Civil Law - Contempt of Court - Contempt of Courts Act 1971 - Section 12 - Willful disobedience - Allegation of violating interim stay - High Court in CRLREV No. 736 of 2024 directed that no coercive action be taken pursuant to an SDM order till the disposal of the revision by the Sessions Judge - Petitioners alleged that despite serving a notarized affidavit regarding the stay the authorities demolished their boundary wall and assaulted family members - Opposite Parties contended that no such court order was ever served and the petitioner only showed a Xerox copy of an affidavit via WhatsApp but failed to produce the original order or affidavit despite the authorities waiting for four hours at the spot - Record showed that a criminal case was registered against the petitioners for assaulting police officers and obstructing the execution of the order - The Additional Sessions Judge while dismissing the revision also observed that petitioners failed to prove that the High Court stay order was brought to the notice of the authorities - Court found the assertions of the state officials regarding lack of notice went unchallenged - Held - Petitioners failed to establish willful violation of the orders passed by the Court - Exercise of jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act not warranted - Petition rejected - [Paras 1-8].

Civil Law - Knowledge of Judicial Order - Contempt of Courts Act 1971 - Section 12 - Proof of service - Ratio Decidendi - For an act to constitute willful disobedience under contempt jurisdiction it is imperative to establish that the contemnor had knowledge of the court order - Communication of a stay order through a mere Xerox copy of a notarized affidavit via WhatsApp without production of the actual judicial order does not constitute sufficient notice to stay execution by public authorities - Where authorities acted in the absence of a certified copy of the order and after providing reasonable time to the party to produce the same their actions cannot be termed as willful violation - Held - Since the petitioners were unable to fortify their submission regarding the service of the order the contempt proceeding cannot be sustained - [Paras 6-8].

Decision: Contempt petition stands rejected – No merit found.

Writ Law - Habeas Corpus - Constitution of India - Article 21 - Illegal Detention - Personal Liberty - Violation of Fundamental Rights - Accountability of Public Functionaries - Petitioner husband Shri Ghamandnath was sentenced to three months civil imprisonment by Naib Tehsildar Deh on 05.03.2026 under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act 1956 for alleged encroachment - Sentence was suspended by the Additional Divisional Commissioner Ajmer vide order dated 15.04.2026 during pendency of appeal - Despite the suspension order and repeated personal representations by the petitioner wife with a certified copy of the order the respondent No. 4 Tehsildar failed to release the detenue - Detenue was a person living with HIV requiring continuous medical care and the petitioner wife was a cancer patient - Detenue remained in illegal confinement for 53 days until released on 08.06.2026 following the High Court interim order - Respondent No. 4 admitted knowledge of the suspension order from 01.06.2026 but took no steps to release the detenue for another seven days - Court observed that while initial detention was lawful the transition to unlawful confinement occurred the moment the suspension order ought to have been acted upon - Held - Continued detention in the face of a subsisting judicial order constitutes a gross violation of Article 21 and an assault on the rule of law - Conduct of respondent No. 4 described as wilful and contumacious defiance of a superior authority - Compensation of Rs. 2,00,000 awarded to be paid personally by the erring Tehsildar - [Paras 1-51].

Writ Law - Public Law Remedy - Compensation - Constitution of India - Article 21 - Violation of Personal Liberty - Measure of Relief - Award of compensation for violation of fundamental rights is a constitutional mandate and not an act of charity - Mere declaration of detention as illegal is insufficient to alleviate the actual injury suffered by the victim - Court relied on precedents like Rudul Shah and Nilabati Behera to establish the principle of compensatory public law remedy - Held - Compensation serves as a tangible acknowledgment of the grave wrong and a means of restorative justice - Rs. 2,00,000 determined as appropriate compensation considering the 53-day duration of illegal detention and the medical vulnerability of the detenue - [Paras 38-45].

Writ Law - Accountability and Deterrence - Personal Liability of Officers - Rule of Law - Executive Impunity - Court emphasized the principle that judicial orders must be obeyed and implemented without reservation - Liability for unlawful actions leading to violation of Article 21 is personal in nature - Held - Erring official directed to pay compensation from his own income or property without reimbursement from the State - Additional Chief Secretary Revenue directed to initiate a time-bound departmental inquiry - Respondent No. 4 relieved of field posting and attached to headquarters pending inquiry to ensure fairness and prevent interference with revenue records - [Paras 46-51].

Decision: Petition disposed of – Continued detention after 01.06.2026 declared illegal and unconstitutional – Respondent No. 4 Tehsildar directed to personally pay Rs. 2,00,000 as compensation to the detenue within 45 days – Departmental inquiry ordered against erring official – Respondent No. 4 forthwith relieved of field posting.

Civil Law - Specific Performance - Specific Relief Act 1963 - Section 16 - Agreement for sale of agricultural land measuring 35 guntas - Plaintiff entered into agreement with Defendant 1 and his mother for Rs 122500 - Paid initial earnest money and subsequent installments via endorsements on the agreement - Defendants denied the agreement claiming signatures were taken on blank papers as security for water supply charges - Trial Court decreed the suit - First Appellate Court reversed the decree ordering only a refund of Rs 77500 citing lack of proof of a specific payment of Rs 45000 and existence of a prior agreement with Defendant 3 - High Court found that the First Appellate Court ignored the admission of multiple signatures and endorsements by the vendors - High Court held that the subsequent sale deed in favor of Defendant 3 was a sham and collusive document created to defeat the plaintiff's rights after katha was transferred - Held - High Court set aside the First Appellate Court judgment and restored the decree for specific performance - [Paras 1-60].

Evidence Law - Admission of Signatures - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 17 - Defendant 1 admitted signatures on the sale agreement and multiple endorsements for receiving additional payments - High Court held that once the signatures on the document are admitted and the document contains specific recitals of a sale agreement the burden shifts to the defendants to prove that the document was created or signatures were obtained on blank papers - Held - Defense of blank paper signatures was found unsubstantiated and inconsistent with the voluminous signatures admitted - [Paras 33-40].

Civil Law - Specific Performance - Specific Relief Act 1963 - Section 16(c) - Readiness and willingness - Payment of Rs 45000 was made through a cheque belonging to the plaintiff to clear a prior debt of the vendors to one Dayananda Reddy - Lower Courts rejected this as a payment made by the vendors - High Court held that since the cheque belonged to the plaintiff and was handed over in his presence with the consent of the vendors it constitutes a valid part of the sale consideration - Held - Finding of the lower courts on this issue was perverse and the plaintiff established readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract - [Paras 42-46].

Evidence Law - Adverse Inference - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 114 - Failure of party to testify - Defendant 2 filed a written statement denying the agreement but did not enter the witness box or subject herself to cross-examination - High Court held that the lower courts were not justified in eschewing the conduct of the second defendant - Held - Adverse inference must be drawn against the conduct of a party who fails to subject themselves to cross-examination regarding their pleadings - [Paras 30-33 and 56].

Civil Law - Second Appeal - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 100 - Scope of interference - Respondents contended that High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact - High Court held that when findings of the lower courts are perverse or not based on documentary and oral evidence on record or when material evidence is ignored the High Court can exercise powers under Section 100 CPC - Held - Findings of the First Appellate Court were perverse and contrary to the material on record - [Paras 47-53].

Decision: Second appeals allowed – Judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court in R.A. No. 199/2008 and R.A. No. 188/2008 set aside – Suit for specific performance based on Ex.P1 decreed – Defendants 1 and 2 directed to execute the sale deed in favor of the plaintiff.

Writ Law - Fraud and Fabrication of Records - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Fabrication of land grant orders and revenue receipts - Private respondents claimed grant of 3 acres each in 1982 based on a proposal for reduction of gomal land - Single Judge allowed writ petition setting aside subsequent allotment to Appellant Mutt - Division Bench found that original writ prayer sought mandamus to conclude proceedings which presupposed no concluded grant existed - Subsequently produced grant orders and receipts were found suspicious as they were never part of official records - FSL report confirmed documents from different offices were typed on the same typewriter - Signatures of officials were found to be missing or mismatched - Held - Fraud and justice never dwell together - The conduct of the petitioners in engineering records and defrauding the Court disentitles them from seeking any relief in equity - Impugned order of Single Judge set aside - Writ petition dismissed - [Paras 1-54].

Writ Law - Scope of Jurisdiction - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Disputed Questions of Fact - Adjudication of title - Writ court set aside statutory land grant in favour of Mutt by relying on photocopies of alleged 1982 grants produced mid-proceedings - State and Mutt contended documents were fabricated - Division Bench held that extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 is not meant for adjudication of complex and disputed questions of fact especially when the authenticity of title documents is in serious doubt - Writ court failed to consider the State's evidence regarding the non-existence of such grants in official registers - Held - Court cannot declare private rights of parties where the foundation of such rights is based on deliberate deception and fabrication - [Paras 20-22, 33-44].

Evidence Law - Expert Opinion - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 45 - FSL Report - Value of forensic findings in writ proceedings - State produced FSL report showing that multiple documents purportedly issued by different departments at different times were typed on a single typewriter - Single Judge discounted the report as the age of the ink could not be scientifically determined - Division Bench held that the similarity in fonts and character alignment across different departmental documents was a conclusive indicator of fabrication - Held - Cumulative facts including lack of possession and absence of original records established that the claim was an afterthought engineered to engulf State property - [Paras 39-44, 47-52].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Order dated 15.07.2025 passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 30695/2018 is set aside – Writ Petition filed by the private respondents is dismissed – Order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 897/2011 is upheld.

Criminal Law - Murder - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 34 and 302 - Arms Act 1959 - Sections 25(1-B)(a) and 27 - Appellants challenged judgment of conviction for the murder of victim Prasanta by shooting and slitting his throat - Prosecution relied on testimony of four eyewitnesses who were also co-accused in another murder case - Trial Court convicted six persons for murder and firearms offences - High Court found that PW 1-4 provided consistent accounts of Appellant 1 firing a pipe gun and Appellant 6 using a sharp weapon - Evidence against Appellants 2 3 and 5 was limited to mere presence and encircling without specific overt acts or proof of common intention - Held - Conviction of Appellants 1 and 6 upheld while Appellants 2 3 and 5 are acquitted due to lack of evidence beyond reasonable doubt - [Paras 1-79].

Evidence Law - Witness Credibility - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Sections 146 153 and 155 - Impeachment of witness - Appellants argued that prosecution witnesses had criminal antecedents and political rivalry - Held - Character of a witness is not a principal issue in a criminal trial - Credibility is not assessed by a straitjacket formula based on pending criminal cases - Since witnesses admitted to pending cases during cross-examination their credit was not shaken by any denial of character - Objective criteria rather than past records determine reliability - [Paras 34-42].

Evidence Law - Interested and Related Witness - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 3 - Reliability - Victim's son PW 1 was primary eyewitness - Defence claimed witnesses were interested parties with motive to implicate - Held - Testimony of interested witnesses cannot be automatically discarded - Related witnesses are unlikely to screen real culprits and falsely implicate innocent persons - Evidence of such witnesses requires careful scrutiny but can be relied upon without corroboration if it bears a ring of truth - [Paras 43-46].

Criminal Law - Ballistic Evidence - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 45 - Non-recovery of bullets - Absence of ballistic report - Defence contended that the failure to link the pipe gun to the injury was fatal - Held - Non-recovery of the weapon or bullets is not fatal when direct eyewitness account is credible - Medical evidence established death by gunshot and sharp cutting injuries consistent with the recovered weapons - Requirement of ballistic report is not an inflexible rule - [Paras 62-64].

Evidence Law - Discovery of Fact - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 27 - Recovery of weapons - Pipe gun and Da recovered from a manure pit based on disclosure statements made by Appellants 1 and 6 - Held - Disclosure of the concealment place and the subsequent recovery links the appellants to the murder weapons - Mental awareness of the location of concealed weapons serves as a strong incriminating circumstance corroborating eyewitness testimony - [Paras 71-73].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction and sentence of Mongala Sardar (Appellant 1) and Bapan Sardar (Appellant 6) affirmed – Order of conviction for Appellants 2 3 and 5 set aside – Appeal abated regarding Karna Ghosh – Acquitted appellants directed to execute bond under Section 437A CrPC.

Criminal Law - Pre-arrest Bail - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 482 - Accused No 1 an accountant at Malappuram District Cricket Association was deputed to verify accounts at Kerala Cricket Association Thiruvananthapuram - Allegation that he stole data from the computer and forwarded it to Accused No 2 a member of the Association - Accused No 2 further shared the data with two other office bearers - Prosecution alleged offences of cheating and fraud - Petitioners argued false implication and lack of evidence - Court observed that the data was admittedly not shared with any third party but only within office bearers - Investigating officer already seized the laptop and pen drive used for the alleged act and forwarded them for scientific examination - No criminal antecedents found against the applicants - Held - Custodial interrogation is unnecessary and pre-arrest bail is granted subject to conditions including execution of bond and cooperation with the investigation - [Paras 1-8].

Criminal Law - Information Technology Law - Information Technology (Amendment) Act 2008 - Sections 43, 66, 66B, 72 and 77B - Bailable Offences - Maximum punishment for offences charged under the IT Act is three years - Section 77B provides that any offence punishable with imprisonment of three years is bailable - Court noted the absence of allegations regarding dishonest mens rea in the First Information Statement - Held - Considering the nature of the offences and progress of recovery the case is fit for grant of pre-arrest bail - [Paras 7-8].

Decision: Applications allowed – Pre-arrest bail granted to both applicants – Directions issued for executing bond of Rs 1,00,000 each with two solvent sureties and appearance before the investigating officer every Saturday.

Civil Law - Breach of Contract - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 96 - Appeal against money decree for balance price of machinery - Appellant purchaser issued purchase order Ex.A.3 for manufacturing a 1100-ton Hydraulic Valve Testing Press - Agreement included 30 percent advance and 60 percent payment after inspection - Supplier manufactured machinery and purchaser’s engineer conducted trial runs finding performance satisfactory as per minutes recorded in Ex.B.7 and Ex.B.8 - Purchaser subsequently refused to pay 60 percent balance cost along with statutory duties claiming they never agreed to taxes and citing delay in delivery - Trial Court rejected purchaser's suit for refund of advance and decreed supplier's suit for balance amount with interest - High Court found that the Purchase Order clearly stipulated excise duty at 16.32 percent and sales tax at 3 percent - Evidence showed the purchaser waived the requirement for a bank guarantee to initiate manufacturing - Held - Purchaser is liable for the balance amount including statutory taxes as per the specific terms of the contract - Trial Court judgment confirmed - [Paras 1-25].

Evidence Law - Doctrine of Estoppel - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 96 - Conduct of parties - Purchaser’s representative inspected the manufactured machinery and conducted load tests - Satisfactory trial run reports were issued and recorded in meeting minutes - Purchaser later attempted to cancel the order and claim refund of advance alleging manufacturing delay - Held - Purchaser actively shown interest in purchasing and participated in trial runs - Having expressed satisfaction through authorised technicians the purchaser is estopped from withdrawing the promise of taking delivery or denying the contract - [Paras 20-21].

Civil Law - Sale of Goods - Sale of Goods Act 1930 - Section 2 - Liability for Statutory Duties - Unilateral alteration of terms - Appellant contended that the supplier unilaterally added taxes to the price - High Court perused Ex.A.3 and found that the rate of machine was fixed exclusive of excise duty and sales tax which were recorded separately - P.W.1 admitted that taxes were to be borne by the purchaser - Held - The moment delivery is made the application of taxes and duties is legally unavoidable - Delivery without collection of statutory dues is unlawful - Purchaser cannot deny such payment on the ground of manufacturing delay when the contract explicitly provided for such duties - [Paras 22-24].

Civil Law - Res Judicata - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 11 - Maintainability of appeal after joint trial - Two suits O.S.No.696 of 2011 and O.S.No.182 of 2009 were tried together and a common judgment was passed - Appellant challenged only one decree - High Court examined whether the appeal was maintainable in view of Section 11 CPC - Held - Since the court found no merit in the appellant's claim the judgment and decree of the Trial Court is confirmed on merits - [Paras 13 and 24].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 23.06.2017 in O.S.No.696 of 2011 confirmed – Connected miscellaneous petitions closed – No order as to costs.

Civil Law - Ad-interim Injunction - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order XXXIX Rules 1, 2, 3 and 3A - Procedural Irregularity - Petitioner filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction regarding residential house plots - Filed an application for ad-interim injunction alleging attempts by respondent to dispossess the petitioner - Trial Court passed a docket order directing issue of urgent notice on payment of process but adjourned the matter from 01.05.2026 to 03.07.2026 - High Court observed that the object of ad-interim injunction is the preservation of property till adjudication - Adjourning such applications beyond a reasonable time defeats the very purpose of the relief and leads to public loss of confidence in the judiciary - Relying on Nama Ramprasad vs Kristam Reddy Raju the court reiterated that once urgent notice is ordered the court shall not adjourn the I.A. beyond fifteen days - Held - The docket order suffers from illegality and irregularity warranting interference under Article 227 - Trial Court directed to advance the hearing suo moto - [Paras 1-17, 24-30].

Civil Law - Process Fee and Urgent Notice - Process Fee Rules 1965 - Rules 3 and 4 - Legislative Intent - High Court examined the relevant provisions of the Process Fee Rules 1965 - Rule 3(3) mandates payment of one and a half times the normal fee for emergent service - Administrative practice involves marking such process covers with a Red mark to ensure priority by the Nazarath department - Held - Directing a litigant to pay higher emergent fees while simultaneously adjourning the matter for a long duration is contradictory and legally impermissible - Reasonable shortest date for such applications should be 10 to 15 days or even 7 days depending on facts - [Paras 18-23, 25].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition disposed of - Trial Court directed to advance the hearing of I.A. No. 294 of 2026 in O.S. No. 29 of 2026 suo moto by putting parties on notice and to adhere to guidelines in Nama Ramprasad case - Registrar Judicial directed to circulate the order to all District Heads and the Judicial Academy.

Civil Law - Recovery of Dues - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 96 and Order II Rule 3 - Procurement of medicines - Plaintiff-pharmaceutical company supplied drugs to defendant-nodal agency under multiple tender agreements from 1994 to 1998 - Suit filed for recovery of unpaid invoices - refund of Security Deposit and Earnest Money Deposit - value of returned medicines - and reprocessing charges - Defendant raised preliminary objections on misjoinder and limitation - Trial Court decreed suit in part for Rs.11,80,330/- - High Court re-examined evidence on misjoinder and held that clubbing claims from different tender periods was valid as transactions were interconnected and part of a continuing commercial relationship between the same parties - Regarding limitation High Court held that right to refund of deposits arose only after expiry of tender period in 1998 making 1999 suit timely - Appellate Court set aside Trial Court finding on reprocessing charges for lack of proof but upheld recovery for medicines supplied and refund of deposits - Held - A.S.No.481 of 2021 dismissed and A.S.No.386 of 2021 partly allowed - Trial Court decree modified and reduced to Rs.10,14,478/- - [Paras 1-122].

Evidence Law - Burden of Proof - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 101 - Reprocessing charges for returned stock - Plaintiff claimed Rs.1,65,852/- for reprocessing Dopamine injections returned by defendant as overstock - Defendant contended return was due to defective quality failure - Trial Court decreed claim on assumption that medicines could not be resold if truly defective - High Court set aside finding noting that initial burden of proof lay on plaintiff to establish medicines were returned as overstock and not due to quality issues - Plaintiff failed to produce correspondence or stock records to substantiate plea - Held - Claim for reprocessing charges disallowed due to lack of evidence and erroneous shifting of burden upon defendant - [Paras 96-108].

Civil Law - Liquidated Damages - Indian Contract Act 1872 - Sections 73 and 74 - Contractual deductions for delay - Defendant deducted sums from payments towards liquidated damages for delayed supply of medicines - Plaintiff challenged deductions as arbitrary and unreasonable - Evidence showed P.W.1 admitted existence of contractual clause enabling defendant to make deductions in event of delay - High Court held that when specific contractual clause authorizes defendant to deduct amounts for delayed supply and plaintiff acted under said conditions the plaintiff cannot seek reimbursement - Held - Deduction of liquidated damages justified - [Paras 109-110].

Civil Law - Interest in Commercial Transactions - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 34 - Discretionary power of Court - Trial Court awarded 12% per annum interest on principal suit claim - Defendant challenged rate as excessive and unsustainable in absence of interest clause in agreement - High Court observed transaction was commercial in nature attracting proviso to Section 34 CPC - Prolonged withholding of money by defendant caused financial hardship to supplier - Interest rate of 12% found moderate and reasonable compared to statutory rates under MSMED Act - Held - Award of 12% interest per annum confirmed - [Paras 116-121].

Decision: A.S.No.481 of 2021 dismissed – A.S.No.386 of 2021 partly allowed – Decree of Trial Court modified and reduced to Rs.10,14,478/- – Interest confirmed at 12% per annum from date of suit till decree and 6% thereafter until realisation.