Legal Representatives – Right to Adduce Evidence – Legal representatives of the deceased defendant sought permission to adduce evidence at the stage of final hearing – Petitioner opposed, arguing that the original defendant had already led evidence and cross-examined the witnesses – Court held that the legal representatives, having adopted the written statement of the deceased defendant, could not introduce a new or independent defence unless disclosed at the outset – Trial Court's order allowing the application was quashed [Paras 10-28].

Order 22 Rule 4(2) CPC – Scope of Legal Representatives' Rights – The Court clarified that legal representatives are entitled to raise all defences available to the deceased defendant but cannot claim independent rights unless they are impleaded in a separate capacity – The application was allowed without proper consideration of this principle, and the Trial Court's order was set aside [Paras 15-20].

Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the Trial Court's order dated 14/10/2022 was quashed. Legal representatives were given liberty to file a fresh application if a case is made out under Order 22 Rule 4 of the CPC.

Eviction of Son and Daughter-in-law – Senior Citizens Act – Rule 22(3)(1) of the 2009 Rules – Order of Eviction Restored - The petitioner, a senior citizen, filed for eviction of his son and daughter-in-law under Rule 22(3)(1) of the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009. The District Magistrate had allowed the eviction due to ill-treatment and harassment by the respondents. However, the Divisional Commissioner set aside the eviction order. The High Court restored the eviction order, holding that the petitioner, as the lawful owner of the property, had the right to evict the respondents under the Senior Citizens Act [Paras 12-14, 25-28].

Conflict Between Senior Citizens Act and Domestic Violence Act – Harmonious Construction of Rights – Reliance on S. Vanitha Case Misplaced - The respondents, relying on the Domestic Violence Act, contended that the property constituted a shared household, and the daughter-in-law could not be evicted. The Court distinguished the present case from S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, where the eviction was seen as retaliatory. Here, there were no ongoing matrimonial disputes, and the daughter-in-law had no claims against her husband. Therefore, the reliance on S. Vanitha was misplaced, and the petitioner's right under the Senior Citizens Act was upheld [Paras 30-35, 45].

Protection Order Under Domestic Violence Act – No Impediment to Eviction Proceedings - The Court noted that the interim protection order granted under the Domestic Violence Act merely prevented dispossession without due process of law. The initiation of eviction proceedings under the Senior Citizens Act constituted due process, and the protection order had been vacated. Hence, there was no legal barrier to the eviction [Paras 40-42].

Decision – Eviction Order Reinstated – Respondents Directed to Vacate - The High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the Divisional Commissioner’s order and restoring the eviction order passed by the District Magistrate. The respondents were directed to vacate the premises within 30 days [Para 50].

Arbitration – Interim Relief – Emergency Arbitrator’s Order – Section 9 of Arbitration Act – Maintainability Upheld - The petitioners sought interim relief under Section 9, requesting the respondents to provide security in compliance with the Emergency Arbitrator’s order. The respondents challenged the maintainability, arguing that the Emergency Arbitrator’s order should be enforced as a final award under Section 49 of the Arbitration Act. The Court held that the Emergency Arbitrator’s decision, though termed an “award,” was in substance an interim order aimed at securing the claim during arbitration and thus did not require enforcement under Section 49. The petition under Section 9 was maintainable [Paras 31-32].

Exclusion of Part I of the Arbitration Act – Applicability of Section 9 in International Arbitration - The respondents argued that the arbitration agreement, governed by SIAC Rules, excluded the applicability of Part I of the Arbitration Act, including Section 9. The Court rejected this contention, holding that the agreement did not expressly exclude Part I, and the proviso to Section 2(2) of the Arbitration Act allows Section 9 to apply to international commercial arbitrations seated outside India unless specifically excluded. The petitioners were entitled to seek interim relief under Section 9 [Paras 33-36].

Security in Arbitration – Bank Guarantee Directed – Protection of Petitioner’s Claim - The Court upheld the Emergency Arbitrator’s order directing the respondents to furnish a bank guarantee of ₹145 crores as security. The respondents’ objections to the valuation and financial constraints were dismissed, and the Court noted that a bank guarantee was the most appropriate form of security to ensure the petitioner’s claims were protected, especially given the respondents’ past delays and conduct during the arbitration proceedings [Paras 40-45].

Final Decision – Interim Relief Granted - The Court granted interim relief under Section 9, directing the respondents to furnish a bank guarantee for ₹145 crores and restraining them from disposing of or encumbering their assets. The matter was listed for compliance on 22nd October 2024 [Paras 30, 50].

Appeal Against Acquittal – Sections 376/511 IPC – Acquittal Upheld - The State filed a leave petition challenging the acquittal of the respondents in a case of attempted rape under Sections 376/511 IPC. The High Court upheld the acquittal, noting that the prosecutrix had retracted her initial complaint during cross-examination, stating that the complaint was filed due to a rent dispute. The discrepancies between her statements to the police and in court significantly undermined the prosecution’s case [Paras 9-12, 18-19].

Contradictions in Testimony – Unreliable Evidence – No Case for Conviction - The Court observed material contradictions in the prosecutrix’s statements before the Magistrate and the police, specifically regarding the sequence of events and allegations of sexual assault. The inconsistencies, coupled with affidavits from the prosecutrix and her mother admitting that a false complaint was filed, led the Court to conclude that there was no reliable evidence to sustain a conviction [Paras 10-12, 17-19].

Frivolous Litigation – Costs Not Imposed but Advisory Issued to Prosecution - The Court noted that the appeal qualified as a frivolous case, which unnecessarily burdened the judiciary. However, instead of imposing costs, the Court directed the Department of Law & Legislative Affairs to exercise greater vigilance in deciding which cases to pursue, emphasizing the importance of avoiding frivolous appeals that waste judicial resources [Paras 19-21].

Decision – Leave to Appeal Dismissed - The High Court dismissed the leave petition, affirming the trial court’s acquittal of the respondents. The pending applications were also disposed of [Para 22].

Bail – Prolonged Incarceration – Section 436A CrPC – NDPS and Foreigners Act – Bail Granted – The petitioner, a Bangladeshi national, was arrested in April 2019 for possessing Yaba tablets and for entering India without valid documents – The petitioner has been in custody for over five years and five months, exceeding the maximum imprisonment period under the Foreigners Act and more than half of the term for the NDPS offense – Held: Bail granted on stringent conditions considering the prolonged detention, trial delays, and the petitioner’s right to personal liberty [Paras 9-17].

Foreign Nationals – Bail Conditions – Court directed the petitioner, a foreign national, to remain within the jurisdiction of Park Street Police Station and report weekly to the police – The petitioner was also directed to apply for a special temporary visa for the trial period [Paras 17-20].

Decision: The petitioner was granted bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties of the same amount, one of whom must be local. The petitioner must comply with restrictions on movement, report weekly to the police, and attend all court hearings. The petitioner must apply for a special visa, and failure to meet the conditions will result in the cancellation of bail.

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Evidence of Eyewitnesses Corroborated – Appeal Dismissed – The appellant was convicted for the murder of Soman, following a physical altercation where the appellant inflicted fatal stab wounds – The Court upheld the conviction, placing reliance on the consistent testimonies of PWs 1 to 3 (family of the deceased) and corroborative evidence from independent witnesses (PWs 5 and 10) – The medical evidence, including autopsy results, further confirmed that the injuries sustained were consistent with the use of MO4, a knife, linking it to the appellant [Paras 7-30].

Witness Credibility – Relatives as Natural Witnesses – The Court rejected the appellant's contention that the testimonies of PWs 1 to 3 (family of the deceased) were unreliable due to their relationship with the victim – It was held that relatives, being natural witnesses, were credible, especially as their presence at the scene was undisputed [Paras 25-27].

Exception 1 & 4 of Section 300 IPC – Applicability Denied – The appellant claimed the benefit of Exception 1 and 4 to Section 300 IPC, citing sudden provocation and a scuffle – The Court rejected this argument, noting that the appellant armed himself with a knife and returned to the scene after the initial altercation, indicating premeditation and undue advantage – The appellant's actions did not satisfy the conditions for either exception [Paras 29-33].

Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence under Sections 302, 323, 324, and 447 of the IPC were upheld.

Natural Justice – Penalty Imposed Without Consideration of Reply – Non-Speaking Order – The petitioner challenged the penalty imposed for illegal mining, contending that the order was a non-speaking one, passed without considering her detailed reply – Held: A quasi-judicial authority must pass reasoned orders, and failure to do so violates the principles of natural justice – The impugned penalty order was set aside as it lacked reasons and failed to address the petitioner’s defense [Paras 3-6].

Principles of Reasoned Decision-Making – Requirement for Recording Reasons – The court emphasized that recording reasons is indispensable for ensuring transparency, accountability, and fairness in decision-making, as mandated by the Supreme Court in M/s Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. vs. Masood Ahmed Khan [(2010) 9 SCC 496] – Such reasons also facilitate judicial review and ensure that decisions are made on relevant grounds [Paras 7-8].

Decision: Petition allowed – The penalty order was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the respondents to decide afresh after providing the petitioner an opportunity of hearing [Para 9].
 

Termination of Pregnancy – Minor Rape Victim – Right to Personal Liberty – Petition Allowed - The petitioner, a minor girl aged 14, who was a victim of rape, sought termination of her 28-week pregnancy. The Court, recognizing the mental and physical trauma associated with the continuation of the pregnancy, granted permission for termination. The Court held that forcing the petitioner to carry the pregnancy to term would violate her right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution [Paras 7-10, 16].

Medical Termination of Pregnancy – Gestational Limit – Application Beyond 24 Weeks Permissible by Court Order - Although the pregnancy exceeded the 24-week limit set by the MTP Act, the Court relied on the opinions of the Medical Board, which indicated risks to the minor’s mental and physical health if the pregnancy were to continue. The Court exercised its judicial discretion under the MTP Act, considering the health risks and the victim’s young age, to permit the termination [Paras 12-15].

Reproductive Rights – Autonomy and Dignity of Rape Victims – Constitutional Interpretation - Citing precedents from the Supreme Court, the Court reaffirmed the principle that the reproductive autonomy of women, including minors, is an integral part of their right to dignity under Article 21. The decision to terminate the pregnancy was held to be within the minor’s right to self-determination, in line with the broader interpretation of the MTP Act and constitutional principles [Paras 9-11, 18-20].

Final Decision – Petition Allowed – Conditions Imposed for Safe Termination - The Court permitted the termination of the pregnancy under strict medical supervision. It directed the State to ensure that a specialized team of doctors performs the procedure, with all necessary precautions and post-operative care. The State was also instructed to bear the medical expenses and to preserve a sample of the fetus for DNA testing, to aid in the ongoing criminal investigation [Paras 20-23].

Income Tax – Anonymous Donations – Section 115BBC – Applicability to Charitable and Religious Trusts – Appeals Dismissed – The appellant contended that the anonymous donations received by the Shree Sai Baba Sansthan Trust were taxable under Section 115BBC(1) since the trust was registered under Section 80G as a charitable institution – The Court held that the trust qualified for the exception under Section 115BBC(2)(b), which exempts trusts established for both charitable and religious purposes from taxation on anonymous donations – The trust was found to be predominantly both religious and charitable, with expenses on religious activities within the permissible limits under Section 80G(5B) [Paras 15-36].

Interpretation of Section 80G and Section 115BBC – Co-existence of Charitable and Religious Purposes – The Court observed that there is no legal bar for a trust to be both charitable and religious and still benefit from the exclusion under Section 115BBC(2)(b) – Registration under Section 80G does not preclude a trust from claiming exemptions available to religious trusts [Paras 28-30].

Decision:  The appeals were dismissed. The Court upheld the decisions of the CIT(A) and the Tribunal, confirming that the anonymous donations received by the Shree Sai Baba Sansthan Trust were not taxable under Section 115BBC(1).