Arbitration – Extension of Arbitrator's Mandate – Dispute regarding compensation for land acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956 – Petitioner challenged the arbitral award from 2018 – Arbitrator's mandate expired due to delay in proceedings without obtaining an extension under Section 29-A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – High Court noted repeated adjournments by the Arbitrator without valid reason – Held: Arbitrator directed to conclude proceedings by 25.03.2025, failing which mandate may be terminated – Petition allowed with directions to expedite the arbitration process [Paras 1-7].

Arbitration Proceedings – Compliance with Statutory Timelines – Court emphasized that statutory timelines under Sections 23(4) and 29-A of the Arbitration Act must be strictly adhered to – Arbitrator had a duty to complete proceedings within the prescribed time, and delays must be justified – Failure to follow the prescribed procedure resulted in the expiration of the Arbitrator's mandate, necessitating judicial intervention to extend the timeline [Paras 5-7].

Extension of Limitation – Supreme Court Precedent – Benefit of exclusion of the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 due to the COVID-19 pandemic as per the Supreme Court’s direction in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (2022) was applied – This exclusion granted the petitioner additional time to challenge the arbitral award and seek a remedy through the court [Paras 6-7].

Decision: Petition allowed – Arbitrator directed to complete proceedings by 25.03.2025 – Court warns Arbitrator of possible termination of mandate if further delays occur – Petition disposed of along with pending applications [Paras 7-9].

Absence of Prayer for Cancellation of Sale Deed – Not Fatal to Plaintiff’s Case – The defendant argued that the plaintiff’s failure to seek cancellation of the sale deed under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act was fatal to the case – The Court held that the plaintiff’s prayer for declaration that the sale deed was executed as security was sufficient, and no specific prayer for cancellation was necessary since the plaintiff did not claim the deed was void or voidable – Held: The absence of a prayer for cancellation did not bar relief to the plaintiff [Paras 5-11].

Presumption of Validity of Registered Sale Deed – Rebutted by Evidence – Although a registered sale deed carries a presumption of validity, the plaintiff successfully proved that the sale deed was a sham transaction executed as security for a chitty payment – The defendant failed to prove that consideration was paid, or that the document was intended as an actual transfer of title – Held: The presumption of the validity of the sale deed was rebutted [Paras 12-14, 30].

Contradictory Defense by Defendant – Weakening of Credibility – The defendant claimed that he had rented out the property to the plaintiff's brother immediately after the sale but produced no credible evidence to support this – Additionally, the defendant’s statements in a related eviction suit contradicted his claims in the present case, further undermining his credibility – Held: Defendant’s inconsistent arguments and lack of evidence supported the plaintiff’s case [Paras 16-20].

Sham Document – Oral Evidence Admissible – Suit for Declaration Maintainable – The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling that a party can prove that a document is a sham and not intended to be acted upon, using oral evidence – In this case, the plaintiff established that the sale deed was never meant to convey title but was only executed as security – Held: The suit for a declaration was maintainable without a prayer for re-conveyance [Paras 27-29].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – The sale deed was held to be a sham, and the plaintiff's suit for declaration was justified – No need for a reconveyance prayer – No costs awarded [Paras 31].

Civil Procedure – Appeal Dismissed on Grounds of Limitation – Article 227 of the Constitution – Petitioners challenged the dismissal of their appeal, which was filed 8 years and 8 months after the preliminary decree for partition – They argued that they were unaware of their legal rights and alleged fraud on part of the respondents – Held: The petitioners were aware of their legal remedies as they had previously filed applications under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC and objections in the execution proceedings – The plea of fraud was raised for the first time in appeal, and the delay was unjustified – Dismissal of appeal upheld [Paras 6-7].

Fraud Allegation – Raised for the First Time in Appeal – Petitioners argued that the partition decree was obtained by fraud and collusion between the respondents – However, no such plea was raised in their application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC or during earlier proceedings – Held: The allegation of fraud was an afterthought and cannot be entertained at this stage [Para 6].

Delay and Laches – Appeal Filed After 8 Years and 8 Months – The appeal was filed with an application for condonation of delay, citing unawareness of legal remedies – Held: The petitioners actively participated in earlier proceedings and were aware of the decrees – The delay in filing the appeal is inordinate and unjustified [Paras 6-7].

Decision: The revision petition is dismissed – The First Appellate Court’s order dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation is upheld – Pending applications, if any, are disposed of [Para 7].

Eviction Suit – Default in Payment of Rent – No Default Found - The appellant, a tenant, was accused of failing to pay rent for two consecutive months, October and November 2012. He contended that he had attempted to pay the rent in person and later sent it via money order, which the landlord refused. The appellate court found him to be in default; however, the High Court held that the refusal of rent by the landlord and the subsequent remittance through money order discharged the tenant's statutory obligation. – Held: The appellant was not in default of rent [Paras 4-6].

Bonafide Personal Necessity – Requirement for Office Space – Eviction Upheld - The plaintiff sought eviction on the grounds of personal necessity, claiming that the premises were needed for his son's Fly Ash Brick business. The High Court upheld the appellate court's finding that the need was genuine and that the premises were suitable for the business. – Held: The personal necessity of the plaintiffs was bonafide and justified the eviction [Paras 8-10].

Partial Eviction – Tenant's Burden of Proof – No Evidence Produced - The defendant argued that partial eviction would suffice to meet the plaintiffs' needs, but he failed to plead or provide any evidence to support this. – Held: The onus to prove partial eviction was on the tenant, which he failed to discharge [Paras 11-12].

Decision: The Second Appeal is dismissed. The eviction on the grounds of bonafide personal necessity is upheld, but no costs are awarded.

Delay in Filing Appeal – Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act – Appeal Dismissed - The appellant, a guarantor for a defaulting loanee, challenged the auction sale of his property. He failed to file an appeal within the prescribed 45 days after being granted liberty by the court to approach the Tribunal. The delay of over five months was not satisfactorily explained – Held: The delay in filing the appeal was unjustified, and the Tribunal and Single Judge rightly rejected the condonation of delay [Paras 17-18].

Condonation of Delay – Casual Approach by Appellant – Rejection Upheld - Despite being informed of the liberty to appeal in 2016, the appellant delayed filing the appeal until mid-2017, citing personal reasons without substantiating the delays. The court found the reasons vague and lacking in material details – Held: The appellant's explanation for delay was unsatisfactory, and no sufficient cause was shown to condone the delay [Paras 4, 17-18].

Auction Sale of Property – Guarantor's Challenge – Appeal Dismissed - The property of the appellant, acting as a guarantor, was auctioned due to the default of the loanee. The appellant failed to take timely steps to challenge the bank's action under the SARFAESI Act. – Held: The appeal lacked merit and was dismissed due to unexplained delay [Paras 2-4].

Decision: The appeal is dismissed.
 

Civil Law – Probate of Will – Two competing Wills – Probate granted in favor of respondent based on 1993 Will – Trial court dismissed claim on 1995 Will – Appellants challenged the genuineness of the 1993 Will, alleging suspicious circumstances, including mention of deceased wife who was alive at the time of the Will's execution – Held: The 1993 Will was suspicious due to discrepancies, and the probate granted in favor of the respondent is set aside – Appellants’ claim regarding the 1995 Will was also rejected for lack of credibility [Paras 1-4, 35-56].

Proof of Will – Execution and Attestation – Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 63 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Respondent proved the execution of the 1993 Will through attesting witnesses – However, the court found suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will, including false statements about the wife’s death, leading to doubts about the testator’s true intention – A mere compliance with legal requirements is insufficient where suspicion exists – The court must be satisfied that the Will truly reflects the testator's intentions [Paras 22-31, 57].

Suspicious Circumstances – Mention of Wife’s Death – The 1993 Will stated that the testator’s wife was dead, although she was alive at the time of its execution – No provisions were made for the wife in the Will – This inconsistency raised serious doubts about the genuineness of the Will – The court held that such unexplained abnormalities indicated that the Will was not a genuine document, even though it was attested by witnesses [Paras 34-37, 52-55].

Revocation of Earlier Will – 1995 Will – Appellant’s claim of a 1995 Will revoking the 1993 Will was rejected by the trial court – Evidence provided by the appellants, including testimonies and documents, failed to substantiate the revocation or cancellation of the earlier Will – The court agreed with the trial court’s decision that the 1995 Will was not credible, pointing out discrepancies in the signatures and overwriting in the document [Paras 9, 39-47].

Decision: Appeal F.A. No. 185 of 2015 allowed – Probate granted in favor of the respondent for the 1993 Will is set aside due to suspicious circumstances – Appeal F.A.T. No. 302 of 2015 dismissed – 1995 Will also held not genuine – Appellants’ applications under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC rejected – Trial court judgments modified accordingly [Paras 58-59].

Criminal Procedure – Discharge Application – Rejection – Accused, Gurendra @ Golu, sought discharge on the grounds of alibi, claiming presence at the High Court Photo Identification Centre, Allahabad, on the day of the incident – Trial court rejected the discharge application, which was challenged through revision – Held: Trial court’s decision was justified as the accused failed to provide the photograph to the investigating officer during the investigation, and the allegations of manipulation in the photo verification process require independent inquiry [Paras 3, 12].

Criminal Law – Plea of Alibi – Accused contended he was at the High Court Photo Identification Centre, Allahabad, 700 kilometers away from the crime scene at the time of the incident – Complainant alleged that the photo was manipulated, citing involvement of persons at the Identification Centre who could alter dates for a fee – Held: Given the seriousness of the allegations, the Court directed an independent inquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to determine the authenticity of the documents and the validity of the alibi claim [Paras 4, 12, 13].

Judicial Inquiry – Manipulation of Evidence – Allegations of backdated photo verification at the High Court Photo Identification Centre – Complainant claimed involvement of a gang that manipulated verification dates for money – Held: CBI directed to conduct an independent inquiry into the allegations of manipulation and report back to the Court before the next hearing [Paras 5, 12, 13].

Decision: Inquiry ordered – CBI to conduct an investigation into the accused’s plea of alibi and the complainant’s allegations of manipulated photo verification – The case is listed for further hearing on 04/11/2024 – Interim order dated 15/04/2024 is not extended [Paras 13-19].

Professional Misconduct – Chartered Accountants – Referral to Disciplinary Committee – The petitioner, a Chartered Accountant, challenged the Board of Discipline’s decision to refer a matter for further inquiry regarding alleged misconduct related to auditing companies without proper compliance with RBI regulations – The High Court held that the Board was within its powers under Section 21A of the Chartered Accountants Act to disagree with the prima facie opinion of the Director (Discipline) and refer the matter for a detailed inquiry – The petition was dismissed as the Board’s decision was found to be in accordance with law [Paras 3, 10-12, 18].

Power of the Board of Discipline – Rule 9(3)(b) of the Chartered Accountants Rules – The petitioner argued that the Board did not have the authority to refer the case without further investigation by the Director (Discipline) – The court rejected this argument, citing Rule 9(3)(b) and Section 21A, which empower the Board to refer a case for inquiry even without further investigation if it disagrees with the Director’s findings – The referral for disciplinary action was valid [Paras 15-17].

Scope of Judicial Review in Disciplinary Proceedings – The court reiterated the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters, emphasizing that courts do not act as appellate authorities over the findings of the Board of Discipline – The review is confined to checking for compliance with natural justice, statutory rules, and the reasonableness of the decision – The Board’s decision did not suffer from any illegality or procedural irregularity, and thus, the petition was dismissed [Paras 19-21].

Decision: The writ petition was dismissed – The High Court upheld the decision of the Board of Discipline to refer the petitioner’s case to the Disciplinary Committee for further inquiry under the provisions of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, and the Rules, 2007 [Paras 22-24].

Criminal Law – Murder – Conviction Upheld - Dying Declaration – Admissibility and Evidentiary Value – The conviction was primarily based on the dying declaration of the deceased, Munish Kumar, implicating the appellant for stabbing him. The appellant questioned the reliability of the dying declaration on the grounds that the doctor who declared the deceased fit to make a statement was not examined – Held: The Investigating Officer's testimony and the circumstances surrounding the declaration confirmed its validity. The dying declaration was corroborated by other evidence and was held to be credible and admissible [Paras 15-19].

Recovery of Weapon – Corroboration of Guilt – The appellant's conviction was further supported by the recovery of the weapon (knife) used in the crime, which was recovered pursuant to the appellant’s disclosure statement – Held: The recovery was made in accordance with the law, and no evidence suggested that the recovery was planted or fabricated. The recovery of the weapon corroborated the dying declaration and medical evidence [Paras 20-24].

Medical Evidence – Consistency with Injuries – The post-mortem report and the medical examination of the deceased revealed injuries consistent with the use of a knife. The Court noted that the injuries matched those described in the dying declaration and confirmed by the recovered weapon – Held: The medical evidence strongly supported the prosecution's case and linked the appellant to the crime [Paras 40-43].

Appeal Dismissed – The appellant's contentions regarding false implication and misappreciation of evidence were rejected. The Court found no merit in the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court – Held: The life sentence awarded under Section 302 IPC was affirmed, and the appeal was dismissed [Paras 47].

Decision: The appeal is dismissed. The conviction and life sentence awarded to the appellant by the trial court are upheld.