Criminal Law – Rape – Minor Victim – Consent Immaterial – Section 376(2)(n) IPC – Conviction Confirmed – Accused convicted by the trial court for kidnapping and rape of PW1, a minor girl aged 15 years and 6 months at the time of incident – Accused claimed consensual relationship – PW1's testimony established that sexual intercourse took place on multiple occasions (6 to 7 times) – Held: Since PW1 was a minor at the time of the offence, her consent is immaterial in law – Conviction and sentence under Section 376(2)(n) IPC confirmed [Paras 21–23, 25].

Kidnapping – Abduction – Sections 363 and 366 IPC – Conviction Set Aside – PW1's testimony was contradictory and unsatisfactory regarding kidnapping and abduction — PW1 categorically admitted that she voluntarily accompanied the accused when her parents had gone to Mumbai, that her joining the accused was not under any threat or pressure, and that out of desperation (after being beaten by her brother) she herself called the accused and asked to accompany him to Rampur — PW1 further admitted no threat or coercion during stay at Rampur — Held: Prosecution case of abduction, kidnapping, threatening or inducing is doubtful — Conviction under Sections 363 and 366 IPC set aside [Paras 20, 25].

Age Determination – Minor – Documentary Evidence – Birth Certificate – Section 94, Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 – Date of birth of PW1 established as 22.07.1998 through birth certificate issued by East Delhi Municipal Corporation (Ext. PW5/A) — Accused contended that menarche attained in 2007 indicated PW1 was 18 years at time of incident — Held: Onset of menarche varies from person to person and depends on biological and environmental factors — menarche cannot be a reliable or legally recognised method of age determination when documentary evidence is available — PW1 established as 15 years and 6 months old on date of incident [Paras 21, 25].

Statement under Section 313 CrPC – Use as Evidence – Accused's Section 313(1)(b) statement admitting consensual sexual intercourse read with PW1's testimony — Held: While Section 313 statement cannot be the sole basis of conviction, it can be read along with other evidence on record — Accused's own admission of sexual intercourse, coupled with established minority of PW1, renders consent immaterial — Conviction under Section 376(2)(n) IPC confirmed [Para 23].

Non-Compliance – Section 232 CrPC – Non-compliance of Section 232 CrPC does not ipso facto vitiate proceedings unless it results in serious and substantial prejudice to the accused — Accused raised no such claim of prejudice [Para 7].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed — Conviction and sentence under Sections 363 and 366 IPC set aside — Conviction and sentence under Section 376(2)(n) IPC confirmed — Pending applications closed.

Tenancy Law – Unlawful Subletting – Concurrent Findings – Civil Revision – No Interference – Applicant (Defendant No. 2) found in possession of suit premises as unlawful sublettee of the original tenant (Defendant No. 1) — Trial Court and Appellate Court recorded concurrent findings of unlawful subletting — Applicant's various contentions regarding additional evidence, limitation, maintainability, and tenant status were rejected at all stages — Held: No case made out for interference in concurrent findings of the Trial and Appellate Courts on the issue of unlawful subletting — Civil Revision Application dismissed [Paras 14, 38].

Additional Evidence – Order XLI Rule 27 CPC – Abuse of Process – Multiple Applications – Applicant filed four applications before the Appellate Court for the same purpose of production of additional evidence/material — Appellate Court decided two of these (Exhibits 71 and 72) and dismissed them; two applications (Exhibits 22 and 23) remained undecided — Applicant sought remand on ground of non-decision of Exhibits 22 and 23 — Held: Filing multiple applications for the same purpose is an abuse of process — applicant cannot take benefit of his own wrong — production of additional evidence before the Appellate Court is a special and exceptional opportunity under Order XLI Rule 27, not a matter of right — remand refused — relief under Order XLI Rule 27 not available where applications are filed merely to delay proceedings and create grounds for remand [Paras 15–27].

Limitation – Unlawful Subletting – Continuous Cause of Action – Section 22, Limitation Act – Act of subletting in November 1995; suit filed in 2008 — Applicant contended suit barred under Article 66 of the Limitation Act requiring filing within 12 years of the act of subletting — Held: An act of unauthorised subletting constitutes a continuing breach of contract giving rise to a continuous cause of action under Section 22 of the Limitation Act — period of limitation runs so long as the act of subletting continues — Shree Durga Trading Co. v. Ateeq Anwar Agboatwal followed — judgment in Bakul Nandlal Gandhi v. Mrs. Smita Pradip Bhatia distinguished on facts as rendered in peculiar circumstances of protected sub-tenancy and without noticing Section 22 of the Limitation Act — plea of limitation rejected [Paras 30–35].

Order XLI Rule 25 CPC – Additional Issue – Reference to Trial Court – Not Mandatory in Every Case – Appellate Court framed additional issue of limitation and decided the same on the same day — Applicant alleged violation of Order XLI Rule 25 requiring reference to Trial Court for evidence — Held: Order XLI Rule 25 does not mandate reference to the Trial Court in every case where an additional issue is framed — where the issue is a pure question of law and sufficient evidence is already on record, the Appellate Court may decide it under Order XLI Rule 24 without remand — transfer of tenancy in November 1995 being an admitted fact, the limitation issue was a pure question of law requiring no additional evidence [Paras 28–29].

Conveyance Deed – List of Tenants and Occupants – Mere Inclusion Not Conferring Tenancy – Applicant contended his name in the list appended to the Deed of Conveyance established his status as tenant — Held: Clause 13 of the Deed of Conveyance refers to both "tenants" and "occupants" — mere reflection of name in such list does not elevate an occupant to the status of tenant — issue not res integra, covered by earlier decisions in Ambavi Raghu Patel v. M/s. Isha Homes Pvt. Ltd. and Pradeep Dattatray Gandhi v. M/s. Ish Homes Private Ltd. [Paras 37].

Suit Against Dead Person – Maintainability – Plaint was amended and legal heirs of Defendant No. 1 were brought on record — Held: Suit cannot be said to have continued against a dead person — objection rejected [Para 36].

Decision: Civil Revision Application dismissed — No order as to costs — Request for stay of judgment rejected.

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Section 37 – Bail – Commercial Quantity – Prolonged Incarceration – Successive Bail Petition – Petitioner apprehended on 22.04.2024 with 540 grams of heroin recovered from personal search – Co-accused found with 480 grams – Challan filed – No prosecution witness examined out of 17 total – Petitioner in custody for over two years and seven days – Second bail petition, previous having been dismissed as withdrawn on 27.08.2025 – State objected to maintainability of successive petition and urged rigors of Section 37 NDPS Act as bar – Held: An accused has a right to move successive bail applications and the Court must consider whether any fresh ground has been made out to take a different view – Every day spent in custody provides a fresh cause of action under certain circumstances and accused cannot be kept in custody for an indefinite period – Grant of bail on account of undue delay in trial is not fettered by Section 37 of the NDPS Act given the imperative of Section 436A CrPC applicable to offences under the Act – Where prolonged incarceration militates against the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21, constitutional principles must override the statutory embargo under Section 37 – Trial not likely to conclude in the near future – Co-accused already granted bail – Petitioner entitled to bail on ground of prolonged incarceration – Petition allowed [Paras 8–14].

Decision: Petition allowed – Petitioner ordered to be released on bail on furnishing personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate – Observations not to be construed as expression of opinion on merits of the case and not to influence outcome of trial – Pending application rendered infructuous.

Commercial Courts Act – Section 12-A – Pre-Institution Mediation – Urgent Interim Relief – Test from Plaintiff's Standpoint – Non-compliance with Section 12-A is permissible only when the suit contemplates urgent interim relief — The test is not whether the prayer for urgent interim relief is actually granted or denied on merits, but whether, on an examination of the nature and subject-matter of the suit and the cause of action, the prayer for urgent interim relief could be said to be contemplable when seen from the standpoint of the plaintiff — Urgent interim relief must not be a camouflage or disguise to bypass the mandatory mediation requirement; however, when a real apprehension exists and precipitative action by the defendant is alleged, the test is satisfied — Post-filing conduct of the plaintiff is not a decisive criterion for determining whether the bar under Section 12-A applies — Held: Plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold for non-compliance with Section 12-A when urgent interim relief is genuinely contemplated from the plaintiff's standpoint [Paras 37–53].

Commercial Courts Act – Section 12-A – Rejection of Plaint – Drastic Power – Strictly Construed – The power to reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is a drastic measure that terminates a civil action at the threshold and must be exercised strictly in accordance with the conditions enumerated therein — The word "shall" in Order VII Rule 11 CPC obliges the court to reject the plaint only when the conditions are strictly satisfied — The court must do a meaningful, not formal, reading of the plaint — If the plaint does not disclose a cause of action or the suit is barred by law, rejection follows; otherwise, it does not [Paras 7, 38, 47].

SARFAESI Act – Section 34 – Bar – Scope – Substantive prayers for specific performance of a Framework Agreement and profit-sharing agreement are not matters that the Debt Recovery Tribunal is empowered to determine under the SARFAESI Act — The bar under Section 34 applies to actions taken or to be taken in pursuance of powers conferred under the SARFAESI Act and does not extend to bar a civil suit seeking specific performance of a settlement agreement — Consequential prayer for release of secured assets does not attract the bar under Section 34 — Held: Bar under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act cannot be applied for rejection of the plaint at the threshold [Paras 34–35].

Cause of Action – Defendant Not Signatory to Framework Agreement – Where the plaint contains specific averments that a defendant, though not a signatory to the Framework Agreement, has acted upon and availed benefits under the agreement and has continued precipitative action against the plaintiffs despite the settlement, there is sufficient cause of action pleaded — Defendant no. 2 having initiated SARFAESI proceedings despite the Framework Agreement and defendant no. 3 having entered into a profit-sharing agreement pursuant to the Framework Agreement — Held: Plaint discloses adequate cause of action against all defendants; rejection is not warranted [Paras 30–36].

Decision: Interim Applications for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC dismissed — Plaint to proceed to trial.

Income Tax – Section 263 – Revisionary Jurisdiction – Twin Conditions – No Enquiry vs. Inadequate Enquiry – Before the Commissioner can invoke revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263, twin conditions must be satisfied: (i) the assessment order must be erroneous, and (ii) as a consequence, prejudice must be caused to the interest of revenue — Where the AO had raised specific queries regarding utilisation of Rs. 6 crores out of the accumulated funds under Section 11(2) and the assessee had furnished full details vide letters dated 30.01.2019 and 03.12.2019 along with Form 10, board resolutions and breakup of utilisation, the AO had applied his mind and taken a plausible view — Such a case is not one of 'no enquiry' but at best one of 'inadequate enquiry', which does not confer jurisdiction on the CIT to invoke Section 263 — Held: Revisionary proceedings not sustainable [Paras 7–10, 17].

Income Tax – Section 263 – Role of Commissioner – Must Himself Conduct Enquiry Before Declaring Order Erroneous – Where the AO has conducted an enquiry on an issue, the Commissioner, before holding the assessment order to be erroneous, must himself conduct necessary enquiries or verification to demonstrate that the AO's finding is erroneous or unsustainable in law — The Commissioner cannot merely remand the matter to the AO to find out whether the order is erroneous — In the present case, the CIT (Exemptions) conducted no independent enquiry and invoked revisional jurisdiction on mere conjectures, suspicions and surmises — Held: Order under Section 263 not sustainable [Paras 9–10].

Income Tax – Section 11(2) and 11(3) – Accumulated Income – Year of Taxability – Accumulated amount of Rs. 14.51 crores in AY 2016-17 was to be utilised by 31.03.2021 — Any non-utilisation under Section 11(3)(c) would attract taxation in AY 2022-23, being the year immediately following expiry of the accumulation period — CIT's concern was about utilisation of Rs. 6 crores out of this accumulated amount in AY 2017-18, which could only attract clause (a) or (d) of Section 11(3) if misapplied — Since no such finding of misapplication was returned by the CIT after conducting independent enquiry, the revisionary order was unsustainable — Held: Taxability, if any, was to be examined in AY 2022-23 and not in the relevant AY 2017-18 [Paras 11–12].

Income Tax – Section 263 – Explanation 2 – Show-Cause Notice Must Specify Invocation – Where the show-cause notice issued under Section 263 does not mention that Explanation 2 is being invoked, the subsequent invocation of Explanation 2 in the revision order without confronting the assessee is not appropriate and is unsustainable in law — Held: Invocation of Explanation 2 in the revision order without prior notice to assessee is bad in law [Para 13].

Decision: Appeal dismissed — No substantial question of law arises — ITAT order setting aside the revisionary order of CIT (Exemptions) confirmed — No costs.

Indian Succession Act 1925 - Section 295 - Probate Proceedings - Contentious Matter - Procedure - Trial Court converted probate application into a regular civil suit and passed a decree - Held - Practice adopted by City Civil Court is unknown to the provisions of the Act - Section 295 mandates that contentious probate proceedings be conducted as nearly as may be in the form of a regular suit applying CPC provisions - [Para 13]

Indian Succession Act 1925 - Section 222 - Grant of Probate - Appointed Executor - Trial Court granted probate to the plaintiff who was a beneficiary but not an appointed executor in the Will - Held - Probate can only be granted to an appointed executor - A beneficiary must seek Letters of Administration with Will annexed - Trial Court failed to distinguish between these legal statuses - [Paras 13-15]

Indian Succession Act 1925 - Section 63 - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 68 - Proof of Execution of Will - Suspicious Circumstances - Testator was suffering from advanced jaw and tongue cancer and died seven days after execution of the Will - Propounder claimed testator walked 10km alone to court for instructions - Contradictions in oral evidence of propounder and attesting witness regarding their presence at the time of execution - Date on Will was handwritten while body was typed - No signature on the first page - Only one property mentioned despite existence of others - Held - Accumulation of these factors constitutes real and germane suspicious circumstances - Propounder failed to satisfy the judicial conscience of the court - Trial Court order quashed - [Paras 26-43, 48-50]

Indian Succession Act 1925 - Section 63 - Registration of Will - Posthumous Registration - Will registered on 09.11.1981 after testator’s death on 26.07.1981 - Held - Mere registration of a Will does not establish its genuineness or dispel suspicious circumstances surrounding its execution - Registration must be subject to close examination to prove the testator knew the document was a Will disposing of his property - [Paras 42-43]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment dated 16.03.1995 in Civil Suit No. 1601 of 1986 is quashed and set aside – Probate proceedings dismissed – Record and proceedings to be sent back to Trial Court.

Partnership Law – Dissolution – Receiver – Interim Injunction – Civil Revision – Parties held equal 50% shares in two partnership firms, M/s Indian Pressing and Turnings and M/s National Enterprises – Suits filed by petitioners for dissolution and rendition of accounts – Trial Court appointed receiver and granted injunction – First Appellate Court set aside receiver appointment and modified injunction – Held: First Appellate Court's orders are legally sound and do not warrant interference – Revisions CR-3305-2024 and CR-3352-2024 partly allowed with modification; CR-3590-2024 and CR-3592-2024 dismissed [Paras 1–20].

Appointment of Receiver – Discretionary Power – Appellate Interference – Order XL CPC – Appointment of receiver is an extreme remedy and should not be lightly ordered – Where the plaintiffs admittedly remained disengaged from partnership affairs for nearly thirty years and the defendants contended that business operations had ceased, no useful purpose served by appointment of a receiver – First Appellate Court's reasoning that receiver appointment handed over business reins to a stranger, affecting commercial credibility, found to be cogent – Held: Appellate Court rightly set aside receiver appointment; interference not warranted [Paras 12–13, 19].

Partnership – Dissolution at Will – Prima Facie Case – Prolonged Inaction – Plaintiff Ashok Kumar Bhatia admitted knowledge of dissolution deed since 1989 but filed suit only in 2019, a delay of approximately three decades – Partnership being one at will, dissolution upon communication of intention held prima facie valid – Prolonged silence and non-participation of plaintiffs operate to their detriment and render their claim prima facie implausible – Held: No basis to interfere with First Appellate Court's finding on prima facie dissolution [Paras 14–16].

Interim Injunction – Scope of Appellate Interference – Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC – Powers under Order XXXIX are discretionary; appellate court cannot substitute its view merely because an alternative view is possible – Interference warranted only on grounds of patent illegality, perversity, or manifest misapplication of law – Reliance placed on Wander Ltd. v. Antox India Pvt. Ltd., 1990 Supp SCC 727 – First Appellate Court partly allowed injunction appeals, restraining alienation of immovable assets while permitting use of movable assets and bank accounts subject to final outcome – Held: Balanced and equitable interim arrangement does not call for interference [Paras 10, 17–18].

Modification of Impugned Orders – Since respondents have stopped business activities, revisions in CR-3305-2024 and CR-3352-2024 partly allowed to further modify that immovable property shall not even be used for firm's business – Records relating to movable property, funds, and banking accounts to be preserved for accounting at time of final adjudication, if it is proved that accounts between parties were not settled [Para 20].

Decision: Revisions CR-3305-2024 and CR-3352-2024 partly allowed with modification – Revisions CR-3590-2024 and CR-3592-2024 dismissed – Observations confined to interlocutory stage and not to be treated as expression of opinion on merits.

Criminal Law – Culpable Homicide – Section 304 Part II IPC – Hostile Eyewitnesses – Conviction Affirmed – Circumstantial Evidence – Res Gestae – Conduct of Accused – PW-1 (real brother of accused and FIR lodger) and PW-2 (injured witness, mother of accused) turned hostile – PW-3 and PW-6 saw accused fleeing from place of occurrence with blood-stained spade at the very moment PW-1 was raising alarm naming accused – FIR lodged promptly by real brother with no enmity – Injury reports of deceased and PW-2 admitted under Section 294 CrPC – Accused gave general denial in Section 313 statement and failed to explain death of deceased inside his own house at night – Held: Contemporaneous alarm raised by PW-1 naming accused forms part of same transaction and admissible as res gestae under Section 6 of Evidence Act – Conduct of accused in fleeing with blood-stained weapon relevant under Section 8 of Evidence Act – Burden under Section 106 of Evidence Act lies on accused to explain peculiar circumstances of death occurring inside his house – Prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction affirmed [Paras 16, 20-27, 35].

Criminal Law – Section 294 CrPC – Admission of Documents – Substantive Evidence – Injury report of deceased Chhotey Lal and injured witness PW-2 Shanti Devi admitted by accused under Section 294 CrPC – Trial court failed to properly appreciate the injury reports and post-mortem report – Held: Where genuineness of a document is admitted under Section 294 CrPC, the same becomes substantive evidence – Expression "read in evidence" implies such document can be relied upon for proving facts in issue – Following Full Bench of Allahabad High Court in Saddiq and Others v. State [Para 22].

Criminal Law – Sentencing – Section 307 IPC – Fine Mandatory – Omission by Trial Court – Trial court failed to impose fine while convicting accused under Section 307 IPC – Held: Imposition of fine under Section 307 IPC is mandatory and trial court does not possess discretion to waive the same – Though in an appeal against conviction the court cannot enhance substantive sentence, it is well within jurisdiction to modify or alter the sentence – Fine constitutes an integral part of the sentence under Section 307 IPC – Fine of Rs.10,000/- imposed in addition to sentence of three years RI already awarded – In default, simple imprisonment for three months [Paras 28-30, 36-37].

Criminal Law – Conviction – Conversion from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II – No Cogent Reasons – Trial Court Error – Trial court converted conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC without assigning specific and cogent reasons for the absence of intention so as to exclude Section 302 – Held: Such conversion is not supported by any cogent reasoning and is difficult to accept having accepted testimonies of PW-3 and PW-6 – However, in absence of State's appeal or enhancement proceedings, this Court cannot alter conviction to Section 302 IPC under Section 386 CrPC [Paras 20-21, 28].

Decision: Criminal appeal dismissed – Conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC and Section 307 IPC affirmed – Sentence under Section 304 Part II IPC of three years RI confirmed – Sentence under Section 307 IPC of three years RI confirmed with modification: fine of Rs.10,000/- additionally imposed; in default, three months' simple imprisonment – Accused directed to appear before trial court forthwith to serve sentence – Trial court to take coercive steps if accused fails to appear.

Civil Writ - Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, Sections 452 and 636 - Unauthorized Construction - Demolition - Inaction of Municipal Authorities - Petitioner alleged that Respondent No. 4 combined two residential permits for Stilt + 2 floors to construct a single structure of Stilt + 4 floors without setbacks - Authorities failed to act on the complaint - Held, respondent authorities are vested with statutory powers under the GHMC Act to inspect properties, issue notices, and take appropriate action against unauthorized constructions after providing a fair opportunity of hearing. [Paras 1-9].

Telangana State Building Permission Approval and Self Certification System (TGbPASS) Act, 2020, Section 7(6) - Public Participation - Reporting of Violations - Provisions encourage citizens to inform authorities about unauthorized constructions while maintaining confidentiality - Held, such cases must be examined within a week and appropriate action initiated. [Para 7].

Administrative Law - Judicial Review - Planned Development - Violation of Town Planning Schemes - Reliance on Shanti Sports Club vs. Union of India (2009) 15 SCC 705 and Esha Ekta Apartments vs. Municipal Corporation of Mumbai (2013) 5 SCC 357 - Held, no relief should be granted to violators of town planning schemes; authorities must not turn a blind eye to illegal constructions due to the influence of higher functionaries or extraneous reasons - Executive apparatus must stop supporting affluent builder lobbies. [Paras 10-11].

Decision: Writ petition disposed of – Respondent No. 3 directed to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 15.04.2026, put Respondent No. 4 on notice, provide a fair opportunity of personal hearing to both parties, verify sanctioned plans, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within four weeks.