Land Acquisition – Valuation – 2013 Act to Apply Despite 1894 Initiation – Compensation Recalculated – Although reference was made under Section 18 of the 1894 Act, since no award had been made when the 2013 Act came into force, the provisions of the 2013 Act applied as per Section 24(1)(a) – Held: Market value to be assessed as per highest pre-notification sale deed (Rs.6,02,500/- less value of structure Rs.49,956/-) resulting in Rs.5,52,544/- per cottah as just compensation – Average pricing discarded; market value under Section 26(1)(a) preferred over average sale price [Paras 21–29, 43–45].

Procedural Fairness – No Objection Filed by State – No Right to Lead Evidence – State failed to file written objections under Section 18 reference; thus barred from introducing additional evidence – Referral Court rightly relied on unopposed documents submitted by claimant – Additional evidence application dismissed [Paras 30–32, 44].

Statutory Interest – Sections 72 and 80 of 2013 Act – Direction to Ascertain Date of Possession – Held: Interest on excess compensation and delayed payment under Sections 72 and 80 is statutory – Referral Court directed to ascertain actual date of possession and award due interest accordingly – Absence of such interest in original award found to be legal error [Paras 56–60].

Date of Award – Governor’s Approval Not Required Under 2013 Act – Argument Rejected – Claimant’s argument that compensation should run till Governor’s assent was rejected – Held: 2013 Act does not require Government approval for validity of award; award date remains July 30, 2015 [Paras 47–55].

Decision – Appeals Allowed in Part – Referral Court Award Set Aside – Matter Remanded – Both appeals partly allowed – Market value fixed at Rs.5,52,544/- per cottah – Solatium under Section 30 and interest under Sections 30(3), 72 and 80 directed to be computed – Matter remanded to Referral Court to determine date of possession and recalculate compensation with multipliers and statutory interest – To be completed within 8 months [Paras 62–64].
 

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Matrimonial Dispute and Digital Harassment – Bail Granted – Petitioners sought anticipatory bail in relation to FIR No. 119/2025 involving serious allegations by complainant-wife including physical assault, snatching of mobile phone, coercion, and unauthorized financial transactions – Court held that, despite nature of allegations, custodial interrogation of limited duration would suffice for investigation – Bail granted with conditions including cooperation, surrender of electronic devices, and periodic attendance [Paras 3–12].

Investigative Cooperation – Conditional Bail – Electronic Evidence to be Surrendered – Petitioners directed to appear before investigating officer, undergo custodial interrogation, and then be released on bail – Conditions included surrendering electronic devices (phones, laptops), regular attendance before IO, and restriction on tampering with evidence or leaving jurisdiction – Violation to invite cancellation of bail [Para 12].

Decision – Bail Granted with Stringent Conditions – Petition Allowed – Court allowed the anticipatory bail petition, permitted limited custodial interrogation, and imposed strict conditions including bail bond of ₹50,000 each, cooperation with investigation, and weekly police attendance – Clarified that violation of conditions may result in bail cancellation [Para 12].

Civil Law – Impleadment of Parties – Necessary vs. Proper Parties – Impleadment Set Aside – Petitioners challenged the trial court’s order permitting respondents No. 8, 9, and 10 to be impleaded as defendants in ongoing suits over Trust property on the basis of an unprobated Will by Rajmata Sushila Kumari Ji – Held: The added respondents were neither necessary nor proper parties – Their claim under the unprobated Will was hopelessly barred by limitation under Article 137 of the Limitation Act – Impleadment would unduly expand the scope of the litigation and was an abuse of process – Petition allowed and trial court’s order quashed [Paras 11–22, 25–28].

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Forged Certificate Allegations – Petition Dismissed – Petitioner sought quashing of FIR and charge-sheet for allegedly using forged documents to secure army employment – FIR was filed by a neighbor allegedly in retaliation for a civil dispute – Court held: Prima facie case made out; FIR discloses cognizable offences – Claim of mala fides and land dispute not a valid ground for quashing once investigation concluded and charge-sheet filed – Held: Petition dismissed, Trial Court to proceed with the matter in accordance with law [Paras 12–29].

Criminal Law - Bail under PMLA – Continued Incarceration – Right to Liberty – Bail Granted - Petitioner implicated under PMLA for alleged role in diversion of funds through Shivakriti Agro Pvt. Ltd. and facilitating re-acquisition of M/s Sunstar Overseas Ltd. via shell entities – Though alleged to be a close aide of key accused Rohit Aggarwal, petitioner not named in predicate offence FIR or chargesheet – Held: Petitioner had cooperated in investigation and was not found to have personally benefitted from proceeds of crime – Main accused not arrested – Trial in predicate offence and PMLA complaint at nascent stage – Petitioner in custody for over 10 months – Following SC precedent in V. Senthil Balaji and others, continued custody would violate Article 21 rights – Bail granted subject to conditions [Paras 24–38].

Matrimonial Law - Maintenance to Wife – Refusal Based on Decree for Restitution of Conjugal Rights – Decree Not Sufficient by Itself – The Family Court denied maintenance to the wife solely on the ground of her non-compliance with a decree of restitution of conjugal rights – Held: As per Apex Court precedent, mere existence of such decree is not sufficient to disentitle a wife from maintenance – The husband must further establish that wife left without sufficient reason – Failure to consider this led to legal error in the order [Paras 3–4].

Maintenance to Daughter – Inadequate Reasoning for Quantum – Family Court awarded Rs. 2000/month till 06.05.2024 and Rs. 5000/month thereafter to the minor daughter – Held: Trial Court failed to assign reasons or consider father’s income and lifestyle to justify the quantum – Order suffers illegality on this count – Matter remitted for fresh decision [Para 6].

Conflicting Pleas – Incongruity Between Seeking Restitution and Divorce – Husband had sought divorce under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act while simultaneously citing wife’s refusal to comply with decree of restitution – Held: This contradiction casts doubt on husband’s case and should have been considered in evaluating sufficiency of wife’s cause to live separately [Para 5].

Decision – Impugned Order Set Aside – Interim Maintenance Directed – The impugned order of the Family Court is set aside – Matter remanded for fresh disposal within 3 months – Meanwhile, interim maintenance of Rs. 5000/month each to wife and daughter directed from 01.04.2025, to be adjusted in final award [Paras 6–7].

Matrimonial Law - Territorial Jurisdiction – Determination under Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act – Application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC Dismissed – Appellant claimed parties last resided in Faridabad, Haryana; Respondent claimed last matrimonial residence in Anand Parbat, New Delhi – Divorce petition filed in Delhi based on residence at Anand Parbat – Court found jurisdiction properly vested with Family Court, Tis Hazari, based on averments in the petition and lack of jurisdictional objection in prior restitution petition – Held: Divorce petition was rightly filed at Delhi; Application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC was rightly dismissed [Paras 5–19].

Pleading Standards – Consideration of Jurisdiction at Pleading Stage – Divorce petition’s averments taken as true at preliminary stage – Jurisdiction examined based on plaint only, not defence – Held: Return of plaint not warranted where jurisdiction properly claimed in pleadings [Paras 13–16].

Equitable Clarification – Opportunity to Raise Jurisdiction Later – Dismissal of application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC does not preclude raising territorial jurisdiction objection during trial – Held: Right to contest jurisdiction at later stage preserved [Para 20].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Family Court had territorial jurisdiction based on last matrimonial residence in Delhi – No infirmity found in impugned order – Appeal and pending applications dismissed as meritless [Paras 19–21].
 

Civil Law - Coparcenary Rights of Daughter – Applicability of Section 6, Hindu Succession Act – Partition Sought by Daughter – Upheld – The daughter, born before the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, sought partition of ancestral property acquired by her father through a registered partition deed dated 04.02.2004 – Held: Since no partition took place between the father and his children before or after the 2005 amendment, the daughter had coparcenary rights by birth and was entitled to a share – The oral partition claimed by defendants was unproven, and absence of father’s testimony weighed against the defense – Section 6(5) did not preclude her claim – Judgment of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court upheld [Paras 17–20, 25–26].

Second Appeal – Scope under Section 100 CPC – Concurrent Findings – Not Interfered – The High Court reiterated the principle that it shall not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on inadmissible evidence – Found that both lower courts had rightly concluded the suit schedule property was ancestral and undivided – No reason to interfere under second appeal jurisdiction [Paras 15–16, 26].

Decision: Second Appeal Dismissed – The High Court upheld the findings of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court, affirming the plaintiff’s right to a share in ancestral property as a coparcener – No substantial question of law was found to merit interference under Section 100 CPC – The concurrent findings were based on proper appreciation of evidence and legal principles – The appeal was therefore dismissed [Para 26].
 

Criminal Law – Regular Bail - Foreign National – Allegation of Illegal Entry – Confession to Police – Accused arrested on suspicion of being a Bangladeshi national without valid documents—Prosecution relied on alleged oral confession—Held: Confession before police inadmissible; prosecution case based only on alleged statement unsupported by valid documentary proof [Paras 2–5].

Constitutional Law – Violation of Articles 21 and 22 – Delayed Production Before Magistrate – Applicant arrested at 12:30 PM on 28.01.2025 and produced before Magistrate at 4:30 PM on 29.01.2025—Held: Custody beyond 24 hours without remand order violates Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution and Section 50 CrPC—Arrest prima facie vitiated; Court has duty to intervene [Paras 5.1–7].

Bail Jurisprudence – Supreme Court Precedents – Duty of Court to Enforce Fundamental Rights – Court followed Directorate of Enforcement v. Subhash Sharma, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 240—Held: When fundamental rights are breached, bail must be granted irrespective of whether the plea was raised during remand—Division Bench ruling in Karan Ratan Rokade not applicable due to factual differences [Paras 5.3–6].

Proof of Nationality – Existence of Indian Identity Documents – Applicant relied on Aadhar, PAN, Ration Card, Voter ID, marriage certificate, and Gram Panchayat certificate to show long-term residence in India—Held: Documents raise triable issue; bail appropriate as prosecution must prove case during trial [Paras 5, 9].

Decision – Bail granted – Applicant to be released on ₹5,000 P.R. bond with two sureties – Provisional cash bail allowed – Conditions imposed including regular court attendance, no tampering with evidence, and restriction on travel outside Maharashtra – Order limited to bail, not merits [Paras 10–12].