Writ Law - Real Estate Regulation - Orissa Real Estate Regulation and Development Act 2017 - Sections 3, 4, 5, 43 and 44 - Petitioner company developed a housing project and applied for registration before the Odisha Real Estate Regulatory Authority - Authority kept the application pending for deficiencies and ultimately rejected it after more than three years - Petitioner contended deemed registration under Section 5(2) and challenged rejection - Authority argued non-maintainability due to alternative remedy and inapplicability of deemed registration to deficient applications - High Court held writ petition maintainable despite alternative remedy as case involved a question of law regarding statutory interpretation - Held - incomplete or deficient applications cannot claim the benefit of deemed registration under Section 5(2) - however keeping the application pending beyond the mandatory thirty-day period and rejecting it arbitrarily while approval remained pending before the District Urban Development Agency was unjustified - writ petition disposed of with directions - [Paras 1-20].

Statutory Interpretation - Mandatory Time Limit - Orissa Real Estate Regulation and Development Act 2017 - Section 5 - Authority failed to decide registration application within the thirty-day statutory period and kept it pending for years - Held - the provision is mandatory and the authority cannot suo motu extend the time stipulated in the statute - [Paras 15-17].

Administrative Law - Deemed Registration - Orissa Real Estate Regulation and Development Act 2017 - Section 5(2) - Petitioner argued automatic registration due to lack of decision within thirty days - Held - deeming provision applies only to a valid and complete application and not to a defective application containing deficiencies - [Paras 14-16].

Decision: Writ petition disposed of – Direction issued to the District Urban Development Agency to take a decision on the petitioner's application within seven days – Petitioner granted liberty to apply afresh before the Odisha Real Estate Regulatory Authority upon grant of approval.

Civil Law - Execution Proceedings - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order I Rule 10, Order XXII Rule 10A, Order XXI Rule 16 and Section 146 - Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 - Judgment debtors challenged multiple orders of the Executing Court dismissing delay condonation petitions for setting aside ex parte orders and allowing transferrees to come on record as decree holders based on registered transfer deeds - High Court held that transferees are entitled to subrogate recovery rights under Order XXI Rule 16 CPC without requiring express permission - service of notice was sufficient by way of paper publication due to evasion - judgment debtors successfully delayed execution for 24 years - revision petitions dismissed - [Paras 1-21].

Civil Law - Execution - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order XXI Rule 16 - Transferee of decree - Right to execute - Transferee of decree is entitled to get the decree executed and for such execution no express permission from the execution court is required - notice to transferor and judgment debtor is required for raising objections - Held - Executing Court rightly permitted transferees to come on record - [Paras 11-18].

Civil Law - Limitation - Limitation Act 1963 - Section 5 - Condonation of delay - Petitioners sought condonation of delay ranging from 113 to 179 days to set aside ex parte orders - Executing Court found no sufficient cause shown and noted intentional evasion of notice through substituted service - Held - in the absence of sufficient cause and clear avoidance of proceedings, dismissal of delay petitions was proper - [Paras 16-18].

Decision: Civil revision petitions dismissed – Executing Court directed to complete the execution proceedings expeditiously pursuant to Apex Court directions and administrative circular instructions – Miscellaneous pending petitions closed.

Civil Law - Partition - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 100 - Plaintiff filed suit for partition and separate possession claiming 1/4th share in ancestral properties alleging father Munishamappa was of unsound mind and defendant No.6 managed affairs - Defendants contended properties were sold by father during his lifetime in 1969, 1972, and 1974 to various purchasers and no properties were available for partition - Trial Court dismissed the suit holding properties were not proved to be ancestral and alienations by father were valid - First Appellate Court reversed the Trial Court and decreed the suit - High Court on second appeal held that First Appellate Court erred in reversing the well-reasoned judgment of the Trial Court without meeting its reasoning and failed to frame proper points under Order XLI Rule 31 CPC - Held - alienations made by the father prior to 2004 are saved under the proviso to the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act 2005 and plaintiff failed to establish properties were ancestral - appeal allowed - Trial Court judgment restored - [Paras 1-29].

Civil Law - Appellate Procedure - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order XLI Rule 31 - Framing of points for determination - First Appellate Court framed a generic point whether the Trial Court judgment was capricious and perverse instead of addressing individual issues - Held - First Appellate Court vitiated its judgment by failing to independently assess questions of fact and law and reversing findings without addressing reasoning given by Trial Court - [Paras 24-28].

Civil Law - Coparcenary Property - Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act 2005 - Section 6(5) - Alienation prior to amendment - Father alienated properties during his lifetime in 1969 1972 and 1974 - Plaintiff challenged alienations claiming lack of legal necessity and absence of consideration - Held - daughter cannot question alienations made by father prior to the 2004 Amendment Act when she was not a coparcener and such lawful alienations are expressly saved by the statutory provisions - [Paras 26-27].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court set aside – Judgment and decree of the Trial Court dismissing the suit for partition and separate possession restored.

Criminal Law - Bail and Organized Crime - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 - Sections 109(1), 111(1), 115(2) and 3(5) - Applicant sought regular bail in a case involving firearm injury where co-accused allegedly fired a shot - First bail application was dismissed as withdrawn - Subsequent to withdrawal the primary complainant was examined as PW-1 and turned hostile not supporting the prosecution case - Co-accused already enlarged on bail - Section 111 BNS invoked mechanically by the Superintendent of Police based solely on past criminal antecedents without establishing continuing unlawful activity or an organized crime syndicate - Held - mere criminal antecedents do not attract Section 111 BNS without satisfying statutory ingredients of organized crime - addition of Section 111 BNS wholly unwarranted - applicant in custody since 15 12 2025 and trial likely to take considerable time - bail granted - [Paras 1-23].

Criminal Law - Organized Crime and Continuing Unlawful Activity - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 - Section 111 - Statutory interpretation - Scope of organized crime syndicate and continuing unlawful activity pari materia with MCOCA and GCTOCA - Prosecution must prima facie establish that an activity prohibited by law punishable with three years or more imprisonment has been undertaken as a member of a syndicate with more than one charge-sheet filed in preceding ten years and cognizance taken by competent court - Held - mechanical invocation of Section 111 based on office orders and isolated criminal antecedents without fulfilling foundational elements is illegal - [Paras 6-19].

Decision: Application allowed – Applicant Tanmay directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs 50 000 with one solvent surety subject to conditions under Section 480(3) BNSS.

Civil Law - Landlord and Tenant - Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007 - Section 22 - Tenant eviction - Petitioner-tenant challenged ex-parte order passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate directing vacation of premises under Senior Citizens Act - Opposite party-landlord filed application alleging mental disturbances and seeking eviction under Section 22 - High Court held that Senior Citizens Act is welfare legislation meant for maintenance by children and relatives and cannot be invoked in landlord-tenant disputes - Held - Sub-Divisional Magistrate acted wholly without jurisdiction in directing eviction of tenant - impugned order quashed and set aside - [Paras 1-24].

Civil Law - Jurisdiction - Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007 - Section 22 - Scope of Act - Relationship between parties admitted as landlord and tenant - Tenant does not fall within category of children or relatives obligated to maintain senior citizens - Appropriate remedy for tenant eviction lies before competent civil court under West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1997 - Held - Sub-Divisional Magistrate lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate title or order eviction against tenant - [Paras 10-17].

Civil Law - Natural Justice - Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007 - Section 22 - Ex-parte order - Foundational application never served upon petitioner and impugned ex-parte order passed without affording opportunity of hearing - Held - order passed in violation of principles of natural justice and in excess of jurisdiction - [Paras 7-18].

Decision: Revisional application allowed - Impugned order dated 25.06.2026 passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate Siliguri in Misc petition case No. 22 of 2025 quashed and set aside - Respondent granted liberty to avail appropriate legal remedy for eviction before competent civil court under West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1997 - [Paras 19-21].

Criminal Law - Murder - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 148, 149 and 302 - Appellants convicted by Trial Court for the murder of two deceased whose bodies were found in a wheat field - Trial Court relied on last-seen witnesses and recovery of weapons - High Court found that the initial FIR was lodged against unknown persons and prosecution witnesses only disclosed information after bodies were identified - Last-seen witnesses were found to be planted and their conduct highly suspicious - Recovery of weapons under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was vitiated due to absence of proper disclosure statements and failure to establish blood group matching - Chain of circumstantial evidence was incomplete - Held - Trial Court judgment was perverse and unsustainable - appeal allowed and conviction set aside - [Paras 1-40].

Evidence Law - Last seen together - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 3 - Credibility of last-seen evidence - Witnesses claiming to have seen the deceased in the company of the accused prior to the incident did not disclose the same to family members or police until bodies were discovered - Held - such shaky and suspicious testimony cannot form the sole basis of conviction without corroborative evidence - [Paras 19-28].

Evidence Law - Discovery and Recovery - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 27 - Recovery of weapon - Police recovering Gadasa and Takora on joint pointing out without recording separate admissible disclosure statements of the accused and FSL report failing to ascertain if human blood belonged to the deceased - Held - recovery is doubtful and cannot incriminate the accused - [Paras 29-31].

Criminal Law - Circumstantial evidence - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 3 - Chain of circumstances - Five golden principles laid down in Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda - Circumstances must be fully established and conclusively point to the guilt of the accused - Held - prosecution miserably failed to complete the chain of circumstances - [Paras 32-37].

Decision: Appeal allowed - Judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 19.07.2000 set aside - Appellants acquitted of all charges - Personal bonds cancelled and sureties discharged.

Criminal Law - Bail - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 - Sections 80(2) and 85 - Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 - Sections 3 and 4 - Applicant sought bail for offences under Sections 85 and 80(2) BNS and Sections 3 and 4 Dowry Prohibition Act - Deceased consumed poisonous substance and died - FIR lodged after three-month delay upon receipt of viscera report without explanation - Investigation revealed call detail records did not support the allegation of dowry harassment calls made by the deceased - Audio video recording of witnesses under Section 180 BNSS showed police recording included leading and inculpatory suggestions - Held - unexplained delay in lodging FIR and lack of corroborative evidence on dowry demand entitled applicant to bail - bail application allowed - [Paras 1-4].

Criminal Law - Investigation procedure - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 180 - Recording of witness statements - Police officers recording statements under Section 180 BNSS must not suggest inculpatory questions or draft versions on behalf of witnesses - Statements must reflect the exact version stated by the witness in their own language - Held - Director General of Police Lucknow directed to issue necessary circulars to all police officers to ensure strict compliance - [Paras 5-8].

Decision: Bail application allowed – Applicant directed to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions – Director General of Police directed to issue circulars regarding recording of statements under Section 180 BNSS – Matter kept pending separately for resolving technical glitches between MedLEapr and CCTNS.

Writ Law - Provisional Attachment - Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 - Sections 5, 6 and 8 - Petitioners challenged Adjudicating Authority order dated 03.12.2024 confirming provisional attachment of properties in connection with Karuvannoor Service Co-operative Bank scam - Contended that single financial member coram was unconstitutional and properties acquired prior to predicate offence were immune - High Court held that single-member non-judicial benches of Adjudicating Authority are legally competent and properties acquired prior to scheduled offence can be attached if linked to proceeds of crime - Held - writ petitions devoid of merit - petitions dismissed - [Paras 1-29].

Criminal Law - Constitutionality of Adjudicator - Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 - Section 6 - Single member coram - Financial member adjudicating without judicial member - Validity - Challenge against Section 6(5)(b) of PMLA as violative of separation of powers - Held - Adjudicating Authority is an internal review mechanism and not a court exercising core judicial functions previously held by High Courts - Single-member benches comprising administrative or financial members are legally valid - [Paras 7-14].

Criminal Law - Proceeds of crime - Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 - Section 2 - Pre-acquisition of property - Properties acquired years prior to alleged appropriation of proceeds of crime - Attachment - Validity - Supreme Court precedent in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India applied - Held - properties derived or obtained directly or indirectly as a result of criminal activity relating to scheduled offence constitute proceeds of crime regardless of acquisition timeline - [Paras 17-18].

Criminal Law - Reasons to believe - Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 - Sections 5 and 8 - Independent assessment - Deputy Director and Adjudicating Authority recording reasons to believe regarding frustration of proceedings and possession of proceeds of crime - Held - subjective satisfaction adequately recorded and supported by statutory compliance - [Paras 15-16].

Decision: Writ petitions dismissed – Impugned orders of attachment and adjudication affirmed – Observations made are for the limited purpose of writ jurisdiction and shall not fetter statutory appellate remedies.

Civil Law - Transfer of matrimonial proceedings - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 24 - Hindu Marriage Act 1955 - Section 9 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 144 - Applicant-wife sought transfer of Section 9 restitution proceedings from Aligarh to Gautam Budh Nagar citing residence for minor daughter's education and pendency of maintenance petition at Gautam Budh Nagar - Opposite party opposed stating parental homes of parties are in Aligarh and transfer sought to delay proceedings - Single Judge held that discretionary power under Section 24 CPC must be exercised sparingly and with circumspection - minor daughter's schooling and pendency of maintenance proceedings are relevant factors but do not automatically mandate transfer in absence of genuine hardship or failure of justice - plaintiff being dominus litis is entitled to choose competent forum - Held - applicant failed to establish compelling inconvenience - transfer application dismissed - [Paras 1-18].

Civil Law - Discretionary jurisdiction - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 24 - Principles governing transfer - Burden of proof lies on applicant to establish genuine hardship - Convenience of wife and minor child welfare are relevant but not inflexible rules - Multiplicity of litigation and pendency of other proceedings are not determinative without demonstrable prejudice - Held - refusal of transfer will not occasion failure of justice - [Paras 11-16].

Decision: Transfer application dismissed – Interim order vacated – Principal Judge Family Court Aligarh directed to proceed with the matter expeditiously.