Contract Law – Specific Performance – Uncertainty of Terms – Section 29 Contract Act – Agreement to sell (Ex.P1) mentioned sale of 9.5 acres of land but failed to specify khasra numbers, khewat, khatauni, or boundaries – Plaintiff's claim in plaint referred to 59 Kanals 3 Marlas (approx 7.4 acres) – Held: An agreement lacking essential particulars concerning the identity of the property is uncertain and unenforceable – Courts cannot adduce oral evidence to create clarity where parties failed to do so – Specific performance denied due to incurable vagueness – [Paras 16, 17, 18].

Property Law – Bona Fide Purchaser – Section 41 TPA – Defendant No. 1 sold land to Defendant Nos. 2-4 via registered sale deed – Revenue records showed no encumbrance or prior agreement – Sale deed executed one year after agreement date – Held: Purchasers (D2-D4) acted with due diligence by verifying revenue records – No suspicious circumstances existed to put them on inquiry – They are entitled to protection as bona fide purchasers for value without notice – [Paras 13, 14, 15].

Civil Procedure – Adverse Inference – Defendant No. 1 (Vendor) did not file written statement or enter witness box – Held: Adverse inference under Section 114(g) Evidence Act justified regarding execution of agreement, but relief denied on other grounds (uncertainty and bona fide purchase) – [Para 10].

Decision: Appeal dismissed. Judgment of the First Appellate Court dismissing the suit is affirmed.

Criminal Law – Quashing - Municipal Law – Octroi Evasion – Vicarious Liability – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Pune Municipal Corporation filed complaint alleging non-payment of octroi on import of gold bullions/coins by Bank – Summons issued against Bank and its senior officers including CEO, Deputy MD, Legal Officer and Branch Manager – Petitioners sought quashing on ground of absence of specific role attributed to individual officers – Held: Mere designation or official position insufficient to attract vicarious liability [Paras 1–6, 17].

Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 – Sections 398 and 401 – Ingredients of Offence – Section 398 requires import of goods liable to octroi, non-payment of octroi and intention to defraud Corporation – Section 401 creates vicarious liability only when specific role of director or officer is pleaded – In absence of averments demonstrating intention to defraud and active role of officers, prosecution against them unsustainable [Paras 9–11, 17].

Criminal Liability of Company Officials – Requirement of Specific Averments – Complaint contained only general and omnibus allegations against Petitioner Nos.2 to 5 – No pleading showing how or in what manner they were in charge of and responsible for conduct of business at relevant time – Held: Criminal prosecution against company officials cannot continue without specific and unambiguous allegations [Paras 6, 11, 17].

Interpretation of Vicarious Liability – Parity with Negotiable Instruments Act – Court held that principles governing vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are pari materia with Section 401 of the BPMC Act – Reliance placed on Supreme Court precedents holding that vicarious liability must be pleaded and proved and cannot be inferred merely from designation [Paras 12–16].

Criminal Process – Abuse of Process – Continuation of proceedings against officers without foundational pleadings amounts to abuse of process of law – Summons issued by JMFC based on conjectures and without prima facie material against officers – Liable to be quashed under writ jurisdiction [Paras 6, 17–19].

Partial Quashing – Distinction Between Company and Officers – Complaint and proceedings quashed only qua Petitioner Nos.2 to 5 – Proceedings against Petitioner No.1-Bank permitted to continue – All contentions left open before Trial Court insofar as Bank is concerned [Paras 19–21].

Decision: Criminal Writ Petition partly allowed – Complaint in Criminal Case No. 236 of 2009 and summons dated 20.11.2009 quashed and set aside against Petitioner Nos.2 to 5 – Complaint against Petitioner No.1-Bank to proceed – Rule made partially absolute [Paras 19–21].

Succession Law – Will – Proof of Execution – Registered Will dated 08.05.2003 relied upon by defendants to deny partition to sisters – Trial court held Will not proved – Held: Evidence of attesting witnesses (DW-2 and DW-3) and scribe (DW-4) consistent with execution requirements under Section 63(c) of Indian Succession Act – Witnesses stated Will was executed by father in sound mind and attested in presence of testator – Minor inconsistencies in recollection not fatal – Passage of eight years since execution considered – Will held duly proved [Paras 20–28, 34]

Succession Law – Presumption from Registration – Will was a registered document – Held: Though registration alone is not proof of Will, it creates presumption of genuineness – Respondents failed to raise any suspicious circumstances or prove forgery – Trial court erred in discarding Ex.B-1 solely based on witness inconsistencies [Paras 29–31]

Civil Procedure – Plaint filed alleging intestate death – Contradictory plea – Plaintiffs claimed father died intestate but produced earlier Will dated 03.06.1997 only during cross-examination – Held: Conduct of plaintiffs in concealing previous Will amounts to approaching court with unclean hands – Adds credibility to appellants’ case [Para 32]

Appeal – Reappreciation of Evidence – Trial court failed to appreciate testimony of attesting witnesses and wrongly concluded that Will was not proved – High Court found compliance with legal requirements and reversed preliminary decree [Paras 33–35]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree of trial court in O.S. No. 149 of 2008 set aside – Will dated 08.05.2003 held to be proved in accordance with law – No order as to costs.

Taxation Law - GST – Export of Services – Clinical Trials / Pharma R&D Services – Place of Supply – Services rendered by Indian pharma company to foreign recipients – Recipient located outside India – Held: Clinical trial and R&D services qualify as “export of services” under IGST Act when recipient is situated in non-taxable territory [Paras 5, 8–10].

Integrated GST – Section 13(3)(a) – Applicability – Goods made physically available – Samples provided by foreign clients for clinical trials not “goods” requiring physical availability in terms of Section 13(3)(a) – Such samples consumed in process and not marketable commodities – Held: Section 13(3)(a) not attracted to clinical trial services [Paras 6–8].

Notification No. 04/2019–IGST dated 30.09.2019 – Nature and Effect – Notification issued pursuant to 37th GST Council Meeting clarifying place of supply of pharma R&D and clinical trial services – Clarificatory and declaratory in nature – Held: Notification operates retrospectively and applies to period prior to 30.09.2019 [Paras 6–10].

Statutory Interpretation – Retrospective Operation – Clarificatory Amendments – Amendments, notifications or circulars which clarify existing legal position or remove ambiguity are retrospective in nature – Reliance placed on Vatika Township, Suchitra Components and Mysore Electricals Industries [Paras 9–11].

GST Demand – Validity – Adjudication and Appellate Orders – Authorities erred in treating Notification No. 04/2019–IGST as prospective – Levy of GST for period April 2018 to March 2019 held unsustainable – Demand contrary to statutory scheme and GST Council clarification [Paras 5, 10–11].

Decision: Writ Petition Allowed – Impugned appellate order dated 25.02.2025 under Section 107(11) and adjudication order dated 28.03.2024 set aside – GST demand quashed – Petitioner held not liable to GST on clinical trial services rendered to foreign recipients [Final Order].

Criminal Law – Murder – Acquittal - Circumstantial Evidence – Standard of Proof – Held: In cases resting purely on circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances must be complete and point irresistibly to the guilt of the accused, excluding any other hypothesis. Where the prosecution failed to prove the accused and deceased were last seen together, and witnesses had only hearsay knowledge of their cohabitation, the chain is broken. [Paras 13, 56, 60-62].

Criminal Law – Motive – Significance in Circumstantial Evidence – Held: While absence of motive may not be fatal in cases of direct evidence, it is fatal in cases based on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution failed to allege or prove any motive for the appellant to murder the deceased, with whom he was allegedly in a live-in relationship. [Paras 45-47, 63].

Criminal Law – Recovery of Evidence – Section 27 of Evidence Act – Held: The recovery of the iron lever (MO-7) and wooden logs (MO-8) was not legally proved where the independent witness (PW18) did not support the recovery mahazar and stated he was standing on the road during the alleged seizure. [Paras 57-58].

Criminal Law – Benefit of Doubt – Two Views Theory – Held: Following the principle in Kali Ram v. State of H.P., if two views are possible on the evidence adduced—one pointing to guilt and the other to innocence—the view favourable to the accused must be adopted. The trial court erred in overlooking missing links regarding the accused's presence and the lack of flight after the incident. [Paras 59, 62].

Decision: Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted. [Para 63].

Civil Procedure – Appellate Powers – Remand of Case – Order 41 Rules 23, 23-A & 25 CPC – Scope – Appellate court justified in remanding the matter when trial court failed to frame an essential issue going to the root of the case – In suit for specific performance of agricultural land, issue whether the plaintiff was an agriculturist and whether permission of competent authority was required is material – District Judge rightly exercised discretion under Order 41 Rule 25 CPC to direct framing of additional issues and recording of evidence thereon – Such remand does not amount to allowing parties to fill lacunae but ensures fair adjudication [Paras 28–35].

Specific Performance – Agricultural Land – Bar on Sale to Non-Agriculturist – Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 – Whether the plaintiff is an agriculturist is a foundational issue affecting enforceability of the agreement of sale – Failure of trial court to frame this issue vitiates adjudication – Appellate court within jurisdiction to remand for trial on that point [Paras 28, 35].

Evidence – Admissibility – Unregistered and Insufficiently Stamped Agreement of Sale – Once document admitted in evidence without objection, admissibility cannot be reopened at appellate stage – However, appellate court justified in directing trial court to examine validity where document is central to the dispute and objection arises from statutory bar – Direction to examine admissibility under Maharashtra Stamp Act held not unwarranted but ancillary [Para 32].

Appellate Practice – Duty of First Appellate Court – While reversing trial court’s decree, appellate court must assign reasons and deal with trial court’s findings – However, where remand is ordered to avoid prejudicing fresh adjudication, omission to record findings is justified – Order of remand not routine but valid when essential factual issues remain untried [Paras 22, 31].

Remand – Conditions and Limitations – Supreme Court precedents in Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari (2001) 3 SCC 179, Shivakumar v. Sharanabasappa (2021) 11 SCC 277, and J. Balaji Singh v. Diwakar Cole (2017) 14 SCC 207 explained – Remand permissible only where trial court omitted to try essential issue and evidence is needed – In present case, remand appropriate to decide plaintiff’s status as agriculturist – Appellant compensated by costs of ₹15,000/- for delay caused by respondents’ inaction [Paras 24, 33–36].

Direction – Respondents to pay costs of ₹15,000/- to appellant within fifteen days and before framing of additional issues by the trial court – Trial court to proceed in accordance with directions of the District Judge and decide additional issues independently and expeditiously [Para 36].

Decision: Appeal Dismissed – Order of remand by District Judge, Nagpur dated 02.09.2022, upheld – Respondents directed to pay ₹15,000/- to appellant within fifteen days – Trial Court to frame additional issues regarding (i) plaintiff’s status as agriculturist, (ii) validity of agreement under the Maharashtra Stamp Act, and decide suit afresh uninfluenced by prior findings.

Muslim Law – Remarriage with Divorced Husband – Halala – Respondent claimed to have remarried petitioner after prior divorce – Evidence revealed existence of intervening marriage with another man, but no proof of its dissolution was provided – Under Muslim law, remarriage with divorced husband is void unless intervening marriage is consummated and lawfully dissolved (Nikah Halala) – Held: In absence of legal dissolution of intervening marriage, alleged remarriage with petitioner is void and hit by doctrine of Halala – Respondent disqualified from claiming maintenance as wife [Paras 7–10, 14–15]

Maintenance – Section 125 CrPC – Presumption of Marriage – Long Cohabitation – Respondent relied on continuous cohabitation to claim presumption of valid marriage – Held: Presumption of marriage based on cohabitation arises only where no legal impediment exists – Since respondent’s prior marriage with another man was not proved to be dissolved, she remained legally married and could not validly remarry petitioner – No legal status as ‘wife’ – Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC cannot be granted [Paras 13–15]

Burden of Proof – Remarriage – When marriage is denied, burden lies on party asserting it – Respondent failed to prove essential elements of Nikah including presence of witnesses and performance by authorised Khatib – Neither mosque register nor witnesses examined – Evidence held insufficient to establish valid Muslim marriage [Paras 11–12]

Procedure – Summary Nature of Section 125 Proceedings – Evidence Requirement – Court held that despite the summary nature of Section 125 CrPC, basic legal prerequisites for spousal status must be established – Maintenance claim under Section 125 cannot succeed in absence of legal proof of marital status [Para 16]

Remand – Opportunity to Adduce Evidence – Considering impact of maintenance order on marital status, court remanded case for fresh decision – Held: Family Court to allow both parties to adduce further evidence on dissolution of intervening marriage and validity of alleged remarriage – Maintenance order set aside [Para 16]

Decision: Impugned maintenance order set aside – Case remanded to Family Court, Malappuram for fresh disposal – Parties to be given opportunity to adduce further evidence – To be decided within three months.

Criminal Law - Anticipatory Bail – Maintainability Before High Court – Concurrent jurisdiction of Sessions Court and High Court – Applicant directly approached High Court without first applying before Sessions Court – Applicant not residing within jurisdiction of Sessions Court where FIR lodged – Held: Petition maintainable under Clause 26(B) of Full Bench decision in Ankit Bharti v. State of U.P. [Paras 2–4]

Freedom of Speech – Social Media Posts – Applicant’s tweets following Pahalgam terror attack criticized Government’s response and Prime Minister’s political rally – FIR alleged tweets incited communal disharmony and defamed the nation – Applicant argued protection under Article 19(1)(a) – Held: Freedom of expression subject to reasonable restrictions – Tweets posted during a sensitive national crisis and widely circulated internationally, including in Pakistan – Cannot claim blanket protection under Article 19(1)(a) [Paras 5–10, 17–18]

Criminal Law – Sedition-like Offences under New Law – Applicant charged under Section 152 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (replacing repealed Section 124A IPC) – Held: Prima facie assessment of charges not permissible at bail stage – Supreme Court has granted liberty to raise all defences at stage of framing of charge – High Court bound by Article 141 not to interfere [Paras 7–10, 20]

Judicial Discipline – Binding Effect of Supreme Court Orders – Applicant’s SLP challenging rejection of writ petition dismissed by Supreme Court with liberty to raise issues at appropriate stage – Held: High Court bound by Supreme Court’s direction and cannot pre-emptively assess merits of FIR or charges [Paras 11–12, 20]

Investigation – Non-Cooperation by Applicant – Despite specific directions by High Court and opportunity given by Investigating Officer, applicant failed to appear and evaded investigation – Police reports indicated frequent change of residence – Held: Applicant’s conduct shows lack of bona fides and disentitles her to discretionary relief of anticipatory bail [Paras 13, 19]

Decision: Anticipatory bail application rejected – Court held it is not a fit case for granting relief under Section 482 BNSS – Applicant at liberty to apply for discharge or raise objections at the stage of framing of charge, as directed by Supreme Court [Para 21]

Criminal Law – Acquittal – Attempt to Murder – Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act – Appeal Against Acquittal Dismissed – Complainant and wife allegedly assaulted by accused using knife and iron pipes – Injuries confirmed by medical officer but contradictions in witness accounts regarding time, identity, mode of assault, and absence of key eyewitness (son) examined – Prosecution witnesses failed to identify accused properly in FIR – Evidence of independent eyewitness Kantibhai found unreliable due to prior connection with complainant – Doctor’s evidence contradicted claim of indoor treatment and severity of injuries – Investigating Officer admitted no seizure of clothes or FSL report of weapons – No proof of caste identity or use of caste-based slurs – Held: Serious inconsistencies, lack of corroboration, and investigative gaps justify trial court's acquittal – No perversity in trial court’s judgment – Appeal dismissed [Paras 9–11]

Criminal Procedure – Powers of Appellate Court in Acquittal Appeals – Principles Restated – Appellate Court can reappreciate evidence but must exercise caution and respect double presumption of innocence – Acquittal can be reversed only when judgment suffers from perversity, misreading of evidence or leads to manifest miscarriage of justice – Trial court’s view held to be a possible and reasonable one based on evidence – No interference warranted [Paras 7–8]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and order of acquittal dated 04.11.1999 in Atrocity Case No. 89 of 1996 confirmed – Bail bonds cancelled – Record and proceedings to be returned to Trial Court