Civil Law - Judgment on Admissions - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order XII Rule 6 - Evasive Denial - Appellant-defendant institution challenged a Trial Court decree which declared the superannuation age of respondents as 65 years based on alleged admissions in the written statement - Trial Court concluded that the reply to paragraphs 23 and 24 of the plaint was evasive and amounted to a deemed admission under Order VIII Rule 5 CPC - High Court observed that the power under Order XII Rule 6 is discretionary and cannot be claimed as a matter of right - Appellant had categorically pleaded in the written statement that the retirement age was 60 years as per amended bye-laws and SRO 339 dated 20.12.2005 - High Court found that the appellant-s explanation regarding certain employees continuing until age 65 due to management-s migration from the Kashmir Valley in 1990 was a matter requiring trial - Held - A decree cannot be passed on the basis of a so-called admission where the defendant has taken a categorical stand elsewhere in the pleadings and where disputed questions of fact require determination through trial - Impugned judgment and decree set aside - [Paras 1-26].

Evidence Law - Deemed Admission - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 58 - Discretion of Court - Relationship between Section 58 and Order XII Rule 6 CPC - High Court reiterated the principle from Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan that notwithstanding admissions in pleadings the court may still require the plaintiff to prove facts by leading evidence - Court must not act blindly or mechanically especially when the plaint itself indicates disputed questions of fact - Held - In cases where two different versions of fact are set out it is unsafe to pass a judgment without requiring the plaintiff to prove the facts to settle the controversy - [Paras 11-16].

Civil Law - Superannuation Age - J&K Private Colleges (Regulation and Control) Rules 2005 - Rule 11 - Interpretation of maximum age - Rule 11(4) provides that no teacher shall continue beyond the age of 65 years - High Court interpreted this as a maximum limit and not a mandatory retirement age for every employee - Held - Clause 8 of the bye-laws and Rule 11 show that an employee may be continued up to 65 but it does not mean an employee is entitled to claim 65 as the age of superannuation in every case - [Paras 18-19].

Decision: Appeal allowed - Judgment and decree dated 29.01.2025 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge Srinagar is set aside - Matter remanded to the Trial Court with directions to proceed further and decide the case in accordance with law - Parties directed to appear before the Trial Court on 13.07.2026.

Civil Law - Waqf Property - Waqf Act 1995 - Sections 4, 5 and 36(4) - Statutory Survey and Notification - Appellant claimed to be hereditary Mutawalli of a 240-year-old Dargah situated on Government Poromboke land leased to Bharat Scouts and Guides - Waqf Board appointed Respondent 5 as Mutawalli and directed registration of the Dargah based on a Trust Deed without conducting a statutory survey as mandated by law - Waqf Tribunal dismissed the appellant’s challenge to the Board’s resolution - High Court observed that a survey under Section 4 and notification under Section 5 are sine qua non for declaring a property as Waqf - Held - mere religious use or existence of a tomb is insufficient to confer Waqf status without permanent dedication by a person professing Islam and compliance with mandatory procedural requirements - Board cannot assume automatic control without proving the property is legally Waqf - Tribunal order and Board resolution set aside - appeal allowed - [Paras 1-25].

Civil Law - Mutawalliship - Waqf Act 1995 - Section 64 - Appointment and Removal - Waqf Board appointed Respondent 5 as Mutawalli based on a private Trust Deed and representation letters without following the procedure for removal of the existing Mutawalli or verifying the character of the property - Appellant contended he served as hereditary Mutawalli for 40 years - Held - appointment of a Mutawalli presupposes the existence of a validly declared Waqf - resolution passed by the Board without establishing jurisdictional facts is unsustainable - [Paras 3-14 and 24].

Evidence Law - Waqf by User - Waqf Act 1995 - Section 3 - Proof of Dedication - Respondents contended that the Dargah was a Waqf by user and originally a burial ground - Court found the land was classified as Government Poromboke in revenue records and no legal document of dedication existed - Held - Waqf must be established through intention ownership and act of dedication - in the absence of evidence of long public user or statutory notification the property cannot be presumed to be Waqf - [Paras 15-23].

Decision: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal allowed – Resolution dated 23.08.2023 and consequential order dated 14.09.2023 passed by the Waqf Board are set aside – Connected miscellaneous petition closed – No costs.

Civil Law - Specific Performance - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order II Rule 2 - Bar of suit - Readiness and Willingness - Appellant entered into a sale agreement with the 1st Respondent for a consideration of Rs. 6,20,000/- and paid Rs. 2,00,000/- as advance - Disputes arose regarding the extent of land where Appellant claimed a shortage of 6 kuzhies and demanded a price reduction - Appellant initially filed O.S. No. 251 of 2006 for permanent injunction without seeking specific performance - Subsequently filed O.S. No. 8 of 2007 for specific performance - Trial Court dismissed the suit but ordered refund of advance - High Court found that the Appellant failed to prove readiness and willingness as he neither deposited the balance consideration nor produced evidence of financial capacity - Held - The suit for specific performance was hit by the principles of Order II Rule 2 CPC as the relief was available but not sought in the earlier suit based on the same cause of action - Trial Court's findings on lack of readiness and willingness upheld - [Paras 16-18].

Civil Law - Possession - Specific Relief Act 1963 - Section 6 - Limitation for suit - Summary suit for possession by person dispossessed of immovable property - Appellant claimed dispossession on 26.03.2007 and filed O.S. No. 14 of 2008 - Plaint was signed on 25.06.2007 but actually presented before the Court only on 26.10.2007 - Section 6(2) mandates a suit must be brought within six months from the date of dispossession - Appellant failed to produce evidence that the suit was presented within the statutory period - Held - The suit was clearly barred by limitation under Section 6(2) of the Specific Relief Act - No reason to interfere with the lower court's dismissal - [Paras 14-15].

Civil Law - Bonafide Purchaser - Specific Relief Act 1963 - Protection of subsequent purchaser - 1st Respondent sold the property to the 2nd Respondent during the pendency of the dispute - Trial Court held 2nd Respondent to be a bonafide purchaser for value without notice - High Court observed that since the Appellant's claim for specific performance failed on merits and procedural grounds the status of the subsequent purchaser became secondary - Held - Findings of the Trial Court maintained - [Paras 11-12].

Decision: Appeal and Revision Petition dismissed – Trial Court judgments in O.S.No. 8 of 2007 and O.S.No. 14 of 2008 affirmed – No order as to costs.

Civil Law - Supervisory Jurisdiction - Constitution of India - Article 227 - Strike off Plaint - Petitioners sought to strike off a plaint for declaration and injunction filed by subsequent purchasers on the ground that it was hit by the principles of res sub judice and lis pendens - Petitioners' predecessor had previously filed O.S.No. 90 of 2008 for specific performance regarding the same property which was still pending - Petitioners contended that the subsequent suit was a clear abuse of process of law - The High Court relied on Supreme Court precedents holding that supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is not to be exercised as a substitute for statutory remedies available under the CPC - Held - High Court refrained from entertaining the revision because the petitioners have an alternative efficacious remedy to seek rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Revision dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to approach the trial court - [Paras 1-22].

Civil Law - Rejection of Plaint - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order VII Rule 11 - Alternative Remedy - High Court’s power under Article 227 of the Constitution - The High Court held that the availability of a remedy under the CPC acts as a near total bar on the High Court to exercise its power under Article 227 - Rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC amounts to a deemed decree which is appealable under Section 96 of the CPC - High Court should not engulf specific statutory remedies provided by the legislature - Held - Once a specific provision under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC is available for the redressal of a grievance - the High Court cannot exercise supervisory jurisdiction to strike off the plaint - [Paras 19-21].

Decision: Revision Petition dismissed – Liberty granted to the petitioners to invoke Order VII Rule 11 CPC before the trial court – Connected Miscellaneous Petitions closed – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law - Pre-arrest Bail - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 482 - Petitioners A1 to A6 sought anticipatory bail in Crime No 70 of 2025 involving allegations of criminal breach of trust and cheating under Sections 316(5) 318(2) 351(3) and 61(2) r/w 3(5) of BNS 2023 - Allegations stated that accused induced defacto complainant to invest Rs 3 crores through attractive promises but misappropriated funds for personal use and unlawfully mortgaged the complainants land - Petitioners contended the dispute was civil in nature citing pending suits O S No 91 of 2025 and O S No 14 of 2025 - Petitioner No 2 was the wife of A3 and others were relatives with no active role in the business transactions - Prosecution and defacto complainant opposed bail citing A1 as the kingpin and necessity of custodial interrogation - Court observed that while allegations against A1 as the principal accused were serious no substantial grounds existed to justify denial of bail to A2 to A6 - Held - Application partly allowed - Pre-arrest bail granted to A2 to A6 subject to execution of bail bonds of Rs 20000 each and cooperation with investigation - Petition dismissed regarding Petitioner No 1 - [Paras 1-14].

Criminal Law - Civil vs Criminal Liability - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 - Section 318(2) - Cheating - Pendency of civil suits regarding same subject matter - Determining entitlement to anticipatory bail for secondary accused - Held - When civil disputes are already pending before competent courts and secondary accused are relatives with no specific roles in alleged business transactions the court is inclined to grant pre-arrest bail provided they cooperate with the investigation - [Paras 10-12].

Decision: Petition partly allowed – Pre-arrest bail granted to Petitioner Nos 2 to 6 (A2 to A6) with conditions – Application dismissed in respect of Petitioner No 1 (A1).

Writ Law - Recall of Witness - Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Petitioners challenged the order of the XV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge dismissing I.A. No. 10 in O.S. No. 3506/2015 seeking to recall PW-1 for further cross-examination - Suit for partition was remanded by High Court in R.F.A. No. 1940/2025 for the limited purpose of deciding the validity of the Will - Trial Court rejected the recall application on the ground that it was intended to drag proceedings and to meet a court-mandated timeline - High Court observed that because the issue of the Will was newly framed following the remand further cross-examination was essential as the defendants bore the burden of proof and the plaintiffs were also beneficiaries - Held - Order of the Trial Court set aside and I.A. No. 10 allowed to facilitate proof of the Will without causing prejudice to the respondents - [Paras 1-8].

Civil Law - Procedure - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order XVIII Rule 17 - Recalling and re-examination of witness - After remand for framing of additional issue regarding a Will the defendants sought to recall PW-1 - Respondents argued that the witness had been cross-examined at length previously - Court found that since the specific issue of the Will was not present during the initial evidence stage further cross-examination is necessary - Held - Remand for a specific purpose requires allowing procedural steps relevant to that issue regardless of previous cross-examinations - [Paras 6-8].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Order on I.A. No. 10 set aside – Defendants directed to cross-examine PW-1 on 08.06.2026 and conclude on the same day – Further evidence to be completed by 12.06.2026 – No further adjournments to be granted by the Trial Court.

Criminal Law - Regular Bail - Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act 1999 - Sections 3 and 4 - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 120B and 384 - Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 - Sections 3 and 4 - Petitioners Deepak and Pradeep arrested in 2021 for facilitating extortion of Rs 217 crores by an Organised Crime Syndicate led by Sukesh Chandra Shekhar while in judicial custody - Prosecution alleged Deepak managed hawala transfers and identified victims while Pradeep acted as a field agent for collection - Petitioners remained in custody for approximately 4 years and 10 months - Trial involved 23 accused and 403 witnesses with charges just recently framed - Court noted that the petitioners were operational facilitators rather than strategic architects of the crime - Held - Continued pre-trial incarceration would assume a punitive character incompatible with Article 21 - Statutory restrictions under Section 21 MCOCA and Section 45 PMLA must yield to constitutional guarantees where trial conclusion is not imminent and custody is prolonged - Bail granted - [Paras 1-36].

Constitutional Law - Personal Liberty - Constitution of India - Article 21 - Interplay with Special Statutes - MCOCA and PMLA - Prolonged pre-trial detention - Court observed that while special statutes impose stringent twin conditions for bail - such restrictions do not oust the power of constitutional courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of Part III - Relying on K.A. Najeeb and Gulfisha Fatima - Court held that statutory rigours "melt down" where there is no likelihood of trial completion within a reasonable time and period of incarceration already undergone is substantial - Held - The ground of prolonged incarceration must be considered as a constitutionally protected claim notwithstanding statutory embargoes - [Paras 14-24].

Criminal Law - Money Laundering - Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 - Section 45 - Statutory Bail - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 479 - Petitioner Deepak in PMLA case underwent custody of 4 years and 9 months - Maximum sentence under Section 4 PMLA is 7 years - Petitioner completed more than half of the maximum possible sentence - Court applied Section 479 BNSS (corresponding to Section 436A CrPC) - Held - Petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the half-sentence rule despite the rigours of Section 45 PMLA - Parity also extended as 13 out of 18 co-accused were already enlarged on bail - [Paras 29-35].

Criminal Law - Evidence - Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act 1999 - Section 18 - Confessional Statements - Retraction - Prosecution relied on confessional statements of petitioners and co-accused to oppose bail - Petitioners claimed statements were retracted at the first opportunity - Court held that while Section 18 statements cannot be disregarded at the bail stage - their probative value and the effect of retraction are matters for trial - Factual examination of roles revealed petitioners acted strictly on instructions of others without autonomous decision-making authority - Held - Associative proximity alone insufficient to justify indefinite pre-trial detention - [Paras 7, 10, 28, 45].

Decision: Bail applications allowed - Petitioners directed to be released on bail subject to a personal bond of Rs 2,50,000 each with two sureties - Conditions imposed regarding surrender of passports and non-tampering of evidence.

Civil Law - Arbitration - Setting aside of Award - Scope of Interference - Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 - Section 34 - Appellant India Cements Limited (ICL) initiated arbitration against Zuari Cements Limited (ZCL) claiming Rs 74.40 crores - ICL contended that a marketing agreement was merely a mechanism for staggered payment of the balance consideration for a share purchase agreement involving SVCL shares - ZCL argued the marketing agreement was independent and ICL failed to perform its marketing obligations - Arbitrator found that ZCL's non-cooperation prevented ICL from performing and awarded 50 percent of the claim (Rs 26.40 crores) - Single Judge set aside the award holding it was based on oral evidence contrary to written terms and hit by Section 77 of the Companies Act - Division Bench observed that the Arbitrator reached a plausible conclusion after appreciating the facts and correspondence - Held - Section 34 Court cannot substitute its own view for the Arbitrator's view unless the award is perverse or suffers from patent illegality - Order of Single Judge set aside and Award restored - [Paras 1-44].

Evidence Law - Applicability to Arbitration - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Sections 1 91 and 92 - Bar on oral evidence to vary written contracts - Arbitrator allowed evidence to show that the marketing agreement was a sham or a nominal document to facilitate payment - Single Judge held this violated Sections 91 and 92 - Division Bench held that under Section 19 of the A&C Act the Arbitral Tribunal is not bound by the Evidence Act - Principles of the Evidence Act may guide but the bar under Sections 91 and 92 does not apply with full force to arbitration - Held - Evidence can be admitted in arbitration to disclose the real nature of a transaction even if it appears to contradict written terms - [Paras 22-30].

Civil Law - Company Law - Purchase of Own Shares - Companies Act 1956 - Section 77 - Respondent alleged the claim was for financial assistance by a company for the purchase of its own shares - Arbitrator held the marketing agreement was a separate agreement for additional consideration and not violative of Section 77 - Division Bench noted that Section 77 aims to prevent market manipulation and any violation thereof is a compoundable offense under Section 621A - Held - The claim for an additional amount over the fixed consideration in a share purchase agreement does not constitute a violation of Section 77 that would render an award patently illegal - [Paras 31-34].

Arbitration Law - Patent Illegality - Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 - Section 34(2A) - Scope after 2015 Amendment - Court cannot set aside an award merely on the ground of erroneous application of law or re-appreciation of evidence - Held - Unless the illegality goes to the root of the matter and is not a mere erroneous application of law the award must be upheld if it presents a plausible view based on records - [Paras 35-43].

Decision: Original Side Appeal allowed – Order of the learned Single Judge set aside – Arbitral Award restored – No costs.

Civil Law - Specific Performance - Specific Relief Act 1963 - Section 16 - Readiness and Willingness - Appellant entered into sale agreement for suit property for Rs 620000 and paid Rs 200000 as advance - Trial Court found appellant failed to prove readiness and willingness as he raised disputes regarding property extent not mentioned in pleadings and failed to deposit balance consideration - Trial Court rejected specific performance but ordered refund of advance - High Court observed appellant previously filed injunction suit without seeking specific performance and failed to show bona fides by depositing balance amount during pendency of litigation - Held - Findings of Trial Court on lack of readiness and willingness are correct - Appeal dismissed - [Paras 1-19].

Civil Law - Bar of Suit - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order II Rule 2 - Appellant filed O.S. No. 251 of 2006 for permanent injunction to protect possession and restrain alienation based on the sale agreement - Present suit for specific performance filed subsequently without obtaining leave of Court - High Court noted cause of action for specific performance existed at time of first suit - Held - Suit for specific performance is hit by principles of Order II Rule 2 CPC - [Para 17].

Civil Law - Recovery of Possession - Specific Relief Act 1963 - Section 6 - Suit for possession by dispossessed person - Appellant claimed dispossession on 26.03.2007 and filed suit under Section 6 - Plaint was presented on 26.10.2007 - Section 6(2) mandates suit must be brought within six months of dispossession - Trial Court held suit barred by limitation and found possession was never handed over to appellant - High Court found no evidence to substantiate filing within six months - Held - Suit is barred by law of limitation under Section 6(2) - Revision dismissed - [Paras 14-15].

Civil Law - Bona Fide Purchaser - Specific Relief Act 1963 - Validity of subsequent sale - First defendant sold property to second defendant on 02.03.2007 - Trial Court held second defendant was bona fide purchaser without notice of previous agreement after appellant failed to perform his part within stipulated three months - High Court confirmed no infirmity in Trial Court finding - Held - Subsequent purchaser protected as appellant failed to establish his right to enforce the contract - [Paras 9-12].

Decision: Appeal suit and Civil Revision Petition dismissed – Judgment and decree of the Trial Court affirmed – No order as to costs.