Civil Law – Limitation – Validity of Sale Deed – Plaintiffs claimed 1/3rd share in agricultural land – Alleged that sale deed dated 14.06.1973 executed in favour of defendant was fraudulent and without consideration – Trial Court dismissed the suit as time-barred – First Appellate Court decreed the suit holding that the sale deed was void and suit filed within 12 years under Article 65 Limitation Act, 1963 – High Court affirmed the decree but held Article 59 applied, though suit was still within limitation – Supreme Court clarified that since sale deed was void ab initio, Article 65 (12 years) applied, not Article 59 (3 years) – Appeal dismissed [Paras 3–15, 24–41].

Limitation Act – Article 65 vs Article 59 – Court distinguished between void and voidable instruments – Article 59 applies only to voidable instruments requiring cancellation (fraudulent misrepresentation as to contents) – Article 65 applies to suits for possession based on title where the impugned document is void/void ab initio (fraud as to character or want of consideration) – Plaintiff, not being party to the void transaction, need not seek cancellation – Merely seeking joint possession suffices [Paras 25–29, 31–33].

Evidence – Proof of Fraudulent Sale Deed – Plaintiffs proved that thumb impressions on sale deed were not theirs – Expert testimony unchallenged – Defendant failed to produce original sale deed or prove payment of sale consideration of ₹15,000 – Husband of defendant, alleged to have paid balance ₹6,000, not examined – Attesting witness (brother of defendant) considered biased – Sarpanch attesting witness deceased – Courts held absence of valid execution and want of consideration rendered deed void [Paras 27, 35–38].

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 54 – Essential element of sale is transfer of ownership for a price – Sale without consideration is void – In present case, defendant failed to prove payment of consideration – Sale deed therefore void, conferring no title [Paras 34–38].

Principles Restated – (i) Void documents need not be cancelled; possession can be claimed under Article 65 – (ii) Burden lies on party relying on sale deed to prove valid execution and consideration – (iii) Limitation runs from date possession becomes adverse, not from date of void deed – (iv) Courts must distinguish between fraudulent misrepresentation as to character (void) and contents (voidable) of document [Paras 28–29, 31–33, 39–40].

Decision – Supreme Court dismissed appeal – Held that sale deed dated 14.06.1973 was void ab initio – Suit filed on 28.02.1984 within 12 years of sale deed was within limitation under Article 65 – High Court erred in applying Article 59 but rightly upheld maintainability of suit – Plaintiffs entitled to joint possession – Appeal dismissed [Paras 40–41].

Sexual Harassment Complaint – Limitation under POSH Act – Complaint Held Time-Barred – The appellant, a faculty member at NUJS, filed a complaint of sexual harassment against the Vice-Chancellor in December 2023, with the last alleged incident occurring in April 2023 – The LCC rejected the complaint as time-barred – The Single Judge of the High Court reversed the LCC’s decision, holding that subsequent hostile acts extended the limitation – The Division Bench restored the LCC’s rejection, holding the administrative acts post-April 2023 did not constitute sexual harassment or extend the limitation period – Held: The last actionable incident of sexual harassment occurred in April 2023; subsequent administrative measures were unrelated and did not amount to continuing sexual harassment – Complaint was rightly dismissed as time-barred under Section 9 of the POSH Act – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1–2, 4–7, 13–14, 21–26, 29–32].

Continuing vs Recurring Wrong – Application under POSH Act – The Court distinguished between a “continuing wrong” where the injury persists, and a “recurring wrong” where new cause of action arises – Held: The act of April 2023 was a completed act and not a continuing one – Later administrative actions, although adverse, were collective decisions unrelated to any sexual misconduct – Thus, did not revive limitation [Paras 28–29].

Judicial Approach – Rejection of Complaints at Threshold – The Court clarified that while limitation may be a mixed question of law and fact, a complaint can be dismissed at the threshold if it is patently barred by limitation – Analogous to Order VII Rule 11 CPC – This applied in the present case [Para 15].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The Supreme Court upheld the Division Bench's view that the complaint was time-barred and should not have been revived – However, the Court directed that the judgment noting the wrongdoing be added to the Vice-Chancellor’s resume as a lasting consequence – No relief granted to appellant, but wrongdoing noted [Paras 32–35].

Public Tender – Post-Bid Rectification – Clause 4(g) and 5B(v) – Rectification Not Permissible – The respondent’s request to correct its BOQ rate after financial bid opening was rejected by the tender authority – Division Bench allowed the correction treating the quoted figure as a per day rate – Held: Such post-bid rectification is impermissible under Clause 4(g), which prohibits any change in BOQ template – Clause 5B(v) allows only clarification of already submitted documents, not correction of price bids – Allowing changes post-opening unsettles sanctity of tender [Paras 30–32, 41].

Natural Justice – Necessary Party Not Heard – H1 Bidder Not Impleaded – Violation Found – The appellant (original H1 bidder) was not impleaded before the Division Bench even though its position was directly affected by the directions – Held: The non-impleadment violated principles of natural justice and vitiated the proceedings – Fairness and hearing are essential when judicial review intervenes in tender evaluation [Para 43].

Public Interest – Cannot Override Tender Rules – Sanctity of Tender Paramount – The Court rejected the plea that higher revenue alone justified interference – Held: Sanctity of tender process and adherence to bid terms outweigh speculative fiscal benefits – Any leniency undermines fairness, predictability and transparency in public procurement [Paras 33, 44].

Judicial Review – Scope Limited in Tender Matters – No Mala Fides or Arbitrariness – The Division Bench’s intervention was found excessive – Held: Judicial review in tenders must meet high thresholds such as mala fides, perversity, or gross arbitrariness – Mere difference in judicial opinion or mistake by bidder not sufficient to justify interference [Paras 34–36, 42].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court Judgment Set Aside – Held: The Division Bench of the High Court erred in allowing rectification post bid-opening and issuing fresh directions without hearing the appellant – Original tender process stands restored – Respondents directed to finalise contract as per original NIB – No costs awarded [Paras 45–46].

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code – Section 7 – Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code – Homebuyers as Financial Creditors – Speculative Investor – Appellants (Mansi Brar Fernandes and Sunita Agarwal) had invested in real estate projects under MoUs containing buyback clauses and assured returns – NCLT admitted their Section 7 IBC applications treating them as homebuyers/financial creditors – NCLAT set aside admission branding them speculative investors – Supreme Court held that transactions were structured for assured financial returns, possession was never intended, and MoUs resembled investment contracts rather than genuine home-buying agreements – Affirmed NCLAT’s finding that appellants were speculative investors disentitled from initiating CIRP – Liberty granted to pursue remedies before other fora without limitation bar [Paras 18.5 – 18.8, 24(i)]

IBC Amendment Ordinance 2019 – Applicability – Ordinance introduced threshold requirement for initiation of CIRP by homebuyers – In present case, Section 7 petition was filed on 18.03.2019, arguments heard on 04.12.2019, order reserved, and admitted by NCLT on 02.01.2020 without considering Ordinance (effective 28.12.2019) – Court held that once orders were reserved, compliance with Ordinance before pronouncement was impossible – Principle of Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit applied – Subsequent compliance during appellate proceedings cured defect – NCLAT erred in holding Ordinance inapplicable – First impugned order set aside to this limited extent [Paras 19 – 19.7, 24(ii)]

Right to Shelter – Constitutional Protection – Court reiterated that right to shelter is part of Article 21 – Housing is not a commodity for speculation but a fundamental human need – State has constitutional obligation to protect homebuyers and ensure timely completion of projects – Directed Government to strengthen NCLT/NCLAT infrastructure, ensure functional RERA authorities, frame guidelines for real estate insolvency, consider creation of revival fund, and implement systemic reforms in housing sector [Paras 20 – 20.7, 21 – 21.2, 22, 23]

Speculative Investors vs Genuine Homebuyers – Court laid down indicators to identify speculative investors: assured returns/buyback clauses, insistence on refund with high interest, multiple unit purchases with unusual privileges, deviation from RERA model agreement, unrealistic interest rates (20–25% per annum), and absence of genuine intent to take possession – Clarified that such investors cannot initiate CIRP under IBC but may pursue alternative remedies [Paras 18.4.5 – 18.4.6]

Decision – Appeals disposed of – Findings of NCLAT branding appellants as speculative investors affirmed – Impugned orders setting aside admission of Section 7 applications sustained – However, Ordinance/Amendment Act held applicable to facts of case – Directions issued to strengthen institutional framework and protect genuine homebuyers – No order as to costs [Paras 24–25]

Criminal Law - Sections 420, 468, 471 IPC - Forgery – Authorship and Chain of Custody – Sections 463, 464, 468 IPC – Conviction Unsustainable – Alleged tampered documents passed through hands of admission clerk, principal, and university before detection – Prosecution failed to prove appellant authored or had exclusive custody of forged documents – Suspicion, however grave, cannot substitute proof beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 8, 13–14].

Handwriting/Forensic Proof – Absence of Expert Opinion – Visual Overwriting Inference Unsafe – Courts below wrongly relied solely on apparent overwriting without handwriting expert corroboration – Held: When authorship is central to establish guilt, failure to examine expert or direct witness is fatal to prosecution [Paras 9–10].

Mens Rea – Sections 420, 471 IPC – Intention to Cheat Not Proved – Documents scrutinized and stamped by college authorities – No evidence that appellant knew of tampering or had dishonest intention to secure admission – Mental element not established [Para 11].

Section 313 CrPC – Compound and Omnibus Questions – Prejudice Caused – Incriminating circumstances not fairly and distinctly put to accused – Violated valuable statutory right of defence – Reliance on such defective examination impermissible [Para 12].

Benefit of Doubt – Where two reasonable views possible, benefit goes to accused – Prosecution failed to prove exclusive control or authorship of forged documents – Conviction set aside [Paras 13–15].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Conviction under Sections 420 r/w 511, 468, and 471 IPC together with sentences set aside – Appellant acquitted [Para 15].

Tenancy Law - Landlord–Tenant – Challenge to Landlord’s Title – Estoppel against Tenant – Relinquishment Deed of 1953 (Exh. P-18) – Findings of Courts Below Perverse – Tenant inducted in 1953 by Ramji Das under a valid relinquishment deed executed by Sua Lal; rent paid to Ramji Das for decades and, after his death, to the landlady’s husband – Held: a tenant who entered under the landlord and paid rent for over half a century cannot dispute the landlord’s title; courts below ignored material evidence, warranting interference [Paras 5–7, 10–12].

Will/Probate – Production of Probate Order at Appellate Stage – Order 41 Rule 27 CPC – Proof of Ownership in Eviction Suits – High Court erred in refusing to take on record the 09.02.2018 probate order (Probate Case No. 8/2013) – Probate, though not mandatory, imparted legal sanctity to the Will bequeathing the shop to the plaintiff; in eviction suits, ownership need not be established as strictly as in a title suit – Rejection of additional evidence unsustainable [Paras 8–10].

Attornment/Notice – Registered Notice (Exhs. P-9 to P-11) – Presumption of Service – Trial court erred in discarding registered notice for want of acknowledgment – First appellate court (initial round) rightly noted presumption of receipt when sent to correct address; notice conveyed bequest and assertion of ownership – Attornment established; no rent shown paid from January 2000 – Default proved [Paras 11–12].

Bona Fide Requirement – Expansion of Existing Family Business – Adjacent Premises – Landlady intended to join and expand husband’s sweets and savouries business; sons also involved – Need genuine; not disputed – Requirement established [Para 13].

Appellate Interference – Concurrent Findings – Perversity – Where courts below ignore material evidence and proceed on conjectures (suspicion about Will; ignoring relinquishment deed; overlooking presumption on registered notice), interference justified – Orders of trial court, first appellate court (on remand), and High Court set aside [Paras 10, 12, 14].

Relief/Decree – Eviction and Arrears – Suit decreed for eviction on grounds of rent default and bona fide need; arrears payable from January 2000 till delivery – Conditional protection: tenants may remain for six months subject to (i) undertaking within two weeks to vacate in six months and (ii) payment of arrears within one month; failing which, summary eviction permissible [Para 14–15].

Criminal Law - Police Duty – Registration of FIR – Section 154 CrPC – Mandatory Nature – Police informed of MLC involving appellant (head injury from assault during riots) on 14.05.2023 but failed to register FIR – High Court erred in blaming victim’s family for not lodging report – Held: Once information of cognizable offence is received, FIR must be registered; dereliction of duty established [Paras 14–16, 18–19].

Constitutional Bench Precedent – Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. (2014) 2 SCC 1 – Applied – Registration of FIR mandatory if information discloses cognizable offence; no preliminary inquiry permissible except in limited categories – Police failure in present case contrary to binding law [Paras 16–17].

Eyewitness Testimony – Appellant as Victim and Eyewitness – Aged 17 years – Claimed he witnessed fatal assault on Vilas Mahadevrao Gaikwad and was himself attacked by same assailants – Police ignored testimony and did not investigate identification of assailants – Failure undermined rule of law [Paras 12, 22].

Dereliction of Duty – Superintendent of Police – Section 154(3) CrPC – Appellant’s complaint dated 01.06.2023 ignored by SP, Akola – Failure to act or inquire despite statutory duty – Cause for serious concern; departmental and disciplinary proceedings directed [Paras 20–21].

Police Impartiality – Duty to Act Without Bias – Officers must shed religious/casteist prejudices – Failure to investigate properly in riot context indicates bias or gross negligence – Police must act as neutral guardians of law [Para 23].

Relief/Orders – Appeal Allowed – Direction to Secretary, Home Ministry, Maharashtra to constitute SIT of senior police officers from both Hindu and Muslim communities – SIT to investigate appellant’s assault and related allegations by registering FIR – Disciplinary action against erring officers – Sensitization measures for police force mandated – SIT report to be filed before Supreme Court within 3 months [Paras 24–26].

Homicide – Murder vs. Culpable Homicide – Sections 302 & 304 Part I IPC – Conviction Modified – Appellant convicted under Section 302 IPC for killing his brother-in-law – Evidence showed prior incidents of harassment of appellant’s sister and parents by the deceased – On the day of incident, deceased allegedly attempted to assault appellant with stone outside hospital, triggering retaliation – Held: act not premeditated; chance encounter and grave provocation proved – Conviction altered from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC [Paras 16–20].

Grave and Sudden Provocation – Applicability – Test Applied – Court held that seeing the deceased immediately after assaults on sister (leading to her hospitalization) and on parents, coupled with sudden attack attempt, constituted grave and sudden provocation – Appellant’s loss of self-control justified conversion of conviction [Paras 17–19].

Confession and Admissions – Voluntariness – Sections 164 & 313 CrPC – Appellant consistently admitted killing in confessional and examination statements, but explained circumstances – Court relied on admissions along with corroborative evidence to accept provocation defence [Paras 8–9].

Sentencing – Young Age and Custody Undergone – Modification – Appellant had already undergone more than 12 years in custody – Sentence reduced to period already undergone – Appellant directed to be released forthwith if not required in other cases [Paras 21–22].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Section 302 IPC modified to Section 304 Part I IPC – Sentence reduced to period already undergone – Release ordered [Paras 20–23].

Criminal Law – Rape Conviction – Downgrade to Outraging Modesty – Appellant originally convicted under Section 376AB IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act for allegedly sexually assaulting a girl under 12 – Victim’s consistent statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C., her deposition during trial, and medical evidence did not establish penetration – Allegations limited to touching of private parts – Held: Ingredients of penetrative sexual assault under Section 3(c) POCSO and Section 375 IPC not made out – Conviction under Section 376AB IPC and Section 6 POCSO set aside – Conviction modified to Section 354 IPC and Section 10 POCSO [Paras 3–9]

POCSO Act – Nature of Assault – Victim below 12 years – Where allegations and evidence prove non-penetrative touching with sexual intent, offence falls under Section 7 read with Section 9(m) of the POCSO Act – Section 3(c) not attracted in absence of penetration – Held: Alleged act amounts to aggravated sexual assault under Section 9(m) not penetrative sexual assault [Paras 6–8]

Sentencing – Modification of Sentence – Original sentence of 20 years RI under Section 6 POCSO Act modified to 5 years RI under Section 354 IPC and 7 years RI under Section 10 POCSO Act – Sentences to run concurrently – Fine of ₹50,000 retained as compensation to victim payable within two months [Para 9]

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Section 376AB IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act set aside – Conviction altered to Section 354 IPC and Section 10 POCSO Act – Sentence reduced accordingly.