Civil Law - Maharashtra Project Affected Persons (Rehabilitation) Act - Unregistered Sale Agreement – Applicability of Section 53A T.P. Act – No Protection to Possession – Defendant relied on an unregistered agreement to claim possession under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act – Held: Due to the statutory requirement of registration under Section 17(1-A) of the Registration Act, an unregistered agreement has no effect for the purposes of Section 53A – Defendant cannot resist possession claim of true owner [Paras 4, 5, 8, 9].

Project-Affected Land – Sale Prohibited Under 1999 Act – Non-execution of Sale Deed Justified – Defendant contended that prohibition under Section 12 of the 1999 Act prevented sale – Court held that statutory prohibition did exist but did not change the outcome as possession claim under Section 53A failed due to non-registration [Paras 2, 8, 10].

Readiness and Willingness – Irrelevant Where Section 53A Inapplicable – Defendant claimed to be ready and willing to perform her part of the contract – Held: Even if such readiness existed, without registration, Section 53A is inapplicable – Appeal fails irrespective of readiness [Paras 5, 10].

Substantial Question of Law – Must Impact Final Outcome – Framed questions, even if answered in favour of appellant, do not alter decree – Held: Substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC must affect final outcome – No such question arises here – Second appeal dismissed [Paras 10, 11, 13].

Additional Evidence on Appeal – Irrelevant to Dispositive Issues – Applications under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC seeking to produce certificate and government resolution rejected – Held: Even if accepted, they wouldn’t change result – Additional evidence not relevant to decide appeal [Paras 7, 12].

Decision – Second Appeal Dismissed – Questions framed not substantial – Possession rightly decreed in favour of title-holder plaintiff – Pending suit for specific performance to be decided independently [Paras 13, 14].

Limitation - Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 - Delay in Filing Appeal – Applicability of Section 13(1-A) of Commercial Courts Act – Appeal Time-barred – The appellants filed appeals against the judgment of the Single Judge dated 31.07.2023 with a delay of 55 days beyond the statutory 60-day period under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act – Held: Delay not condonable unless sufficient cause shown under Section 5 of the Limitation Act – Delay unjustified in facts of case [Paras 3, 8, 12, 42].

Re-Filing of Appeals – Delay of 226 Days – Abuse of Process – Appeals refiled only after dismissal of related SLPs by the Supreme Court – No steps taken to remove defects or notify court and respondents – Held: Delay deliberate, not inadvertent – Bonafides lacking – Condonation denied [Paras 15–21, 32–38].

Bona Fides and Judicial Discretion – Condonation of Delay – Leniency Not Warranted – Court held that discretion under Section 5 is not a license for strategic delay – Emphasized need for honesty and diligence in pursuing remedies – Factual matrix revealed calculated gamble by appellants – Delay fatal [Paras 24–30, 33–35].

Conduct of Litigants – Suppression of Facts and Fence-Sitting – Delay Not Innocuous – Appellants failed to disclose filing of their appeals during ongoing hearing of related appeals by respondents – Continued participating without disclosure before Division Bench or Supreme Court – Conduct considered egregious and manipulative [Paras 14, 23, 31, 36–39].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Delay Not Condoned – In absence of sufficient cause for delay in filing and re-filing, and in light of mala fide conduct, applications for condonation of delay dismissed – Consequently, the appeals also dismissed without adjudication on merits [Paras 42–43].

Company Law - Winding Up – Debt Admission in Balance Sheet – Limited to ₹64.30 Lakh – Petition filed under Sections 433(e), 434(1)(a) alleging failure of respondent company to repay total dues of ₹21.55 crores—Court held only ₹64.30 lakh admitted in balance sheet was an undisputed liability—Directed respondent to pay with 11% interest—No case for winding up made solely on this basis [Paras 48–55].

Debt Assignment – Claim Based on IDBI Loan Transfer – Held Unenforceable – Petitioner claimed right to recover under a deed of assignment from IDBI Bank—Court found the underlying debt had already been extinguished via One-Time Settlement (OTS) prior to assignment—Held: No subsisting actionable claim remained—Claim under assignment rejected as disputed and barred [Paras 51–54].

Charge Creation – No Right Without Live Debt – Registered Charge Not Sufficient – Though charge of ₹2.24 crore was registered with ROC, Court held that charge without subsisting debt conferred no rights—Assignment of extinguished debt did not validate secured charge [Para 54].

Notice Requirement – No Valid Service of Statutory Demand – Petition Deficient – Winding up petition under Section 434(1)(a) found non-maintainable due to failure to serve demand notice at registered office—Newspaper publication deemed insufficient without such service—Held: Essential condition for presumption of inability to pay not met [Paras 38, 55].

Just and Equitable Ground – Not Established – Revival Efforts and Asset Value Noted – Petition under Section 433(f) dismissed as no threat to commercial interest shown—Company had valuable assets, willingness to clear Provident Fund and other dues—No material to conclude winding up necessary for commercial justice [Paras 56–58].

Decision – Petition dismissed – Respondent directed to:

Pay ₹64.30 lakh with 11% interest from date of advance till realization within two months;

Clear Provident Fund dues within four weeks;

Settle other outstanding liabilities [Para 59].

Criminal Law - Murder - Section 302 IPC – Conviction Based on Related Witnesses – Reversed – Appellant convicted for stabbing a minor girl to death along with co-accused—Trial court relied on testimonies of victim’s mother and relatives—Held: Testimonies of P.W.1, P.W.2, and P.W.3 riddled with inconsistencies, contradictions, and uncorroborated claims—Independent witnesses not examined—Accused entitled to benefit of doubt [Paras 63–71, 73–75].

Identification – Presence of Light Disputed – Alleged eye-witness claimed identification under inverter light—Other testimony and site plan did not mention source of light—Held: Identification doubtful—Site plan omitted key locations—Raises suspicion over prosecution version [Paras 36–37, 53].

Recovery – Knife Not Forensically Tested – Recovery of knife allegedly at accused’s instance not supported by forensic report—No blood found—Held: Absence of forensic confirmation of weapon weakens prosecution case—Recovery held to be doubtful [Paras 50–51, 54–55].

Delay in Naming Accused – Witnesses Unreliable – FIR initially against unknown persons—Victim’s mother allegedly unconscious for 2 days—Names disclosed only after delay—Doctor did not produce admission register—Held: Delay and motive to falsely implicate not ruled out—Testimony of witnesses unreliable [Paras 9–10, 23, 35, 43–46].

Medical Evidence – Cause of Death Confirmed – Circumstantial Link Fails – Autopsy confirmed fatal stab wounds—But lack of independent corroboration, no motive proved, and chain of evidence broken—Held: Medical findings alone insufficient without credible link to accused [Paras 7–8, 48–49].

Decision – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted of charges under Sections 302/34 IPC and 25/4 Arms Act – Appellant to be released unless required in other cases [Para 76].

Criminal Law – Addition of Charge – Section 216 CrPC – Scope and Preconditions – Trial court allowed addition of Section 306 IPC charge against petitioner after examining prosecution witnesses under Section 216 CrPC – Held: While the court has exclusive power to alter or add charges, such power must be exercised only where materials on record disclose ingredients of the offence sought to be added – No evidence on record to show instigation, conspiracy or intentional aiding to attract Section 306 – Order unsustainable [Paras 1–8].

Abetment of Suicide – Essential Ingredients – Absence of Active Role – No Instigation or Intentional Aid – Prosecution relied on the allegation that a draft divorce agreement delivered by another accused caused mental distress to deceased leading to suicide – Held: No material to show petitioner instigated or aided suicide – Mere harassment or mental distress unaccompanied by active role is insufficient to sustain charge under Section 306 IPC – Precedents reaffirmed [Paras 6–8].

Judicial Precedents – Interpretation of Section 216 CrPC – Court’s Discretion Paramount – Later Supreme Court ruling permits informant or prosecutor to bring addition of charge to court’s notice – However, addition cannot be automatic – Must be supported by cogent evidence linking accused to new charge – Trial court erred in applying standard [Paras 5–6].

Decision – Addition of Charge Set Aside – Crl.M.C. Allowed – Impugned Order dated 02.05.2014 of Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Kannur set aside – Charge under Section 306 IPC not maintainable against petitioner in absence of evidence establishing abetment [Paras 8, Conclusion].

Pre-emption – Section 8 WBLR Act – Short Deposit of Consideration – Application Not Maintainable – Petitioners filed application to pre-empt land transferred by three sale deeds, but deposited only half of the total consideration—Held: As per statutory mandate and binding precedent, entire consideration with 10% must be deposited at the time of application—Failure to comply renders application invalid—Pre-emption claim dismissed [Paras 21–23, 25–30].

Multiple Deeds – Single Application – Partial Pre-emption Not Permissible – Petitioners sought pre-emption over three separate sale deeds but selectively deposited amount for one—Held: Attempt to pre-empt one of multiple sales in a composite application not legally permissible—Cannot approbate and reprobate within same proceeding [Paras 11, 13, 29–30].

Precedents – Barasat Eye Hospital and Abdul Matin Mallick – Binding on All Courts – Court followed Barasat Eye Hospital v. Kaustabh Mondal, (2019) 19 SCC 676 and Abdul Matin Mallick v. Subrata Bhattacharjee, (2022) 7 SCC 147—Held: Time and complete deposit are sacrosanct under Section 8—Delay or shortfall cannot be condoned [Paras 16–19, 30].

Procedural Lapse – Trial and Appellate Court Ignored Statutory Deposit Requirement – Both courts below focused on co-sharer and adjoining land owner claims—Failed to examine essential prerequisite of full deposit at filing—Held: Entire pre-emption proceeding vitiated by foundational procedural error [Paras 21, 31].

Equity and Discretion – No Relief Without Statutory Compliance – Petitioners argued equity and partial compliance—Court held that non-observance of explicit statutory preconditions defeats claim—Equitable discretion cannot override law [Paras 27–28].

Decision – Revision dismissed – Pre-emption application held not maintainable – Petitioners entitled to refund of deposit with interest, if any – No costs awarded – Connected applications also disposed [Paras 32–34].

Arbitration Law  – Maintainability of Writ under Article 226 – Exception to Rule of Execution – Petitioners sought writ of mandamus for enforcement of arbitral award of ₹61.54 crores related to municipal waste management project—Though execution petition was pending, Court held: Extraordinary delay and non-payment for over 12 years despite decree justified writ jurisdiction—Refused to dismiss petition on ground of alternative remedy [Paras 22–27].

Public Interest – State’s Delay in Compliance – Capricious Conduct Attracts Judicial Intervention – Respondents repeatedly avoided compliance with final arbitral award—Despite failed settlements, no payment made—Court held: Such conduct undermines public trust and warrants constitutional remedy—Government’s defence of ongoing talks rejected as dilatory [Paras 14–18, 25–27].

Partial Relief – Interim Payment Directed – Parallel Remedies Not Barred – While recognizing pendency of execution and appeal, Court directed payment of ₹15 crores before 31.07.2025 as partial enforcement—Held: Preventing miscarriage of justice requires interim relief; balance of amount to be pursued through other legal forums [Paras 28–30].

Contempt of Court – Interim Order Compliance Secured – Petition Closed – Contempt petition filed alleging disobedience of prior interim direction—Court held: As direction to record Government’s stand was ultimately complied with and final relief granted, contempt petition need not proceed further—Closed without punitive orders [Paras 12, 31].

Decision – Writ Petition partly allowed – Government directed to pay ₹15 crores by 31.07.2025 – Petitioners to pursue remainder through execution and appellate remedies – Contempt Petition closed – No costs awarded [Paras 30–31].

Matrimonial Law - Compromise in Matrimonial Dispute – Allegation of Lack of Informed Consent – Fresh Opportunity Granted – Wife opposed recording of compromise agreement reached before counsellor, alleging she was unaware of its full terms and was denied legal advice—Family Court dismissed her objection—Held: No evidence was adduced by wife to support her claim, but since neither party acted on the compromise, Court granted opportunity to substantiate claims—Orders and judgment set aside, matter remanded [Paras 2–5, 7–11].

Maintenance and Return of Property – Claims Not Properly Raised in Pleadings – Settlement Unclear – Wife originally claimed maintenance, gold ornaments (12 sovereigns), ₹20,000 patrimony, and household articles—However, these were not included in the relief clause—Terms of compromise mentioned only ₹60,000 and return of ornaments—Held: Ambiguity in settlement terms justifies retrial to clarify intentions [Paras 6, 9–10].

Procedural Fairness – No Evidence Adduced – Still Opportunity Allowed – Despite wife failing to seek examination or adduce proof, High Court considered fairness and potential injustice—Remanded matter to Family Court for fresh evidence and proper adjudication of compromise validity [Paras 8–11].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Orders on I.A. Nos. 2159 and 2258 of 2013 and judgment in O.P. No. 78 of 2012 set aside – Family Court to reconsider applications afresh – Parties to appear on 11.06.2025 [Para 11].

Criminal Procedure – Section 156(3) and 200 CrPC – Allegation of False Implication – Complaint Dismissed – Petitioner sought registration of FIR against police officers alleging false implication under Delhi Excise Act—Cited CCTV footage and illegal detention—Magistrate held complaint premature as trial under Excise Act was ongoing—High Court affirmed dismissal—Held: No prima facie evidence of illegal detention; complaint rightly rejected [Paras 6–7, 24–27].

Police Conduct – Bar Under Section 140 Delhi Police Act – Acting in Discharge of Duty – Police action under color of duty protected under Section 140—Court held legal bar on prosecution unless permission obtained—Petitioner failed to demonstrate mala fide or excess of authority—Complaint not maintainable [Paras 7, 23].

Evidentiary Assessment – CCTV Footage and DVR Inconclusive – Petitioner relied on CCTV showing presence with police at 12:50 PM to negate implication at 4:30 PM—Court noted presence shown was in relation to a different FIR—Allegation of manipulation unsupported; DVR sent for CFSL analysis—Pending trials to determine facts [Paras 6, 16–18, 24].

Procedural Law – Petition Under Section 378(4) and 482 CrPC – Maintainability Questioned – Objection raised that remedy against Section 156(3) order lies in revision—Court declined to dismiss on technicality as Section 200 complaint was also decided—Considered petition on merits and upheld trial court findings [Para 23].

Decision – Leave to appeal declined – Dismissal of complaint and application under Sections 200 and 156(3) CrPC upheld – No directions for registration of FIR – Petition disposed of [Paras 27–28].