Delay in Filing Appeal – Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act – Appeal Dismissed - The appellant, a guarantor for a defaulting loanee, challenged the auction sale of his property. He failed to file an appeal within the prescribed 45 days after being granted liberty by the court to approach the Tribunal. The delay of over five months was not satisfactorily explained – Held: The delay in filing the appeal was unjustified, and the Tribunal and Single Judge rightly rejected the condonation of delay [Paras 17-18].

Condonation of Delay – Casual Approach by Appellant – Rejection Upheld - Despite being informed of the liberty to appeal in 2016, the appellant delayed filing the appeal until mid-2017, citing personal reasons without substantiating the delays. The court found the reasons vague and lacking in material details – Held: The appellant's explanation for delay was unsatisfactory, and no sufficient cause was shown to condone the delay [Paras 4, 17-18].

Auction Sale of Property – Guarantor's Challenge – Appeal Dismissed - The property of the appellant, acting as a guarantor, was auctioned due to the default of the loanee. The appellant failed to take timely steps to challenge the bank's action under the SARFAESI Act. – Held: The appeal lacked merit and was dismissed due to unexplained delay [Paras 2-4].

Decision: The appeal is dismissed.
 

Criminal Conspiracy – Section 120B IPC – Insufficient Proof of Conspiracy – The trial court convicted the appellants under Section 120B IPC for criminal conspiracy to wage war against the Government of India – The High Court set aside the conviction, holding that the prosecution failed to establish sufficient independent evidence proving a conspiracy beyond the accused's alleged association during imprisonment – The court ruled that the evidence based on the telephonic conversations and the accused’s jail meetings was not adequate to confirm the conspiracy [Paras 17-27].

Illegal Possession of Firearms – Section 25 & 26 Arms Act – Conviction Partly Upheld – The recovery of a 0.32 caliber revolver and ammunition from Accused No. 1 (Syed Abdul Rehaman) was confirmed, supporting the conviction under Sections 25 and 26 of the Arms Act – The High Court reduced the sentence under Section 25 from 7 years to 3 years, considering that the act fell under Section 25(1B) rather than the harsher penalties initially imposed [Paras 31-35].

Explosive Substances – Sections 4 & 5 Explosive Substances Act – Conviction Sustained – The High Court affirmed the conviction of Accused No. 1 for possession of explosive materials, including ammonium nitrate and gel explosives, recovered from a hidden location – The court concluded that the accused had control over the materials and intended to use them for unlawful purposes, justifying the conviction under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act [Paras 32-33].

Acquittal of Co-Accused – Accused Nos. 2 and 3 Acquitted – The High Court found no credible evidence connecting Accused Nos. 2 and 3 to the conspiracy or possession of illegal arms or explosives – Their alleged involvement was based on inadmissible confessions and circumstantial evidence, which the court deemed insufficient for conviction – Both accused were acquitted of all charges [Paras 34-35].

Decision:

The appeal by Accused No. 1 (Syed Abdul Rehaman) was allowed in part – His conviction under Sections 120B and 122 of IPC, Sections 13, 17, 18, and 18B of UAPA, and Section 6 of the Explosive Substances Act was set aside – His conviction under Sections 25 and 26 of the Arms Act, and Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act was upheld with a reduced sentence under Section 25 of the Arms Act – Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were acquitted of all charges and were ordered to be released – Accused No. 2, a Pakistani national, was ordered to be deported to Pakistan after his release [Paras 34-37].

Civil Procedure – Appeal Dismissed on Grounds of Limitation – Article 227 of the Constitution – Petitioners challenged the dismissal of their appeal, which was filed 8 years and 8 months after the preliminary decree for partition – They argued that they were unaware of their legal rights and alleged fraud on part of the respondents – Held: The petitioners were aware of their legal remedies as they had previously filed applications under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC and objections in the execution proceedings – The plea of fraud was raised for the first time in appeal, and the delay was unjustified – Dismissal of appeal upheld [Paras 6-7].

Fraud Allegation – Raised for the First Time in Appeal – Petitioners argued that the partition decree was obtained by fraud and collusion between the respondents – However, no such plea was raised in their application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC or during earlier proceedings – Held: The allegation of fraud was an afterthought and cannot be entertained at this stage [Para 6].

Delay and Laches – Appeal Filed After 8 Years and 8 Months – The appeal was filed with an application for condonation of delay, citing unawareness of legal remedies – Held: The petitioners actively participated in earlier proceedings and were aware of the decrees – The delay in filing the appeal is inordinate and unjustified [Paras 6-7].

Decision: The revision petition is dismissed – The First Appellate Court’s order dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation is upheld – Pending applications, if any, are disposed of [Para 7].

Eviction Suit – Default in Payment of Rent – No Default Found - The appellant, a tenant, was accused of failing to pay rent for two consecutive months, October and November 2012. He contended that he had attempted to pay the rent in person and later sent it via money order, which the landlord refused. The appellate court found him to be in default; however, the High Court held that the refusal of rent by the landlord and the subsequent remittance through money order discharged the tenant's statutory obligation. – Held: The appellant was not in default of rent [Paras 4-6].

Bonafide Personal Necessity – Requirement for Office Space – Eviction Upheld - The plaintiff sought eviction on the grounds of personal necessity, claiming that the premises were needed for his son's Fly Ash Brick business. The High Court upheld the appellate court's finding that the need was genuine and that the premises were suitable for the business. – Held: The personal necessity of the plaintiffs was bonafide and justified the eviction [Paras 8-10].

Partial Eviction – Tenant's Burden of Proof – No Evidence Produced - The defendant argued that partial eviction would suffice to meet the plaintiffs' needs, but he failed to plead or provide any evidence to support this. – Held: The onus to prove partial eviction was on the tenant, which he failed to discharge [Paras 11-12].

Decision: The Second Appeal is dismissed. The eviction on the grounds of bonafide personal necessity is upheld, but no costs are awarded.

Education Law – MBBS Admissions – OCI Cardholders' Eligibility – Petitioner, an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI), sought admission under the category reserved for wards of gallantry award recipients – The petitioner was allocated an NRI quota seat but sought admission under the State quota – Held: The petitioner did not fulfil the eligibility requirements under the State quota, as OCI cardholders can only be considered for NRI quota seats as per Clause 17(vi) of the prospectus, and the petitioner failed to challenge this clause earlier [Paras 1.1, 2.4, 3.1, 3.2].

Constitutional Law – Right to Equality – Article 14 – Petitioner argued that OCI cardholders should be treated at par with Indian citizens for State quota seats in medical admissions – Held: Supreme Court decisions and statutory provisions restrict OCI cardholders to NRI seats, and they cannot be treated on par with Indian citizens for admissions under the State quota – The petitioner's reliance on interim Supreme Court orders was found to be misplaced as they only pertain to eligibility for entrance tests, not State quota admissions [Paras 2.3, 3.2, 4.1].

Admissions Process – Failure to Challenge Clause 17(vi) – The petitioner did not challenge the validity of Clause 17(vi) of the prospectus, which restricts OCI cardholders to NRI seats, during the earlier stages of the admission process – Held: The petitioner’s failure to challenge the clause earlier and his subsequent acceptance of an NRI seat negates his current claims for State quota seats, and there is no merit in his petition [Paras 1.5, 3.1].

Decision:

Writ petition dismissed – The petitioner failed to meet the eligibility criteria for admission under the State quota as an OCI cardholder and did not challenge the relevant clause of the prospectus in time – Clause 17(vi) of the prospectus stands valid [Paras 4.1, 4.2].

Absence of Prayer for Cancellation of Sale Deed – Not Fatal to Plaintiff’s Case – The defendant argued that the plaintiff’s failure to seek cancellation of the sale deed under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act was fatal to the case – The Court held that the plaintiff’s prayer for declaration that the sale deed was executed as security was sufficient, and no specific prayer for cancellation was necessary since the plaintiff did not claim the deed was void or voidable – Held: The absence of a prayer for cancellation did not bar relief to the plaintiff [Paras 5-11].

Presumption of Validity of Registered Sale Deed – Rebutted by Evidence – Although a registered sale deed carries a presumption of validity, the plaintiff successfully proved that the sale deed was a sham transaction executed as security for a chitty payment – The defendant failed to prove that consideration was paid, or that the document was intended as an actual transfer of title – Held: The presumption of the validity of the sale deed was rebutted [Paras 12-14, 30].

Contradictory Defense by Defendant – Weakening of Credibility – The defendant claimed that he had rented out the property to the plaintiff's brother immediately after the sale but produced no credible evidence to support this – Additionally, the defendant’s statements in a related eviction suit contradicted his claims in the present case, further undermining his credibility – Held: Defendant’s inconsistent arguments and lack of evidence supported the plaintiff’s case [Paras 16-20].

Sham Document – Oral Evidence Admissible – Suit for Declaration Maintainable – The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling that a party can prove that a document is a sham and not intended to be acted upon, using oral evidence – In this case, the plaintiff established that the sale deed was never meant to convey title but was only executed as security – Held: The suit for a declaration was maintainable without a prayer for re-conveyance [Paras 27-29].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – The sale deed was held to be a sham, and the plaintiff's suit for declaration was justified – No need for a reconveyance prayer – No costs awarded [Paras 31].

Arbitration – Extension of Arbitrator's Mandate – Dispute regarding compensation for land acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956 – Petitioner challenged the arbitral award from 2018 – Arbitrator's mandate expired due to delay in proceedings without obtaining an extension under Section 29-A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – High Court noted repeated adjournments by the Arbitrator without valid reason – Held: Arbitrator directed to conclude proceedings by 25.03.2025, failing which mandate may be terminated – Petition allowed with directions to expedite the arbitration process [Paras 1-7].

Arbitration Proceedings – Compliance with Statutory Timelines – Court emphasized that statutory timelines under Sections 23(4) and 29-A of the Arbitration Act must be strictly adhered to – Arbitrator had a duty to complete proceedings within the prescribed time, and delays must be justified – Failure to follow the prescribed procedure resulted in the expiration of the Arbitrator's mandate, necessitating judicial intervention to extend the timeline [Paras 5-7].

Extension of Limitation – Supreme Court Precedent – Benefit of exclusion of the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 due to the COVID-19 pandemic as per the Supreme Court’s direction in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (2022) was applied – This exclusion granted the petitioner additional time to challenge the arbitral award and seek a remedy through the court [Paras 6-7].

Decision: Petition allowed – Arbitrator directed to complete proceedings by 25.03.2025 – Court warns Arbitrator of possible termination of mandate if further delays occur – Petition disposed of along with pending applications [Paras 7-9].

Bail under NDPS Act – No Direct Recovery – The petitioner sought regular bail on the ground that no recovery was made from him and that he was implicated solely based on a disclosure statement by a co-accused – Held: Given the lack of direct recovery and the fact that co-accused in similar circumstances were granted bail, the petitioner was entitled to bail, subject to conditions.

Right to Speedy Trial – Article 21 of the Constitution – The trial has been pending since 2021, with only 6 out of 14 prosecution witnesses examined, and the petitioner has been in custody for over 3 years – Held: Prolonged pre-trial detention violates the petitioner’s right to a speedy trial under Article 21. The Court reiterated the principle that bail is the rule, and jail is the exception.

Habitual Offender Allegation – The respondent opposed bail, citing the petitioner’s criminal record, including a prior conviction under the NDPS Act – Held: While criminal antecedents are relevant, they do not automatically disqualify the petitioner from bail, especially when no direct recovery is made, and the trial is delayed.

Decision: The bail application is allowed. The petitioner is granted regular bail, subject to furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court. The petitioner is directed to comply with all conditions imposed by the court.

Civil Law – Land Encroachment – Plaintiff-appellants filed a suit for mandatory injunction seeking to restore a passage allegedly encroached by defendant-respondents – The suit claimed that the passage was demarcated, and the encroachment merged into the defendants’ land – Trial Court and First Appellate Court dismissed the suit, finding that the demarcation was improperly conducted without notice to the defendants, and the site plan did not comply with legal standards – On second appeal, the High Court found no substantial question of law, dismissing the appeal [Paras 5-7].

Witness Testimony – Credibility of Plaintiff’s Witness – Plaintiff Zora Singh (PW-1) and Harpreet Singh Pawar (PW-2) deposed in support of the demarcation – However, PW-2 admitted that the site plan was prepared without verifying possession or checking key land records – PW-3 Bhupinder Singh confirmed no summons were issued to defendants before demarcation – Both Courts found that the demarcation was not conducted per High Court rules, undermining the credibility of the plaintiff's evidence [Paras 6-7].

Demarcation Report – Legal Validity – Demarcation conducted by Bhupinder Singh, Kanugo, was challenged for being prepared behind the defendants’ backs – No notices or pacca points were issued as required by the Financial Commissioner’s instructions – The High Court upheld findings of lower courts that the demarcation and site plan were not prepared in accordance with legal standards, and thus, the case lacked merit [Paras 6-7].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No substantial question of law found – Trial Court and First Appellate Court judgments upheld – All pending applications were also disposed of [Para 7].