Tenancy Law - Landlord-Tenant – Bonafide Requirement – Contradictory Pleas – Eviction petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) DRC Act on ground of bonafide need for opening boutique – Tenant granted leave to defend on triable issue of concealment regarding adjacent shop No. 2903 – Held: Learned ARC erred in presuming bonafide requirement without appreciating tenant’s documentary evidence and cross-examination exposing contradictions in landlady’s case – Adjacent shop was let out prior to petition despite being claimed as occupied by son – ARC failed to adjudicate on falsity of eviction petition and omitted key findings – Impugned judgment set aside [Paras 4, 7–13, 21–25, 28].

Rent Control – Revisional Jurisdiction – Misapplication of Law – ARC placed burden of proving lack of bonafide on tenant contrary to settled law – Under Section 14(1)(e) DRC Act, burden lies on landlord to prove genuine, real, and honest requirement – Revisional court justified in interfering where trial court judgment is perverse, arbitrary or ignores material evidence – Cited: Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh [Para 26–27].

Falsehood in Eviction Petition – Artificial Scarcity – Tenant demonstrated landlady’s suppression of letting out premises to Vijay Kumar – Landlady took inconsistent stances in pleadings and cross-examination – ARC ignored contradiction between pleading of staircase conversion and evidence of recent tenancy – Eviction petition based on artificial scarcity held not sustainable unless remanded for proper adjudication [Paras 8–11, 18–24].

Remand – Scope of Reconsideration – Petition allowed – Eviction order dated 07.05.2024 set aside – Matter remanded back to ARC for fresh adjudication on bonafide requirement after considering entire evidence and pleadings – Direction to complete proceedings within six months [Paras 27–28].

Civil Law – Partition - Assigned Lands – Transfer Validity – Applicability of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 – Partition Suit – Adverse Possession – Limitation – Appeal Allowed – Sale of land in 1964 challenged by plaintiffs on ground it violated provisions of the 1977 Assigned Lands Act – Trial court held sale void under Section 3 of the Act – Held: As per G.O.Ms.No.1142 dated 18.06.1954 and G.O.Ms.No.575 dated 16.11.2018, lands assigned before 18.06.1954 are outside the scope of the 1977 Act – Sale deed executed in 1964 valid – Plaintiffs’ claim to title not proven – Suit for partition without seeking declaratory relief is not maintainable – Plaintiffs failed to implead legal representatives of deceased co-plaintiffs – Suit partly abated – Further, defendants had continuous possession for over 25 years – Plaintiffs’ claim barred by limitation and adverse possession established [Paras 19, 23-27, 28-32, 34].

Railways Act – Compensation – Untoward Incident – Accidental Fall – Deceased was travelling by train with a valid ticket – Fell from an overcrowded compartment due to sudden jerk – Tribunal dismissed claim on grounds of suicide and absence of proof of bona fide passengership – Held: Once accidental fall is established, statutory liability of Railways is attracted – Finding of suicide is speculative and not based on credible evidence – Death falls within scope of “untoward incident” under Section 123(c)(2) – Compensation payable [Paras 2, 13, 14, 18, 21]

Strict Liability – Section 124A – Presumption of Causation – Section 124A enacts no-fault liability for deaths caused by untoward incidents – Railway Administration's defence based on conjecture and unsupported assumptions about suicidal intent not accepted – Contemporaneous police and medical records confirm fall from train – No exception under proviso to Section 124A applies – Railway liable irrespective of negligence [Paras 12, 14, 20, 21]

Bona Fide Passenger – Valid Ticket – Evidentiary Presumption – Journey ticket number VYA-51990424 issued from Berhampur found in possession of deceased – Not denied or disproved by Railways – Inquest and police report corroborate presence of ticket – Tribunal's finding that deceased was not a bona fide passenger found contrary to record and legally unsustainable [Paras 15, 17]

DRM Report – Evidentiary Value – Administrative Inquiry – Tribunal’s reliance on DRM report misplaced – Lacks probative value and not supported by primary or direct evidence – Contradicted by statutory documents like post-mortem, inquest and final police report – Cannot override contemporaneous official records [Para 3(iii), 17]

Judicial Precedent – Interpretation of Beneficial Legislation – Court follows ratio in Union of India v. Rina Devi and Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijay Kumar – Compensation provisions under Railways Act must be interpreted liberally to effectuate social welfare objective – Restrictive interpretation contrary to legislative intent [Paras 16, 19]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of Railway Claims Tribunal dated 10.01.2020 set aside – Deceased held to be a bona fide passenger – Incident held to be an untoward incident – Railways directed to pay compensation of ₹8,00,000 with 6% interest from date of application till payment – Amount to be deposited before Tribunal within three months for disbursal [Paras 23–25]

Arbitration – Judicial Interference – Limited Scope under Section 37 – Appeal against judgment upholding arbitral award awarding contractor Rs.6.66 lakhs with interest – Held: Interference under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration Act is narrowly circumscribed – Court cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own view for that of the arbitrator – Award found to be reasoned and based on plausible interpretation – No patent illegality or perversity demonstrated – Appeal dismissed [Paras 10–13, 33–35]

Contract Law – Delay in Execution – Time as Essence – Though the contract originally required completion by 03.07.1992, time was extended until 31.05.1993 – Arbitral Tribunal found delays attributable to Railways’ conduct – Contract rescission held unjustified – Tribunal’s findings on delay and liability upheld as based on evidence and within arbitral jurisdiction [Paras 2(iii)–(v), 31]

Arbitration – Interpretation of Contract – Pricing and Claims – Claims 6 and 7 challenged as contrary to contractual pricing – Tribunal interpreted contract clauses and ISI specifications governing waterproofing and bitumen application – Held: Pricing interpretation was reasonable and within bounds of contract – No ground to interfere on reappraisal of evidence [Paras 32]

Public Policy and Patent Illegality – No Violation – No violation of public policy, fundamental policy of Indian law, or basic morality demonstrated – No fraud, corruption, or procedural impropriety found – Tribunal applied proper reasoning and considered all relevant material – Award immune from curial interference [Paras 13, 27–30, 33]

Arbitration – Interest on Award – Permissibility – Arbitrator awarded 12% interest p.a. on claims and cost of arbitration – Held: Grant of interest in consonance with Section 31(7) of the A&C Act – Contractual bar not absolute – No legal infirmity in award of interest [Para 7]

Judicial Precedents – Conformity with Supreme Court Guidance – High Court reiterates principles from MMTC v. Vedanta, PSA Sical Terminals, Associate Builders, DMRC, and Reliance Infrastructure – Emphasises minimal interference, deference to arbitrator’s findings, and narrow scope of review under Sections 34/37 [Paras 14–26]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No interference warranted with the arbitral award or the District Judge’s judgment upholding it – Award found legally sound, reasoned, and within jurisdiction – No costs imposed – Interim orders vacated [Paras 34–36]

Arbitration – Appointment of Arbitrator – Second Round – Section 11 – Applicant sought appointment of Arbitrator after Award dated 06/06/2022 was set aside in its entirety by Section 34 Court – Though Section 37 Appeals are pending, Court held that under limited scope of Section 11, existence of arbitration agreement alone is to be examined – Held: Prima facie arbitration clause exists – Arbitrator appointed – Objections including res judicata and limitation to be raised before the Tribunal [Paras 5–7, 9].

Arbitration – Scope of Section 11 – Pending Section 37 Appeal – Not a Bar – Respondent opposed maintainability citing pendency of appeal and risk of conflicting decisions – Court relied on SC decisions in Gayatri Balasamy, SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning, and Cox and Kings v. SAP India – Held: Section 11 court must only consider existence of arbitration agreement – All other issues left to Arbitral Tribunal [Paras 6–7].

Arbitration – Res Judicata and Limitation – Arbitrability – Tribunal to Decide – Arguments of limitation and finality of earlier award rejected at Section 11 stage – Court held that Tribunal is the proper forum to decide all objections including maintainability, res judicata and arbitrability – Appointment not precluded [Paras 6–7].

Arbitration – Costs and Fees – Financial burden raised by Respondent – Held: Tribunal empowered to make orders on costs and fees – Arbitrator’s fee governed by Fourth Schedule and Bombay High Court (Fee Payable to Arbitrators) Rules, 2018 [Para 8].

Decision: Section 11 application allowed – Disputes referred to arbitration – Mr. Anish S. Karande appointed as Sole Arbitrator – All rights and contentions of parties kept open – Arbitration to be conducted in Mumbai [Paras 9–9(F)].

Family Law - Tribal Succession – Gender Equality – Burden of Proof – Scheduled Tribe (Gond) – Ancestral Property – Daughter’s Right to Inherit – Error in Law by Lower Courts – Appeal Allowed – Matter Remanded – Plaintiff, a daughter of deceased tribal father (Gond community), sought 1/5th share in ancestral house property – Trial Court and First Appellate Court rejected claim holding burden was on her to prove custom allowing daughters to inherit – Held: View contrary to law laid down by this Court in Babulal v. Resmabai and Supreme Court in Ram Charan v. Sukhram – When succession law is silent, burden lies on party asserting exclusion to prove custom – Lower Courts erred in shifting burden on plaintiff – Findings perverse and unsustainable in law – Matter remanded for fresh decision in accordance with principles of justice, equity, and Article 14 of Constitution [Paras 2, 21–26].

Customary Law – Proof of Exclusion – Article 14 – Scheduled Tribe – Constitutional Mandate – Plaintiff Proved Tribal Identity – No Custom Proven by Defendants – Lower Courts Misapplied Law – Plaintiff established she was daughter of deceased tribal father and belonged to Gond ST community – No contrary custom proven by defendants to justify exclusion – In absence of valid customary exclusion, denial of share to tribal women violates Article 14 – Held: Custom cannot be presumed – Must be pleaded and proved by party relying on it – Misapplication of burden of proof rendered concurrent findings unsustainable [Paras 21–24].

Appeal – Concurrent Findings Overturned – Legal Error – Matter Remanded – Though concurrent findings existed, both Courts fundamentally erred in applying incorrect legal principles – Denial of inheritance on basis of misapplied burden caused miscarriage of justice – Matter remanded to Trial Court with liberty to both parties to lead evidence and decision to be made afresh as per settled legal position [Paras 25–27].

Decision: Second Appeal allowed – Judgments of Trial Court and First Appellate Court quashed – Matter remanded to Trial Court for fresh decision after hearing both sides and applying correct legal principles.

Army Law – Disobedience of Lawful Command – Section 41(2) of the Army Act – Punishment of Severe Reprimand – Legality of Summary Trial – Judicial Review under Article 226 – Scope and Limitations – Petitioner, a Subedar in EME Corps, challenged disciplinary action and discharge alleging that Movement Order was never served and enquiry was held ex parte – Record revealed that Petitioner was ordered to report to HQ Technical Group, EME, Delhi Cantt., but refused to comply – Summary trial conducted under Army Rules 22–26 after due opportunity – Eight prosecution and eight defence witnesses examined – Petitioner cross-examined witnesses but refused to sign proceedings – Held: Proceedings conducted in accordance with Army Act and Rules – No violation of natural justice or procedural irregularity – High Court cannot reappreciate evidence under certiorari jurisdiction – Findings supported by rational evidence – Punishment of “Severe Reprimand” not disproportionate [Paras 25–31].

Army Law – Discharge from Service – Extension of Service – Effect of Punishment of Severe Reprimand – Annexure-I to Appendix “A” of Army HQ Letter dated 21.09.1998 – Held: Personnel punished under Section 41(1) or (2) of the Army Act ineligible for extension for three years – Discharge validly ordered on completion of terms of engagement – No infirmity in discharge order [Paras 13–14, 31].

Judicial Review – Certiorari – Limits of High Court Interference – Finding of Fact – Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan, 1963 SCC OnLine SC 24 – Union of India v. Major A. Hussain, (1998) 1 SCC 357 – Court not to act as appellate forum in military discipline matters – Review limited to jurisdictional errors, perversity, or procedural unfairness [Paras 19–21].

Service Law – Pension – Right to Pension – Deferred Wages – Direction to Facilitate Pension Processing – Court observed that though punishment and discharge are valid, pension cannot be denied – Directed respondents to furnish pension papers to petitioner within six weeks and process pension from date of superannuation within four months thereafter [Para 32].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Punishment and discharge upheld – Respondents directed to process and release pension upon completion of formalities by petitioner [Paras 32–33].

Property Law – Injunction – Auction Sale – Challenge to possession – Appellants (legal heirs of original plaintiff) sought permanent injunction against Town Municipal Council (TMC) from interfering with their possession over suit properties – Plaintiffs originally filed suit for declaration of title, injunction and mutation of names in revenue records, but later restricted relief to permanent injunction – Trial court dismissed suit, holding that plaintiffs failed to prove possession – First appellate court concurred – High Court held that findings of both courts below were not perverse and were based on material evidence – Held: Once plaintiffs abandoned plea for declaration and failed to establish possession, suit for bare injunction was rightly dismissed [Paras 13, 15, 52, 57, 68, 86].

Civil Procedure – Abandonment of Relief – Plaintiffs initially sought declaration of title and permanent injunction, but restricted claim to injunction during trial – Held: Abandonment of prayer for declaration estopped plaintiffs from questioning validity of auction sale or claiming title – Suit thereafter becomes one for bare injunction – Courts cannot test title or validity of auction proceedings in such suit unless appropriate pleadings and relief are sought – [Paras 45, 51, 52, 77, 80].

Title and Possession – Hypothecation and Auction – Suit properties mortgaged to Excise Department in 1958 – Upon default, auction held in 1960 and confirmed in 1961 in favour of TMC – Plaintiffs failed to challenge auction – Sale was confirmed twice by Deputy Commissioner and reflected in revenue records – Court held that plaintiffs, who admitted mortgage and auction, cannot seek injunction without establishing legal possession – Possession presumed to follow title, especially in case of vacant land – [Paras 48, 66, 68, 78, 85].

Documentary Evidence – Revenue Records – Plaintiffs relied on revenue entries (RoRs), tax receipts, mutation records and correspondence to prove possession – Courts held entries in plaintiffs’ name were made illegally and set aside in revision – Revenue records (Ex.P31, P32) from 1979-87 reflected TMC’s name in possession columns – Subsequent entries in plaintiffs’ name were obtained fraudulently and without notice to TMC – Order of Special Deputy Commissioner setting aside plaintiff’s mutation was upheld – [Paras 70–76].

Administrative Law – Validity of Auction – Plaintiffs contended that auction violated mandatory procedures under Mysore Land Revenue Code and Rules – Court held: Without seeking declaratory relief and challenging sale proceedings, such contentions cannot be entertained in suit for injunction – Moreover, procedural irregularities, if any, do not vitiate title of auction purchaser when sale is otherwise confirmed – [Paras 18–20, 48, 86].

Doctrine of Acquiescence – Plaintiffs, through plaintiff no.1, participated in multiple litigations and never challenged the auction or its confirmation – Plaintiffs aware of auction since 1960s but took no steps to set aside sale – Court held: Plaintiffs acquiesced to auction and lost right to challenge – [Paras 62, 79, 81, 82].

Concurrent Findings – High Court’s Interference under Section 100 CPC – Held: Interference in second appeal only justified when findings are perverse or based on no evidence – Both courts below assessed pleadings, depositions, documentary evidence and gave reasoned findings – No perversity or error of law found – [Paras 47, 59, 68, 76].

Substantial Question of Law – Answered in Affirmative – Whether courts were justified in denying injunction when auction was not followed by delivery of possession but revenue entries and evidence showed TMC’s title and possession – Held: Plaintiffs failed to prove possession; auction and mutation in TMC’s name valid – Substantial question answered in favour of TMC – [Paras 46, 86].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Findings of trial and appellate court upheld – Plaintiffs failed to establish possession or maintainability of suit for bare injunction – Request for stay of order rejected – [Final Order].

Domestic Violence – Delay in Proceedings – Pendency of Case Since 2018 – Petitioner-wife filed complaint under Section 12 of the DV Act on 06.11.2018 – Despite service of notice on 28.05.2019, respondent failed to appear – Trial proceeded ex parte – Respondent appeared only in January 2021 – Interim maintenance of ₹15,000/month awarded but reduced to ₹10,000/month by revisional court – Maintenance never paid despite salary of ₹1.10 lakh/month – Total arrears of ₹4.55 lakh accrued – High Court observed inordinate delay and systemic apathy in enforcement of maintenance orders [Paras 2-6]

Non-Compliance with Judicial Directions – Supreme Court and High Court Precedents Ignored – Neither trial court nor revisional court directed respondent to file affidavit of assets and liabilities as mandated in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324 and Parul Tyagi v. Gaurav Tyagi, 2023 SCC OnLine All 2684 – Prior directive in Rajesh Babu Saxena v. State of U.P., 2024 SCC OnLine All 2260 for recovery from salary also disregarded – Court expressed concern over indifference by trial courts to binding precedents, warning of loss of public confidence [Paras 7-8]

Judicial Accountability – Explanations Called from Magistrate and Revisional Court – Magistrate directed to furnish explanation for failure to seek affidavit of assets/liabilities – Revisional Court to explain basis for reducing maintenance from ₹15,000 to ₹10,000/month – Failure to provide satisfactory reasons may invite administrative action – Registrar (Compliance) directed to communicate order – Registrar General to collect responses before next hearing [Paras 8-9]

Decision: Magistrate and Revisional Court directed to submit explanations through Registrar General – Next hearing fixed for 14.10.2025 – Warning issued that evasive replies may attract administrative action.