Criminal Law – Appeal Against Acquittal – Scope of Interference – State challenged acquittal of accused for offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 IPC and Section 187 MV Act – Reiterating settled law, High Court held that interference with acquittal is permissible only if findings are perverse, based on misreading or non-consideration of material evidence, or if only one conclusion of guilt is possible – If two reasonable views are possible, acquittal must be upheld [Paras 12–14].

Motor Vehicle Accident – Rash and Negligent Driving – Contradictory Ocular Evidence – Prosecution relied primarily on testimonies of injured motorcyclist (PW1) and pillion rider (PW2) – Their statements regarding place and manner of accident were inconsistent inter se and contradicted the site plan – Held: Such contradictions materially affect credibility and fail to establish negligence beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 15–17].

Evidence – Site Plan and Mechanical Inspection – Prevailing Over Inconsistent Oral Testimony – PW1 and PW2 claimed accident occurred on unmetalled portion of road – Site plan showed point of impact on metalled portion – PW2 stated motorcycle hit rear of bus, whereas mechanical report showed damage to bus headlight – Held: Documentary and scientific evidence did not support prosecution version [Paras 17–18].

Witness Testimony – Non-Eyewitness – PW6, who took injured to hospital, admitted accident did not occur in his presence – Held: His testimony could not corroborate prosecution case regarding negligence [Para 19].

Presumption of Innocence – Reinforced After Acquittal – Trial Court’s appreciation of evidence found to be reasonable and plausible – High Court declined to substitute its own view merely because an alternative view was possible – Reinforced presumption of innocence after acquittal respected [Paras 20–21].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Judgment of acquittal dated 12.06.2014 affirmed – Accused directed to furnish bonds under Section 437-A CrPC / Section 481 BNSS – Records ordered to be returned – Pending applications disposed of.

Writ Petition – Parole – Delay and Laches – Maintainability – Petitioner sought quashing of order rejecting parole dated 04.09.2024 and direction for release on parole – Petition filed after lapse of more than one year without any explanation – Held: Extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary – A litigant who sleeps over his rights for a considerable period is not entitled to equitable relief – Delay defeats equity – Petition liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches alone [Paras 5–6].

Parole – Rejection Order – Challenge after Inordinate Delay – Petitioner convicted under POCSO Act and undergoing sentence – Application for parole rejected – No justification furnished for approaching the High Court belatedly – Mere assertion of good conduct in jail and length of custody not sufficient to overcome unexplained delay – Writ Court not obliged to revive a stale cause of action [Paras 2, 5–6].

Article 226 – Discretionary Jurisdiction – Equitable Relief – Though no statutory limitation prescribed for filing writ petition, same must be invoked within a reasonable time – High Court may refuse to exercise jurisdiction where negligence or inaction is attributable to the petitioner – Relief rightly declined [Paras 5–6].

Judicial Precedent – Delay Defeats Equity – Supreme Court in Mrinmoy Maity v. Chhanda Koley reiterated that writ courts should not entertain stale claims – Even fundamental rights claims may be declined if approached belatedly without satisfactory explanation – Principles applied to parole matters as well [Paras 5–6].

Decision – Writ petition dismissed – Rejection of parole not interfered with on account of unexplained delay of more than one year – Pending miscellaneous applications also dismissed.

Family Law - Legal Guardianship – Parens Patriae Jurisdiction – Comatose Patient – Petitioner-wife sought appointment as guardian of her husband who has been in vegetative state since February 2025 due to intracranial haemorrhage – Medical Board confirmed 100% disability and vegetative state – SDM's inquiry verified personal, financial, and familial details – Held: In absence of statutory framework under RPWD Act or Mental Healthcare Act, High Court can invoke parens patriae jurisdiction under Article 226 to protect the welfare of a person incapable of decision-making [Paras 1–13, 16–19, 22].

Guardianship – Consent of Legal Heirs – Respondents No. 2 and 3 (children of the petitioner and the comatose person) filed affidavits of no objection and appeared virtually to support petition – SDM report confirmed no conflict of interest or adverse circumstances – Held: Petitioner-wife found suitable and eligible for appointment as guardian [Paras 14–15, 17–18].

Property Management – Court Authorization – Court authorized petitioner to manage all movable and immovable assets of comatose husband, including bank accounts, mutual funds, insurance, and residential properties – Direction issued to use assets towards medical and daily expenses of the patient – Held: Court empowered to issue such directions in absence of legislation, guided by best interest and wishes of incapacitated person [Para 22].

Decision: Petition allowed – Prof. Alka Acharya appointed as legal guardian of Mr. Salam Khan – Authorized to manage all movable and immovable assets of the comatose patient for his care and benefit – Petition disposed of accordingly [Paras 22–23].

Civil Law – Condonation of Delay – Delay of 853 days in filing restoration application under Order IX Rule 9 CPC – Applicant, daughter and power of attorney holder of deceased appellant, failed to respond to repeated notices for bringing LRs on record – Held: No “sufficient cause” shown for prolonged inaction – Medical records produced were sporadic and did not establish incapacity – Ignorance of proceedings not believable in view of her active role in earlier litigation – Application dismissed [Paras 5–14]

Limitation – Restoration of Dismissed Petition – Power of Court – Delay must be justified with reasonable and bona fide cause – Court distinguished between a mere “excuse” and a valid “explanation” – Absence of diligence and sustained inaction for over two years disentitles the applicant to discretionary relief – Reliance placed on Basawaraj v. Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81; Thirunagalingam v. Lingeswaran, SLP (C) No.17575/2023; Sheo Raj Singh v. Union of India, (2023) 10 SCC 531 [Paras 8–11]

Civil Procedure – Power of Attorney Holder – Legal Knowledge Presumed – Applicant acted as POA in trial and first appeal – Acknowledged by deceased appellant to have been responsible for filing Regular Second Appeal – Held: Applicant’s plea of lack of awareness is untenable and contrary to record – Plea rejected [Paras 6–7, 13]

Public Policy – Finality of Litigation – Delay in challenging settled decisions disrupts legal certainty – Court held that parties must not be allowed to reopen concluded issues after inordinate delay – Public interest and judicial discipline require finality in litigation [Paras 14–15]

Decision: Delay of 853 days not condoned – Applicant failed to establish “sufficient cause” for prolonged inaction – Restoration application held to be devoid of merit and dismissed – No grounds made out to recall dismissal of CMP(M) No. 695 of 2020 – Litigation deemed concluded [Para 16]

Senior Citizens Act vs. PWDV Act – Right to Shared Household – Interim Protection – Petitioner-daughter-in-law challenged eviction order passed under Rule 22 of Delhi Rules, 2009 under Senior Citizens Act – Cited S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner where Supreme Court held that rights of women under PWDV Act must be harmoniously construed with Senior Citizens Act – Held: Prima facie case made out that petitioner's rights under PWDV Act not adequately considered by the authorities [Paras 1–2, 4].

Domestic Violence Act – Interim Protection – Petitioner already granted interim protection in DV proceedings on 18.08.2022, restraining respondents from interfering with her possession in shared household – Magistrate had found mutual instigation but declined to oust her – Held: Existing DV order supports prima facie right to reside – Impugned orders fail to consider its impact [Paras 3–4].

Constitutional Law – Harmonious Construction – Both PWDV Act and Senior Citizens Act are special legislations enacted for vulnerable groups – Supreme Court in S. Vanitha (2021) 15 SCC 730 held that residence rights under PWDV Act cannot be nullified by summary eviction under Senior Citizens Act – Held: Both statutes must be read in harmony to uphold justice and social welfare goals [Para 2].

Interim Relief – Possession Protection – Considering the pending appeal and subsisting interim protection, Court directed parties to maintain status quo regarding title and possession of property – Held: Interim protection warranted in interest of justice pending reply from respondents [Paras 5–7].

Decision: Notice issued – Status quo regarding title and possession to be maintained – Matter to be listed on 03/02/2026 for further hearing [Paras 5–8].

Tenancy Law - Landlord-Tenant – Eviction – Bona Fide Requirement – Elderly widow landlady aged 84 years sought eviction of tenants from outhouse premises for accommodating full-time domestic help – Held: Requirement of domestic help is legitimate and included in bona fide need of landlord – Landlord has full discretion over how and with whom to reside – Courts cannot dictate standards of living or preferred residential arrangements [Paras 1–3, 6–10]

Rent Control – Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction – Section 24(5) of HP Urban Rent Control Act – Power of High Court under revision is narrower than appellate power – Cannot reappreciate evidence or reassess findings of fact unless findings are perverse, illegal or based on no evidence – Reliance placed on SC decision in Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh, (2014) 9 SCC 78 – Interference with concurrent findings not warranted where findings are supported by evidence and grounded in law [Paras 4–5, 14]

Bona Fide Requirement – Domestic Help – Validity – Courts across jurisdictions including Delhi and Allahabad High Courts have recognized that accommodation for drivers, servants, maids, etc., can form part of landlord's bona fide need – Where landlord is aged or has lifestyle requiring support staff, need cannot be termed fanciful or excessive [Paras 7–10]

Landlord's Intention to Sell – Allegation by Tenants – Mere attempt to sell property in past or bald statement of witness not sufficient to defeat bona fide requirement – In absence of documentary evidence proving intent to evict for resale, eviction cannot be denied – Supported by SC ruling in Krishna Kumar Rastogi v. Sumitra Devi, 2015 (1) Civil Court Cases 464 (SC) [Paras 12–13]

Landlord’s Autonomy – Standard of Living – Law recognizes landlord’s right to decide how to use property – Bona fide requirement must be judged from landlord’s perspective, not through subjective standards of court – Supported by SC in Pravita Devi v. T.V. Krishnan, 1987 (2) RCR 581 (SC) [Paras 6, 11]

Decision: All three revision petitions dismissed – High Court upheld concurrent findings of Rent Controller and Appellate Authority – Eviction orders sustained – Need for domestic help held to be part of landlord’s bona fide residential requirement – Alleged intention to sell held irrelevant and unsupported by evidence – Pending miscellaneous applications also dismissed [Para 15]

Taxation Law - Goods and Services Tax – Refund – Limitation – Inverted Tax Structure – Right to Refund Preserved – Petitioner engaged in edible oil business filed refund claim on 02.02.2021 for accumulated ITC under inverted tax structure for period July 2017 to March 2019 – Refund rejected as time-barred – Held: For period July 2017 to December 2018, refund claim was within limitation owing to exclusion of period from 01.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 under Notification No. 13/2022 – Refund for January to March 2019 also not time-barred – Rejection solely on limitation grounds not sustainable [Paras 6, 11, 14, 23].

Statutory Interpretation – Retrospective Operation of Law – Vested Rights – Amendment to Section 54(1) CGST Act redefining “relevant date” effective 01.02.2019 held to be prospective – Cannot divest or curtail accrued right to refund under unamended provision – Amendment affects substantive rights and therefore presumed prospective in absence of clear legislative intent to the contrary [Paras 15–22].

Limitation – Application of New Limitation Period – Refund Claims Prior to Amendment – Refund right arising prior to amendment governed by earlier definition of “relevant date” – Two-year limitation from end of financial year applicable – Rejection of refund claims for July 2017 to January 2018 as time-barred held unsustainable since limitation period extended under COVID-19 relaxation – Notification No. 13/2022 applies [Paras 14–16, 20–21].

Refund Rejection – Non-Speaking Order – Lack of Reasoning – Refund for January to March 2019 rejected on ground of ineligible inputs without giving specific reasons – Held: Order cryptic and unsustainable – Matter remanded for reconsideration [Paras 8, 23–24].

Decision: Petition allowed – Impugned order dated 30.09.2022 quashed – Matter remanded to respondent authority for fresh determination in accordance with law.

Civil Law – Injunction – Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC - Co-sharers – Status Quo – Reversed – Plaintiff-petitioner sought injunction to restrain co-sharer defendants from raising construction on joint land – Trial Court granted interim relief of status quo – Appellate Court reversed order, holding no formal partition proved and mere separate possession did not establish exclusive rights – Held: Law does not permit injunction against co-sharer unless construction amounts to ouster, prejudice, or violation of legal rights – No case of prejudice or easement pleaded – Construction alone not a ground for injunction [Paras 5–10].

Co-ownership – Construction by Co-sharer – No Injunction Permissible Absent Prejudice – Appellate Court relied on settled legal position that co-owner cannot be restrained from raising construction over joint property unless act amounts to ouster or demonstrable injury – Held: Plaintiff had also raised construction over joint land and did not plead specific injury, damage, or easement – Mere apprehension of damage or loss of privacy not actionable – Findings of Appellate Court upheld [Paras 7, 9, 10].

Easement – No Right on Joint Land – Plaintiff claimed construction by co-sharer threatened retaining wall and house – No easement pleaded or proved – Held: No right of easement arises on joint property between co-sharers – Claim of damage or privacy violation not maintainable in absence of proven easement – Appellate Court correctly rejected plaintiff’s plea [Paras 26–33].

Civil Procedure – Interim Relief – Equity and Conduct – Plaintiff who constructed on joint land himself cannot seek to restrain co-owner from similar acts – Held: Equitable relief not available to party acting in similar manner and suppressing material facts – Conduct of petitioner disentitles him to injunction – Appellate Court order does not suffer from infirmity [Paras 21–24].

Decision:

Petition dismissed – Order of Appellate Court upheld – Trial Court’s status quo order set aside – Trial Court directed to proceed with the suit uninfluenced by any observations in this judgment – Interim relief vacated [Para 11].

Criminal Law – Bail – Criminal Breach of Trust and Cheating – Distinction Between Offences – Misappropriation of Government Funds – BNS, 2023 – Petitioner, a 63-year-old retired Superintendent from the Forest Department, was arrested for misappropriating ₹19.25 lakhs through unknown accounts – Final charge sheet filed but not yet numbered – Petitioner has been in judicial custody for 110 days – No custodial interrogation sought – Held: As offences under criminal breach of trust and cheating cannot co-exist on the same facts, and in view of Apex Court rulings, bail granted with stringent conditions [Paras 3–7].

Interpretation of Statutes – BNS and BNSS – Scope of Bail under New Criminal Codes – Court applied Sections 480 and 483 of the BNSS, 2023 and Section 316(5) of BNS, 2023 to consider bail – Referred to case law under corresponding IPC provisions to interpret analogous offences – Emphasized the legal incompatibility between entrustment (breach of trust) and inducement (cheating), citing Delhi Race Club and Arshad Neyaz Khan [Paras 4–6].

Judicial Discretion – Bail Granted Based on Length of Custody and Absence of Risk – Bail with Conditions – Petitioner voluntarily surrendered and has fixed residence – No evidence of risk of flight – No request made for custodial interrogation – Court found continued detention unnecessary and granted bail on condition of regular appearance before police and personal bond [Paras 3, 7–8].

Decision: Criminal Petition allowed – Petitioner to be released on bail upon furnishing bond of ₹50,000 with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate, Atmakur – Directed to report before Station House Officer every Saturday from 10:00 am to 5:00 pm until filing of charge sheet [Para 8].