Civil Law - Contract – Fraudulent Execution – Misuse of Advocate-Client Relationship – Agreement Cancelled - Plaintiff alleged that the defendant, an advocate, misused trust and obtained signatures on an agreement of sale under the pretext of executing a rental agreement – The Trial Court found misrepresentation and fraud – Held: The defendant abused the Advocate–Client relationship, and the agreement of sale was obtained by misrepresentation, thus liable to be cancelled [Paras 10-21].

Proof and Evidence – Adverse Inference Against Defendant – No Oral Evidence – Decree Confirmed - Defendant failed to lead oral evidence despite multiple opportunities, leading to an adverse inference being drawn – Plaintiff’s evidence, supported by documents like bank transactions, legal notices, and photographs, was found credible – Held: Decree for cancellation of agreement and award of damages justified [Paras 12-18].

Damages – Demolition of Property – Rs. 10,00,000/- Awarded – Defendant demolished the superstructure and removed valuable fixtures without lawful authority – Held: Plaintiff entitled to damages as assessed based on Advocate Commissioner’s report and documentary evidence [Paras 22-23].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Judgment and decree of Trial Court in O.S. No.2521/2019 dated 29.04.2024 upheld – No order as to costs [Para 24].
 

Civil Law - Land Acquisition – Return of Land – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Land Not Returned – Claim Rejected - Petitioner sought return of acquired land contending that project was abandoned and land was unused – Held: Under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, there is no provision mandating return of acquired land for non-use – Claims for return upheld under Act 30 of 2013 are not applicable – Reliance placed on multiple Supreme Court judgments affirming non-return of acquired land [Paras 15-16].

Compensation – Availability of Remedies – Liberty Granted - Petitioner directed to avail remedy under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for enhancement of compensation – Compensation already deposited before Civil Court – Held: Writ Petition dismissed with liberty to pursue remedy under Land Acquisition Act [Para 16].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed; liberty given to pursue appropriate remedy under Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
 

Civil Law - Trademark Infringement Suit – Commercial Suit Classification – Section 12 of CC Act – Specific Value Sufficient – Suit for infringement of ‘KRANTI’ trademark valued at over Rs.95 lakhs – Court held that valuation as pleaded, based on market value under Section 12(1)(d) of the Commercial Courts Act, satisfies ‘specified value’ requirement [Paras 6-13, 16-18].

Framing of Additional Issues – Scope Under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC – No Additional Issue Required – Court emphasized that issues are framed based on material propositions in pleadings – Petitioners’ plea for framing additional issue on jurisdiction rejected as no material variance or necessity shown [Paras 15-17].

Pleadings Interpretation – Hyper-Technical Objection Rejected – Absence of express mention of ‘specified value’ wording not fatal where pleadings, market value, and relief valuation collectively satisfied statutory requirements – Substance over form adopted [Paras 18-19].

Relationship Between CC Act and Suits Valuation/Court Fees Act – Harmonious Reading – CC Act provisions do not override the Court Fees Act or Suits Valuation Act – Principles of valuation under Court Fees law prevail unless specifically altered – Confirmed by reliance on Pankaj Ravjibhai Patel case [Paras 19-20].

Limited Interference Under Article 227 – Scope Explained – High Court reiterated that supervisory jurisdiction is limited, not appellate, and interference warranted only in case of grave injustice or jurisdictional error, neither of which existed here [Para 21].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Impugned order of Trial Court upheld – No interference called for – Suit to proceed before Commercial Court based on existing issues – Petitioners directed to bear their own costs [Paras 22-23].

Civil Law – Declaration & Perm Injunction - Second Appeal – Misinterpretation of Acquisition Award and Possession Certificate – Title and Ownership Dispute – Appeal Dismissed – Plaintiffs claimed ownership of land based on sale deeds and sought declaration and injunction – Trial Court decreed the suit but Lower Appellate Court reversed the decision citing improper identification of property and subdivision confusion – High Court held that plaintiffs failed to correlate the purchased land to the subdivided survey numbers and to prove actual possession or ownership of entire extent claimed – Held: No misinterpretation of Award or TSLR Register by Appellate Court – Second Appeal dismissed [Paras 2-16].

Title Deeds – Identification of Property – Burden of Proof on Plaintiff – Proof Required – Plaintiffs' failure to produce layout or correlate specific plot location with acquired lands fatal to their claim – Evidence from Special Tahsildar regarding non-issuance of notice not sufficient to establish plaintiffs' ownership rights – Trial Court erred in decreeing suit without proper evidence – Findings of Lower Appellate Court upheld [Paras 10-16].

Acquisition Proceedings – Effect on Private Rights – Validity of Defendant’s Possession – Defendant Housing Board proved acquisition through Award and possession certificates – Plaintiffs could not establish that their land was excluded from acquisition or that it remained unaffected – Declaration and injunction rightly denied [Paras 12-16].

Decision – Second Appeal dismissed – Judgment and Decree of the Lower Appellate Court confirmed – No costs awarded [Para 17].

Criminal Law - Appeal Against Acquittal – Criminal Breach of Trust – Sections 409 and 424 IPC – Appeal Dismissed - The appellant challenged the acquittal order, alleging misappropriation of partnership firm funds by the respondents – The Trial Court had acquitted respondents citing lack of documentary evidence proving dishonest misappropriation – Held: The appellant failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the respondents misappropriated the firm's money and did not substantiate entrustment and misuse as required under Section 409 IPC [Paras 2, 18-21].

Partnership Dispute – Civil Nature of Dispute – No Criminality Attributed – Appeal Dismissed - The dispute between the parties arose out of business transactions within a partnership firm – Held: The allegations mainly constituted civil disputes over accounting and settlement, and the criminal charges were not established independently – Criminal liability cannot be presumed merely from civil disputes [Paras 12, 17-18].

Standard of Proof – Appeal Against Acquittal – Principles Applied – Double Presumption - In an appeal against acquittal, double presumption of innocence operates in favour of the accused – Held: The appellate Court should not interfere unless the trial Court’s view is perverse or unsustainable – No compelling reasons found to overturn the acquittal [Paras 22-24].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed - No evidence showing criminal breach of trust or fraud beyond reasonable doubt – No perversity in trial Court’s acquittal order – Appeal dismissed, upholding the trial Court’s judgment [Paras 23-24].
 

Bail Petition – Violation of Right to be Informed of Grounds of Arrest – Non-Compliance with Article 22(1) – Bail Granted – The petitioner challenged his custody citing violation of constitutional and statutory rights at the time of arrest – The Court found that the grounds of arrest were not communicated in writing as mandated under Article 22(1) and recent Supreme Court judgments – Held: Non-communication in writing renders custody illegal, entitling the petitioner to bail [Paras 1-13].

Constitutional Safeguards – Oral Communication Insufficient – Written Communication of Grounds of Arrest Mandatory – The State’s argument that oral intimation sufficed was rejected – Court emphasized that when a procedure is mandated in a particular manner, deviation is impermissible – Held: Oral communication inadequate to satisfy constitutional requirements [Paras 6-9, 13].

Bail Conditions – Petitioner to Remain within Jurisdiction – Compliance Monitoring – Bail granted on furnishing of sureties and strict conditions including regular attendance before police and court – Non-compliance to result in cancellation of bail [Para 13].

Decision: The bail application CRM (DB) 62 of 2025 was allowed. Petitioner granted bail on specified conditions.

Family Law – Divorce – Cruelty – False Accusations and Malicious Litigation – Divorce Granted – Appellant-husband alleged verbal and physical cruelty, police complaints, and baseless suspicions of infidelity – Respondent admitted her allegation of second marriage was based on hearsay – Court held: Repeated unfounded allegations, abusive conduct, and long separation constituted mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act – Divorce granted [Paras 2–3, 5, 9–14].

Family Law – Judicial Separation – Improper Invocation – No Power to Grant in RCR Petition – Judicial Separation Set Aside – Family Court granted judicial separation in both divorce and restitution petitions invoking Section 13A – Held: Court has no power to grant judicial separation in petition filed under Section 9 for restitution of conjugal rights – Judicial separation under H.M.O.P. No.1228/2014 was without jurisdiction – Set aside [Paras 3–4, 14, 16].

Evidence – Non-Examination of Witnesses – Effect – Family Members Not Examined – Not Fatal – Husband produced photo of injury allegedly inflicted by wife – Family Court discredited evidence due to non-examination of petitioner’s mother – Held: Petitioner’s testimony unshaken in cross-examination; absence of supporting witness not fatal – Finding of Family Court legally unsustainable [Paras 5, 10].

Family Law – Long Separation and Irretrievable Breakdown – Divorce Justified – Parties living separately since 2013 – Wife willing to give up custody without seeking visitation – Cumulative conduct showed irreparable breakdown – Cited Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh and Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan – Held: Marriage broken beyond repair; continuance would cause mental cruelty [Paras 8, 12–14].

Maintenance – Enhancement Justified – Increase in Living and Educational Costs – Family Court awarded ₹30,000/month maintenance – Court enhanced to ₹40,000/month considering child’s age and inflation – Directed payment from date of receipt of judgment copy [Para 15].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Divorce Decree Granted – Judicial Separation Set Aside – RCR Petition Dismissed – Maintenance Enhanced – Family Court Judgment dated 23.02.2021 set aside – Marriage dissolved by decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act [Para 16–17].

Motor Accident Compensation – Review of Judgment – Income Estimation – Review Rejected – Respondents sought review of judgment reducing compensation from ₹2.23 crore to ₹49.29 lakh, arguing court ignored proven U.S. tax returns showing income of $97,500 – Held: Court had already evaluated ITRs and found that figure merely reflected social security ceiling, not actual income – No error apparent to warrant review [Paras 1-5, 13-14].

Foreign Evidence – ITRs from USA – Admissibility – Not Duly Proved – Claimants submitted notarized U.S. ITRs but failed to meet evidentiary requirements under Section 3 of Diplomatic and Consular Officers Act – Held: Documents not authenticated by consular officers and not accepted as conclusive proof – Summary nature of MACT proceedings does not override foundational proof obligations [Paras 3, 6-8, 11].

Compensation Calculation – Income Assessed at $28,000 p.a. – Deceased’s net income computed from available records – Court considered earnings from all sources and applied Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi principles – Held: Income rightly assumed at $28,000 and loss of dependency calculated accordingly; no ground to revise [Paras 11-12].

Scope of Review – No Error Apparent – Review Denied – Review petition failed to demonstrate any clerical or patent error in the impugned judgment – Plea essentially sought re-arguing the appeal – Held: Review not a substitute for appeal; petition dismissed [Paras 9-10, 14].

Final Direction – Realisation Permitted – Insurance company confirmed full deposit of awarded compensation – Held: Claimant entitled to realise amount as per law without delay [Paras 15-16].
 

Civil Law - Will – Execution and Attestation – Section 63 of Succession Act – Probate Denied – The appellant sought probate of a registered Will executed by her husband—Probate Court found that only one attesting witness was examined, who failed to confirm the attestation by the second witness – Held: Proof of attestation by both witnesses required under Section 63(c); mere attestation by one without corroboration does not fulfill the statutory mandate – Will execution not proven as per law [Paras 9, 29, 35-37].

Evidence – Section 68 of Evidence Act – Limited Scope – Mere signature of testator insufficient – The sole attesting witness did not testify to presence or signing of second attesting witness – Held: Section 68 permits examination of one attesting witness, but such witness must prove full compliance with attestation requirements under Section 63 of the Succession Act – Failure to do so is fatal [Paras 9, 36].

Appellate Procedure – Additional Evidence – Order XLI Rule 27 CPC – Application Rejected – Appellant sought to examine second attesting witness at appellate stage – Held: Witness was available during trial, and due diligence was not shown – Appellate Court not a venue to fill evidentiary gaps – Application dismissed [Paras 24-28].

Suspicious Circumstances – Language Barrier and Execution Doubts – Will typed in English but signed by testator in Urdu – No evidence testator understood contents – Held: Raises justifiable suspicion; burden on propounder to prove testator understood and voluntarily executed the Will – Not discharged in present case [Paras 10, 30, 35].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Probate rightly denied by Probate Court – No illegality or perversity found in lower court's reasoning – Will not proven to be duly executed or free from suspicion [Paras 37-38].