Civil Law – Execution - Land Acquisition Compensation – Executability of Easement Amount – Section 3G(2) of the National Highways Act – Objections by NHAI Rejected – The Executing Court dismissed objections by NHAI and directed payment of enhanced compensation including the easement amount under Section 3G(2) – NHAI contended that easement amount is payable only to non-owner claimants and that it was not specifically awarded in the final court order – Held: Easement amount was part of the original award by CALA and accepted by NHAI without challenge – Doctrine of merger does not extinguish landowners' rights to easement benefits – Execution of the CALA award, as modified by subsequent orders, validly includes revised easement compensation [Paras 2.5, 3, 6, 7.1, 7.2].

Statutory Benefits – Applicability of Land Acquisition Act to NH Act Acquisitions – Sections 23(1-A), 23(2), and 28 – Landowners Entitled – Following the Supreme Court’s rulings in Tarsem Singh and Tehal Singh, landowners are entitled to statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act even in acquisitions under the NH Act – NHAI's argument that interest on interest and solatium were not payable was untenable – Held: Statutory benefits accrue by law and do not require specific judicial finding – Executing Court correctly directed payment as per revised calculation sheet [Paras 2.4, 6].

Easement Rights – Rights of Owners vs. Non-owners – Interpretation of Section 3G(2) – Entitlement Upheld – NHAI argued that easement compensation is meant for tenants/licensees and not landowners – Held: Where easement rights of landowners were found to be affected and easement amount was awarded and paid, such entitlement survives enhancement of base compensation – The right need not be re-established post final adjudication – Absence of challenge by NHAI to original award bars re-litigation [Paras 7, 7.1, 7.2].

Final Decision – Petitions Dismissed – Executing Court Upheld – The High Court upheld the Executing Court’s dismissal of NHAI's objections and affirmed the landowners' entitlement to revised compensation including statutory and easement benefits – Petitions dismissed with directions to proceed expeditiously with execution [Para 8].

Arbitration Law - Arbitration Appeal – Scope of Court Interference – Arbitration Award Restored – The appellants challenged modification of arbitral award by the trial court under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act – The High Court held that the trial court had exceeded its jurisdiction by reappreciating evidence and modifying the award without any basis of patent illegality – Held: The Arbitral Award, which directed division of partnership property and apportionment of bank loan liability, is upheld – The trial court's modification is set aside – Commercial appeal allowed, cross appeal dismissed [Paras 16-27].

Dissolution of Partnership – Division of Property – Legality of Award Confirmed – The arbitrator had directed partition of partnership property by metes and bounds after dissolution of partnership and apportioned the debt equally – High Court held this was within the arbitrator’s powers and supported by evidence – Rejection of claim of extra payments by respondents upheld due to lack of proof [Paras 16-20].

Limited Jurisdiction under Section 34 – Improper Modification Reversed – The High Court reiterated that Section 34 of Arbitration Act does not permit reconsideration of factual findings or re-evaluation of evidence – Only patent illegality or jurisdictional errors justify interference – Trial court's approach in modifying award was legally unsustainable [Paras 21-25].

Reference to Supreme Court Precedents – Limited Power of Modification – Referring to Gayatri Balasamy v. ISG Novasoft Technologies 2025 SCC OnLine SC 986, the High Court clarified that courts cannot modify arbitral awards except to correct manifest errors – Modification by trial court was beyond scope and quashed [Paras 24-25].

Final Decision – Commercial Appeal Allowed – High Court allowed the commercial appeal restoring the arbitral award, dismissed the respondents' appeal, and confirmed execution of award as per law – No orders as to costs [Para 27].

Civil Law - Injunction Suit – Title Under Cloud – Suit for Bare Injunction Not Maintainable – The plaintiff sought an injunction based on a sale deed executed by an alleged attorney without producing the power of attorney – The defendants disputed title and possession – Held: Trial Court erred in granting injunction without verifying valid title – When title is clouded or disputed with substantial grounds, injunction cannot be granted solely on possession – The case involves substantial title dispute that must be addressed in a comprehensive suit – Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court set aside [Paras 7].

Power of Attorney – Failure to Prove Authority – Sale Deed Invalid – The plaintiff claimed title through a sale by an attorney without producing the power of attorney or proof of its existence – Testimony of alleged attorney about loss of power of attorney rejected – Held: In absence of power of attorney, sale deed confers no valid title – Plaintiff failed to establish prima facie ownership [Paras 7].

Additional Evidence – Order 41 Rule 27 CPC – No Justifiable Grounds – Plaintiff's attempt to produce additional evidence at appellate stage rejected – Documents were post-suit, xerox copies, and not satisfying conditions under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC – Court reiterated additional evidence is not a right but a discretionary power to be exercised on judicial principles – Application for additional evidence dismissed [Paras 8].

Title Dispute – Relegation to Declaration Suit – The Court reiterated principles from Anathula Sudhakar case that when there is substantial dispute over title, parties must approach through a suit for declaration and not mere injunction proceedings – Trial Court’s approach in avoiding title examination held incorrect [Paras 7].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – Judgment and Decree of Trial Court decreeing suit for injunction set aside – Plaintiff’s suit dismissed – Application under Order 41 Rule 27 rejected [Paras 9-10].

Service Law - Gratuity Claim – Applicability of Gratuity Act, 1972 to Teachers of Basic Institutions – Exclusion Confirmed – The appellant, a retired Headmaster from a basic institution, claimed gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 after superannuation at age 64 without opting for early retirement under State schemes – Held: Teachers of basic institutions hold posts under State Government and are governed by separate gratuity schemes framed by executive orders of the State, hence excluded from the definition of ‘employee’ under Section 2(e) of the Gratuity Act, 1972 – The benefit of the Gratuity Act, 1972 is not available to teachers of basic institutions [Paras 1-7, 18-29].

Interpretation of ‘Employee’ – Section 2(e) of Gratuity Act, 1972 – Definition Narrowed for Teachers under State Control – Court reiterated that employees holding posts under the State Government and governed by separate gratuity schemes under any Act or rules, including executive instructions, are excluded from the Gratuity Act, 1972 – Held: State’s scheme backed by executive power under Article 162 of the Constitution qualifies as ‘rules’ under Section 2(e), thus barring applicability of the Gratuity Act to teachers of basic institutions [Paras 19-29].

Binding Precedents – Biharilal Dobray Principle Followed – Teachers of Basic Institutions Hold Post under State Government – Citing Supreme Court judgment in Biharilal Dobray v. Roshan Lal Dobray, Court reaffirmed that teachers in basic institutions hold posts under the State Government, establishing their exclusion from the purview of the Gratuity Act, 1972 [Paras 23-24].

Overriding Effect of Gratuity Act – Section 14 Not Applicable – State Scheme Prevails – Though Section 14 of the Gratuity Act provides overriding effect, it is inapplicable to employees excluded under Section 2(e); hence, the appellant cannot claim gratuity under the central legislation when State scheme exists, regardless of its conditions or limitations [Paras 25-29].

Decision of the Court – Appeal Dismissed – The Court found no merit in the appeal challenging rejection of gratuity under the Gratuity Act, 1972, upheld the decision of the Single Judge and dismissed the special appeal [Para 30].

Contempt of Court – Breach of Undertaking – Advocate's Wilful Disobedience – Serious Misconduct – Sentence of Imprisonment Awarded – The contemnor, a practicing lawyer, continuously disobeyed eviction orders passed by the High Court and affirmed by the Supreme Court, deliberately breached his undertaking to vacate the premises within the stipulated period, and engaged in vexatious litigation to delay execution proceedings – Despite adverse findings and repeated judicial warnings, contemnor failed to vacate, obstructed court officers, and filed a frivolous suit after undertaking – Held: The contemnor displayed no remorse or bona fide apology; his conduct amounts to civil contempt and professional misconduct – Contemnor sentenced to four months simple imprisonment and fine of ₹2,000, disciplinary action directed by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry – Civil Court directed to strike off the frivolous plaint and Court to dispose of the contemnor’s belongings if unclaimed [Paras 1-31].

Criminal Law - Quashing of Proceedings – Power under Section 482 CrPC – Limited Scope – Petition to quash entire proceedings arising from personal relationship alleging offences under IPC, IT Act, and SC/ST Act – Court reiterates settled principle that power to quash should be sparingly exercised – Held: Except for offence of stalking under Section 354-D IPC, allegations pertaining to other offences involve disputed factual matters which require trial – Quashing petition allowed only in respect of Section 354-D IPC – Trial to continue on remaining charges [Paras 16-18].

Voyeurism – Section 354-C IPC – Private Acts Captured and Disseminated – Allegations of petitioner recording private videos of complainant without consent and using such material for blackmail – Court finds allegations, if proved, fall squarely within scope of voyeurism under Section 354-C IPC – Held: Quashing denied for offence under Section 354-C IPC [Paras 12-13].

Stalking – Section 354-D IPC – Mere Communication Not Sufficient – Allegations of communication via WhatsApp and exchange of messages post-relationship breakdown – Held: No prima facie case of stalking established as mere exchange of messages, even with offensive content, does not satisfy ingredients of ‘stalking’ under Section 354-D IPC – Proceedings quashed for offence under Section 354-D IPC [Para 13].

Criminal Intimidation, Insult and Outrage of Modesty – Sections 504, 506, 509 IPC – Allegations of threats, insults, and derogatory language against complainant – Court finds prima facie material supporting such charges – Held: Proceedings not quashed for these sections – Matter to proceed to trial [Para 14].

Information Technology Act – Section 66-E – Violation of Privacy – Allegations of recording and intended dissemination of private content without consent – Court finds ingredients of offence satisfied – Held: Quashing denied under Section 66-E of IT Act [Para 10].

SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act – Section 3(2)(v) – Knowledge of Victim’s Identity – Allegations of offences committed against Scheduled Tribe complainant – Court notes petitioner’s awareness of complainant’s caste and sustains application of Section 3(2)(v) – Held: Trial to proceed on this charge [Para 15].

Decision – Partial Quashing – Criminal petition allowed in part – Proceedings quashed only for offence under Section 354-D IPC – Proceedings to continue for all other offences – Observations confined to present application under Section 482 CrPC, not to influence merits of pending trial [Paras 18].

Civil Law – Revision - Execution of Permanent Injunction Decree – Conversion into Mandatory Injunction – Impermissible – The Executing Court ordered demolition of a compound wall in execution of a permanent injunction decree without examining whether the wall was erected before or after the decree – Held: The Executing Court acted mechanically, without determining the timeline of the alleged construction – The conversion of a decree of permanent injunction into a mandatory injunction after a significant lapse of time is impermissible – Set aside the execution order [Paras 4-7].

Ownership of Suit Property – Property of Central Government – Decree Passed Without Proper Scrutiny – Admitted position that suit property belongs to the Central Government – Suit decreed ex parte without adherence to Order 20 Rule 4 & 5 CPC – Held: Decree passed suffers from procedural infirmity; direction given to consider the application to set aside ex parte decree [Paras 2-4, 7].

Limitation for Mandatory Injunction – Application of Article 135 of the Limitation Act – Enforcement of a mandatory injunction has a limitation period of three years – Held: Attempt to enforce demolition through execution is barred by limitation principles applicable to mandatory injunctions [Para 6].

Right to Execute Permanent Injunction – No Limitation for Execution but Subject to Scope – Although no time limit exists to enforce a permanent injunction, its scope cannot be expanded to mandatory relief without appropriate decree modification – Held: Execution proceedings restricted to the terms of the decree granted [Paras 5-6].

Decision – Revision Petition Allowed – Order of Executing Court set aside – Application to set aside ex parte decree pending before Trial Court directed to be considered expeditiously [Paras 7-8].

Civil Law  – Suit for Declaration of Title – Appeal Dismissed – The appellant filed suit for declaration claiming that sale deed dated 30.04.2012 was executed under misrepresentation and without payment of consideration – Trial court and first appellate court held that appellant executed sale deed after receiving full consideration and was not in possession of suit property – Held: Findings based on evidence including admission of signatures and photograph on registered sale deed – Under Section 100 CPC, in absence of perversity or misreading of evidence, High Court cannot interfere with concurrent factual findings – Second appeal dismissed [Paras 1-14].

Registered Sale Deed – Presumption of Validity – Sections 32 and 34 of Registration Act – Sale Deed Upheld – The appellant claimed execution of mortgage deed but admitted signatures and photograph on sale deed registered before Sub-Registrar – Held: Presumption of correctness applies to registered documents under Sections 32 and 34 of Registration Act – No credible evidence adduced to rebut statutory presumption – Allegation of absence of consideration and misrepresentation rejected – Sale deed upheld as valid [Paras 7-10].

Limitation – Challenge to Registered Document – Bar under Limitation Act – Suit Dismissed – The appellant challenged registered sale deed after over three years, claiming ignorance till mutation proceedings – Held: Courts below correctly held suit barred by limitation and appellant failed to show justifiable cause for delay – Suit correctly dismissed on limitation grounds [Paras 4, 11].

Relief of Declaration without Possession – Bar under Section 34 of Specific Relief Act – Suit Not Maintainable – Held: Both courts below rightly found appellant was not in possession – In absence of consequential relief for possession, declaratory relief not maintainable under Section 34 of Specific Relief Act – No ground for interference [Para 11].

No Substantial Question of Law – Section 100 CPC – Interference Not Warranted – Held: Appellant failed to demonstrate any perversity or misapplication of law in findings – Supreme Court precedents reiterate interference in second appeal permissible only on substantial question of law – Mere disagreement with concurrent findings no ground to entertain second appeal – Appeal dismissed [Paras 12-13].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – High Court affirmed findings of both lower courts regarding due execution of sale deed, receipt of consideration, and absence of possession of appellant – No substantial question of law arising for consideration – Appeal dismissed [Para 15].

Criminal Law – Murder Trial – Circumstantial Evidence – Section 302 IPC – Acquittal Upheld – Complainant appealed against acquittal of accused Harkesh in murder of Ramkesh – Case built on recovery of blood-stained articles, alleged illicit relationship, call details, and location evidence – Court found chain of circumstances incomplete – No DNA evidence connecting blood stains to deceased, no ownership proof of recovered items, and no conclusive location evidence – Held: Trial Court’s view reasonable, no interference warranted [Paras 1-9].

Evidence Act – Failure to Establish Conclusive Links – Recovery Evidence and Call Details Insufficient – Court observed: Mere recovery of blood-stained articles without DNA confirmation and lack of proof linking mobile numbers to accused and co-accused rendered prosecution case weak – Tower location not conclusive of co-presence – Held: Benefit of doubt rightly extended to accused [Paras 9-12].

Appeal Against Acquittal – Scope of Interference – Limited Jurisdiction – Court reiterated: Interference in appeal against acquittal justified only if trial court's view is perverse or based on misreading of evidence – Reaffirmed principles from Sharad Birdhichand Sarda and Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar cases – Held: Trial court’s findings within permissible legal parameters, appeal dismissed [Paras 7, 13-14].

Circumstantial Evidence – Panchsheel Principles – Reliance on Supreme Court Precedent – Court reaffirmed ‘five golden principles’ from Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra mandating complete and exclusive chain of circumstances for conviction based on circumstantial evidence – Held: Prosecution’s case failed to satisfy these conditions, acquittal justified [Paras 7-8].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Acquittal Confirmed – Court concluded prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Judgment of trial court acquitting accused Harkesh upheld, no grounds for reversal found [Para 14].