Criminal Law – Murder - Circumstantial Evidence – Acquittal – Appellant convicted for matricide under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment – High Court upheld conviction based on chain of circumstantial evidence including medical evidence, alleged recovery, and motive – Supreme Court finds serious doubts about whether death was homicidal – Medical expert (PW-6) admitted absence of ligature mark around neck could be consistent with suicide by hanging – PW-6 also stated injury on scalp not consistent with iron pipe allegedly recovered from appellant – Held: Prosecution failed to establish conclusive chain of circumstances consistent only with guilt of the accused – Appeal allowed – Conviction set aside – Appellant acquitted [Paras 1, 5.1–5.6, 30–36, 56–57]

Medical Evidence – Cause of Death – Doctor PW-6 opined asphyxia due to strangulation – However, admitted in cross-examination that absence of ligature mark at back of neck suggests possibility of hanging – PW-6 further stated imprint abrasions could occur in hanging, not strangulation – Injury on scalp not possible with blunt iron pipe – Document showing deceased suffered from schizophrenia was part of charge-sheet but not exhibited – Such document can be relied upon by defence – Held: Doubtful whether death was homicidal – Medical evidence inconclusive – Suicide cannot be ruled out [Paras 30–36]

Circumstantial Evidence – Essential Principles – Case based entirely on circumstantial evidence – Supreme Court reiterates five golden principles from Sharad Birdhichand Sarda – Held: Chain of circumstances not complete – Evidence failed to exclude all other hypotheses – Presence of appellant at scene not proved – Recovery unreliable – No credible motive established – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 25, 36, 56]

Recovery of Weapon – Evidence of Panch Witness PW-2 – Alleged recovery of iron pipe and blood-stained clothes from house where appellant was said to be living – PW-2 contradicted himself on key aspects: travel to scene, language barrier, absence of signature during memorandum, and closeness to PW-3 – PW-6 deposed that iron pipe could not have caused injury – Held: Recovery evidence unreliable – Not a valid link in chain of circumstances – Further, FSL report not put to accused during Section 313 examination – DNA analysis not conducted – Recovery cannot be relied on to sustain conviction [Paras 13, 44–49]

Motive – Dispute over Property – Prosecution relied on PW-3 (uncle of appellant) to establish motive that appellant wanted mother’s property – PW-3 had ongoing property disputes with deceased and her family – Delayed recording of PW-3’s statement by 50 days – PW-3 instrumental in producing panch witness PW-2 – Contradictions in testimonies of PW-3, PW-7, and PW-8 regarding documentary recovery – Held: PW-3’s evidence not trustworthy – Motive not established – Prosecution’s theory that appellant had property motive not proved beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 14–15, 50–53]

Conduct of Accused – Section 8 of Evidence Act – Prosecution argued appellant’s silence and hurried cremation attempt were unnatural conduct indicating guilt – Appellant admitted informing PW-3 of mother’s death and participated in cremation rituals – No evidence that he attempted to conceal crime – Police did not investigate persons present at attempted cremation – Appellant not shown to have been present when injuries were inflicted – Held: No inference of guilt can be drawn solely from conduct in absence of other reliable evidence [Paras 26–29, 54–55]

Failure of Investigation – Mystery Around Attempted Cremation – Police failed to investigate crowd present during alleged first cremation attempt – No relatives of deceased examined – No identification or examination of caller who alerted police – Despite presence of several people at site, none were examined as witnesses – No concrete link of appellant to attempted cremation or death scene – Held: Investigation inadequate and selective – Raises serious doubts about fairness of prosecution case [Paras 26–29]

Section 106 Evidence Act – Presumption Based on Special Knowledge – Prosecution sought to invoke Section 106 and Trimukh Maroti Kirkan to shift burden on appellant – However, Investigating Officer PW-9 confirmed that appellant was residing separately from deceased in another house – No evidence that appellant was last seen with deceased or was present during her death – Held: Section 106 not attracted – Appellant had no special knowledge about cause of death – Burden remains on prosecution [Paras 38–43]

Co-accused Acquitted – On Same Evidence – High Court acquitted co-accused Balasaheb based on insufficiency of evidence and lack of motive – Recovery of nylon rope not considered incriminating – State did not appeal against acquittal – Held: Similar evidence relied upon to convict appellant cannot be selectively accepted – Further undermines credibility of prosecution case [Paras 6, 36–37]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges – Bail bonds discharged – Appellant to be released forthwith if not required in any other case [Paras 57–58]

Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 – Section 8(3) – Alienation of Minor’s Property – Mode of Repudiation – Natural guardian sold minors’ immovable property without prior court permission – Upon attaining majority, minors executed fresh sale deed of same property in favour of appellant within limitation – High Court held absence of suit to cancel earlier sale rendered later sale void – Held: Prior permission of court is sine qua non under Section 8(2); transaction without such permission is voidable, not void – Such voidable transaction may be repudiated by the minor on attaining majority either by filing a suit or by unequivocal conduct, such as executing a fresh sale deed – Institution of suit is not mandatory [Paras 10–14, 22, 32–34].

Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 60 – The period of three years for a minor to challenge alienation of property by guardian runs from date of attaining majority – Repudiation by conduct within such period is sufficient; formal suit not necessary [Paras 10, 33–34].

Transfer of Property – Repudiation by Conduct – Execution of a subsequent sale by the minors within limitation amounts to effective repudiation of earlier voidable transfer – Once repudiated, earlier transfer becomes void ab initio – Avoidance relates back to date of original transaction [Paras 17–20, 29–32].

Evidence Act – Power of Attorney Holder – Competence to Depose – Plaintiff failed to enter witness box; evidence led through power of attorney holder inadmissible on facts within personal knowledge of plaintiff – Such proxy cannot substitute principal’s testimony – Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani v. IndusInd Bank Ltd., (2005) 2 SCC 217; Rajesh Kumar v. Anand Kumar, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 981, relied on [Paras 38–39].

Civil Procedure – Pleadings and Proof – Plaintiff neither pleaded nor proved valid title of vendor; sale deed not proved – Evidence cannot travel beyond pleadings – Failure to enter witness box fatal to plaintiff’s case [Paras 36–40].

Decision: Judgment of High Court dated 19.03.2013 and that of First Appellate Court dated 30.06.2005 set aside – Trial Court decree restored – Suit dismissed – Appeal allowed – No order as to costs [Paras 41–42].

Public Interest Litigation – Road Safety – Pedestrian Protection – Directions Issued – Supreme Court takes cognizance of alarming rise in road accident deaths (1.72 lakh in 2023 including 35,000 pedestrians) – Court issues detailed directions on five key aspects: (i) pedestrian footpaths, (ii) pedestrian crossings, (iii) mandatory helmet use, (iv) prevention of wrong-lane driving, and (v) control of dazzling LED lights and unauthorised red–blue strobes and hooters – States, UTs and NHAI to ensure implementation of IRC:103–2022 and MOHUA accessibility norms, enforce helmet and lane-discipline laws, and curb misuse of lighting and sirens [Paras 6, 11, 28, 30–35.17].

Pedestrian Infrastructure – Footpaths – IRC Guidelines Compliance – Directions issued for footpath audits in 50 major cities and NHAI corridors to identify deficiencies in width, height, surface, and encroachments – Authorities to prioritise accident-prone and high-footfall areas (markets, schools, transit hubs) – Audit findings to guide repairs, retrofitting, and enforcement drives using GIS and camera-based monitoring – Dedicated Accessibility and Pedestrian Cells to be established in urban local bodies for implementation and monitoring [Paras 35.1–35.5].

Pedestrian Crossings – Safety and Accessibility – Authorities directed to audit and retrofit pedestrian crossings with high-visibility zebra markings, illumination, CCTV coverage, panic buttons, and barrier placements – Raised crossings and traffic-calming measures mandated near schools and hospitals – New crossings to be designed per IRC:103–2022 with signalisation, audible cues, and tactile paving – NHAI and cities to create new crossings where heavy pedestrian movement exists (including Delhi High Court–Zoo crossing) within 7 months [Paras 35.2–35.9].

Grievance Redress and Accountability – Online grievance portals to be set up by PWDs, NHAI, and Municipal Authorities for complaints on encroachments, non-maintenance of footpaths, and lack of crossings – Complaints to be addressed within fixed time – DRSCs to review pedestrian safety monthly – Officials and contractors liable under Section 198A MV Act for deaths arising from road design failures [Paras 35.10–35.12].

Helmet Enforcement – Sections 128, 129 & 194D MV Act – Court directs strict enforcement of helmet laws for drivers and pillion riders – E-enforcement through automated cameras and data reporting to Court – States/UTs to submit statistics on challans, fines and licence suspensions – Non-compliance to attract contempt and monitoring [Paras 28–29, 35.13].

Lane Discipline – Sections 184 & 206 MV Act – Wrong-lane driving and unsafe overtaking to be checked by automated cameras, fines, rumble strips, coloured lane markings, and tyre killers at intersections – Real-time dashboards on violations suggested for deterrence and transparency [Paras 30–32, 35.14].

Traffic Hazards – Dazzling LED Headlights and Unauthorised Hooters – MoRTH and States to set luminance and beam-angle limits for headlights – Ban on sale/use of unauthorised red–blue strobes and sirens – Enforcement through vehicle fitness checks, seizures and penal action – Nationwide awareness campaigns directed on glare hazards and misuse of emergency lights [Paras 33–35.15].

Statutory Rulemaking – Sections 138(1A) and 210D MV Act – All States/UTs directed to frame rules within six months regulating access of pedestrians and non-mechanised vehicles and ensuring road design and maintenance standards for non-National Highways [Paras 35.16–35.17].

Constitutional Law – Right to Safe Mobility – Article 21 – Court reiterates pedestrians’ right to safe, unobstructed movement and directs removal of encroachments from footpaths and pavements – Reaffirms Olga Tellis v. BMC, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan, Sudhir Madan v. MCD, and M.C. Mehta v. UOI – Violation of pedestrian safety treated as infringement of life and dignity [Paras 24–25].

Monitoring and Compliance – Supreme Court to review implementation after 7 months – States, UTs, NHAI to file progress reports on audits, enforcement, and rule framing – Appreciation recorded for Amicus Curiae Mr. Gaurav Agrawal for decade-long assistance in advancing pedestrian safety jurisprudence [Paras 35.10, 36–37].

Decision:

Comprehensive directions issued to Union and State Governments, NHAI, and Municipal Authorities to implement pedestrian infrastructure safety audits, enforce helmet and lane discipline, curb unauthorised lights and hooters, and frame statutory rules within six months under the Motor Vehicles Act – Matter to be listed after seven months for compliance review.

Civil Law – Injunction Suit Without Declaration – Maintainability – Plaintiff sought injunction against defendant (her brother) on the basis of a Will executed by their father – Admitted that defendant was in possession – No prayer for recovery of possession or declaration of title made – Held: Where possession is with defendant and ownership is disputed, suit for mere injunction is not maintainable without declaratory relief – Trial court and High Court erred in granting injunction against interference with possession [Paras 10–11].

Civil Law – Injunction Suit – Will-Based Title – Plaintiff claimed half share in 1.74½ acres based on Will dated 30.09.1985 executed by father – Suit filed for injunction simpliciter to restrain brother (defendant) from alienating or interfering with possession – Defendant claimed possession as co-owner and later exclusive owner under an arrangement with father – Trial court decreed suit – First appellate court dismissed suit finding Will invalid as property was ancestral – High Court reversed, upheld Will, and restored injunction – Supreme Court: While Will is proved, plaintiff’s lack of possession disentitles her to injunction without prayer for recovery or declaration of title [Paras 2–4, 10–11]

Possession – Admitted Possession with Defendant – Plaintiff in pleadings and evidence admitted that defendant was in possession – No relief sought for recovery of possession – Held: Plaintiff, not being in possession, could not seek injunction to protect possession or restrain interference – Suit ought to have included prayer for declaration and recovery – Grant of injunction against interference by defendant was legally unsustainable [Paras 8–11]

Tenancy Claim – Inconsistent Pleadings – Plaintiff initially claimed defendant inducted as tenant by father – Defendant denied tenancy and claimed co-ownership – Past suit (OS No. 895 of 1984) filed by father for possession and rent was dismissed for default – Plaintiff admitted no tenancy documents existed – Defendant’s consistent stand of co-ownership unshaken – Held: Inconsistencies in plaintiff’s case on possession and title further weakened claim for injunction [Paras 7–9]

Title – Will Proven but Ownership Disputed – Will executed by father found to be proved through attesting witnesses – However, father’s right to bequeath the property remains uncertain – Property originally purchased in grandmother’s name – No declaration of ownership granted in favour of plaintiff – Defendant claimed property was divided between brothers during father’s lifetime – Held: Title under cloud – Suit for injunction without declaration not maintainable when title is disputed [Paras 4, 10–11]

Relief – Injunction Against Alienation Upheld – Despite possession with defendant, neither party sought declaration of ownership – Court held injunction restraining alienation of property by defendant justified in absence of counterclaim – Liberty granted to both parties to file fresh suit for declaration of title and recovery within three months – Such proceedings to be decided independently without being influenced by current findings [Paras 11–12]

Decision: Appeal disposed – Injunction against interference in possession set aside – Injunction against alienation upheld – Liberty granted to file fresh declaratory and recovery suit within 3 months – No alienation or encumbrance of suit property allowed until final adjudication [Paras 12–13]

Criminal Law – PMLA – Quashing at Pre-Trial Stage – Alternate Remedy – ECIR did not name appellants and CBI dropped them in supplementary report – ED complaint rests on alleged withdrawal of attached sums (post-PAO) linked to an identified quantum ₹33,80,87,617/- claimed as proceeds of crime – Held: With statutory appeals under Section 26 PMLA pending and PMLA being a self-contained mechanism, interference to quash cognizance is unwarranted – Issues whether the attached amount is “proceeds of crime” and effect of withdrawals are for Appellate Tribunal – Appeals disposed of; liberty to pursue statutory remedies; no costs [Paras 33-41].

PMLA – Provisional Attachment & Confirmations – Statutory Scheme – Court reiterates that Section 5 (provisional attachment), Section 8 (confirmation), and Section 26 (appeal) comprise a comprehensive adjudicatory path – Constitutional/appellate jurisdiction ordinarily not exercised where efficacious remedy exists and is actively pursued [Paras 34-35].

PMLA – Proceeds of Crime – Scope and Identification – Core question is confined to whether the specified sum ₹33.80 crore (unpaid consideration for iron ore supplied by AMC) is “proceeds of crime” and whether its post-PAO withdrawals constitute an offence under Section 3 – Apprehension that entire banking operations are tainted is misplaced where payments were through regular channels and in the books; determination falls within Tribunal’s domain [Paras 37-38].

Criminal Procedure – Cognizance & Summons – Where allegations are confined to recovery of quantified amount and do not presently fasten wider criminal liability, apprehension of arbitrary prosecution is misplaced – No ground made out to quash cognizance or interdict proceedings at this stage [Para 39].

Practice & Procedure – Writ/Appeal vs. Statutory Forums – Court declines to prejudge issues pending before Appellate Tribunal; proceedings may continue uninfluenced by observations in the judgment; appeals disposed of with liberty; no order as to costs [Paras 40-42].

Decision: Appeals disposed – No interference with ED proceedings/cognizance at this stage – Appellants at liberty to pursue PMLA appeals – No costs – Pending applications disposed [Paras 40-43].

Criminal Law – Remission / Premature Release – Categorisation under 2010 Guidelines – Life convict initially directed to be released after 24 years by applying Category 4(d) (murder jointly with another with premeditation) – Held: On facts, offence arose from perceived protection of family prestige (love affair involving appellant’s sister) and falls under Category 3(b) – Entitled to consideration after 22 years [Paras 2, 4-6]

Sentence Remission – Time Undergone – Custody certificate showed 20 years 7 months 8 days as on 30.09.2024 – Court noted custody now almost 22 years, short of three months – Directed release forthwith, three additional months would serve no penological purpose [Paras 6-7]

Sentencing – Youthful Offender Consideration – Appellant was just past 18 years on date of crime – Factor weighed in favour of immediate release [Para 7]

Appeal – Outcome – Appeal allowed – Direction to release appellant forthwith – Pending applications disposed [Paras 8-9]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Appellant to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

Taxation – Works Contract – Transfer of Property in Goods – Printing of Lottery Tickets – Appellant engaged in printing lottery tickets using ink and chemicals procured by itself while paper was supplied by contractee – Assessing Authority levied tax under Section 3F(1)(b) of U.P. Trade Tax Act on ink and chemicals – Appellate Authority and Tribunal deleted levy holding such materials “consumed” and not transferred – High Court reversed holding ink and chemicals passed to customers as part of printing – Held: Tax under Section 3F(1)(b) is on goods involved in execution of works contract, not on end product – Lottery tickets being actionable claims immaterial – Ink and chemicals adhering to paper are transferred “in some other form” – Hence liable to tax [Paras 34–37, 52–56, 67–73].

Works Contract – Constitutional Scope – Article 366(29-A)(b) – After 46th Amendment, indivisible works contract deemed divisible into sale of goods and supply of services – Dominant intention test irrelevant – States empowered to tax transfer of property in goods “whether as goods or in some other form” – [Paras 21–33, 60–63].

Consumables – Meaning and Deduction – Only those consumables whose property is not transferred (e.g., water, electricity, fuel) are deductible – Ink and chemicals incorporated in printing process are not “consumables” but goods transferred in execution of works contract [Paras 61–64].

Interpretation – Moment of Transfer – Transfer of property occurs when contractor’s goods are incorporated in the “works” – Later consumption or transformation of goods immaterial – Taxable event is the deemed sale at the point of incorporation [Paras 59–63].

Precedents – Followed Builders Association of India v. Union of India (1989) 2 SCC 645; Gannon Dunkerley & Co. v. State of Rajasthan (1993) 1 SCC 364; Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. State of Karnataka (2014) 1 SCC 708; State of Maharashtra v. Sarvodaya Printing Press Fine Art Printer (1999) 114 STC 388 – Overruled Rainbow Colour Lab v. State of M.P. (2000) 2 SCC 385 to the extent inconsistent [Paras 25–33, 57–58].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – High Court judgment upholding levy of tax affirmed – Appellant liable to pay tax on ink and processing material under Section 3F(1)(b) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 – [Paras 70–74].

Criminal Law – Murder – Reversal of Acquittal – Identity of Accused Not Proved – Ocular testimony of independent house-owner witness (PW-7) established assault by three unknown persons inside her house but she could not identify the assailants – No test identification parade – Prosecution relied on PW-1 and PW-2 as eyewitnesses but their presence held doubtful; PW-1 a chance witness with unnatural conduct; PW-2’s version dependent on PW-1 – Recovery of weapons from open places not linked to the deceased by FSL; only discovery portion of disclosure admissible under Sections 25-27 Evidence Act – High Court erred in upsetting trial court’s acquittal absent perversity – Appeals allowed; conviction set aside; appellants acquitted [Paras 14-25, 28-36].

Witness Testimony – PW-7 (Independent Householder) – Credibility and Limits – PW-7 clearly deposed to the assault by three persons and the presence of blood on her clothes and bedsheet; however, she did not know the assailants’ names; no identification parade held; police failed to get accused identified by her – Court treated her testimony as trustworthy to the occurrence but insufficient for identity [Paras 14-16].

Chance Witness – PW-1 (Father of Deceased) & PW-2 – Presence Doubtful – PW-1’s conduct (not handing over blood-stained clothes; route taken was not on the way home) deemed unnatural; his presence at scene held doubtful, making him a chance witness; PW-2 admitted trailing PW-1 by 60–70 steps; with PW-1’s presence doubtful, PW-2’s testimony also unreliable for identification [Paras 19-24].

Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 25, 26 & 27 – Scope of Admissibility – Only the portion of disclosure leading to discovery is admissible; the self-inculpatory add-on that recovered weapons were used in the crime is inadmissible – No FSL report linking blood on recovered weapons to deceased; recoveries from open places insufficient to connect appellants with offence [Paras 28-33].

Criminal Procedure – Appellate Interference with Acquittal – High Court can interfere only if trial court’s view is perverse or patently erroneous; in absence of such perversity, deference to trial court’s appreciation of evidence is warranted; High Court erred in reversing acquittal [Paras 35-36].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside – Appellants acquitted on benefit of doubt – Bail bonds discharged [Paras 36-37].

Civil Procedure Code – Order XLI Rule 5 – Stay of Execution – Unconditional Stay – “Sufficient Cause” – Deposit not Mandatory – High Court justified in granting unconditional stay of money decree where decree found egregiously perverse, procedurally infirm, and passed without valid service of summons – Practice of deposit under Order XLI Rule 5 is prudential, not mandatory – Appeal dismissed [Paras 70, 80, 82-87, 125, 129-137].

Stay of Execution – Order XLI Rule 5 CPC – Discretionary Power – Unconditional Stay – “Sufficient Cause” – Deposit not Mandatory – Filing of appeal does not operate as automatic stay – Stay of execution must be based on recorded satisfaction of “sufficient cause” – Although the word “shall” is used in Order XLI Rule 5, it is directory in character – Deposit of decretal amount is not a mandatory condition precedent – Appellate court may grant unconditional stay if decree is egregiously perverse, patently illegal or facially untenable – Discretion to be exercised sparingly and on compelling facts [Paras 70, 80, 82-87, 134(VI)-(X)].

Meaning of “Sufficient Cause” – Interpretation – “Sufficient” means adequate and reasonable – Appellate court must be satisfied that refusal of stay would cause substantial loss – Recording of satisfaction is a precondition – “Sufficient cause” encompasses cases of gross procedural error, jurisdictional defect or manifest illegality [Paras 81, 134(III)-(IV)].

Stay of Money Decree – Deposit or Security – Non-mandatory – Under Order XLI Rule 5(3)(c) CPC, security may be in form of bond, property or undertaking – No statutory mandate to order cash deposit as sole form of security – Practice of insisting on deposit is a rule of prudence, not a rule of law [Paras 84-87, 134(XI)].

Exceptional Circumstances for Unconditional Stay – Parameters – Exceptional case for unconditional stay arises when decree is egregiously perverse, patently illegal, or facially untenable – Exceptional nature must be established from facts and reasons – Mere filing of appeal not sufficient [Paras 82-83, 134(VIII)-(IX)].

Service of Summons – Order IX Rule 13 CPC – Irregularity vs Invalidity – Second proviso to Order IX Rule 13 applies only when there is irregular service of summons, not when summons were never served – Knowledge of proceedings cannot replace valid service – Absence of valid service prevents court from acquiring jurisdiction – Division Bench rightly held that absence of service vitiated all proceedings after 20 April 2022 [Paras 88-93, 125, 131-133].

Damages – Order VII Rules 2 and 7 CPC – Enhancement Without Amendment – Single Judge enhanced damages from ₹2,00,05,000/- to ₹336,02,87,000/- without amendment of plaint or notice to defendant – Held impermissible – Damages cannot be awarded beyond pleadings – Evidence cannot traverse pleadings – Violation of fundamental procedural law [Paras 127-138, 175-178].

Trademark Infringement – Liability of Licensor – Lack of Pleadings and Findings – Licensing agreement between Amazon Tech and Cloudtail related only to ‘SYMBOL’ mark – No authorization for infringing acts – No pleading establishing complicity – Finding that defendants formed cohesive commercial entity unsupported by record – Held: prima facie patent illegality justified unconditional stay [Paras 126, 128, 142-153].

Arbitration Act – Section 36(3) – Analogy with CPC Inapplicable – Analogy of Section 36(3) Arbitration Act to civil appeals misconceived – Phrase “due regard” in Section 36(3) only directory – CPC provisions serve as guidance, not mandate – Courts under Arbitration Act or CPC retain discretion to grant unconditional stay in appropriate cases – Application of Pam Developments and Sepco Electric decisions confined to arbitration context [Paras 95-123, 114-120].

Practice and Prudence – Stay of Money Decree – Deposit of decretal amount is a rule of prudence evolved by courts to protect decree-holder’s interest – Not a universal principle – Appellate courts may depart in cases showing exceptional infirmities or grave procedural lapses [Paras 80, 134(X)].

Jurisdiction – Service of Summons and Due Process – Court’s jurisdiction founded on valid service of summons – Without such service, defendant not bound to appear – Proper service ensures due process; substituted service is exceptional and must be justified – In absence of service, ex parte proceedings void [Paras 131-133].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Impugned judgment of Division Bench affirming unconditional stay of money decree upheld – Division Bench correctly found serious procedural infirmities, invalid service of summons, lack of pleadings, and patent legal errors in decree – No interference warranted – Main appeal to be decided independently on merits [Paras 129-137].