SARFAESI Act – Priority of Secured Creditor – Section 26E of SARFAESI Act – Charge Overridden – The petitioner bank, as a secured creditor, sold the mortgaged property of respondent no.3 through a public auction under the SARFAESI Act – The auction purchaser faced difficulties in registering the conveyance deed due to a charge recorded by the State of Gujarat for outstanding VAT dues – Held: Under Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act, the petitioner bank’s secured charge has priority over the State’s tax dues recorded under Section 48 of the VAT Act – The State’s charge is subordinate to the bank’s secured charge [Paras 6-9].

Non-Obstante Clause of Section 26E – Overriding Effect – Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act provides that debts due to secured creditors take precedence over all other debts, including taxes due to the State – The High Court emphasized that this section has an overriding effect, thereby nullifying any charge created by the State after the registration of the secured interest [Para 7].

Relief Granted – Attachment Quashed – The Court held that the attachment order and charge recorded in the revenue records by the State under the VAT Act are quashed and set aside – The bank’s right to recover its secured debts prevails over the State’s VAT dues – The State is granted liberty to initiate recovery of its dues following the proper legal process [Paras 9-10].

Decision:

The petition is allowed – The attachment order and charge recorded by the State under Entry No.1749 in the revenue records is quashed – The petitioner bank has priority over the secured property under Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act – Rule made absolute [Paras 10-11].

Service Law – Recovery Orders – Quashing Sought – Petitioner, a retired Sub Divisional Officer, challenged recovery orders of ₹3,174/- and ₹25,850/-, imposed via departmental inquiries for alleged omissions and negligence – Petitioner contended that inquiries were conducted improperly, and the punishment orders were non-speaking – Held: Departmental inquiries were held according to law, and no procedural errors or violations of natural justice were found – Recovery orders upheld [Paras 10-13].

Service Law – Conveyance Allowance – Denial on Grounds of Delay – Petitioner, claiming 70% orthopedic disability, sought conveyance allowance as per Government instructions dated 10.09.1982 – Petitioner's application was delayed, and the department rejected the claim on procedural and time-barred grounds – Held: Petitioner's failure to follow the required procedure and the delay in applying for allowance justified the denial – Conveyance allowance claim rejected [Paras 16-19].

Retirement Benefits – Delayed GPF Payment – Interest Awarded – Petitioner's GPF payments were delayed, and he sought interest on the delayed amounts – Held: The delay was attributable to the respondents and not the petitioner – Petitioner entitled to interest on the delayed payments as per court precedents, including interest on installments released in 1998, 2000, and 2001 – Interest granted on delayed GPF payments [Paras 20-23].

Decision: Petition is partly allowed – Recovery orders dated 30.08.2001 and 06.09.2001 are upheld – Petitioner's claim for conveyance allowance is rejected – However, petitioner is entitled to interest on the delayed payment of GPF from 01.06.1997 till the actual payment dates, after adjusting any interest already paid – Respondents directed to calculate and release interest accordingly [Paras 23].

Execution of Decree – Bonafide Purchasers – The appellants, claiming to be bonafide purchasers of flats constructed on the disputed plot, objected to the execution of the decree, arguing they were not parties to the original suit – The court dismissed their objections, holding that the appellants acquired the property during the pendency of the suit, making the transfers subject to the doctrine of lis pendens – Held: Subsequent purchasers during the pendency of litigation cannot defeat the decree holder’s rights [Paras 3, 6, 12].

Specific Performance – Inherent Relief of Possession – The court reiterated that in suits for specific performance, the relief of possession is inherently included even if not specifically mentioned in the decree – Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Manickam @ Thandapani vs. Vasantha and Babu Lal vs. Hazari Lal, it was held that possession must be granted to the decree holder as part of the execution of the decree – Held: The decree for specific performance inherently includes the relief of possession, and no separate suit for possession is required [Paras 5, 6, 10].

Doctrine of Lis Pendens – Subsequent Transfers Invalid – The appellants acquired their rights through a General Power of Attorney holder during the pendency of the suit, and thus, their rights are subject to the final outcome of the litigation – The court emphasized that transfers made during litigation are hit by the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Held: The appellants’ objections, based on subsequent transfers, were dismissed as invalid [Paras 12, 13, Conclusion].

Decision:

Appeal dismissed – The appellants, being purchasers during the pendency of litigation, cannot claim ownership or possession of the property in question – The execution of the decree for specific performance in favor of respondent S.V. Babber, including the relief of possession, is upheld [Paras 13, 14].

Civil Law - Third-Party Objections in Execution – Applicability of Lis Pendens – The appellants, claiming to be bona fide purchasers, challenged the execution of a decree for specific performance, arguing they were not party to the original suit and had purchased flats on the disputed property through subsequent transactions – Held: The appellants' objections were dismissed as the sale of the property during the pendency of the original suit was hit by the doctrine of lis pendens. Therefore, they could not claim any rights against the decree-holder [Paras 13, 14].

Doctrine of Lis Pendens – Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act – The Court reiterated that any transfer of property during the pendency of a suit is subject to the outcome of the litigation, and the subsequent transferees are bound by the decree – Held: The appellants’ claim of being bona fide purchasers for value was irrelevant as the property was transferred during the pendency of the suit, and they were bound by the decree passed in favor of the respondent-decree holder [Para 13].

Relief of Possession in Specific Performance – Inherent Right – The appellants argued that the decree for specific performance did not specifically grant possession to the decree-holder – Held: The relief of possession is inherent in a decree for specific performance, even if not explicitly mentioned. The decree-holder is entitled to possession once the sale deed is executed [Paras 6-8].

Decision: The appeal is dismissed. The Court upheld the orders of the Executing Court and the Additional District Judge, dismissing the objections filed by the appellants. The decree-holder is entitled to possession of the property, and the appellants, as transferees during the pendency of the suit, are bound by the decree [Paras 15-16].
 

Bail Application – NDPS Act – Methamphetamine Seizure – Regular Bail Granted – The petitioner was arrested for possessing 13.87 grams of contraband initially identified as MDMA, but later confirmed as Methamphetamine – After failure by the Investigating Officer to submit the chemical analysis report on time, the petitioner was granted interim bail – Held: Given that the quantity of contraband is intermediate, the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, the investigation is nearly complete, and the interim bail has already been granted, the court makes the interim bail order absolute [Paras 5-6].

Chemical Analysis – Identification of Contraband – Methamphetamine, Not MDMA – The prosecution initially alleged the petitioner was in possession of MDMA, but the chemical analysis confirmed it was Methamphetamine – Held: Despite the change in the nature of the contraband, the quantity involved remains intermediate, which allowed the court to consider the application for regular bail favorably [Para 5].

Delay in Submission of Chemical Analysis Report – Impact on Bail – The Investigating Officer failed to submit the chemical analysis report as directed by the court, which led to the petitioner being granted interim bail – The report was later submitted confirming the intermediate quantity of Methamphetamine – Held: Given the completion of recovery and near completion of the investigation, the petitioner’s interim bail was confirmed as regular bail [Paras 4-6].

Criminal Antecedents – Clean Record – Favorable Consideration for Bail – The petitioner has no previous criminal record – Held: The absence of criminal antecedents favored the grant of regular bail under the circumstances of the case [Para 5].

Decision: Bail application allowed – Interim bail order dated 13/08/2024 made absolute – Petitioner to comply with the conditions laid out in the interim order [Para 6].

Full Tank Level Dispute – Extent of FTL – Petitioners' objections regarding Durgam Cheruvu tank’s FTL not considered – Directions for Reconsideration – The petitioners argued that the FTL determined by the respondents exceeded the original extent of Acs. 65.12 Guntas, encroaching on their private property – Held: The Lake Protection Committee was directed to hear the petitioners’ objections and decide the FTL of Durgam Cheruvu through a speaking order – No demolition of the petitioners’ constructions until the FTL determination is finalized [Paras 1-6].

Administrative Law – Right to Hearing – Principles of Natural Justice – Petitioners entitled to a personal hearing before Lake Protection Committee – Petitioners had submitted objections within the prescribed time limit but were not considered – Held: The Lake Protection Committee must provide the petitioners with a personal hearing and finalize the FTL notification after considering the objections [Paras 10-12].

Land Rights – Private Property – Article 300-A Constitution of India – Encroachment Allegations – Petitioners’ claim of interference with peaceful possession – Petitioners' properties were alleged to fall under the extended FTL area – Held: The respondents were directed not to interfere with the petitioners' possession until the FTL is determined [Paras 8-10].

Judicial Remedy – No Final Relief Granted – Pending Decision by Committee – The court did not express any opinion on the merits of the petitioners' claims as the matter was left to be adjudicated by the Lake Protection Committee – Writ petitions disposed of with directions to the Committee [Paras 13-14].

Decision:

Writ petitions were disposed of with directions to the Lake Protection Committee to hear the petitioners' objections and notify the FTL of Durgam Cheruvu within six weeks. No demolition of the petitioners' constructions will take place until the FTL is determined.

Criminal Law – Conviction under Sections 306 and 498A IPC – Applicant convicted for abetment of suicide and cruelty towards his wife – Trial Court sentenced him to imprisonment, and the conviction was upheld by the appellate court – Applicant argued that contradictory medical opinions (postmortem and chemical analysis) undermined the prosecution’s case and that there was no evidence of abetment – Held: Medical evidence favored the postmortem findings over the chemical analysis, but the prosecution failed to establish abetment or cruelty under Sections 306 and 498A IPC – Conviction set aside [Paras 1-12, 13-31].

Medical Evidence – Postmortem vs. Chemical Analysis – The postmortem indicated poisoning, while the chemical analysis found no poison – Court relied on Modi's Medical Jurisprudence to conclude that poison might not always be detected after death due to various factors – Held: Postmortem findings prevail over chemical analysis, but this does not conclusively establish abetment or cruelty [Paras 7-12].

Abetment of Suicide – Insufficient Proof – Applicant argued that no evidence of provocation or incitement was provided to sustain a conviction under Section 306 IPC – The Court referred to Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana and Ude Singh v. State of Haryana, emphasizing that abetment requires proof of instigation or active encouragement – The prosecution failed to prove any proximate incitement leading to the deceased's suicide [Paras 13-22].

Cruelty under Section 498A IPC – Lack of Continuous Harassment – No evidence of continuous harassment or unlawful demands for dowry was established – The deceased’s complaint about harassment was vague and not corroborated by credible witnesses – The general allegations surfaced only after her death, which were insufficient to convict under Section 498A IPC [Paras 23-29].

Decision: Criminal Revision Application allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 306 and 498A IPC quashed – Applicant acquitted and fine to be refunded – Bail bonds canceled and surety discharged [Paras 31].

Criminal Law – Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – The appellant was convicted for the murder of his neighbor following an altercation over a disputed will – The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence and a dying declaration made by the deceased – The trial court convicted the appellant, despite acquitting the co-accused on the same evidence – Held: The conviction was overturned on appeal due to contradictions in the testimonies of key witnesses, inconsistencies between the dying declaration and initial medical history provided by the deceased, and lack of independent corroboration – The court ruled that the dying declaration could not be relied upon exclusively to convict the appellant, especially in light of conflicting evidence [Paras 30-55].

Dying Declaration – Reliability and Contradictions – The deceased initially told doctors that his injuries were accidental, caused by a fall, but later implicated the appellant in a dying declaration – The court emphasized that a dying declaration, if contradictory or delayed, requires corroboration – Here, the medical evidence did not support the prosecution’s case, and the dying declaration was deemed unreliable [Paras 40-45].

Inconsistent Testimonies – Eyewitness Reliability – The prosecution’s key witnesses were family members of the deceased, and their accounts contained material contradictions, particularly concerning the sequence of events and the timing of the complaint – The court held that their testimony lacked credibility due to inconsistencies and their status as interested witnesses [Paras 50-60].

Decision: The appeal was allowed – The conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges – The court emphasized that when evidence is circumstantial and inconsistent, the benefit of the doubt must be given to the accused.

Consumer Law – Award of Interest – Execution of Forum's Order – The respondent was awarded 15% interest on the deposited amount by the Consumer Forum, with a recovery certificate issued for further interest on the interest amount – Held: Interest is payable only on the principal sum adjudged, not on the interest component, as per Section 34 of the CPC and Section 3(3) of The Interest Act, 1978 – The Forum's order awarding interest on interest was set aside as illegal [Paras 17-23]​.

Judicial Review – Interest on Principal vs. Interest on Interest – The Court clarified that interest on interest cannot be awarded unless expressly provided by statute or contractual terms – Reiterated that courts ordinarily award interest only on the principal sum – The impugned orders were quashed, and the petition was allowed [Paras 23-24]​.

Decision – Writ petition allowed – Impugned orders of 01/01/2020 and 15/03/2021 set aside – No order as to costs [Para 24]​.