Civil Law - Impleadment in Specific Performance Suit – Order 1 Rule 10 and Order 43 Rule 1 of the CPC -  Appeal against Addition of Third Party – Appeal Allowed – The appellant challenged an order of the Single Judge allowing the impleadment of her brother-in-law (Respondent No. 4) in a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell – Held: A third party not privy to the contract and claiming independent title cannot be impleaded – Such impleadment would enlarge the scope of the suit into a title dispute – Appeal allowed and impleadment set aside [Paras 1–3, 16–26].

Appealability – Order Not Enumerated Under Order XLIII CPC – Maintainability Under Section 10 of Delhi High Court Act – Upheld – The respondent objected to the maintainability of the appeal under Order XLIII CPC and Commercial Courts Act – Held: Even if not appealable under Order XLIII, the impugned order qualifies as a “judgment” under Section 10 of DHC Act as it affects valuable rights and changes the character of the suit – Appeal maintainable [Paras 10–15].

Impleadment Test – Necessary and Proper Party – Order I Rule 10 CPC – Not Satisfied – Court reiterated that only those parties whose presence is necessary to adjudicate the issues in the suit can be impleaded – Respondent No. 4, claiming co-ownership but not being a party to the contract, failed the test – His dispute lies in a separate title suit, not in a specific performance suit [Paras 17–20, 24–25].

Binding Precedents – Supreme Court Judgments in Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal and Anil Kumar Singh v. Shivnath Mishra – Applied – The Court relied on established law that in a suit for specific performance, a stranger to the contract cannot be added merely because of a claimed interest in the property – Doing so alters the nature of the suit and is impermissible [Paras 19–21].

Distinguished Cases – Sumtibai and Rajesh Kumar Arora – Not Applicable – Respondent No. 4 cited judgments where impleadment was permitted – Held: These cases were fact-specific and do not dilute the general bar on impleading third parties in specific performance suits – Those decisions did not form ratio applicable to present case [Paras 22–23].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Impugned Order Set Aside – Respondent No. 4’s impleadment struck off – Liberty granted to pursue independent remedy – Suit to proceed without alteration of scope [Paras 27–28].

Civil Law – Recovery and Mortgage Suit – Loan of ₹50 Lakhs – Mortgage by Deposit of Title Deeds – Preliminary Decree Passed – Defendant borrowed ₹50 lakhs and created equitable mortgage by depositing original title deeds – Defendant acknowledged debt through reply notice agreeing to repay within 30 days – Upon failure, suit filed for recovery and sale of secured property – Held: Plaintiff proved loan and security through oral and documentary evidence – Defendants failed to contest post demise of original borrower – Suit decreed with liberty to seek sale of mortgaged property [Paras 2, 8, 12].

Limitation – Mortgage by Deposit of Title Deeds – Article 62 of Limitation Act – Suit Held Within Limitation – Though loan transaction dated 12.04.2011, limitation extended by acknowledgment of liability in reply dated 27.12.2017 – Mortgage suits governed by 12-year limitation – Suit filed in 2021 held within time – Plea of limitation rejected [Paras 12(b), 13(a)].

Admissibility of Evidence – Mortgage Agreement on Insufficient Stamp – Admitted – Reliance on judicial precedents supporting minimal stamping for evidentiary purpose in recovery suits – Original title deeds, agreement and acknowledgment admitted and proved – Defendants’ contention of blank signed papers not supported by evidence – Held: No bar to admissibility of loan agreement and deposit letter [Paras 9, 12(c), 13].

Decision – Preliminary Decree Granted – Defendants directed to pay ₹1,21,25,000 with interest at contractual rate within 8 weeks – In default, plaintiff permitted to apply for final decree and sale of suit property – Costs awarded to plaintiff [Para 15].

Civil Law - Eviction Suit – Jurisdiction of Civil Court – Sections 5, 8, and 21 of the West Bengal Thika Tenancy Act, 2001 – Eviction Suit Dismissed – Plaintiffs sought eviction on grounds of default, nuisance, and reasonable requirement – Trial Court decreed eviction without considering statutory jurisdictional bar – Held: The civil court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction as the issue of Thika tenancy was pending and later conclusively decided by the Thika Controller – Civil Court's decree is a nullity – Suit liable to be dismissed for lack of inherent jurisdiction [Paras 21–26, 45–54, 68–72].

Striking Out of Defence – Section 7 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 – No Automatic Bar – Defence not struck out before final adjudication – Trial Court proceeded to decide all issues on merits – Held: In absence of prior order under Section 7(3), defence remains – Jurisdictional issues had to be decided before proceeding to trial – The failure vitiated the trial court’s decree [Paras 29–32, 42–44].

Landlord-Tenant Relationship – Disputed Relationship – Effect on Section 7 Compliance – Dispute raised on existence of tenancy – Held: A defendant who denies tenancy may not be required to comply with Section 7(1) or (2) as the provision applies to 'tenant', not 'defendant' – Court must decide landlord-tenant relationship before invoking Section 7(3) – View supported by binding Division Bench judgment in Synthetic Plywood Industries case – Ratio unchanged under 1997 Act [Paras 36–41].

Additional Evidence – Order XLI Rule 27 CPC – Thika Controller's Order Considered – Appeal Allowed – During appeal, certified order of Thika Controller adjudicating defendant as Thika Tenant was produced – Held: Court can look into such evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 – The order reinforces bar under 2001 Act and nullifies civil court’s jurisdiction [Paras 62–67].

Applicability of Thika Tenancy Act, 1981 vs. 2001 – Section 27 of 2001 Act – 2001 Act Applies – Plaintiffs claimed rights accrued under 1981 Act – Held: 1981 Act did not confer right of eviction – Such rights flow from tenancy laws like 1997 Act – Section 27 only protects existing liabilities or privileges – Since eviction suit filed in 2013, 2001 Act applies [Paras 57–61].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Civil Court Decree Set Aside – Eviction Suit Dismissed – The trial court acted without jurisdiction – Remand order of First Appellate Court also erroneous and academic – Decree and remand order set aside and eviction suit dismissed outright for want of jurisdiction [Paras 70–73].

Income Tax – Section 80IA – Interest Income from Fixed Deposits – Deduction Allowed – The appellant, operating a port terminal under a BOT agreement with JNPT, placed funds in fixed deposits to meet mandatory obligations for crane replacement under the License Agreement and to hold disputed tariff collections as per a High Court order – Held: Since the deposits were made out of business compulsion and closely linked to the infrastructure facility's operation and maintenance, the interest earned qualifies for deduction under Section 80IA [Paras 5-9, 20-26, 40-53].

Income Tax – Interest on TDS Refund – Deduction Permitted – The appellant received interest on tax deducted at source by its customers, which formed part of port usage charges – Held: The interest was incidental to the business and directly linked to the appellant’s operations – The Court held that interest on delayed refunds of such business receipts is an accretion to business income and is eligible for deduction under Section 80IA [Paras 6-7, 30-31, 46-47].

Statutory Interpretation – “Derived from” – Direct Nexus Required – Interpretation of Section 80IA must recognize that business receipts linked directly to the operation and maintenance of an eligible infrastructure facility fall within its ambit – Mere labeling of interest income as "income from other sources" not justified when business compulsion dictates such deposits [Paras 42-50].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – Orders of ITAT and CIT(A) set aside – The appellant is entitled to claim deduction under Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act on both (i) interest earned on fixed deposits made for business obligations and (ii) interest received on income-tax refunds arising from business receipts [Paras 52-55].

Freedom of Religion – Article 25 of the Constitution – Scope of Worship – Right to Worship Upheld with Restrictions – The Court reaffirmed that public worship is a constitutional right but not absolute – Held: Installation and immersion of Vinayagar idols must conform to public order, environmental laws, and administrative guidelines – Right to worship cannot override ecological concerns or cause public nuisance [Paras 6–8, 27–28, 44].

Environmental Protection – Idol Immersion – PoP and Chemical Paints Banned – Idol Immersion to Follow CPCB Guidelines – Environmental degradation caused by immersion of Plaster of Paris idols and synthetic paints was taken note of – Held: Only idols certified as eco-friendly (clay-based and painted with natural dyes) may be immersed in natural water bodies – Others to be immersed in artificial ponds – Guidelines of CPCB and Tamil Nadu PCB to be strictly implemented [Paras 12–17, 22–23, 31–33, 43].

Administrative Competency – Improper Rejections by Non-Competent Authorities – Orders Quashed – Several rejections were issued by Station House Officers, who are not competent under G.O.Ms.No.598 – Held: Only Assistant Commissioners of Police or Revenue Divisional Officers/Sub-Collectors are authorised – Orders passed by unauthorised officers were quashed and liberty given to petitioners to approach proper authority [Paras 35–36, 40(11)].

Procedural Compliance – Requirement of Prescribed Format – Representations Filed Without Format or NOCs – Applications Dismissed – Petitioners failed to apply using the mandatory Form-I and without necessary No Objection Certificates – Held: Directions issued to file afresh applications in proper format for future compliance – Bald political representations cannot be entertained [Paras 36, 40(6)].

Selective Permission – Disparity in Granting Permission – Principle of Equality Violated – Court criticised arbitrary granting of permissions to some while denying others similarly placed – Held: All applicants must be treated equally – No selective enforcement allowed in matters involving religious freedom [Para 30].

Criminal Proceedings – Unauthorized Idol Installations – Rejected Petitions – Criminal Case to Proceed – Petitioners who installed idols without permission were denied relief – Police directed to proceed with prosecution under criminal law [Para 40(8)].

Festival Participation – Unity and Non-Rivalry – Devotees Advised to Join Common Celebrations – Court observed that many petitions were ego-driven rather than devotion-based – Petitioners directed to participate in already permitted processions instead of creating rivalry – Held: True worship is in unity, not competition [Paras 7, 28, 40(7)].

Decision – Mixed Outcome – Some Writs Allowed, Some Dismissed, Others Closed – Petitions were allowed where authority had not acted or passed orders without jurisdiction – Others were dismissed for bulk installation requests, lack of format, or prior permission already granted – Authorities directed to consider fresh applications and grant permission subject to environmental and legal compliance [Paras 40–44].

Civil Law - Hindu Ancestral Property – Challenge to Sale Deed by Daughters – Property Not Ancestral – Appeal Allowed – Plaintiffs (daughters) filed suit challenging the sale of agricultural land by their father (defendant No. 2) to his brother (defendant No. 1), claiming it was ancestral and coparcenary property – Both Trial Court and First Appellate Court decreed the suit in their favour – In second appeal, High Court held the land was not ancestral as it was transferred by the plaintiffs’ grandfather to defendant No. 2 by way of a registered document termed as a "Relinquishment Deed", which in essence was a gift or transfer – The property thus became self-acquired in the hands of defendant No. 2 – Held: Plaintiffs had no birthright or locus to challenge the sale during the lifetime of the father – Judgments of the courts below set aside – Suit dismissed [Paras 2-4, 23, 28-30].

Ancestral Property – Transfer by Gift – Not Ancestral in Donee’s Hands – Property Not Devolved by Inheritance or Partition – A registered Relinquishment Deed executed by the grandfather transferring specific land to his sons without consideration held to be a transfer and not a mere renunciation – The transferred property did not retain its ancestral character – Daughters had no coparcenary rights – Sale by father upheld [Paras 21-23].

Pleading and Evidence – Relevance of Evidence Not Pleaded – Admissibility – Rejection of the Relinquishment Deed by the lower courts for being “beyond pleadings” was held erroneous – Order VI Rule 2 CPC mandates pleading material facts, not the evidence – As the defendant pleaded non-ancestral nature, production of Relinquishment Deed was valid and admissible [Paras 16-19].

Proof of Ancestral Nature – Mere Admission Not Sufficient – Courts below erred in holding property as ancestral based solely on an alleged admission in earlier deeds – Law requires positive evidence like family lineage and revenue records to establish ancestral status – Mere assertion in pleadings or admissions is inadequate [Paras 24-27].

Right to Challenge Sale – No Locus of Daughters During Father’s Lifetime – Since the property was held self-acquired in the hands of defendant No. 2, only he could have challenged the sale if obtained by fraud – Daughters had no right to institute a suit during his lifetime to question the transaction – Suit not maintainable [Para 28].

Scope of Second Appeal – No Substantial Question of Law Required – Held: Under Punjab and Haryana jurisprudence, second appeals lie under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 – Not under Section 100 CPC – Therefore, framing of substantial question of law is not mandatory [Para 13].

Final Decision – Suit decreed by lower courts reversed – Sale deed held valid – Plaintiffs’ challenge dismissed – Appeal allowed – No order as to costs [Para 30].

Service Law – Writ - Paramilitary Discipline – Proportionality of Punishment – Section 11(1) CRPF Act – Dismissal Quashed – Petitioner, a long-serving constable, failed to report for second guard shift and did not immediately comply when roused – Misconduct held proved, but punishment of removal from service under a charge framed under Section 11(1) (minor misconduct) held shockingly disproportionate – Court applies doctrine of proportionality and holds that discipline is not synonymous with harshness – Orders of dismissal, appeal, revision and mercy rejection quashed [Paras 2-5].

Charge Framing – Duplication of Charges – Same Transaction Split into Two – Impermissible – Authorities split a single episode into “absence from duty” and “disobedience of orders,” both arising from the same factual nucleus – Such duplication unfairly magnifies the misconduct and vitiates the penalty analysis – Held: improper splitting underscores disproportionality in awarding removal [Para 4].

Judicial Review – Scope over Quantum of Punishment – Proportionality Standard – Though choice of punishment lies with disciplinary authority, courts will interfere where sentence is an “outrageous defiance of logic” – Reliance placed on Ranjit Thakur – Court reiterates that punishment must suit the offence and the offender – Removal for a single lapse here fails the proportionality test [Para 4].

Past Record – Use at Penalty Stage – Article 311(2) – Prior Adverse Material Must Be Disclosed – Past lapses already punished cannot be resurrected to aggravate penalty without putting the delinquent on notice – Following K. Manche Gowda and Bimal Kumar Pandit – Undisclosed reliance on past record taints the decision on punishment [Para 4].

Sensitive Duty (Magazine Guard) – Standard of Care vs. Human Factors – No Intoxication Proved – Context Considered – Petitioner was in barracks, earlier duty performed, stress due to mother’s serious illness noted – Absence not from station and magazine not left unguarded – These contextual factors must inform proportionality of penalty [Paras 2-4].

Decision – Writ Allowed – Impugned orders of dismissal, appellate, revisional and mercy rejection quashed – Misconduct stands, but penalty held excessive and unsustainable in law – Consequence: departmental dismissal orders annulled [Para 5].

Land Acquisition  – Reference under Section 18 – Rejection by Reference Court Reversed – Compensation Enhanced – The appellant challenged the rejection of a reference filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on the ground that it was time-barred and also questioned the compensation determined by the Collector at ₹479.15 per acre – The High Court held that the appellant had no actual or constructive knowledge of the award until February 1989 and filed the reference within six months thereafter – It further held that the Collector erred in relying on the lowest exemplar – Compensation was revised to ₹8,784.77 per acre – Appellant also found entitled to statutory benefits under the Amending Act No. 68 of 1984, including solatium at 30%, additional compensation at 12% p.a., and enhanced interest at 15% p.a. – Appeal allowed – Reference Court’s judgment set aside [Paras 1, 19-24, 35, 38, 40, 42].

Limitation – Date of Knowledge – Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act – Reference held within limitation – Appellant proved that he had no notice or knowledge of the award before February 1989 – Respondents failed to lead any evidence to prove otherwise – Held: Reference made on 03.03.1989 was within limitation under Section 18 as interpreted by the Supreme Court – Dismissal by the reference court was erroneous [Paras 19-24].

Compensation – Determination based on Exemplar – Preference for Highest Exemplar – Held: Collector’s reliance on lowest exemplar dated 20.07.1979 unjustified – Exemplar dated 29.09.1977, though two years prior, showed higher per acre consideration of ₹8,784.77 and was for a similar area and type of land – Appellant held entitled to compensation at that rate – Collector and reference court both erred in their approach [Paras 25-31, 35].

Soil Quality and Land Use – Irrigation and Proximity – Evidence showed appellant's land was fertile, irrigated, and yielded multiple crops – Collector failed to consider productive nature and comparable market value – Held: Land's true value not reflected in award – Compensation revised accordingly [Paras 30-31, 34].

Statutory Benefits – Amending Act No. 68 of 1984 – Additional Benefits Granted – Though Collector’s award was passed prior to the amendment, reference court's decision was post-amendment – Held: Appellant entitled to solatium @30%, additional compensation @12% per annum, and enhanced interest @15% per annum under Section 28 of the Act – Benefits applicable to enhanced compensation awarded by the Court [Paras 39-40].

Appeal Allowed – Judgment and Order of Reference Court Set Aside – Held: Reference was filed within limitation – Compensation enhanced to ₹8,784.77 per acre – Appellant entitled to statutory benefits under amended provisions – Respondents failed to disprove appellant’s claims – No order as to costs [Paras 42-43].

Criminal Law – Conviction under Sections 498A and 306 IPC – Acquittal – Appellant convicted by Trial Court for cruelty and abetment of suicide of wife – Deceased gave two versions: (i) complaint to police jamadar (Exh. 55) shortly after the incident citing a domestic quarrel and statement by husband “if you want to die, burn yourself”, and (ii) Dying Declaration before Executive Magistrate (Exh. 34) alleging regular beatings – Court found Exh. 55 to be more reliable and immediate, while Exh. 34 suffered from procedural lapses and lacked credibility – No corroboration for consistent cruelty or intent to instigate suicide – Held: Mere words uttered in quarrel without mens rea not sufficient to constitute abetment – Prosecution failed to prove charges under Sections 498A and 306 IPC beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 1, 4, 11.4, 17, 21, 23, 27.2, 33, 34].

Dying Declaration – Evidentiary Value – Deceased’s Dying Declaration recorded by Executive Magistrate (Exh. 34) within 13 minutes, based on cyclostyle form, lacking identification of thumb impression or medical endorsement of mental fitness – Doctor who signed not traced nor examined – Court found DD suspicious and lacking trustworthiness – In contrast, complaint to PW-12 Police Jamadar (Exh. 55) found to be more immediate, coherent and credible – Held: Exh. 34 does not inspire confidence; Exh. 55 can be treated as dying declaration under Section 32 of Evidence Act [Paras 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 17.1, 21, 22, 28].

Abetment of Suicide – Mens Rea and Instigation – Alleged abetment based on husband’s statement “if you want to die, burn yourself” during domestic quarrel – Deceased committed self-immolation – No evidence of continuous cruelty or instigation with intent – Court referred to Sanju v. State of MP and Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh – Held: Mere utterance in heat of moment without intention or active instigation insufficient to attract Section 306 IPC – No offence of abetment made out [Paras 4, 27.2, 33].

Cruelty under Section 498A IPC – No Proof of Persistent Harassment – Prosecution failed to prove continuous physical or mental cruelty – Neighbours turned hostile and denied witnessing quarrels – No evidence of dowry demand or coercive conduct – Dying Declaration Exh. 34 mentioning daily beatings found unreliable – Held: Prosecution failed to establish cruelty as per legal definition under Section 498A IPC [Paras 3.1, 4.3, 17, 24, 26, 32].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 498A and 306 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted – Record and proceedings to be returned to trial court [Para 34].