Tenancy Dispute – Pendente Lite Transfer – Sham Transaction – Preliminary Objection Rejected - Court held that sale of land by respondent’s legal heirs during pendency of the writ petition was a fraudulent attempt to frustrate proceedings – Purchasers were close relatives, and transaction was held to be a sham – Held: Transfer hit by Section 52 of the T.P. Act – Non-joinder of such transferees not fatal [Paras 15-20].

Tenancy Rights – Longstanding Possession – Entry and Mamlatdar’s Orders Unchallenged – Petitioners Declared Tenants - Revenue entry from 1980 recognizing petitioners as cultivators remained unchallenged – Initial order under Section 32(G) recognizing tenancy and fixing purchase price was never appealed by landowner – Repeated participation and affidavit of owner supported tenancy – Tribunal's contrary order quashed [Paras 22-34].

Appropriation and Estoppel – Owner’s Earlier Support Now Discarded – Impermissible - Owner had earlier affirmed petitioners’ tenancy via affidavit and joint withdrawal of appeals – Later claims of fraud unsupported and contradictory – Held: Owner estopped from retracting and disputing tenancy in present proceedings [Paras 23-24, 33-34].

Deletion of Section 32(O) – No Effect on Existing Rights – Inquiry Limited to Agriculturist Status – Deletion Not Retroactive - Deletion of Section 32(O) does not undo established tenancy or payments made – Mamlatdar rightly noted tenants need not be agriculturists – Tribunal erred in applying the deletion retroactively [Paras 24-26, 30-31].

Final Decision – GRT Order Set Aside – Tenancy of Petitioners Restored for Block No. 730 - High Court found GRT order perverse and contrary to material on record – Orders of Mamlatdar and Deputy Collector restored confirming petitioners’ tenancy over Block No. 730 [Paras 33-35].
 

Civil Law - Partition Suit – Temporary Injunction – Prima Facie Case Established – Injunction Confirmed - Plaintiff filed suit for partition and sought injunctions to restrain defendants from alienating and altering suit properties – Trial Court found plaintiff demonstrated prima facie right to claim share in ancestral property – Held: Alienation would dilute plaintiff’s right, hence, order of injunction restraining alienation rightly passed and upheld [Paras 11–12, 23].

Construction on Suit Land – Balance of Convenience – Injunction Lifted – Appeal Allowed - Defendants contended construction was on only one acre and would not affect plaintiff’s 1/3 share – Appellant No.5 undertook not to claim equity and to abide by suit outcome – Held: No material shown to prove construction would hinder identification of boundaries – Injunction against construction set aside [Paras 16–19, 25].

Partition Deed – Disputed Validity – Issue for Trial – Partition Alleged in 1978 – Plaintiff contended re-grant of lands occurred only in 1981, hence partition was not possible earlier – Held: Whether partition valid or not to be decided at trial – No prima facie bar to maintain partition suit [Paras 5–6, 15].

Appeal – Mixed Outcome – Partial Relief Granted – One Injunction Set Aside, Another Upheld - MFA No.8364/2024 allowed by setting aside injunction on construction – MFA No.1261/2025 dismissed, affirming injunction on alienation of properties [Para 20].
 

Criminal Law – Adultery – Quashing of Summoning Order – Section 497 IPC Unconstitutional – Petitioner summoned for alleged adultery under Section 497 IPC after initial discharge by Magistrate – Held: Following Supreme Court's declaration of Section 497 as unconstitutional in Joseph Shine case, prosecution under said provision cannot be sustained – Complaint quashed as continuation of proceedings is impermissible under law [Paras 22–32].

Retrospective Effect – Application to Pending Proceedings – Supreme Court’s Interpretation Binding – Declaration of law by Supreme Court in constitutional matters applies retrospectively to pending cases – Held: High Courts have consistently quashed similar pending complaints after Joseph Shine judgment – Present complaint also hit by same principle and liable to be quashed [Paras 27–31].

Absence of Prima Facie Evidence – No Proof of Adulterous Act – Allegation based on assumption that petitioner and complainant’s wife stayed together overnight – Held: No oral or documentary evidence proving sexual intercourse – Mere presumption not sufficient for summoning – Ingredients of Section 497 IPC not established even on facts [Paras 7, 33].

Gender Equality – Constitutional Morality – Arbitrariness of Section 497 – Section treated woman as property and did not punish wife or allow her to file complaint – Held: Provision violated Articles 14, 15, and 21 and was rightly struck down for being manifestly arbitrary and patriarchal – High Court reiterates importance of privacy and individual autonomy in marital relationships [Paras 21–26].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Complaint and Summoning Order Set Aside – Summoning order dated 28.04.2018 under Section 497 IPC set aside – Complaint quashed – Petitioner discharged from all proceedings – Pending applications disposed of [Para 34].
 

Muslim Law - Probate and Will – Requirement of Proving Testamentary Capacity and Absence of Suspicion – Will Rejected - Appellant claimed two Wills executed by deceased Tajuddin Shaikh in his favour – Trial Court and High Court found multiple suspicious circumstances including inconsistency regarding property ownership timelines, typewritten Wills with identical wording, and lack of clarity on religious identity and testamentary rights – Held: Appellant failed to discharge burden of proof required under Section 63 of Indian Succession Act to establish valid execution of Will [Paras 6, 9-13, 16-17].

Mohammedan Law – Limits on Bequest – Bequest Beyond One-Third Invalid Without Consent – Will Partially Invalid - As per Mohammedan Law, bequest beyond one-third of estate to non-heir is invalid without consent of legal heirs – Court held Will to be invalid beyond said limit in absence of such consent – Validity of Will limited to extent permissible under law [Para 14].

Suspicious Circumstances – Inclusion of Properties Not Owned at Time of Will – Will Held Invalid - Land purchased after the alleged execution date of first Will was included in it – Appellant failed to explain or produce evidence showing pre-existing agreement – Held: Inclusion of such land created suspicion regarding authenticity of Will [Para 16].

Succession Certificate – Grant to Legal Heirs – Certificate Upheld - Respondents were legal heirs of deceased and proved relationship – In absence of valid Will, Court rightly granted heirship and succession certificate to respondents – No interference warranted [Para 18].

Appeal – Dismissal of Appeal – Findings of Trial Court Upheld - Trial Court's conclusions based on factual and legal analysis upheld – No merit found in appeals filed by Sunil Shinde – Appeals dismissed [Para 19].
 

Arbitration Law - Arbitral Tribunal – Interim Order Granting Mandatory Relief – Tribunal Overstepped Jurisdiction – Interim Order Set Aside - Tribunal stayed the termination of a highway concession agreement and directed the respondent-concessionaire to execute pending work and collect tolls – Court held that the Tribunal granted final relief at interim stage by restoring a determinable contract already terminated – Tribunal exceeded jurisdiction under Section 17 – Interim relief set aside [Paras 94–97].

Determinable Contract – Injunction Not Permissible – Contract Enforceability Barred by SRA - The concession agreement was found to be determinable under Clause 37 – Held: Specific performance barred under Section 14(d) of the Specific Relief Act and injunction prohibited under Section 41(e) – Tribunal erred in granting relief that enforced a terminated contract [Paras 89–92, 96].

Infrastructure Projects – Bar on Injunctions under SRA – Sections 20A and 41(ha) Attracted - Even after provisional completion, respondent was obligated to perform ongoing O&M obligations and stage construction works – Court held: These are integral and continuous duties – Grant of injunction interferes with infrastructure services – Bar under SRA attracted [Paras 105–108].

Status Quo vs. Status Quo Ante – AT Misapplied Concept – Relief Was Restorative, Not Preservative - Tribunal’s order stayed a termination already effected and reversed project possession – Held: Relief amounted to status quo ante and restoration of contract – Not permissible at interim stage under settled law [Paras 67, 98].

Section 17 Application – SOC Not Prerequisite – AT Can Grant Relief Without Statement of Claim - Court clarified that Statement of Claim is not sine qua non for Section 17 relief – Tribunal had benefit of SOC before final order – NHAI not prejudiced [Paras 68–74].

Appeal under Section 37(2)(b) – Limited Interference – Tribunal Order Perverse – Appeal Allowed - Appellate Court reiterated its limited jurisdiction under Section 37(2)(b) – Found Tribunal’s directions contrary to law, overstepping jurisdiction and rewriting contract terms – Interim relief set aside [Paras 52–59, 114].

Contempt of Court – Disobedience of Final Judgment – Plea of Private Forest Land Rejected – Contempt Established - The Court held that the respondents wilfully disobeyed the final judgment in W.P.(C) No. 593 of 2017 and LPA No. 786 of 2018 (affirmed by the Supreme Court in SLP(C) No. 8108 of 2021) by issuing letters branding petitioner’s land as ‘private forest land’ – Such a plea was never raised in the earlier proceedings and cannot be permitted under the principle of constructive res judicata – Held: Conduct of respondents amounts to deliberate disobedience and obstruction of justice [Paras 1-3, 8, 21-23, 32-33, 41, 44-48, 55-56, 86-88].

Constructive Res Judicata – New Pleas Barred in Contempt – Doctrine Applied - The Court reiterated that new pleas such as classification as ‘private forest land’ not raised in earlier writ or LPA proceedings are barred – Raising such new grounds in contempt proceedings amounts to collateral attack on final judgments – Held: Attempt by respondent officials to overreach court orders is impermissible under law [Paras 44-48, 86].

Burden of Proof – Claim of Private Forest Land Unsupported by Evidence – Burden Not Discharged - Respondents relied on unauthenticated documents and failed to produce certified revenue records to substantiate claim of ‘private forest land’ – Certified copy of Khatian unavailable per RTI response – Held: No credible evidence to support forest land classification – Attempt amounts to misleading the court [Paras 63-70].

Contempt by Government Officials – Non-Parties Liable – Principles Explained – Agents Bound by Orders Against Government - Even though the forest officials were not parties to the original writ proceedings, as agents of the State, they are bound by its outcomes – Their actions in issuing advisory letters amounted to aiding and abetting contempt – Held: Officials can be held in contempt for obstructing justice [Paras 71-75].

Effect of Supreme Court Directions – Compliance Deferred – No Sentence Imposed for Eight Weeks – The Court, while holding the respondents guilty of contempt, deferred pronouncement of sentence for eight weeks in compliance with clause (iv) of the Supreme Court's order in SLP(C) No. 31127 of 2024 to enable respondents to approach the Apex Court [Paras 92-93].

Relief – Advisory Letters Declared Invalid – Letters Set Aside - In view of the established contempt, the letters issued by respondent Nos. 2 and 4 branding the land as forest land and restricting activities thereon were set aside – Court emphasized that contemnors cannot enjoy the fruits of contempt [Paras 91].
 

Civil Law - Procedure – Order XVIII Rule 1 CPC – Right to Begin – Plaintiff Entitled to Lead Evidence – Deviation Not Justified – The appellant challenged the direction of the learned Single Judge requiring him (defendant) to lead evidence first in a partition suit – The High Court held that as per Order XVIII Rule 1 CPC, it is the plaintiff who has the right to begin unless the defendant admits all material facts and raises only legal defences or additional facts – No such admission was made by the appellant – Held: The impugned order directing the defendant to begin was contrary to procedural law and thus set aside [Paras 15-23]. 
 
Burden of Proof – Direction to Defendant to Lead Evidence – Improper Allocation – No Admission by Defendant – The trial court placed initial burden on defendant based on disputed documents allegedly in his exclusive knowledge – The appellate court held that absence of admissions by the defendant made it incorrect to call him first to lead evidence – The responsibility lies with the plaintiffs to prove their case in the first instance [Paras 16-18, 21-22]. 
 
Decision – Appeal Allowed – Impugned Order Set Aside – The direction requiring the appellant to lead evidence first was quashed – The respondents/plaintiffs were directed to lead their evidence in accordance with law [Para 23]. 
 

PMLA Offence – Bail Rejection – Serious Economic Fraud – Bail Denied – Petitioner accused of defrauding over ₹800 crores from flat buyers through a fictitious housing project – Despite attachment of ₹161.5 crores, further investigation ongoing to trace remaining proceeds of crime – Held: Given gravity, conduct of petitioner, and ongoing investigation, bail cannot be granted [Paras 5–6, 15, 24–25].

Statutory Bail – Section 167(2) CrPC – Not Applicable – Complaint Filed Timely – Petitioner argued for statutory bail due to delayed filing of final report – Held: Complaint under PMLA filed on 05.11.2024 and taken cognizance on 04.12.2024, within permissible time – Hence, plea for statutory bail rejected [Paras 4.2, 8, 11].

Section 45 PMLA – Stringent Bail Conditions – Not Satisfied – Petitioner Failed Two-Part Test – Court found no reasonable grounds to believe petitioner is not guilty or unlikely to commit offence again – Held: Petitioner failed conditions under Section 45(1)(ii), bail barred [Paras 17–18, 25].

Non-Cooperation and Tampering – Forged Medical Certificate and Illegal Mobile Use – Misuse During Custody – Petitioner submitted forged medical documents and possessed mobile phone in judicial custody – Alleged further laundering through daughter-in-law while in jail – Held: Conduct undermines claim of bona fides and justifies continued custody [Paras 5.2, 5.5, 14, 21].

Further Investigation Post-Complaint – Permissible Under PMLA – Complaint Not Bar to Continued Probe – Held: Under Section 44(1)(ii) PMLA, complaint can be supplemented by further investigation – Justifies refusal of bail due to ongoing tracing of unaccounted proceeds of crime [Paras 23–24].

Final Decision – Bail Denied – Criminal Petition Dismissed – Taking into account the magnitude of the offence, petitioner’s conduct, and non-cooperation, Court held bail unjustified – Petition dismissed [Para 26].
 

Criminal Law – Sect. 138 N.I. Act - Bail Cancellation – Non-Appearance Due to Health – Bail Restored – Petitioner’s bail was cancelled and non-bailable warrants issued for non-appearance in a Section 138 NI Act case – Held: Absence was unintentional, caused by medically proven encephalopathy – Trial Court’s action in issuing arrest warrant without notice was harsh and disproportionate – Bail cancellation order quashed [Paras 2–6, 7–8].

Judicial Discretion – Due Process Violated – No Prior Notice Before Warrant – Petitioner not issued notice before issuance of non-bailable warrant – Held: Contrary to settled law and judicial fairness – Courts must avoid mechanical detention and ensure liberty is not curtailed without procedural safeguards [Paras 5, 6].

Legal Principles – Liberty & Bail – Ref. Gudikanti Narasimhulu, Sanjay Chandra – Cited – Court reiterated that deprivation of liberty must be based on necessity, not mere procedural lapse – Held: Petitioner’s conduct showed cooperation, no risk of tampering with evidence – Bail is to secure appearance, not punishment [Paras 5.1, 5.2, 6].

Final Directions – Bail Restored with Conditions – Impugned order of 11.10.2024 set aside – Petitioner directed to appear before trial Court on 09.06.2025 and all subsequent dates – Passport to be surrendered if any – Rs.10,000 costs imposed payable to Punjab and Haryana High Court Employees Welfare Association [Para 8].