Civil Law - Transfer of Property – Part Performance – Section 53-A TPA – Unregistered lease agreement – Defence upheld – A permanent lease was negotiated between the Talukdari Settlement Officer (with Government sanction) and the predecessor of the defendant; though no formal registered lease was executed, the offer and acceptance were in writings signed by the parties and Government – The terms (permanent lease; rent Rs. 290; revision after 50 years) could be ascertained with reasonable certainty – The transferee took possession, erected a factory and paid rent to successive managers – Held, conditions of Section 53-A were satisfied and the transferor/plaintiff was debarred from enforcing ejectment – Assistant Judge’s decree dismissing the suit restored [Paras 3-6, 10-11, 15-18].

Evidence – Secondary evidence of contract – Government records – Admissibility and reliability – Exh. 181 (Government Resolution/letter reciting the correspondence, offer, acceptance and sanction) constituted reliable secondary evidence of the written and signed contract where the primary documents were in the possession/power of the plaintiff/talukdars and withheld despite notice – Adverse inference justified – High Court erred in discarding Exh. 181 as proof of contract and terms [Paras 4, 16-17].

Registration Act – Section 49 – Unregistered instrument as evidence of part performance – Even if a formal lease deed is unregistered or absent, a signed written agreement creating a present demise may be looked into as evidence of part performance; Section 49 permits use of such agreement for the limited purpose – Formal registered lease is not a precondition to invoke Section 53-A TPA [Para 18].

Specific Relief – Section 27-A (active equity in leases) – Scope and temporal reach – The equity of part performance is recognized as an active equity in lease cases under Section 27-A of the Specific Relief Act, but that provision applies only to contracts executed after 01/04/1930; nevertheless, Section 53-A TPA furnishes a complete statutory defence in the present case [Para 16].

Civil Procedure – Second appeal – Interference with concurrent/sustainable findings – Where the Assistant Judge’s conclusion is sustainable on the statutory defence under Section 53-A TPA on the proved record (including admissible secondary evidence), there existed no substantial ground for reversal in second appeal; High Court’s interference set aside [Para 15].

Landlord and Tenant – Plaintiff’s locus/notice – Questions on plaintiff’s title to sue and notice were raised but not decided as unnecessary in view of the success of the Section 53-A defence; High Court’s contrary view on standing does not survive [Paras 14-15].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Judgment of the High Court set aside; decree of the Assistant Judge restoring dismissal of the suit – Parties to bear their own costs throughout [Para 18 (concl.)].

Civil Law - Agency – Scope of Authority – Commission Note – Authority to Conclude Sale – Construed broadly – The commission note authorised the broker to “negotiate the sale” and “secure a buyer” with stipulations of title being free of encumbrances and good title – Held: Such language implied authority to conclude a binding contract of sale, not merely to introduce a prospective buyer – Subsequent conduct of parties confirmed this understanding – Broker’s acceptance of buyer’s firm offer for Rs. 1,10,000 created binding contract – Commission earned [Paras 7-8, 26-28, 44-46].

Agency – Right to Commission – Negotiating Sale and Securing Buyer – Whether dependent on actual completion at stipulated price – Not dependent – Once broker introduced buyers who made a firm offer at Rs. 1,10,000, and eventual sale was concluded with the same buyers, commission right crystallised on that basis – Principal’s unilateral reduction of price to Rs. 1,05,000 (suspected to deprive broker of dues) cannot defeat broker’s entitlement – Commission payable on Rs. 1,10,000 [Paras 5, 10-11, 22-23, 47-53].

Luxor (Eastbourne) Ltd. v. Cooper – Distinguished – Principle that commission contracts create purely contingent rights applies where commission expressly conditional upon completion – In present case, buyers actually completed purchase – Once event occurred, commission right vested – Principal cannot defeat it by lowering sale consideration – House of Lords case not applicable [Paras 11, 54-57, 59-60].

Contract Act – Sections 188, 219 – Interpretation – Section 188 permits agent to act within express/implied authority – Terms “secure a buyer” and “negotiate sale” imply power to bind principal where conditions of title and price are specified – Section 219 entitles agent to agreed remuneration upon completion of duty – Applied here in broker’s favour [Paras 26, 45-46, 51].

Evidence – Conduct of Parties – Silence as acquiescence – Respondent’s silence upon being informed of concluded bargain, coupled with subsequent clandestine sale to same buyers at reduced price, supported inference that agent acted within authority and that sale for lower figure was collusive to deprive agent of commission [Paras 20, 22, 28].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Judgment of High Court (awarding only Rs. 1,000 commission) set aside – Decree of trial Judge restored – Appellant entitled to full commission of Rs. 6,000 with costs throughout [Paras 12, 46, 65-66].

Limitation – Execution of Decree – Article 182(3), Limitation Act, 1908 – “Review” must be undertaken and decided – Application under Section 36, Bengal Money-Lenders Act dismissed for default – No review “undertaken” or “decision passed on the review” – Time not extended – Held: Art. 182(3) inapplicable [Paras 3-4].

Limitation – Article 182(2) – “Where there has been an appeal” – Must relate to the decree under execution – Appeal from dismissal under Order IX Rule 9 CPC in collateral Section 36 proceeding does not qualify – No extension of limitation – Held: Art. 182(2) inapplicable [Para 5].

Execution – Starting Point of Limitation – Application filed more than three years after final decree – Not saved by collateral proceedings or dismissed applications – Decree time-barred [Paras 2-3, 4-5].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – High Court upheld – Execution held barred by limitation; no costs interference warranted [Paras 6-7].

Cooperative Society Disputes – Executability of Decree – Plot Allotment – Merger/Identity – Constructions – Supreme Court upholds High Court’s refusal to treat decree as inexecutable – Photograph shows substantial open land; only a covered passage overlies Plot 5A – Passage directed to be removed and Plot 5A allotted with vacant possession – Intervening shop owners on Plots 4 & 4A protected – Appeals disposed of with directions [Paras 3.4–3.6, 7–13].

Cooperative Court Award – History of Proceedings – Member obtained award (31.03.2000) directing allotment of Plot 5A; Cooperative Appellate Court dismissed appeal (20.04.2002); High Court in W.P. No. 4441/2002 granted liberty to raise executability objections before the executing court (07.10.2006) [Paras 3.1–3.3].

Execution – Inexecutability Plea – Loss of Identity/Merger – The society’s objection that Plot 5A had merged with Plots 4 & 4A and that constructions/approvals made decree impossible was initially accepted by the executing court (27.04.2011) but reversed in appeal (16.10.2015) [Paras 3.4–3.5].

Execution – Appellate Findings – Objection untenable as (i) merger plea not raised before Cooperative fora; (ii) no competent approval of merger; (iii) constructions unauthorised; (iv) illegal structures liable to demolition and vacant possession of Plot 5A to be given [Para 3.5].

Civil Revision – High Court – Dismissal with Costs – High Court concurred with appellate court; dismissed revision with Rs 25,000 costs; conduct found frivolous/malicious [Paras 3.6–3.7].

Interventions – Third-Party Appeals/Applications – SLPs by a shop owner and intervention by other shop owners/members noted [Para 3.8].

Evidence/Fact Appreciation – Photograph – Court finds substantial portion open; only a covered passage over Plot 5A; its existence/nature undisputed; passage not integral to main building and to be removed; thereafter Plot 5A to be allotted and vacant possession handed to decree-holder [Paras 11–12].

Relief – Protection to Non-Parties – Intervening shop owners on Plots 4 & 4A unaffected; their occupation and enjoyment to remain undisturbed [Para 13].

Decision: Civil Appeals disposed of with directions; intervention applications rejected; no interference with High Court order [Para 14].

Insurance Law - Motor Accident Claims - Motor Vehicles Act 1988 - Sections 147 and 149 - Extraterritorial Coverage of Insurance Policy - Appellant insurer challenged High Court order fastening liability on it for a bus accident occurring in Nepal - Tribunal originally held owner liable but High Court reversed this - Insurer argued geographical area was limited to India and extra premium under India Motor Tariff 2002 was not paid - Supreme Court noted policy contained a Limitation as to Use clause covering vehicles under a valid permit - Special permit explicitly authorizing Durg to Nepal route was issued by transport authority - Section 147(5) contains a non obstante clause making insurer liable to indemnify any liability purported to be covered overriding regulatory requirements of additional premium - Rule of contra proferentem applied due to ambiguous policy drafting - Held - High Court rightly fastened liability on insurer - appeal dismissed - [Paras 1 to 30].

Insurance Law - Cross border coverage - Motor Vehicles Act 1988 - Section 147 - Applicability of non obstante clause - Appellant argued non payment of additional premium under General Regulation 4 of India Motor Tariff restricted policy to India - Supreme Court held Section 147(5) of the Act imposes statutory liability overriding regulatory guidelines - Extra territorial operation of the Act is supported by Article 245 of the Constitution and provisions like Section 139 and 149 - Held - non payment of additional premium does not vitiate coverage given the valid route permit - [Paras 17 to 22].

Civil Law - Validity of driving license - Motor Vehicles Act 1988 - Section 3 - Driving in foreign territory - Insurer claimed driver lacked valid license to drive in Nepal - Driver possessed valid Indian driving license verified by Nepal authorities at border - Treaty of Peace and Friendship 1950 between India and Nepal grants reciprocal privileges regarding movement - Held - Indian driving license is valid for such movement and insurer is liable - [Paras 23 to 25].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – The compensation amount determined by the Tribunal along with stipulated interest is held payable by the appellant insurer – Amount to be deposited within four weeks – Copy of the order to be communicated to IRDAI to issue a master circular standardising cross border coverage clauses.

Taxation Law - Service Tax - Finance Act 1994 - Sections 65 66 83 - Business Auxiliary Service - The central issue was whether BPCL and HPCL acted as agents providing Business Auxiliary Service to Mahanagar Gas Limited or if they were buyers of Compressed Natural Gas on a principal to principal basis - The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the service tax demand holding it was a Principal to Agent relationship - CESTAT reversed this holding it to be a Principal to Principal sale - The Supreme Court analyzed the agreements and observed that property in the goods never passed to the respondents - MGL retained ownership controlled the retail price maintained the equipment and bore the risk until the CNG was sold to the ultimate consumer - The respondents merely provided the site manpower and infrastructure as facilitators in exchange for a commission - Held - The relationship is one of Principal and Agent - The transaction is not a sale of goods to the respondents but a provision of promotional and marketing services for MGL squarely covered under Business Auxiliary Service - The respondents are liable to pay service tax - CESTAT order set aside - Appeals allowed - [Paras 1-14].

Contract Law - Agency vs Sale - Sale of Goods Act 1930 - Section 4 - Contract Act 1872 - Sections 182 to 188 and 222 - Distinction between contract of sale and contract of agency - In a sale the property in goods is transferred from seller to buyer for a price divesting the seller of control and risk - In an agency the agent sells on behalf of the principal who retains ownership and risk - The agreements expressly showed MGL retained title to CNG until sold to vehicle owners and the respondents only received commission for their agency services - Held - True nature of the relationship was of Principal and Agent - Respondents were recipients of goods acting as marketing promoters and not buyers - [Paras 5.3-5.5.2 10-11.2].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Impugned common order of the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench Mumbai dated 04.06.2014 is set aside – Orders-in-Original dated 16.08.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (TAR) Mumbai are restored – Appellant is entitled to enforce the demand towards service tax against the respondent Corporations as adjudicated.

Criminal Law – Mistaken Identity – UAPA – Acquittal – Appellant, a Sri Lankan refugee residing in Trichy under the name "Ranjan", was convicted by the trial court and the conviction confirmed by the High Court, on the basis that he was the same person as absconding accused "Sri" (A-5), who allegedly handed over cyanide capsules and poisonous substances to co-accused Krishnakumar (A-1) in furtherance of a conspiracy to revive the banned LTTE — Held: Courts below erred in identifying the appellant with the absconding accused "Sri"; conviction based on flawed identification unsustainable; appellant acquitted [Paras 43, 62–64].

Witness Credibility – Material Improvement in Testimony – Identification in Police Custody – Key prosecution witnesses Balachandran (PW-8) and Kumar @ Dharma Kumar (PW-9) had not mentioned the name "Ranjan" in their earlier statements to police or in depositions in prior trials (S.C. No. 7/2016 and S.C. No. 15/2016); the identification of "Sri" as "Ranjan" was introduced for the first time in the present trial, only after the appellant's arrest, and was made during police custody without any Test Identification Parade — Held: Such belated and improved testimony constitutes a material improvement and not a mere lapse of memory; it has a debilitating effect on the credibility of the witnesses and cannot be brushed aside as inconsequential [Paras 47–49, 54, 56].

Witness Credibility – Unreliable Witnesses – Both PW-8 and PW-9 were Sri Lankan nationals illegally residing in India under fabricated identity documents; they sheltered the main accused Krishnakumar (A-1) and witnessed the alleged handover of poisonous substances yet remained silent and never informed the police; their conduct was unnatural, suspicious and sufficient to make them liable for prosecution — Held: Failure of investigating agency to take action against them casts serious doubt on the bona fides of the investigation [Paras 45–46, 61].

Evidence – Corroborative Witnesses – Misreading of Depositions – Courts below treated evidence of landlady Rasamalar (PW-25) and neighbours Indu (PW-17) and Latha (PW-18) as corroborating the prosecution case on identity — Held: A careful reading of their depositions reveals the contrary; PW-25 categorically stated there was no resident named "Sri" in her apartment and that she knew the appellant only as "Ranjan"; PW-17 and PW-18 confirmed only ordinary neighbourly interaction; their evidence, far from supporting the prosecution, establishes that the appellant was known only as "Ranjan" [Paras 50–53].

Identification – Absence of Test Identification Parade – Investigating Officer (PW-29) admitted that only the name "Sri" appears in earlier proceedings and that the name "Ranjan" does not find mention anywhere in the investigation records prior to arrest; no TIP was conducted; no contemporaneous documentary linkage connecting the appellant to accused "Sri" existed — Held: Applying principles in Vishwanatha v. State of Karnataka, 2024 INSC 482, the absence of reliable identification material and failure to establish how the appellant came to be implicated renders the case on identity wholly doubtful; unsafe to sustain conviction [Paras 54–56].

Conduct of Accused – Inconsistency with Prosecution Case – Appellant resided openly and continuously at a registered address in Trichy throughout the period he was allegedly absconding; he was simultaneously engaged with the Swiss Embassy for a visa and police clearance certificate to travel to Switzerland to join his wife and son — Held: Conduct of a person actively seeking police clearance is wholly inconsistent with that of an absconding accused in a serious UAPA matter and is entirely consistent with innocent conduct; investigating agency's failure to apprehend him for over five years from his known registered address further undermines the prosecution case [Paras 57–59].

Decision: Appeal allowed — Judgment of conviction dated 18.07.2024 passed by the trial court and impugned judgment dated 03.04.2025 passed by the Madras High Court set aside — Appellant acquitted of all charges — Directed to be released from Special Camp, Trichy forthwith — Liberty granted to pursue relocation to Switzerland in accordance with law [Paras 63–65].

Service Law – Dismissal without Departmental Inquiry – Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution – Appellant constable dismissed from service without conducting departmental inquiry on the ground that witnesses might be intimidated or influenced – Preliminary inquiry relied upon by disciplinary authority merely recorded a presumption that witnesses could be threatened due to alleged association with criminals – Held: No material on record showing actual threat, intimidation or inducement to witnesses – Mere presumption or belief cannot justify dispensing with a regular departmental inquiry – Invocation of Article 311(2)(b) unsustainable [Paras 27–31].

Article 311(2)(b) – “Not Reasonably Practicable to Hold Inquiry” – Scope – Power to dispense with inquiry is an extraordinary constitutional exception and cannot be invoked lightly or arbitrarily – Disciplinary authority must record cogent reasons in writing based on objective material demonstrating impracticability of inquiry – Satisfaction must be reasonable and subject to judicial review – Absence of material renders dismissal order invalid [Paras 16–20, 41].

Judicial Review – Satisfaction of Disciplinary Authority – Courts can examine whether reasons recorded are relevant, justified and supported by material – If reasons are irrelevant or based on conjectures, the order dispensing with inquiry and consequent penalty is liable to be struck down [Paras 18–19, 41].

Service Discipline – Custody of Employee – Relevance – Appellant was already in judicial custody when dismissal order was passed – No instance recorded showing intimidation or attempt to influence witnesses during custody – Therefore, the belief that inquiry could not be conducted due to witness intimidation was speculative and unsupported by evidence [Paras 34–35].

Relief – Reinstatement with Partial Back Wages – Dismissal order, CAT decision and High Court judgment set aside – Appellant directed to be reinstated with continuity of service and consequential benefits – Back wages restricted to 50% considering pendency of criminal case – Liberty granted to department to initiate departmental inquiry in accordance with law [Paras 42–43].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Orders of CAT and High Court set aside – Dismissal order quashed – Appellant reinstated with continuity of service and 50% back wages – Liberty granted to conduct departmental inquiry in accordance with law.

Sexual Harassment – Armed Forces – ICC Report – Appeal under POSH Act – Appellant, a Naval Commander, was proceeded against for alleged acts of sexual harassment based on an ICC report constituted under POSH Act – Report recommended action – Show Cause Notice for termination issued under Regulation 216 of the Navy Regulations read with Section 15(2) of the Navy Act – Held: Appeal lay under Section 18 of the POSH Act read with Section 14 of the AFT Act and could not be dismissed as premature merely because only a Show Cause Notice had been issued [Paras 4–6, 13–14, 21–26]

Jurisdiction – Armed Forces Tribunal – Scope under POSH Act – Tribunal wrongly refused to consider appeal on merits, treating it as premature – High Court also erred in holding that no statutory appeal lay against ICC findings – Held: Tribunal had jurisdiction under Section 14 of AFT Act and ought to have examined ICC report and recommendations, which formed basis of Show Cause Notice [Paras 22–26]

Interpretation of Statutes – Specific vs. General Law – Section 18 of POSH Act provides a specific right of appeal against ICC recommendations – Such right is enforceable before Armed Forces Tribunal when service matters are involved – Regulation 216 is general in nature and does not exclude operation of POSH Act – Tribunal’s jurisdiction not ousted [Paras 23–24]

Remand – Appeal Restored – Tribunal and High Court orders set aside – Original Appeal (OA No.1024/2025) restored before Tribunal – Tribunal directed to adjudicate appeal afresh on merits – Show Cause Notice not to be acted upon till final disposal [Paras 27–29]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Orders of High Court and Tribunal set aside – Original application restored before Tribunal – Tribunal directed to adjudicate matter afresh – Show Cause Notice dated 05.03.2025 not to be acted upon pending disposal.