Bail – Commercial Quantity of Ganja – Rebuttal of Statutory Presumption under Section 37 of the NDPS Act – Bail Granted - The petitioner was found in possession of 200 kg of ganja, classified as a commercial quantity under the NDPS Act, raising a statutory presumption against bail under Section 37 – The petitioner argued procedural violations, particularly improper sampling of seized contraband and failure to observe statutory requirements under Section 52A of the NDPS Act – Held: Procedural lapses rebutted the statutory presumption against bail, entitling the petitioner to release on bail [Paras 10-11].

Default Bail – Extension of Investigation Period – Physical Presence of Accused Mandatory – Non-compliance with Supreme Court Guidelines - The petitioner’s statutory right to default bail was impacted by the Special Judge’s order extending the investigation period without securing physical or virtual presence of the accused – The Court noted the mandatory requirement for accused’s presence during extension proceedings, as established by the Supreme Court in Jigar alias Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya v. State of Gujarat – Held: The extension was procedurally deficient; however, the petitioner’s entitlement to bail was granted on merit-based grounds [Paras 7-8, 12].

Concurrent Consideration of Default Bail and Extension of Investigation Period – Requirement for Sequential Hearing – Legal Principle - The Court observed that both the default bail petition and the application for extension of the investigation period were pending and should have been heard sequentially – Non-compliance with this procedural order contravened the principles established in M. Ravindran v. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, where simultaneous consideration is mandated – Held: The deviation in procedure warranted judicial scrutiny; however, the petitioner was granted bail based on the merits of the case [Paras 8-9].

Decision - The Criminal Petition is allowed, and the petitioner is granted bail subject to conditions, including regular appearance before the competent Court, prohibition on influencing witnesses, and restriction from engaging in similar criminal activities [Para 13].
 

Waqf Property – Jurisdiction of Civil Court in Execution Proceedings – Original Petition Allowed – The petitioners, as decree holders, sought execution of a decree allowing them management and possession of a mosque property. Following the formation of the Waqf Tribunal, respondents challenged the civil court's jurisdiction. Held: The Waqf Tribunal’s constitution does not nullify the jurisdiction of civil courts over execution proceedings for suits initiated before the Tribunal's establishment. Civil courts retain authority over execution unless explicitly barred, and jurisdiction granted through decree res judicata prevails over Tribunal jurisdiction arguments raised post-decree [Paras 12-14, 19-20].

Jurisdiction of Waqf Tribunal vs. Civil Court – Applicability of Section 85 Waqf Act – Under Section 85, civil courts are barred from adjudicating waqf disputes post-Tribunal constitution; however, the bar does not retroactively apply to suits filed before the Tribunal's creation. Citing the absence of provisions to transfer pending suits to the Tribunal, the Court held that suits already decreed by civil courts are valid for execution through the originating court [Paras 10-13].

Execution by Original Court – CPC Sections 37(b) and 38 – The Court emphasized that Section 37(b) CPC allows the original court to execute its decree despite jurisdictional changes post-decree. Here, the civil court’s competence under Section 38 CPC remains unaffected by the Tribunal’s subsequent jurisdiction over waqf disputes, and the decree’s execution continues legitimately [Paras 15-17].

Mutawalli Appointment and Party Impleadment – Interim Mutawalli appointment by the Waqf Board (respondent 14) during execution led to impleadment denial by the lower court. The Court reversed this, ruling that the interim Mutawalli, representing mosque administration, is necessary to uphold the execution’s efficacy under Section 146 CPC, validating his impleadment [Para 22].

Decision: The petition is allowed. Orders passed by the Executing Court rejecting jurisdiction and dismissing the impleadment application (Exts. P6 and P7) are set aside. The civil court is directed to proceed with execution within three months, acknowledging the continued jurisdiction established prior to the Waqf Tribunal’s constitution.
 

Narcotics Law – Bail Application for Commercial Quantity of Cannabis – Extended Detention Under Section 36A(4) NDPS Act – Petition for regular bail under Sections 480 and 483 of BNSS due to procedural lapses in handling detention beyond 180 days and irregular sample verification – Petitioner alleged that procedural violations, including failure to involve a Magistrate in sample verification, rebutted the statutory presumption against him – Held: The Court found substantial procedural lapses, including improper handling of contraband samples and issues in extending the detention, meriting bail despite commercial quantity of cannabis seized; petitioner had been in custody for 296 days, beyond the default period, without sufficient cause for further detention [Paras 4, 10, 11].

Procedure in Extension of Detention – Failure to Secure Accused’s Physical or Virtual Presence – Court reviewed requirements under Section 36A(4), emphasizing the mandatory nature of the accused’s physical or virtual presence during hearings for detention extension – Held: The Special Judge’s order extending detention was flawed due to lack of accused’s presence, constituting a procedural violation that justified bail on merits, even without default bail – Petition granted [Paras 7, 8, 12].

Decision: Petition allowed – Bail granted on a bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions including bi-monthly police check-ins, prohibition on witness tampering, and assurance to participate in trial without fail [Para 13].
 

Criminal Law – NDPS Act – Regular Bail – Prolonged Detention and Presumption of Innocence – The petitioner, charged under Section 22 of the NDPS Act for allegedly possessing intoxicating tablets, sought bail, citing extended incarceration and the lack of further evidence recovery – Co-accused had already been granted bail, and only a third of the prosecution witnesses had been examined – Held: Granting bail is the general rule, detention the exception; with trial delay and no further recovery required, continued detention serves no purpose [Paras 1-4].

Constitutional Right to Speedy Trial – Article 21 of the Constitution – Detention Not Justified – The Court stressed the constitutional mandate for a fair and speedy trial, noting that extended pre-conviction detention undermines justice and violates Article 21 – Referencing Supreme Court guidelines, the Court affirmed that excessive pre-trial incarceration contravenes principles of human dignity and legal fairness [Paras 4-6].

Decision:

Petition for regular bail allowed. Petitioner to be released on bail upon furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate. This decision does not influence the merits of the case [Paras 5-7].

Taxation Law - Expenditure Classification – Current vs. Capital Expenditure – Income Tax Act - The appellant, operating a 5-Star hotel, sought deductions for expenses incurred on replacing carpets, mattresses, and lampshades, claiming them as allowable under Section 31 as “current repairs.” The Tribunal denied the claim, categorizing the expenses as capital rather than revenue – The Court, examining similar precedents and the nature of items, held that replacement of damaged items does not constitute an enduring asset and falls under “current expenditure,” allowing deduction under Section 37(1) as revenue expenditure – Held: Expenditure on replacing carpets, mattresses, and lampshades classified as current, allowable under Section 37(1) as revenue expenditure [Paras 21-26, 32].

Tribunal’s Error – Non-Adjudication under Section 37(1) – Appeal Allowed - The appellant argued the Tribunal erred in ignoring the alternate claim for deduction under Section 37(1) despite citing relevant precedents – The Court agreed, emphasizing that while an expenditure may not qualify under Section 31 as current repairs, Section 37(1) can apply if it serves business purposes without creating a new asset – Held: Appeal allowed, expenses deductible under Section 37(1) [Paras 8-10, 32-34].

Decision: The appeal is allowed, and the Tribunal’s order is set aside. The appellant is entitled to claim deductions under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act for expenses incurred on replacement of carpets, mattresses, and lampshades, treated as current expenditures.

Criminal Law - Forgery and Cheating – Lack of Material Evidence – Acquittal Upheld – The prosecution failed to produce critical evidence such as admit cards, attendance sheets, answer sheets, and roll number slips to substantiate charges of forgery and cheating – Held: Acquittal justified due to lack of material evidence and procedural lapses [Paras 20-25].

Duty of Investigating Agencies – Fair Investigation Mandated – Lapses Criticized – Investigating Officer admitted to intentionally not taking possession of documents that could establish the innocence of the accused – Court emphasized that a fair investigation requires presenting all material evidence, whether incriminating or exculpatory [Paras 30-34].

Allegations of Tampering – Reasonable Doubt Persisted – Acquittal Justified – Evidence presented by the prosecution, including contradictory entries in admission registers and school records, failed to conclusively establish criminal intent or tampering – Reasonable doubt benefited the accused [Paras 26-29].

Role of Investigators and Prosecutors – Responsibility to Prevent Unmerited Prosecution – Reiterating principles from landmark cases, Court held that unmerited prosecution violates Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees protection against arbitrary actions – Directed authorities to ensure fair investigation and training of personnel [Paras 35-38].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Directions Issued – The appeal by the State was dismissed, affirming the Trial Court's acquittal – Directed the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), DGP, and Director Prosecution to implement corrective measures, including monitoring mechanisms and training programs for investigators and prosecutors [Para 39].

Adoption Deed Registration – Applicability to Muslim Personal Law – Adoption Not Recognized – Refusal Upheld - The Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, does not recognize adoption as a mode of filiation – Petitioners sought to register an adoption deed, which was refused citing lack of provision under the Registration Act, 1908, and the absence of enabling provisions for online registration in the case of Muslims – Court held: Adoption deeds are not compulsorily registrable under Sections 17 and 18 of the Registration Act – Refusal justified [Paras 11-12, 16].

Adoption Regulations Under J.J. Act, 2015 – Uniform Procedures for Adoption Across Religions - Under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and the Adoption Regulations, 2017, adoption is governed by uniform procedures irrespective of religion – Petitioners directed to comply with these provisions rather than seeking registration under Muslim Personal Law – Registration of an adoption deed without following the regulations lacks legal sanctity [Paras 14-16, 19].

Role of Customary Practices in Adoption – Limited Recognition - The Court acknowledged that customs permitting adoption may have legal relevance if proven – However, without evidence of prevailing custom or compliance with statutory adoption procedures, adoption deeds executed outside the Juvenile Justice framework hold no legal value – Custom must be pleaded and proved before competent civil courts [Paras 8, 15-16].

Bar on Registering Adoption Deeds Without Legal Framework – Directions Issued to Registrars - Inspector General of Registration, Tamil Nadu, directed to restrain registrars from registering any adoption deeds executed without compliance with mandatory statutory provisions, irrespective of the adopters’ religion – Circular to be issued to enforce this directive [Para 20].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Petitioners Directed to Follow Adoption Regulations - Writ Petition dismissed for lack of merit – Petitioners permitted to proceed under Adoption Regulations, 2017, notified under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Registration of the adoption deed held futile and legally invalid [Paras 19-20].

Declaration of Title and Cancellation of Sale Deed – Burden of Proof – Fraud Not Proved – The appellants (plaintiffs in O.S. No. 102 of 1999) sought cancellation of a registered sale deed executed in 1978 and declaration of title over the disputed property. The appellants alleged fraud and undue influence but failed to provide specific evidence of fraud, undue influence, or misrepresentation. – Held: In a suit for declaration of title, the burden is on the plaintiffs to establish clear and sufficient evidence to prove their case. Mere allegations without evidence cannot invalidate a registered sale deed. [Paras 16-22, 25].

Limitation – Challenge to Sale Deed after 21 Years – Barred by Limitation – The suit to cancel the sale deed executed in 1978 was filed in 1999, after 21 years, and no valid explanation for the delay was provided. – Held: The suit for cancellation of the sale deed was barred by limitation, and the appellants failed to plead or prove any justifiable grounds for condonation. [Paras 22, 25].

Rectification of Sale Deed – Mutual Mistake – Boundaries Prevail Over Survey Numbers – The respondents (plaintiffs in O.S. No. 150 of 1999) sought rectification of a sale deed to correct an incorrect survey number and patta number, arguing the mistake was mutual. – Held: The boundaries of the property remained undisputed, and the incorrect survey and patta numbers were a result of mutual mistake. Under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, rectification was justified as the mistake did not affect the actual title or boundaries. [Paras 31-33].

Limitation for Rectification of Sale Deed – Cause of Action – The appellants argued that the suit for rectification was time-barred. However, the respondents contended that the cause of action arose only in 1999 when the appellants attempted to alienate the property. – Held: The plea of limitation was not raised in the pleadings, and in the absence of such a plea, the issue cannot be considered. Further, the cause of action was rightly established in 1999, and the suit for rectification was filed within the limitation period. [Paras 27-29].

Effect of Revenue Records – No Title Conferred – The appellants relied on entries in revenue records and pattadar passbooks issued in 1999 to claim ownership. – Held: Revenue records and pattadar passbooks do not confer title over immovable property; they merely establish possession or revenue liability. [Para 22].

Evidentiary Value of Advocate-Commissioner’s Report – The appellants relied on the report of the Advocate-Commissioner. – Held: A report by an Advocate-Commissioner does not amount to a substantive finding unless tested through examination in court. The report in this case carried no evidentiary value as it was not tested in the trial court. [Para 31].

Fraud, Misrepresentation, and Undue Influence – Burden of Proof – Fraud, misrepresentation, or undue influence must be specifically pleaded and proved with cogent evidence. – Held: General allegations of fraud without specific pleadings and supporting evidence cannot sustain a claim for cancellation of a registered instrument. [Paras 22-24].

Decision: A.S. No. 2137 of 2004 (Plaintiffs' appeal in O.S. No. 102 of 1999): Dismissed. The appellants failed to prove fraud or undue influence in the execution of the sale deed. The suit was also barred by limitation.

A.S. No. 2138 of 2004 (Defendants' appeal in O.S. No. 150 of 1999): Dismissed. The rectification of the sale deed was justified as the mistake in the survey number and patta number was mutual and did not affect the boundaries or title.
 

Non-Registration of Tenancy – Grounds for Eviction under Section 21(2)(a) of TNRRRLT Act – The Court upheld eviction based on non-registration of tenancy agreements under the TNRRRLT Act – Held: Compliance with statutory mandates is imperative, and non-registration of tenancy agreements constitutes a valid ground for eviction [Paras 18-19].

Applicability of Section 3 of TNRRRLT Act to Religious Properties – The petitioner argued Section 3(c) of the TNRRRLT Act barred eviction, asserting that the land belonged to HR&CE – Court held that dual ownership principles under Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963, apply – The building's ownership by the landlord and land's ownership by HR&CE did not preclude eviction as long as HR&CE rights were unaffected [Paras 22-26].

Estoppel and Tenant’s Challenge to Landlord’s Title – Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act – The Court reaffirmed that a tenant is estopped from denying the landlord’s title once inducted into tenancy – Arguments regarding mortgage and ownership were deemed unsustainable without evidence [Paras 12-14].

Decision- Relief and Undertaking – Grant of Time to Vacate Premises – Petitioner sought six months to vacate premises voluntarily – Court allowed the time frame based on the petitioner's undertaking affidavit, preventing execution proceedings within the stipulated period [Paras 28-29].