Limitation Law - Delay Condonation – Re-litigation on Identical Grounds – Delay Not Condoned – Respondents' explanation for 1116 days delay in filing appeal under Order XLI CPC was previously adjudicated under Order IX Rule 13 CPC and dismissed by High Court and Supreme Court – Re-urging same grounds held to be impermissible and an abuse of process – Repetition of insufficient cause cannot warrant fresh consideration under a different provision [Paras 27-30].

Applicability of Precedent – Misapplication of N. Mohan Case – Condonation Set Aside – High Court erroneously relied on N. Mohan v. R. Madhu (2020) 20 SCC 302 to condone delay – Distinguished on facts as defendants in present case had appeared, filed written statements, and later defaulted, unlike in N. Mohan where summons were not served – Hence, reliance misplaced [Paras 25-26].

Concurrent Remedies – Section 96(2) Appeal and Order IX Rule 13 Application – Not Mutually Exclusive but No Duplication of Grounds – Though legally maintainable to file appeal under Section 96(2) post Order IX Rule 13 rejection, same explanation for delay cannot be recycled without new material – Filing under another provision does not reset limitation clock without distinct cause [Para 30].

Limitation Law – Strict Interpretation – Generosity Not Permitted – Limitation law requires strict adherence and cannot be relaxed merely for equity – Absence of bona fide explanation bars condonation – Reference made to Popat Bahiru Goverdhane (2013) 10 SCC 765 and Maniben Devraj Shah (2012) 5 SCC 157 – Delay must be justifiable on record and not based on liberal approach [Paras 28-32].

Decision – Delay Not Justified – Appeal Allowed – Impugned High Court order dated 25.04.2023 condoning delay set aside – Civil Appeal allowed and delay condonation rejected – Appeal disposed with no costs [Paras 34-36].

Arbitration Law  – Scope of Judicial Review under Section 11 – Confined to Existence of Agreement – High Court Erred – Supreme Court reaffirmed that under Section 11(6A) of the Arbitration Act, courts are confined to examining the existence of an arbitration agreement – Determining arbitrability of individual claims is beyond this scope – Any issue of non-arbitrability should be left for the arbitral tribunal – High Court’s exclusion of certain claims held to be erroneous [Paras 6-12].

Excepted Matters – To Be Considered by Tribunal, Not Court at Appointment Stage – Exclusion Set Aside – High Court excluded claims based on contract clauses 50 and 50.2 as “excepted matters” – Held: This was premature and not permissible under Section 11 – Parties may raise such objections before tribunal, which will decide independently [Paras 3, 12-13].

Precedents – Preference for Larger Bench Decisions – Emaar India Overruled by Later Three-Judge Decision – Court held that reliance on Emaar India Ltd. v. Tarun Aggarwal Projects LLP (2023) was misplaced – A more recent three-judge bench in SBI General Insurance v. Krish Spinning (2024 INSC 532), applying In Re: Interplay (2023 INSC 1066), clarified that only prima facie existence of arbitration agreement is to be tested – Jurisdictional limits under Section 11 reaffirmed [Paras 10-12].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Arbitration to Proceed on All Claims – Supreme Court set aside part of High Court’s order that excluded claims in para 48(ii)-(iv) of claim petition – Held: Tribunal to decide arbitrability without being influenced by High Court’s findings – No costs awarded [Para 13].
 

Criminal Law - Cruelty and Dowry Demand – Conviction under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of DP Act – Conviction Set Aside – The appellant was convicted based on vague allegations of mental and physical cruelty and dowry demands – The complainant failed to substantiate claims with specific instances or medical evidence – No corroborative or independent testimony beyond statements of complainant and her father – Held: General and omnibus allegations insufficient to sustain conviction under criminal law – Conviction under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the DP Act set aside [Paras 3.4, 4, 9-11].

Abuse of Protective Legislation – Caution Against Misuse – Judicial Concern Noted – The Court noted with concern the trend of implicating entire families of husbands without specific allegations – Held: Courts must guard against misuse of Sections 498A IPC and 3/4 of the DP Act – Observed tendency to criminally prosecute distant relatives and aged parents without evidence [Para 13].

Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction – Duty to Re-examine Evidence – High Court's Summary Dismissal Criticized – The Supreme Court found that the High Court, while exercising revisional powers, failed to apply judicial mind or consider evidence on record – Held: The High Court should have scrutinized the correctness of lower court judgments more thoroughly [Paras 7, 12].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Conviction Set Aside – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, acquitted the appellant of all charges under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the DP Act – Held: Continuing prosecution would amount to abuse of process of law [Paras 14-15].
 

Civil Law – Tenancy Law - Interim Injunction – Conditions Not Fulfilled – Prima Facie Case Absent – Injunction Set Aside – Supreme Court held that High Court erred in granting interim protection to Respondent No.1 who claimed tenancy based on a family settlement – Question of his rights is sub judice – Respondent failed to establish prima facie title, balance of convenience, or irreparable harm – Interim injunction therefore unsustainable [Paras 15-17].

Ownership Rights – Absolute Owner's Development Cannot Be Blocked by Weak Claim – Balance of Convenience Favors Owner – Appellant, being absolute owner of 22,000 sq. ft., was restrained from redevelopment due to 550 sq. ft. claim – Court held this disproportionately affected owner’s commercial rights and obligations – Balance of convenience tilted toward appellant [Paras 16-17].

Claim Based on Family Settlement – Requires Trial – Not Ground for Interim Possession – Respondent No.1 claimed entitlement based on a mediated family settlement – Supreme Court observed that such claims involve factual disputes and require adjudication in trial – Injunction based solely on such claim not justified [Para 17].

Equitable Relief – Protection Granted by Reserving Unit – Status Quo Partially Balanced – To balance equities, Supreme Court directed appellant to reserve one unit of 550 sq. ft. in the redeveloped property to protect Respondent No.1’s interest, subject to outcome of pending civil suit [Para 19].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Injunction Order Set Aside – Rights to Be Decided in Pending Suit – Supreme Court allowed appeal, set aside Bombay High Court’s injunction order dated 30.07.2024 – Clarified that Small Causes Court shall decide R.A.D. Suit No. 519/2023 on merits, uninfluenced by this judgment [Paras 19-20].

Criminal Law – Bail – NDPS Act and UAPA – Bail Denied – Appellant accused of coordinating smuggling of Afghan-origin heroin via fictitious firm – Despite absence of contraband recovery from the appellant’s consignment, evidence of meetings, proxy control of firm, and documentary manipulation established prima facie complicity – Court held that the cumulative material justified continued custody under Section 43D(5) of UAPA [Paras 5-16, 26-28].

Liberty – Preventive Detention – Article 21 – No Automatic Bail for Long Incarceration – Though pre-trial detention cannot be punitive, continued custody upheld due to nature of offence, flight risk, and pending examination of key witnesses – Court permitted renewal of bail plea after six months or upon substantial progress in trial [Paras 24, 30, 33].

Witness Protection – Risk of Tampering – Bail Refused – One witness found dead on date of deposition; two untraceable – High risk of witness influence or elimination justified rejection of bail at interim stage – Directions issued for accelerated witness examination [Paras 30-31, 35(ii)-(iii)].

UAPA – Section 43D(5) – Prima Facie Satisfaction Sufficient – Bail denied under UAPA does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt – Material must demonstrate plausible complicity without being inherently unreliable – Held: Prosecution narrative not improbable at current stage [Paras 23-24, 27].

Terror Financing – Allegation Deferred – No Conclusive Evidence – Though UAPA invoked, Court declined to classify appellant’s actions as terror financing without strong evidentiary foundation – Allegations too premature to attract such a finding [Para 34].

Decision – Bail Rejected – Appellant not entitled to regular bail presently – Liberty granted to reapply after six months or significant trial progress – Trial court directed to expedite proceedings and examine core witnesses without interruption [Paras 33, 35(i)-(iv)].
 

Criminal Law - Inherent Powers of High Court – Section 482 CrPC – Improper Invocation – Order Reversed – High Court directed release of Rs. 15.90 lakhs in favour of respondent no. 2 despite ongoing investigation and charge sheet indicating need for further probe – Held: High Court exceeded jurisdiction under Section 482 by making findings on factual disputes and interfering with lower court orders when trial was pending – High Court’s order set aside [Paras 9-13].

Investigation Pending – No Premature Clean Chit – Charge Sheet Awaited Interrogation – The role of respondent no. 2 in fraud involving impersonation and share sale still under investigation – Main accused absconding – Held: Releasing sale proceeds would irreparably harm investigation and may prejudice the case – Matter remitted for trial [Paras 4-6, 11-12].

Superdari and Third-Party Funds – Disputed Beneficiary – Sale Value Not Released – Trial Court and Revisional Court refused release of withheld funds due to unresolved criminal liability – Held: Interim release of funds unjustified until conclusion of proceedings – Money to remain with BSE during pendency of trial [Paras 5, 6, 15].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court Order Set Aside – No Observations on Merits – Trial Court directed to proceed expeditiously – Interim relief granted to appellant upheld [Paras 13-15].

Criminal Law - Forgery of Court Record – Tampering After Conclusion of Proceedings – Section 195 CrPC Not Applicable – Appellant accused of fabricating and replacing court records in a civil suit after it was withdrawn – Documents were altered from the record room post-disposal – Held: Since forgery was committed after withdrawal of suit and documents were not in “custodia legis,” Section 195 CrPC does not apply – FIR and prosecution not barred [Paras 12-17].

Jurisdiction to Prosecute – Court's Power to Take Cognizance – Valid Despite Absence of Presiding Officer's Complaint – Appellant argued that no court complaint was filed under Section 340 CrPC – Supreme Court held that FIR was lodged at behest of High Court following vigilance inquiry and hence satisfies requirement under Section 340(3) – Filing by administrative authority valid in such context [Paras 11, 17].

Separate Offences – Distinction Between Pre- and Post-Proceeding Forgery – Alleged offences bifurcated into two: (1) tampering with suit records post-withdrawal, and (2) using forged decree in execution – Held: Tampering after case closure does not impact justice administration – Use of forged decree in execution also occurred prior to production, thus outside Section 195 bar [Paras 10, 13-14].

Misuse of Civil Process – Execution Petition Based on Fabricated Decree – Fraudulent Intent Evident – Appellant withdrew civil suit unconditionally but later filed execution petition based on falsified decree – Bogus documents inserted into record; cheques dishonoured – Court found clear intent to harass and extort money from defendant by fraudulent legal process [Paras 2-6, 12-15].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Criminal Proceedings Valid – High Court Ruling Affirmed – Supreme Court upheld High Court's refusal to quash FIR and proceedings – Held: Section 195 CrPC not a shield for post-proceeding forgery – Appeal dismissed as devoid of merit [Paras 18-19].

Accident Claim - Compensation for Motor Accident – Assessment of Income – Reasonable Estimate for Unskilled Worker – Compensation Enhanced - The claimant, a 25-year-old unskilled worker, became bedridden due to an accident while traveling in his employer’s truck – Tribunal assessed income at Rs. 4,500 per month and awarded Rs. 16 lakhs – High Court enhanced income to Rs. 6,000 and compensation to Rs. 25.83 lakhs – Supreme Court applied the principle from Ramachandrappa and Pranay Sethi and accepted Rs. 9,000 as monthly income, applying 140% future prospects and a multiplier of 18 – Held: Loss of future income computed at Rs. 27,21,600, medical expenses of Rs. 2,70,000 and Rs. 6,00,000 for pain and suffering awarded – Total compensation Rs. 35,91,600 [Paras 2, 4-5].

Insurance Liability – Passenger in Goods Vehicle – Contention of Policy Exclusion Not Entertained – No Appeal by Insurer – The insurer argued policy exclusion for goods vehicle passengers – Held: Argument rejected as insurer did not challenge the Tribunal’s finding and no appeal was filed by the insurer – Supreme Court declined to entertain the contention in an appeal for enhancement filed by the claimant [Para 3].

Permanent Disability – Assessment Based on Medical Evidence – 100% Functional Disability Accepted - Medical expert testified disability at 90%, but functionally declared 100% disabled due to vegetative state – Doctor’s cross-examination did not discredit the evidence – Held: High Court right in treating disability as 100% functional for compensation purposes [Para 4].

Final Relief – Modification of Award – Interest and Disbursement Direction - Supreme Court allowed the appeal and modified the award – Directed disbursal of enhanced compensation with 8% interest after deducting previously paid amounts – Payment to be made to claimant's account within two months [Paras 6-7].

Consumer Law – Flat Allotment Dispute – Execution of Agreement – MOFA – Supreme Court Upholds Alternate Flat Possession – Builder cancelled allotment despite part payment and failed to execute agreement – NCDRC directed execution with compensation, later apartment found alienated in violation of stay – Supreme Court allowed substitution with similar flat, directed execution under MOFA – Non-compliance remedied through quantified financial directions – Builder to receive specified payment in full satisfaction of claims [Paras 1-6, 13-14].

Real Estate – Breach of Interim Orders – Apartment Alienated Despite Stay – Appellant alienated flat after stay against third-party rights – NCDRC rejected modification citing contempt – Supreme Court allowed alternate allotment due to absence of contempt petition, stressing equity over technicality [Paras 2, 4, 6].

Equitable Relief – Adjustment of Dues – Final Settlement Ordered – Due to builder’s delays, nondisclosure of carpet areas, and unilateral action, Court quantified dues at Rs. 1.40 crore – Included interest, taxes, and miscellaneous charges in lieu of further claims up to possession date – Post-possession dues to be borne by buyer [Paras 10-14].

Decision – Miscellaneous Application Disposed – Respondent directed to pay Rs. 1,40,71,000 within eight weeks – Parties to execute sale deed within two months thereafter – Costs of registration to be borne by respondent – Structural modification restrictions lifted [Paras 14-15].