession made to Village Administrative Officer after accused were already in police custody - Held - Confession is unreliable and inadmissible when the evidence clearly indicates the accused were under police detention prior to the recorded statement - [Para 36].

Criminal Law - Appreciation of Evidence - Discrepancies in testimony - Multiple eyewitnesses testifying to the incident - Held - Minor inconsistencies regarding the number of blows or exact roles of co-accused do not discredit the core testimony of eyewitnesses when the medical report establishes homicidal death and the main assailant's role is clearly identified - [Paras 37-39].

Decision: Appeal of A1 dismissed - Conviction and sentence for A1 under Section 302 IPC confirmed - Appeals of A2, A3, and A4 allowed - Conviction and sentence of A2 to A4 set aside - Accused A2 to A4 acquitted of all charges and directed to be released if not required in any other case - Fine amounts, if paid, to be refunded.

Writ Law - Alternative Remedy - SARFAESI Act 2002 - Section 17 - Forfeiture of EMD - Appellant-auction purchaser challenged forfeiture of EMD for property sold under SARFAESI Act citing non-disclosure of court attachment in sale notice - Single Judge dismissed petition on ground of alternative remedy before DRT - Division Bench upheld that grievances regarding auction process and forfeiture must be adjudicated by DRT - Court observed that non-disclosure of material facts under Rule 8(7)(f) is a substantive issue to be decided by the Tribunal - Held - Writ appeal disposed of granting liberty to approach DRT within three weeks without the bar of limitation - [Paras 1-17].

Banking Law - Auction Sale - Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002 - Rule 8(7) - Duty of Disclosure - Authorised Officer mandated to disclose encumbrances and any other information necessary for a purchaser to know the nature and value of the property - Non-disclosure of an order of attachment may influence the decision of an auction purchaser - Whether such non-disclosure constitutes a material fact is for the DRT to determine - Held - Secured creditor cannot wash its hands of obligations after issuing sale certificate if statutory requirements are not met - [Paras 9-12].

Decision: Appeal disposed of - Appellant granted three weeks' time to file an application before the DRT - DRT directed to accept the application without insisting on a separate petition for condonation of delay and to decide the matter on merits.

Writ Law - Land Acquisition - Constitution of India - Article 300A - Right to property - Petitioners surrendered land for Masterplan road and executed registered gift deeds under the promise of receiving TDR bonds - Respondent-Corporation unilaterally fixed the market value for TDR issuance at Rs 17,000 per square yard despite evidence of higher market value and previous valuation of Rs 37,000 per square yard in the deeds - Court held that unilateral classification of vacant land as residential for valuation purposes without scientific basis is arbitrary and violates the right to fair compensation - Held - Impugned proceedings modified to entitle petitioners to TDR bonds calculated at Rs 37,000 per square yard - [Paras 1-20].

Civil Law - TDR Bonds - Valuation - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 - Property owners surrendered land for public purpose based on assurance of TDR - Respondent failed to issue bonds and subsequently attempted to lower the valuation based on arbitrary classification - Court held that when property abuts a main road and has potential for varied commercial or residential use the municipality cannot unilaterally suppress the valuation to the detriment of the citizen - Held - Valuation must reflect the market value as recognized in the registered gift deeds - [Paras 14-19].

Decision: Writ petitions disposed of – Respondents directed to issue TDR bonds calculated at Rs 37,000 per square yard to the petitioners within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order.