Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Petition Dismissed – The petitioner sought rejection of the plaint on grounds of vague and insufficient averments regarding the claimed freight charges and services rendered – Trial court rejected the application holding cause of action disclosed in plaint and documents – Held: While examining Order 7 Rule 11, courts may consider documents filed with plaint under Order 7 Rule 14 – If the plaint and accompanying documents disclose necessary facts to support a claim, rejection is unwarranted – Court reiterated that rejection of plaint is a drastic measure, to be used sparingly where no arguable case exists – Petition dismissed as the plaint, read with documents, disclosed sufficient cause of action [Paras 13–18].

Decision – Rejection of Plaint Denied – Petition under Article 227 Dismissed – Delhi High Court upheld trial court’s finding that the plaint, supported by invoices and records, disclosed a valid cause of action – Reiterated narrow scope of Order 7 Rule 11 and cautioned against its liberal invocation where triable issues exist [Paras 17–18].

Land Acquisition – Valuation – 2013 Act to Apply Despite 1894 Initiation – Compensation Recalculated – Although reference was made under Section 18 of the 1894 Act, since no award had been made when the 2013 Act came into force, the provisions of the 2013 Act applied as per Section 24(1)(a) – Held: Market value to be assessed as per highest pre-notification sale deed (Rs.6,02,500/- less value of structure Rs.49,956/-) resulting in Rs.5,52,544/- per cottah as just compensation – Average pricing discarded; market value under Section 26(1)(a) preferred over average sale price [Paras 21–29, 43–45].

Procedural Fairness – No Objection Filed by State – No Right to Lead Evidence – State failed to file written objections under Section 18 reference; thus barred from introducing additional evidence – Referral Court rightly relied on unopposed documents submitted by claimant – Additional evidence application dismissed [Paras 30–32, 44].

Statutory Interest – Sections 72 and 80 of 2013 Act – Direction to Ascertain Date of Possession – Held: Interest on excess compensation and delayed payment under Sections 72 and 80 is statutory – Referral Court directed to ascertain actual date of possession and award due interest accordingly – Absence of such interest in original award found to be legal error [Paras 56–60].

Date of Award – Governor’s Approval Not Required Under 2013 Act – Argument Rejected – Claimant’s argument that compensation should run till Governor’s assent was rejected – Held: 2013 Act does not require Government approval for validity of award; award date remains July 30, 2015 [Paras 47–55].

Decision – Appeals Allowed in Part – Referral Court Award Set Aside – Matter Remanded – Both appeals partly allowed – Market value fixed at Rs.5,52,544/- per cottah – Solatium under Section 30 and interest under Sections 30(3), 72 and 80 directed to be computed – Matter remanded to Referral Court to determine date of possession and recalculate compensation with multipliers and statutory interest – To be completed within 8 months [Paras 62–64].
 

Civil Procedure – Review of Judgment – Omission to Answer Substantial Question – Review Partially Allowed – Applicants sought review of judgment dated 16.12.2024 for failure to address substantial question of law (e) regarding possession – Court found omission to answer question (e) constituted error apparent on face of record – Held: Question (e) answered in favour of respondents; valid prior sale deed proved by plaintiffs rendered later sale deed ineffective; no need to claim possession separately under Section 31 of Specific Relief Act [Paras 2–5, 17].

Possession – Consequences of Sale Deed Cancellation – No Further Relief Required under Section 31 – Held: Once a sale deed is cancelled as void or ineffective, possession derived or retained under such deed has no legal sanctity – Section 31 does not require further relief like Section 34; thus, plaintiff not barred from succeeding without separately claiming possession – Distinction drawn from declaratory suits and Deccan Paper Mills ruling [Paras 12–15].

Deccan Paper Mills Case – Inapplicable – Section 31 Specific Relief Act Distinguished – Court held that ratio in Deccan Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. Regency Mahavir Properties, (2021) 4 SCC 786 was based on context of court fees and suits by non-executants under Section 34 – Not applicable where plaintiff with title seeks cancellation of subsequent void deed under Section 31 – Reiterated that a transferee with prior valid title can seek cancellation without being executant [Paras 15–16].

Decision – Review Allowed in Part – Question (e) Answered – Final Dismissal of Appeal Unchanged – Review granted only to address missed question (e), which is now answered in favour of respondents – However, original decision dismissing Second Appeal No. 2565 of 1984 stands affirmed – Execution proceedings directed to conclude by 15.07.2025 [Paras 17–19].

Defamation – Injunctive Relief – Prima Facie Defamatory Content on Social Media – Ad Interim Injunction Granted – Plaintiff, a sitting Cabinet Minister, filed suit against Defendants for uploading multiple YouTube videos containing reckless and baseless allegations targeting his character and conduct – The Court noted that the defamatory nature of the videos was prima facie evident from the transcripts and that publication continued even after a cease-and-desist notice – Held: Defendants No.1 and 2 restrained from publishing or republishing defamatory content about the Plaintiff and directed to take down the six offending videos pending final adjudication – Ad interim injunction granted in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (c) [Paras 4–11].

Environmental Law – PIL - Marine Fishing – LED Fishing, Bull Trawling and Pair Trawling Ban – Rule Made Absolute – Petitioners challenged large-scale illegal fishing using LED lights, DG sets, and banned trawling methods despite statutory prohibitions – Held: Ban orders issued in 2016 (State) and 2017 (Centre) were binding – DG sets were found used only to power LED lights for illegal fishing – Authorities failed in enforcement – Court issued comprehensive directions for enforcement, inspections, and coordination among DOF, Coast Guard and Coastal Police [Paras 3–5, 43–49].

Precautionary Principle – Marine Resource Depletion – Right to Life under Article 21 – State Duty to Protect Environment – Court invoked precautionary principle and sustainable development as part of environmental jurisprudence – Noted depletion of marine life due to banned fishing practices, affecting livelihood and ecological balance – Directed urgent enforcement to prevent irreversible damage [Paras 29–31].

Decision – Rule Made Absolute – Enforcement Directions Issued – Authorities Mandated to Act – High Court allowed the petitions, made rule absolute in key prayer clauses from both petitions – Issued binding directions to State Government, DOF, Coast Guard, and Police to implement inspection regime, equip enforcement bodies, and maintain compliance registers – DG sets not banned due to absence of legal mandate, but court acknowledged their misuse for LED fishing [Paras 51–52].

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Forged Certificate Allegations – Petition Dismissed – Petitioner sought quashing of FIR and charge-sheet for allegedly using forged documents to secure army employment – FIR was filed by a neighbor allegedly in retaliation for a civil dispute – Court held: Prima facie case made out; FIR discloses cognizable offences – Claim of mala fides and land dispute not a valid ground for quashing once investigation concluded and charge-sheet filed – Held: Petition dismissed, Trial Court to proceed with the matter in accordance with law [Paras 12–29].

Taxation Law - International Taxation – Transponder Services – Definition of “Royalty” under DTAA and Domestic Law – Matter Remanded – The appellant sought to contest the withholding tax obligation on payments to Intelsat Corporation for transponder services, arguing the payments did not amount to "royalty" under Article 12 of the India-USA DTAA – The Court noted that none of the lower authorities properly analysed the agreement or determined the nature of services – Held: Without factual findings on the nature of services, the question of law cannot be adjudicated; matter remanded to CIT(A) for factual determination and analysis of whether services fall under “secret process” or “royalty” under DTAA or the Act [Paras 20-35].

Withholding Tax – Retrospective Amendments – No Liability for Payments Made Before 2012 – The Finance Act, 2012 introduced Explanation 6 to Section 9(1)(vi) expanding the definition of “royalty” – Held: For assessment years where payments were made before the amendment, no withholding tax liability arises due to the retrospective effect being inapplicable to withholding obligations – Followed: Reliance Industries Ltd. [Paras 37-40].

Double Taxation Relief – Application of Section 90(2) – Most Beneficial Provision to Apply – The Court reaffirmed that in treaty cases, as per Section 90(2), the taxpayer is entitled to rely on whichever law (domestic or DTAA) is more beneficial – Remanded for CIT(A) to determine applicability of treaty protection and PE status of Intelsat Corporation in India – If Intelsat is not taxable in India, no TDS liability can arise on Viacom 18 [Paras 21-22, 35-36].

Remand – Lack of Factual Determination – Non-Speaking Orders Set Aside – The Court held that the authorities failed to discharge their duty to examine and record findings on the technical agreement and the definition of “process” under the DTAA – Such absence of foundational facts renders the orders unsustainable – Appeals remanded for fresh decision on merits [Paras 27-34].
 

Matrimonial Law - Territorial Jurisdiction – Determination under Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act – Application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC Dismissed – Appellant claimed parties last resided in Faridabad, Haryana; Respondent claimed last matrimonial residence in Anand Parbat, New Delhi – Divorce petition filed in Delhi based on residence at Anand Parbat – Court found jurisdiction properly vested with Family Court, Tis Hazari, based on averments in the petition and lack of jurisdictional objection in prior restitution petition – Held: Divorce petition was rightly filed at Delhi; Application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC was rightly dismissed [Paras 5–19].

Pleading Standards – Consideration of Jurisdiction at Pleading Stage – Divorce petition’s averments taken as true at preliminary stage – Jurisdiction examined based on plaint only, not defence – Held: Return of plaint not warranted where jurisdiction properly claimed in pleadings [Paras 13–16].

Equitable Clarification – Opportunity to Raise Jurisdiction Later – Dismissal of application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC does not preclude raising territorial jurisdiction objection during trial – Held: Right to contest jurisdiction at later stage preserved [Para 20].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Family Court had territorial jurisdiction based on last matrimonial residence in Delhi – No infirmity found in impugned order – Appeal and pending applications dismissed as meritless [Paras 19–21].
 

Criminal Law – Regular Bail - Foreign National – Allegation of Illegal Entry – Confession to Police – Accused arrested on suspicion of being a Bangladeshi national without valid documents—Prosecution relied on alleged oral confession—Held: Confession before police inadmissible; prosecution case based only on alleged statement unsupported by valid documentary proof [Paras 2–5].

Constitutional Law – Violation of Articles 21 and 22 – Delayed Production Before Magistrate – Applicant arrested at 12:30 PM on 28.01.2025 and produced before Magistrate at 4:30 PM on 29.01.2025—Held: Custody beyond 24 hours without remand order violates Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution and Section 50 CrPC—Arrest prima facie vitiated; Court has duty to intervene [Paras 5.1–7].

Bail Jurisprudence – Supreme Court Precedents – Duty of Court to Enforce Fundamental Rights – Court followed Directorate of Enforcement v. Subhash Sharma, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 240—Held: When fundamental rights are breached, bail must be granted irrespective of whether the plea was raised during remand—Division Bench ruling in Karan Ratan Rokade not applicable due to factual differences [Paras 5.3–6].

Proof of Nationality – Existence of Indian Identity Documents – Applicant relied on Aadhar, PAN, Ration Card, Voter ID, marriage certificate, and Gram Panchayat certificate to show long-term residence in India—Held: Documents raise triable issue; bail appropriate as prosecution must prove case during trial [Paras 5, 9].

Decision – Bail granted – Applicant to be released on ₹5,000 P.R. bond with two sureties – Provisional cash bail allowed – Conditions imposed including regular court attendance, no tampering with evidence, and restriction on travel outside Maharashtra – Order limited to bail, not merits [Paras 10–12].