Transfer of Property Act – Joint and Undivided Property – Sale by Co-owner – Section 44 – Validity – Sale deed No.408 dated 5.2.1996 was executed by Defendant No.1 (father of plaintiff and Defendant No.2) in favour of Defendant No.3 (wife of Defendant No.2) in respect of suit properties comprising ancestral Bari and Gharabari land – Plaintiff sought declaration that the sale deed was void, alleging fraud and absence of consideration – Trial Court dismissed the suit; First Appellate Court reversed and declared the sale deed void – Held: Section 44 of the T.P. Act, 1882 empowers a co-owner to alienate his undivided share in joint properties without the consent of other co-owners – Such a sale deed is neither void nor voidable but remains valid to the extent of the share of the transferor – Even where a co-owner sells a specific portion or the entirety of joint properties in excess of his share, the transfer is valid to the extent of his interest – The vendee obtains a joint interest in the properties without entitlement to any specific portion until partition [Paras 21–22].

Transfer of Property – Unilateral Cancellation of Registered Sale Deed – Non Est – After execution of the sale deed vide Ext.1, Defendant No.1 executed a registered deed of cancellation bearing No.148 dated 13.1.1997 (Ext.A) purportedly cancelling the sale deed on the ground that he had executed it under a mistaken belief – Held: Unilateral cancellation of a duly registered sale deed by the vendor/executant is void and non-est in the eye of law and carries no legal value – There is no express provision under the Registration Act, 1908 empowering the Registrar or Sub-Registrar to recall or cancel a registered deed – The deed of cancellation vide Ext.A is accordingly excluded from consideration – Followed: Thota Ganga Laxmi and Another v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others, (2010) 15 SCC 207; Satya Pal Anand v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, (2016) 10 SCC 767; M/s. V.Marc India Limited v. Jaan Illahi and Another, 2025 (3) Civil Court Cases 190 (Uttarakhand) [Paras 18–19].

Civil Procedure – Second Appeal – Substantial Questions of Law – Perversity – First Appellate Court declared sale deed void without recording any specific finding on the alleged fraud and misrepresentation – Held: The findings of the First Appellate Court that the sale deed is void, based solely on the ground that Defendant No.1 had a "fickle mind" and had cancelled the deed, without addressing the fraud allegation, are legally untenable and perverse – Both substantial questions of law answered in favour of the appellant [Paras 12, 14, 22].

Transfer of Property – Co-owner – Execution of Sale Deed – Intention and Knowledge – Evidence – Defendant No.1 in his own evidence stated that he executed the sale deed believing it to be a power of attorney and later cancelled it on realising the mistake – Held: The very fact that Defendant No.1 realised his alleged mistake subsequent to execution and then proceeded to cancel the deed establishes that the sale deed was executed with his intention and knowledge – The evidence of P.Ws.1 and D.W.1 clearly establishes execution with the knowledge of Defendant No.1 [Para 18].

Specific Relief Act – Declaratory Relief – Proviso to Section 34 – When the suit properties are joint and undivided ancestral properties and the plaintiff has not sought partition, a mere declaration that the sale deed is void is not available as the plaintiff's remedy lies in seeking partition of the joint properties – Trial Court was justified in dismissing the suit on this ground as well [Para 8].

Decision: Second appeal allowed – Impugned judgment and decree dated 30.06.2005 and 12.07.2005 passed by the First Appellate Court in Title Appeal No.23 of 2003 set aside – Judgment and decree dated 3.1.2003 and 21.1.2003 passed by the Trial Court in Title Suit No.26 of 1997 dismissing the plaintiff's suit confirmed – Sale deed No.408 dated 5.2.1996 held valid to the extent of Defendant No.1's share in the joint suit properties [Paras 23–25].

Specific Performance – Sale Agreement – Two Agreements Executed Same Day – Public Policy – Section 23, Indian Contract Act – Plaintiff's assignor and original defendant executed two sale agreements on the same day in respect of 8 acres of land — one registered at a sale price of Rs. 50,000/- per acre and another unregistered at Rs. 2,82,000/- per acre — admitted intention being to evade stamp duty and registration charges — Held: Though the contracts for sale of properties are individually lawful, the object and intention behind executing two such agreements is unlawful as it defeats the provisions of law and causes loss to the exchequer — Both sale agreements held void as against public policy under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act — Plaintiff not entitled to relief of specific performance of a void contract [Paras 22, 22.1].

Assignment of Contractual Rights – Privity of Contract – Section 15, Specific Relief Act – The original agreement holder Sivaraman assigned his rights and liabilities under both sale agreements to the plaintiff — Neither Ex-A.1 nor Ex-A.2 was in the nature of a personal contract, nor did they contain any clause prohibiting assignment — Terms of both agreements permitted execution of sale deed in favour of Sivaraman or his nominees — Held: Assignment by Sivaraman in favour of plaintiff is valid — Privity of contract exists between plaintiff and original defendant — Assignee entitled to seek specific performance in absence of express or implied prohibition against assignment [Paras 16, 17, 18].

Payment Receipts – Genuineness – Burden of Proof – Defendants alleged that Ex-A.3 and Ex-A.4, receipts for Rs. 6,00,000/- and Rs. 9,00,000/- respectively, were fabricated using blank signed papers obtained by the plaintiff's father in earlier money transactions — Held: Defendants failed to prove the foundational fact of any money transaction between the original defendant and the plaintiff's father — Ex-A.3 and Ex-A.4 bear the original defendant's thumb impression and signature, are duly stamped, and are supported by the evidence of attesting witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.3 — Nothing elicited in cross-examination to discredit their testimony — Payment receipts held genuine and true — Trial Court's contrary finding set aside [Paras 19, 20, 21].

Money Decree – Unjust Enrichment – Void Contract – Though the sale agreements are void on account of unlawful object, the money transactions of Rs. 2,00,000/-, Rs. 6,00,000/- and Rs. 9,00,000/-, totalling Rs. 17,00,000/- paid as part sale consideration are not tainted by illegality — Denial of recovery of the said amount to the plaintiff-assignee would result in unjust enrichment of the defendants — In the interest of justice and equity, money decree granted for Rs. 17,00,000/- with simple interest at 6% per annum from the date of suit till realisation from the properties left behind by the original defendant [Para 24].

Permanent Injunction – Possession – Section 53A, Transfer of Property Act – Plaintiff, even on his own pleadings, did not take possession under any registered document — In evidence, plaintiff admitted that the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties — Plaintiff not in lawful possession — Not entitled to the relief of permanent injunction — Trial Court's denial of injunction affirmed [Para 23].

Decision: Appeal Suit allowed in part — Relief of specific performance and permanent injunction declined — Money decree passed in favour of plaintiff for Rs. 17,00,000/- with simple interest at 6% per annum from date of suit till realisation — No order as to costs in Original Suit or Appeal Suit.

Ferry Ghat – Transfer During Pendency of Writ Petition – Circumvention of Court Proceedings – Zilla Parishad transferred Ramchandrakhali ferry ghat to the Panchayat Samity by resolution dated 12.03.2025, after receipt of notice of the writ petition served on 06.01.2025 – Transfer effected despite pendency of proceedings amounts to defiance of court and an attempt to overreach the Court – Transfer held devoid of legal sanction – All subsequent acts including lease granted to added respondent declared illegal – Zilla Parishad directed to take back the ferry ghat within two weeks and float fresh tender within one week thereafter under the Jaladhara scheme notification dated 28.01.2020 [Paras 7, 9, 10].

Ferry Ghat – Classification as "Small" – Revenue Loss – Lease Amount – The Zilla Parishad sought to justify transfer on the ground that Ramchandrakhali was a small ferry ghat – Held: Classification unsustainable as the ferry ghat carries a lease amount of Rs. 17,96,850/- compared to Rs. 72,000/- for Chandipur Masjidbati ferry ghat – Panchayat Samity leased out the ghat at a much lower rent than could have been fetched by the Zilla Parishad, resulting in revenue loss to the State exchequer – Ferry ghat similarly placed with the other three ghats reverted to the Zilla Parishad; pendency of writ petition cannot be a ground to distinguish it [Paras 2, 9].

Writ Jurisdiction – Acts in Defiance of Court – Principle Against Overreaching – Where a respondent, upon receiving notice of court proceedings, hurriedly effects a transfer with a view to circumventing the impending order or to steal a march over the opponent, such act is liable to be set aside – Reliance placed on Ranjit Kumar Halder v. State of West Bengal (CPAN 1424 of 2003 in WPST No. 612 of 2003) and Daniel v. Ferguson, (1891) 2 Chancery Division 27 – Held: Transfer of ferry ghat after notice of writ petition falls squarely within this principle [Paras 8, 9].

Decision: Writ Petition disposed of – Transfer of Ramchandrakhali ferry ghat to Panchayat Samity set aside – Zilla Parishad directed to take back the ferry ghat within two weeks and float fresh tender within one week thereafter – Added respondent permitted to participate in fresh tender and to take necessary steps in accordance with law if aggrieved by acts of Panchayat Samity – Added respondent to continue operating the ferry ghat until fresh tender notice is floated – No order as to costs.

Criminal Procedure – Section 311 Cr.P.C. – Locus Standi of Complainant – Electronic Evidence – Summoning of Additional Witnesses – Murder Trial – Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging order allowing complainant's application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for formal exhibition of electronic documents (Google Search History, WhatsApp chat, media statement) already on record, and for summoning of two additional witnesses — Accused contended that complainant had no authority to file such application in a State case and that electronic documents were inadmissible in absence of FSL examination of mobile phone — Trial Court allowed application holding that admissibility and reliability of evidence are not to be adjudicated at the stage of Section 311, and that no prejudice would be caused to the accused who retains full right to challenge documents during cross-examination and at final appreciation stage — High Court affirmed, holding that filing of an application by the Public Prosecutor is not a precondition for exercise of powers under Section 311 Cr.P.C. and that the Court may act on circumstances brought to its notice by any person, including the complainant — Petition dismissed [Paras 2–17].

Complainant's Role in Sessions Trial – Section 311 Cr.P.C. – Locus to Move Application — Petitioner contended that the complainant/victim has no locus standi to file an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. in a State case — Held: The Supreme Court in Rekha Murarka (2020) 2 SCC 474 while restricting victim's counsel from independently examining witnesses or making oral arguments, expressly recognised that the victim's counsel may bring questions or the need for a witness to the notice of the Court, whereupon the Court may invoke its powers under Section 311 — In the present case, that is precisely what was done — The Court's power under Section 311 is not confined to suo motu exercise and the complainant's request for invoking such power was maintainable — Objection as to locus standi rejected [Paras 7–14].

Section 311 Cr.P.C. – Stage of Exercise – Belated Application – No Bar — Power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. can be exercised at any stage of inquiry, trial or other proceeding, including after closure of evidence of both sides and commencement of final arguments, provided the evidence sought appears essential for just decision of the case — Reliance placed on P. Chhagan Lal v. M. Sanjay Saw: (2003) 11 SCC 486 — Trial Court's exercise of power upheld [Paras 5–6].

Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Inherent Powers – Scope – Inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are meant to prevent abuse of process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice — Allowing of a well-reasoned application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., which causes no prejudice to the accused and ensures just decision, does not constitute abuse of process — No ground for interference [Para 16].

Decision: Petition dismissed — Order of the Additional Sessions Judge dated 07.03.2026 allowing the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. upheld — No error or illegality found in the impugned order.

Land Acquisition – Amendment of Appeal – Enhancement of Compensation – Order VI Rule 17 CPC – Appellant's land acquired under notifications dated 13.02.2004 under Sections 4, 6 and 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Land Acquisition Collector fixed market value at Rs. 19,660/- per sq. m. – Reference Court enhanced compensation to Rs. 29,956.48 per sq. m. in one case and Rs. 26,896.62 per sq. m. in another – Appellant filed Appeals in 2009 restricting claim to Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- per sq. m. respectively due to financial constraints – Subsequent coordinate bench judgments dated 29.10.2024 in M/s Anant Raj Projects Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr. fixed market value at Rs. 1,30,000/- per sq. m. for similarly situated adjacent lands acquired under the same notification – Appellant sought amendment to enhance claim to Rs. 1,30,000/- per sq. m. – Held: Amendment allowed subject to condition that Appellant shall not be entitled to interest on enhanced amount for the period from filing of Appeals till filing of Applications [Paras 1–44].

Amendment of Pleadings – Order VI Rule 17 CPC – Scope and Principles – Amendment of pleadings may be allowed at any stage of proceedings – Two essential conditions for grant of amendment are: (i) it must not work injustice to the other side, and (ii) it must be necessary for determining the real question in controversy – Court should adopt a liberal approach – Amendment should be refused only where the other party cannot be placed in the same position as if the pleading had been originally correct and the amendment would cause irrecompensable injury – Court must avoid hyper-technical approach and amendments should ordinarily be allowed especially when opposite party can be compensated by costs [Paras 19–25].

Land Acquisition – Nature of Amendment – Change of Claim Amount – Amendment confined to enhancement of quantum of compensation does not alter the nature or character of proceedings – Where foundational facts, identity of acquired land, and cause of action remain unchanged, and amendment does not introduce new factual foundation or require additional evidence, the amendment merely enlarges the relief within the same cause of action already pleaded and is permissible under Order VI Rule 17 CPC [Paras 26–28, 32].

Delay in Seeking Amendment – Balance of Equities – Interest – While Order VI Rule 17 prescribes no time limit for seeking amendment, delay by the Appellant in filing applications after a considerable lapse of time cannot be ignored – Balance of justice met by allowing amendment while protecting Respondents against financial prejudice arising from delay – Held: Appellant entitled to seek amendment to claim just compensation but shall not be entitled to interest on the enhanced amount for the period of delay attributable to the late filing of Applications [Paras 33–41].

Sections 148 and 149 CPC – Inapplicability – Respondent's reliance on Sections 148 and 149 CPC and the judgment in Manoharan v. Sivarajan & Ors. held misconceived – The controversy herein does not pertain to enlargement of time for any procedural act nor to deficiency of court fees – Said provisions and the ratio of the cited judgment have no application to the facts of the present Applications [Paras 29–31].

Decision: Applications under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC allowed – Appellant permitted to amend claim amounts in LA.APP. No. 450/2009 and LA.APP. No. 515/2009 to Rs. 1,30,000/- per sq. m. – Appellant shall not be entitled to interest on enhanced amount from date of filing of Appeals till date of filing of Applications – Additional court fee and amendments to be deposited/carried out within six weeks – No order as to costs.

Land Acquisition – Fraud on Statute – Eminent Domain – Non-Existent Entity – CBI Investigation Ordered – Acquisition Quashed – State Government acquired approximately 53 acres and 26 guntas of land in Hebbal and Hebbal Ammanikere Villages under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act by Final Notification dated 11.05.2004 purportedly for M/s Lakeview Tourism Corporation, an entity that did not exist at the time of application (filed in 2000) and was incorporated only on 04.01.2011 – The entity's financial statement for 2022-23 disclosed net worth of Rs. -8,60,686/- with zero income, having never commenced operations – The Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions; Division Bench on appeal finds the entire acquisition to be a monumental fraud committed by State authorities in criminal conspiracy with private individuals – Held: Acquisition quashed; CBI directed to register and investigate criminal case; costs of Rs. 10 lakhs imposed on Respondent No. 4 payable to Army Battle Casualties Welfare Fund [Paras 1–65].

Object of KIAD Act – Public Purpose – Acquisition for Individual/Private Entity – The KIAD Act is enacted for orderly establishment and development of industries in suitable areas in the State – Suitable industrial areas are to be identified by the State/KIADB and not by private individuals – The Act does not contemplate acquisition of land to create private wealth for an individual entity – Acquiring land on the behest of a non-existent private entity to transfer valuable land at throwaway prices does not constitute public purpose within the meaning of the KIAD Act – Such acquisition is a statutory and constitutional fraud by State Authorities – Held: Public purpose is the touchstone for validity of any land acquisition and in its absence, the exercise of eminent domain is colourable, mala fide and unconstitutional [Paras 30–35, 58–60].

Right to Property – Article 300A – Seven Sub-Rights – The right to property under Article 300A is not merely confined to twin components of public purpose and compensation but encompasses seven sub-rights: right to notice, right to be heard, right to a reasoned decision, duty to acquire only for public purpose, right to fair compensation/restitution, right to efficient and expeditious process, and right of conclusion – Non-compliance with these sub-rights amounts to deprivation of property without authority of law – Any law depriving persons of property for private interest, even if incidentally beneficial to the public, is unlawful and amenable to judicial review – Held: Landowners' constitutional rights under Article 300A were violated by the acquisition in the present case [Paras 39–45].

Fraud – Vitiates Judicial and Government Decisions – Finality No Bar – It is settled law that fraud vitiates every judicial act, and a judgment or order obtained by fraud is a nullity – The principle of finality of litigation cannot be pressed to the extent that it becomes an engine of fraud – Courts and Tribunals have inherent power to recall or set aside their own orders obtained by fraud, even when statutory review has been exhausted or the matter has attained finality – Prior decisions of this Court in W.A. No. 333/2013 and dismissal of the review petition in R.P. No. 363/2015 do not bar the present proceedings since the fraud was not detected in the earlier proceedings – Held: Earlier judgments do not come in the way of declaring the acquisition null and void ab initio [Paras 50–57].

Fraud on Eminent Domain Power – Criminal Conspiracy – CBI Investigation – The application filed on 23.06.2000 by a non-existent entity was incomplete and bereft of details; the High Level Committee met within five days of receiving the application and recommended acquisition, reflecting undue haste and collusion – The entity was incorporated only 10½ years after the application and its promoters had no connection with those who filed the original application – Land use was subsequently changed in 2023 from a tourism/hospitality project to an integrated township with real estate development – The entire exercise was a device to transfer valuable agricultural land to real estate developers at pittance – Held: State instrumentality was itself involved in the criminal conspiracy; independent investigation by CBI is necessary; CBI directed to register a criminal case [Paras 19–26, 61–64].

Decision: Writ Appeals allowed – Entire acquisition made by the State Government for M/s Lakeview Tourism Corporation quashed – Respondent No. 4 directed to pay costs of Rs. 10 lakhs to the Army Battle Casualties Welfare Fund within four weeks – CBI directed to register and investigate criminal case against Government officials and private individuals involved in the fraud – Pending IAs disposed of.

Motor Vehicles Act – Compensation Claim – Death – Dismissal by MACT – Appeal Allowed – Deceased aged 60 years, a labourer and milk vendor earning Rs.3,000/- per month, sustained grievous injuries in a road accident on 12.09.2002 and died on 31.01.2003 – MACT dismissed the claim holding that death, occurring 3½ months after accident, was natural and not due to accident injuries and that claimants had no dependency – High Court set aside the dismissal and awarded compensation of Rs.3,11,000/- with interest at 6% per annum [Paras 1–5, 40–43].

Motor Vehicles Act – Negligence – Conviction on Admission – Proof Unnecessary – Driver of the offending tipper lorry was convicted in C.C.No.58 of 2003 on admission of guilt for offences under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC – Held: Once the accused pleaded guilty and was convicted by the criminal court, no further evidence is necessary to establish negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle – Followed: Sukhinder Anand v. Khaza Vazir Ali (Minor) and Others, 1994 SCC OnLine AP 20 [Paras 23–24].

Motor Vehicles Act – Legal Representatives – Dependency – Locus Standi – Claimants included the deceased's daughter, daughter-in-law, and grandchildren (children of pre-deceased sons) – Held: The term "legal representative" under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is wider than the definition under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 – Even non-dependent legal heirs can file a claim petition – Dependency is a factor relevant to quantum and not to maintainability – Followed: Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai, (1987) 3 SCC 234; Montford Brothers of St. Gabriel v. United India Insurance, (2014) 4 SCC Cri 628; Dr. Gangaraju Sowmini v. Alavala Sudhakar Reddy, 2016 (3) ACC 208 (Full Bench, AP) [Paras 25–29].

Motor Vehicles Act – Death – Causal Link Between Accident Injuries and Death – Evidence of Treating Doctors – Death occurring 3½ months after accident not fatal to claim – Dr. B. Venkataswamy (P.W.5) opined that injury No.1 (fracture of lower end of left humerus) was grievous and could cause death due to fat embolism – P.W.6 (Medical Superintendent) referred to cerebrovascular accident – Held: In the context of age of the deceased, continuity of treatment, and doctors' evidence, the death can be related to accident injuries – Absence of post-mortem does not by itself break the causal link [Paras 30–34].

Motor Vehicles Act – Compensation – Quantum – Multiplier Method – Just Compensation – Income of the deceased taken at Rs.3,000/- per month (Rs.36,000/- per annum) – 1/3rd deducted towards personal expenses – Multiplicand: Rs.24,000/- per annum – Multiplier for age group of 60 years: 9 – Loss of dependency: Rs.2,16,000/- – Additionally awarded: Loss of estate Rs.15,000/-, Loss of consortium Rs.40,000/- (to Claimant No.1, daughter), Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-, Medical expenditure Rs.25,000/- – Total: Rs.3,11,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from date of petition – Court empowered to award more than claimed amount – Followed: Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation; National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi; Magma General Insurance v. Nanu Ram; Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh, (2003) 2 SCC 274; Kajal v. Jagadish Chand; Ramla v. National Insurance Company; Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh; Rajkumar v. Ajay Kumar [Paras 36–42].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order and decree dated 13.09.2011 of the MACT in M.V.O.P.No.7 of 2007 set aside – Claimants awarded total compensation of Rs.3,11,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization – Respondent Nos.1 and 2 (owner and insurer of offending vehicle) held liable – Compensation apportioned among claimants as specified – Time for deposit: two months [Para 43].

Specific Performance – Ad-Interim Injunction – Oral Agreement for Sale – Proviso to Section 49, Registration Act – Admissibility – Defendant/appellant challenged an order of ad-interim injunction restraining him from transferring, alienating, encumbering or creating third party interest in the suit property – Contention was that the learned Trial Judge was debarred by law from passing such order on the basis of an unstamped and unregistered agreement for sale – Held: The agreement pleaded by the plaintiff/respondent being an oral one, the provisions of the Stamp Act and the Registration Act are not attracted, as both Acts operate on documents reduced to writing – There is no statute mandating every agreement for sale to be compulsorily in writing; Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act is wide enough to cover any reciprocal promises constituting a concluded contract without mandating writing – Ad-interim injunction upheld [Paras 13–14, 19–21].

Registration Act – Section 49 – Proviso – Specific Performance – Exception to Bar on Unregistered Documents – Section 49 of the Registration Act generally debars unregistered documents required to be registered under Section 17 from being received as evidence of any transaction affecting immovable property – However, the proviso to Section 49 carves out a specific exception permitting an unregistered document to be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter II of the Specific Relief Act – Held: The bar under Section 17 read with Section 49 of the Registration Act is not applicable to suits for specific performance in view of the express proviso – Distinguished: Yellapu Uma Maheswari v. Buddha Jagadheeswararao, 2016 (2) CHN (SC) 28 (arising from a partition suit, not specific performance) [Paras 5–8].

Stamp Act – Section 36 – Insufficiently Stamped Document – Stage of Ad-Interim Injunction – At the stage of grant of ad-interim injunction, the Court is only required to look into the pleadings of the plaint, the temporary injunction application and documents furnished therewith – The question of admissibility of a document for want of stamp or its impoundment under Section 35 arises only at the stage of production in evidence, which stage had not yet arrived – It would be premature to hold, at the ad-interim stage, that the plaintiff failed to cure a stamp defect – Distinguished: Avinash Kumar Chauhan v. Vijay Krishna Mishra, (2009) 2 SCC 532; Bidyut Sarkar and Another v. Kanchilal Pal (dead) Through LRs. and Another, 2025 (1) ICC 534 (SC) [Paras 9–16].

Injunction – Ad-Interim Injunction – Prima Facie Case – Test – At the stage of ex parte ad-interim injunction, the Court examines only whether a prima facie case is made out from the pleadings and documents furnished; it does not conduct a detailed trial on merits – Where the plaintiff has set up a sufficient prima facie case and the other legal tests for grant of ad-interim injunction are satisfied, the order of protection of the suit property cannot be interfered with in appeal – Held: Learned Trial Judge was justified in passing the ad-interim injunction [Paras 20–21].

Precedent – Conflicting Single Judge Decisions – Calcutta High Court Division Bench Disagrees – A Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court held in Chamibai and Others v. Siddhnath and Others, (2025: MPHC-IND: 5866) that even at the stage of temporary injunction in a suit for specific performance, the document is mandatorily required to be registered and stamped – Held: The said judgment does not lay down the correct proposition of law in view of the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act [Para 17].

Decision: FMAT No.109 of 2026 dismissed under Order XLI Rule 11 CPC – CAN No.1 of 2026 consequentially disposed of – No order as to costs [Paras 22–24].

Customs Law – Import – Classification of Arecanuts – Provisional Release – Security – Respondent imported 54 metric tons of betel nuts from Indonesia, filing Bill of Entry describing goods as roasted arecanuts – ICAR–Central Plantation Crops Research Institute, Kasaragod, in its report dated 16.06.2025, opined that samples had not undergone roasting but only partial drying – Single Judge directed release subject to 25% bank guarantee of invoice value – Revenue challenged the order contending that tariff value notified under Section 14(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 vide Notification No. 13/2025 at USD 8140 per metric ton should apply, making the value Rs. 3,85,93,368/- and warranting 100% duty deposit – Held: Whether goods are roasted or raw arecanuts is a matter for adjudication – Single Judge's order modified – Release permitted subject to deposit of 50% of Rs. 3,85,93,368/- and bank guarantee for 25% of said amount [Paras 4, 7.2, 8].

Customs Act, 1962 – Section 14 – Tariff Value – Transaction Value – When Board notifies tariff value under Section 14(2), duty is chargeable with reference to such notified value notwithstanding Section 14(1) – Notification No. 13/2025-Customs (N.T.) dated 13.03.2025 fixes tariff value of arecanuts under Tariff Heading 080280 at USD 8140 per metric ton – If imported goods are classified as raw arecanuts, the notified tariff value applies and direction for release on 25% of invoice value is erroneous – Final classification to be determined by competent authority in adjudication proceedings [Paras 4.1, 4.2, 7.2].

Customs – Adjudication – Inordinate Delay – Duty of Revenue – Goods seized since March 2025, ICAR report available since 16.06.2025, yet show cause notice not issued even after one year – Revenue justified non-initiation of adjudication by citing pendency of writ petition and appeal – Held: No interim order restrained Revenue from initiating adjudication – Inaction on part of Revenue for over one year is wholly unjustifiable and not appreciable – Revenue's lack of diligence ought not to prejudice the importer or place him at a disadvantage – Appellants directed to issue show cause notice within two weeks [Paras 7.5, 7.6, 7.7, 8].

Financial Credibility of Importer – Bank Statement – Balance Sheet – During hearing, respondent directed to produce financial statements – Bank statement for period 01.04.2025 to 23.03.2026 shows balance consistently in a few thousands only – Cash in hand Rs. 28,090/- and cash at bank Rs. 26,369/- as on 31.03.2025 – Though receivables shown at Rs. 3,06,53,679/-, fixed assets not substantial – Held: Financial statements do not inspire confidence that Revenue interests are adequately safeguarded – Deposit of 50% of determined value along with 25% bank guarantee directed for provisional release [Paras 7.3, 7.4, 8].

Decision: Writ Appeal disposed of – Order of Single Judge dated 29.10.2025 in WP No. 24835/2025 modified – Appellants directed to issue show cause notice within two weeks – Respondent to file reply within three weeks – Competent authority to adjudicate within three weeks of reply – In the alternative, goods to be released on deposit of 50% of Rs. 3,85,93,368/- and bank guarantee for 25% of said amount.