Revenue Recovery – Auction of immovable property – Statutory remedy under Sections 37-A/38 not invoked – 30-day limitation mandatory – Interim stay on confirmation does not extend limitation – Deposit under court orders not equivalent to statutory deposit – Sale validly confirmed and rights accrued to auction purchaser – Challenge barred – Appeal dismissed [Paras 14-18, 20-22, 25-26].

Revenue Recovery – Mandatory statutory remedy – Sections 37-A and 38 of the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act – 30-day limitation – The Act provides a complete mechanism for setting aside a sale either by deposit (S. 37-A) or by alleging fraud/irregularity (S. 38). Both require filing an application within 30 days of the sale. Appellant admittedly filed none. Held: Limitation is mandatory, statutory remedy cannot be bypassed, and writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to revive a time-barred challenge [Paras 14-15].

Interim Orders – Effect on statutory limitation – High Court’s interim order only stayed confirmation of sale, not the conduct of auction. Auction on 29.07.2005 valid. Stay on confirmation does not suspend or extend the statutory obligation to file application within 30 days. Pendency of writ does not toll statutory limitation. Contention that no application was necessary rejected [Paras 16-18].

Revenue Recovery – Challenge to dues – Ex-parte decree of 1987 – Decree quantifying arrears was never challenged. Once arrears certified as recoverable under Revenue Recovery Act, authorities competent to proceed under the Act. Limitation plea under Article 112 and argument that execution should proceed under CPC held untenable [Para 19].

Auction Sale – Rights of auction purchaser – Finality after confirmation – Auction held on 29.07.2005; purchaser deposited full amount; sale confirmed on 23.07.2008. Held: Upon confirmation of sale, rights accrue in favour of purchaser and can be interfered with only on proof of fraud or substantial irregularity. None proved. Property already transferred to bona fide purchasers. Transaction attained finality [Paras 20-21].

Writ Jurisdiction – Scope – High Court rightly refused to entertain belated challenge when specific statutory remedy not availed. Writ jurisdiction cannot be used to circumvent mandatory statutory procedures or reopen time-barred proceedings. Findings of High Court proper and well-reasoned [Para 22].

Review Jurisdiction – Limited scope – Review cannot act as appeal in disguise. No error apparent on face of record shown. High Court correctly dismissed review relying on binding precedents (Lily Thomas; Parsion Devi) [Paras 23-24].

Held: Appellant failed to invoke Sections 37-A/38 within limitation – Auction conducted and confirmed as per law – Interim stay did not excuse non-compliance with statutory mechanism – No illegality, irregularity, or fraud established – High Court orders upheld – Appeal dismissed [Paras 25-26].

Revenue Recovery – Challenge to Auction Sale – Delay – Writ Not Maintainable – Appellant failed to invoke statutory remedies under Sections 37-A and 38 of the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 within 30 days – Auction held on 29.07.2005 and confirmed on 23.07.2008 – Payments made during writ proceedings cannot substitute compliance with statutory procedure – Interim stay on confirmation of sale did not suspend statutory obligations – No material irregularity or fraud proved in sale process – Challenge dismissed as barred by limitation [Paras 3, 14–16, 18, 22, 25].

Revenue Recovery – Auction Sale – Statutory Bar – Writ Petition Not Maintainable – Appellant challenged auction of ancestral property under the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act without filing an application under Sections 37-A or 38 to set aside the sale – Auction held on 29.07.2005, confirmed on 23.07.2008 – Challenge made after 4 years without invoking statutory remedies – Held: Writ petition and review rightly dismissed by High Court as belated and not maintainable [Paras 3, 15, 22].

Limitation – Revenue Recovery Act – Sections 37-A and 38 – Strict Compliance Required – Appellant argued that pending writ proceedings and interim stay on confirmation of sale obviated the need to file an application under the Act – Rejected – Court held that interim orders do not suspend statutory limitation – 30-day limit to challenge auction must be strictly followed – Payments made during pendency of writ proceedings not a substitute for filing under Section 37-A [Paras 14–16, 18].

Civil Procedure vs. Revenue Recovery – Mode of Execution – Appellant’s contention that 1987 ex-parte decree should have been enforced under Civil Procedure Code and not through Revenue Recovery rejected – Held: Once arrears certified under Revenue Recovery Act, proceedings under that Act valid – Recovery not barred by limitation under Article 112 of Limitation Act [Paras 8, 19].

Rights of Auction Purchaser – Confirmation of Sale – Citing Valji Khimji v. Official Liquidator, Supreme Court reiterated that once a sale is confirmed, rights of auction-purchaser become final and cannot be disturbed except for fraud or material irregularity – No such irregularity shown – Sale certificate issued, property registered and transferred to bona fide purchasers – Challenge held to be infructuous [Paras 20–21].

Judicial Review – Scope of Review Petition – Review petition dismissed as no error apparent on record shown – Writ petition, appeal and review all adjudicated on merits – Findings of High Court found to be reasoned, consistent with law and not perverse – Review cannot be treated as appeal in disguise [Paras 23–24].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Auction sale and its confirmation upheld – High Court’s orders in writ appeal and review application affirmed – No interference warranted [Paras 25–26].

Criminal Law – Murder – Conviction Based Solely on Recovery – Appellant convicted under Section 302 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act on basis of recovery of pistol and cartridges allegedly used in murder – Prosecution case unsupported by eyewitnesses – PW-1 (complainant) and PW-5 (alleged responder) turned hostile – No other material evidence connecting appellant to crime scene – Held: Recovery from shared space accessible to others not sufficient for conviction – Conviction set aside [Paras 5, 13, 16, 22-24]

Evidence Law – Disclosure Statements – Section 27 of Evidence Act – Confessional statement of accused in police custody inadmissible – Recovery must be distinctly connected to fact discovered – Appellant’s disclosure did not specify pistol was used in offence – Recovery from unlocked iron box in common household area with no independent witness – Held: Disclosure and recovery insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 14-16, 22-24]

Witness Testimony – Hostile Eyewitnesses – PW-1 named appellant in supplementary statement five days after FIR and claimed to be eyewitness – Later denied seeing the incident and turned hostile – No identification parade conducted – PW-5 also turned hostile – Held: Testimony of both witnesses unreliable – Prosecution failed to prove presence of appellant at crime scene [Paras 12-13, 22-23]

Motive – Absence of Personal Motive – Motive alleged against co-accused (mother-in-law, brother-in-law) who were either acquitted or not chargesheeted – Appellant’s alleged role based on speculative friendship with co-accused – No evidence of personal grudge or benefit – Held: Motive theory unproven and cannot sustain conviction [Paras 14, 22-23]

Forensic Evidence – Chain of Custody Not Established – Recovered weapon kept in police Malkhana for 19 days before sending to FSL – No clarity on when article was removed for testing – No independent witness to confirm seizure or storage – FSL report cannot solely sustain conviction without proper chain of custody [Paras 16, 23]

Precedents – Applicability – Cases cited by prosecution (Jeet Singh, Bharat Dhiwar, Lochan Srivas) distinguished – Those cases involved recovery from exclusive premises and were supported by corroborative evidence – Present case lacked supporting evidence and recovery was from shared space – Held: Precedents not applicable to present facts [Paras 17-21]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act set aside – Appellant acquitted – Appellant to be released forthwith unless required in any other case [Para 25]

Matrimonial Law – Divorce on Ground of Cruelty – Remand – Respondent-husband’s divorce petition was initially dismissed by the trial court – High Court reversed the finding and granted divorce on ground of cruelty based solely on oral testimony of the husband – Supreme Court found that the High Court failed to consider key questions including whether the appellant-wife was thrown out or voluntarily left matrimonial home, and whether earlier withdrawal of cruelty petition barred second on same cause – Held: Matter remitted to High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law [Paras 2-4, 6-7]

Family Law – Mental Cruelty – Evaluation of Evidence – Supreme Court emphasized that before granting divorce on ground of irretrievable breakdown or cruelty, the Court must undertake a comprehensive analysis of conduct, social background, and responsibility for separation – High Court failed to conduct such exercise – Remand ordered [Paras 4-6]

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Judicial Approach – Court cautioned against using irretrievable breakdown as a blanket ground for divorce without attributing responsibility for breakdown – Importance of examining which party caused the separation and consequences on the child stressed – Held: Determination must be rooted in evidence and fairness [Paras 5-6]

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – Judgment of High Court set aside – Matter remanded for fresh adjudication by High Court – Parties directed to appear before High Court on 24.11.2025 [Paras 7-8]

NDPS Act – Bail – Commercial Quantity – Section 37 – High Court granted bail without addressing incriminating circumstances, prior linked seizure, or recording mandatory satisfaction under Section 37(1)(b) – Held: Orders unsustainable – Remanded for fresh consideration; interim bail to continue till reconsideration [Paras 15–22].

Bail – NDPS Act – Commercial Quantity – Mandatory Twin Conditions – Improper Application by High Court - High Court granted bail reasoning that there was no material showing respondent’s knowledge of cocaine in imported pears consignment, absence of antecedents, and prolonged custody – Held: High Court failed to apply mandatory twin conditions of Section 37(1)(b)(i) & (ii) and did not record satisfaction that accused was not guilty or unlikely to commit offence while on bail [Paras 14–19].

NDPS – Conscious Possession – Statements and Circumstances Ignored by High Court - High Court did not consider prosecution’s assertions: respondent placed import orders, controlled logistics chain, coordinated with overseas supplier, and was present during opening of container – Statements under Section 67 NDPS Act and surrounding circumstances prima facie relevant to conscious possession and presumption under Section 35 NDPS Act – High Court erred in ignoring these materials [Paras 15–16].

NDPS – Antecedent Seizure of 198.1 kg Methamphetamine and 9.035 kg Cocaine – Non-consideration - Prosecution relied on earlier seizure (02.10.2022) allegedly linked to same network and involving respondent – This material was not noticed or evaluated in impugned bail orders – Such omission directly affects statutory satisfaction under Section 37 – Order unsustainable [Paras 16–19].

Bail – Long Custody & Delay – Not Alone Sufficient to Override Section 37 - High Court relied on prolonged custody and anticipated delay – Held: these factors, while relevant, cannot override statutory bar under Section 37 unless Court first records mandatory satisfaction regarding innocence and non-likelihood of reoffending – High Court exceeded discretion [Paras 14, 17–18].

Judicial Review of Bail Orders – Commercial Quantity Cases Require Elevated Scrutiny - Supreme Court reiterates that in NDPS commercial quantity cases, ordinary CrPC bail parameters are supplemented by stringent statutory embargo – High Court must engage with all material on record and prosecution's assertions before granting bail [Paras 18–20].

Remand – Fresh Consideration Directed – Interim Bail to Continue - Supreme Court refrains from making factual findings at threshold; sets aside bail orders dated 22.01.2025 & 12.03.2025 – Matter remitted to High Court to reconsider bail afresh keeping Section 37 and all factual materials in view – Interim bail to continue but violation will permit cancellation [Paras 20–22].

Decision: Orders set aside – Matter remanded – Interim bail continued - Appeals disposed of – Bail orders quashed – High Court to decide afresh within four weeks; no opinion expressed on merits [Paras 21–23].

Consumer Protection Act – Definition of Consumer – Commercial Purpose – Corporate purchase of business automation software held directly connected to profit-generation – Not covered by self-employment exception – Held: Appellant-company is not a “consumer” under Section 2(1)(d); complaint not maintainable; appeal dismissed [Paras 15–18, 21–28].

Consumer Law – Commercial Purpose – Dominant Purpose Test – Purchase of Software for Business Automation - Purchase of “Brillio Opti Suite” software by appellant-company engaged in import/export operations had direct nexus with business documentation, tracking shipments, managing export benefits, and improving operational efficiency – Dominant object being profit augmentation—Held: transaction is for a commercial purpose; appellant not a consumer under Section 2(1)(d) of the 1986 Act [Paras 4, 10, 17, 22, 27].

Definition of Consumer – Companies Included but Excluded When Goods/Services Used for Commercial Purpose - Court reaffirms that companies fall within “person” under Section 2(1)(m); however, exclusion clause bars persons availing goods/services for commercial purpose – Corporate use of business-automation software falls squarely within exclusion [Paras 13–14].

Self-Employment Exception – Explanation to Section 2(1)(d) – Inapplicable to Corporations - Exception applies only when goods/services are used exclusively to earn livelihood by means of self-employment – Distinction drawn between individuals earning livelihood and corporations maximising profits – Held: corporate purchaser cannot invoke the exception; software was procured for business expansion and efficiency [Paras 18, 22].

Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Principles – Dominant Purpose – Nexus with Profit – Applicability - Court applies broad principles: identity of purchaser or value of transaction irrelevant; what matters is dominant purpose – If purchase is linked to profit-generation, it is commercial – Automation of business processes is aimed at reducing costs and increasing profits; hence commercial [Paras 15–16].

Reliance on Sunil Kohli and Paramount Digital – Distinguished - Those decisions involved unemployed individuals purchasing goods for livelihood – Present case involves a well-established corporation already engaged in commercial activity – Therefore, precedents on self-employment do not assist the appellant [Paras 19–21].

Business-to-Business Transactions – Software Licence – Not a Consumer Dispute - Consumer Protection Act primarily addresses business-to-consumer relationships; business-to-business purchases used for profit are excluded from consumer jurisdiction – Software licence here was a B2B commercial tool [Para 10].

Harsolia Motors Clarified – Goods/services with direct nexus to profit-generation constitute commercial purpose; only purchases unrelated to profit (e.g., office AC, refrigerator) fall outside commercial purpose; present purchase directly tied to business operations and profitability [Paras 24–26].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Appellant not a Consumer - Held: Software purchased for automating business processes and maximising profits constitutes commercial purpose – State Commission and NCDRC right in dismissing complaint as not maintainable – Appeal dismissed; no order as to costs [Paras 28–30].

Insurance Law – Boiler & Pressure Plant Policy – Repudiation of Claim – Explosion in registered boiler occurred during currency of fitness certificate – Insurer failed to prove suppression or pre-existing defects – Exclusion Clause 5 not attracted where defects surface only after explosion – NCDRC order set aside; claim restored for determination of quantum [Paras 23, 30–33, 37–41, 43–44].

Insurance Claim – Repudiation – Explosion – The appellant alleged a boiler explosion; insurer did not traverse the specific plea of explosion; survey reports did not conclusively rule out explosion – Held: Explosion deemed established; claim could not be rejected on assumption of mere tube slippage [Paras 23, 30–32].

Contract of Insurance – Duty of Disclosure – No evidence that proposer concealed material facts; no enquiry sought by insurer on age/condition of tubes; boiler validly registered and certified for use under the Boilers Act – Held: No failure of utmost good faith; repudiation unsustainable [Paras 27, 29–36].

Exclusion Clause 5 – Interpretation – Clause excludes defects due to wear, corrosion, deterioration etc. unless such defects “result in explosion” – Where explosion is not denied and defects surface only after the event, exclusion clause cannot apply – Held: NCDRC erred in applying clause 5; clause to be construed to uphold main purpose of policy [Paras 22, 37–41].

Boiler Registration – Evidentiary Value – Boiler had a valid certificate under the Boilers Act; accident occurred during subsistence of certificate – Held: Heavy burden on insurer to displace presumption of fitness; insurer showed no proof of unfitness or fraud; post-accident corrosion findings irrelevant [Paras 25, 32–33, 39].

Surveyor’s Reports – Weightage – Surveyor’s report placed for first time before NCDRC, years after filing – Though expert opinion must be given due weight, belated production and ambivalence regarding explosion cannot defeat claim – No definite finding of pre-existing defects – State Commission justified in adverse inference [Paras 17, 30–32, 38].

Alternative Remedy – Maintainability under Article 136 – Insurer argued appeal not maintainable due to alternate remedy of writ – Held: No inherent bar; matter fully pleaded and ready; relegation would delay justice; Supreme Court may exercise jurisdiction [Para 42].

Relief – Order of NCDRC set aside – Appeals before NCDRC restored for consideration of quantum of compensation only – All other issues closed – Parties to bear own costs [Paras 43–45].

Inter-State Water Dispute – Cauvery Water Sharing – Mekedatu Project – Tamil Nadu’s challenge to Karnataka’s preparation of DPR for Mekedatu Dam rejected – Supreme Court held: Karnataka only permitted to prepare DPR, subject to expert scrutiny and approval by CWMA – No interference warranted at this stage – Application filed by Tamil Nadu found premature and misconceived – States bound to comply with allocation as per CWDT Award as modified by Supreme Court – Appeal and connected applications dismissed [Paras 1–31]

Water Law – Preparation of Detailed Project Report (DPR) – Objections by Lower Riparian State – Tamil Nadu sought stay on permission granted by Central Water Commission (CWC) to Karnataka for preparing DPR of Mekedatu Dam – Held: CWC’s permission is only for preparation of DPR, not for execution – DPR subject to approval of Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA) – No final approval granted yet – Application dismissed as premature [Paras 1, 8, 15–16, 26–27]

Federalism – Inter-State Resource Management – Rights of States – Supreme Court reiterated: Every State has the right to manage water allocated to it under CWDT Award as modified by Court – No State can object to how another State uses its allocated share unless it reduces the share of the complaining State – Karnataka is entitled to utilise its quota through infrastructure like Mekedatu Dam, provided it complies with CWMA directives – [Paras 28–29]

Judicial Deference to Expert Bodies – Role of CWMA and CWRC – Disputes over water release during Monsoon 2023 also raised earlier – Supreme Court reiterated lack of judicial expertise in technical water management – Directed such issues to be handled by CWMA and CWRC – Held: Courts must refrain from interfering when expert bodies are in seisin of the matter – [Paras 21, 24–25, 30]

Environmental Compliance – Reuse and Return of Domestic Use Water – Tamil Nadu sought directions to Karnataka to return 80% treated water to Cauvery River system and not divert it to Pennaiyar basin – Supreme Court: Such grievances must be raised before CWMA and CWC – Directed expert bodies to act expeditiously upon such complaints – Judicial intervention not warranted at this stage – [M.A. No. 1869/2023 – Paras 1–5]

Public Interest Litigation – Water Disputes – Writ Petition seeking enforcement of CWDT Award dismissed – Held: CWMA and CWRC are competent statutory bodies for implementation of Award – No separate judicial direction required – [W.P.(C) No. 914/2023 – Paras 1–2]

Contempt Petition – Alleged Non-Compliance of Water Release – Disposed in view of present judgment – No finding of wilful disobedience – Karnataka reminded of its duty to comply with CWMA directives or face contempt – [Contempt Petition (C) No. 2210/2018 – Para 28]

Decision: Miscellaneous Applications, Contempt Petition, and Writ Petition dismissed – Karnataka may proceed with DPR preparation, subject to expert scrutiny – Tamil Nadu may raise objections before CWMA/CWC – No interference by Supreme Court at this stage [Paras 27, 31]

– Aggravated sexual assault on 4-year-old – Conviction under Section 9(m) read with Section 10 POCSO based on cogent testimony of mother and surrounding circumstances upheld despite absence of external injuries and failure of traumatized child to depose – Maximum sentence of 7 years RI reduced to 6 years RI considering period already undergone and overall circumstances – Appeal partly allowed [Paras 2-3.2, 4-5.6, 7-9].

POCSO – Aggravated Sexual Assault – Conviction – Evidence of Mother – Four-year-old Victim – FIR and Medical Evidence – Concurrent Findings – Appellant convicted by Special Judge (POCSO) under Sections 9(m) and 10 POCSO and sentenced to 7 years RI and fine – High Court confirmed conviction and sentence – Prosecution case that appellant, a neighbour, returned with victim’s father from forest after collecting wood, consumed liquor at their house, and later was found by victim’s mother (PW-3) wearing only half shorts and sitting near the legs of the sleeping 4-year-old victim whose underwear was down to knees and frock pulled up to chest – Child was crying, complained of pain in private part and her private part was found wet – FIR registered the same day, victim sent for medical examination, statement under Section 164 CrPC recorded, chargesheet filed and date of birth established as 13-02-2017 (age 4–5 years) – Held: narrative of PW-3 and consistent account of father (PW-2) form a clear and reliable account of the incident; no reason to disbelieve the mother’s testimony – Concurrent findings of Trial Court and High Court on guilt under Section 9(m) read with Section 10 POCSO sustained [Paras 2-3.2, 5-5.1, 6-7].

Evidence Law – Ocular vs Medical Evidence – Absence of External Injury – Redness in Vagina – Effect on Prosecution Case – Defence contention that absence of external injury or bleeding on victim’s private part and possibility of redness due to rubbing or infection entitled appellant to benefit of doubt – Medical Officer (PW-6) found no external injuries and no bleeding but noticed redness in the vagina – Another Medical Officer (PW-8) opined that appellant was capable of sexual intercourse – Court reiterates that where ocular evidence is consistent and cogent, medical evidence, even if not fully corroborative, takes a backseat – In present case, medical evidence (redness in vagina) does not negate, and in fact is consistent with, the prosecution version – Held: submissions based on alleged deficiency in medical evidence rejected; conviction can rest on trustworthy ocular testimony of PW-3 supported by surrounding circumstances [Paras 4, 5.2, 7].

Child Witness – Four-year-old Victim – Inability to Depose due to Trauma and Fear – Conduct in Court as Corroborative Circumstance – Victim (PW-1), aged about 4 years and studying at Anganwadi, was produced as a witness – On being shown the accused, who removed his mask in court, the child became frightened, refused to look at him, and did not answer questions – Evidence had to be stopped, victim sent out, and even after intervals and presence of mother, she only cried and did not speak – Trial court therefore closed her examination with no cross-examination – Held: sequence of events in the courtroom demonstrates that the child was in a frightened and traumatized state upon seeing the accused – Her behaviour is a “tale-telling” circumstance reflecting the continuing shock of the incident and operates as a pointer towards truth of the prosecution case – Failure of such a young victim to give verbal testimony in court is not fatal to prosecution when there is otherwise cogent evidence [Paras 5.3-5.6].

POCSO – Sections 7, 8, 9(m), 10 – Aggravated Sexual Assault – Penetration Not Sine Qua Non – Child Below 12 Years – Section 7 POCSO defines sexual assault, Section 8 prescribes punishment, Section 9 defines aggravated sexual assault and Section 10 provides punishment, including for assault on child below 12 years [Section 9(m)] – Appellant convicted under Section 9(m) read with Section 10 for sexually assaulting a 4-year-old child – Argument for appellant that absence of allegation or proof of penetration should result in acquittal, as offence under POCSO not made out – Court not impressed; given the evidence of victim’s undressed state, appellant’s position near her legs, complaint of pain and wetness in private part, and age of victim, ingredients of aggravated sexual assault under Section 9(m) are satisfied – Held: for Section 9(m) read with Section 10, penetration is not indispensable; proved acts of sexual assault on child below 12 years suffice to sustain conviction [Paras 6-8].

Criminal Law – Appreciation of Evidence in Sexual Offences Against Children – Role of Parental Testimony – Both parents (PW-2 and PW-3) were consistent in deposing about accused accompanying father to forest, returning to house, consuming liquor, presence in house when child was sleeping, and discovery of accused by mother near the legs of the child with her clothes disarranged – Mother immediately raised alarm, father attempted to apprehend accused and assaulted him with stick as he fled – Court holds parental testimony, particularly that of mother witness to immediate post-occurrence circumstances, to be natural, prompt and trustworthy – No motive suggested for false implication of neighbour – Held: Trial Court and High Court’s appreciation of this evidence is “eminently legal and proper”, calling for no interference [Paras 5-5.2, 7].

Sentence – POCSO – Section 10 – Reduction from 7 Years RI (Maximum) to 6 Years RI – Factors Considered – For offence under Section 9(m) read with Section 10 POCSO, Trial Court imposed 7 years rigorous imprisonment (maximum under Section 10) and fine, which was affirmed by High Court – Supreme Court notes that appellant has already undergone about 4 years 5 months of imprisonment – While upholding conviction, Court considers “totality of facts and circumstances” and reduces sentence of rigorous imprisonment from 7 years to 6 years – Fine of Rs 6000 and default sentence of 1 year simple imprisonment maintained – High Court judgment modified to this limited extent – Appeal partly allowed [Paras 2.1, 9-11].