1). Supreme Court: Wife Exempted from Paying Stamp Duty on Flat Acquired in Divorce Compromise

Case Background

The case involved a husband and wife who were in the process of divorcing. During the mediation proceedings, a dispute arose over a flat in Bombay, as both claimed to have contributed to its purchase.

To resolve the issue, the husband agreed to give up his rights over the flat in favor of the wife, and in return, the wife agreed to forgo any claim for alimony.

After the settlement, the question arose: Should the wife be required to pay stamp duty to register the flat in her name?

Issues Before the Court

1. Can the flat be transferred to the wife’s name without requiring her to pay stamp duty?
2. Does the exemption under Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act, 1908 apply in this case?

Court Observations

Bench Composition

The case was heard by a Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta.

1. The Flat Was Part of a Court Settlement

• The Court noted that the flat was included in the compromise agreement reached during mediation proceedings in the divorce case.
• Since the settlement was approved by the Court, the transfer of the flat formed part of the court proceedings.

2. Exemption Under Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act, 1908 Applies

• The Court relied on the case Mukesh v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. (2024) to support its decision.
• Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act, 1908 provides an exemption from stamp duty when a property transfer is part of a court settlement.
• The Court ruled that since the flat was included in the court-approved compromise, no stamp duty was required for its registration in the wife’s name.

Court Rulings & Decisions

1. No Stamp Duty Required
   • The Court held that the wife was exempt from paying stamp duty for registering the flat in her name.
2. Flat to be Registered in Wife’s Name
   • The Court directed the Sub-Registrar to register the flat exclusively in the wife's name.
3. Divorce Granted by Mutual Consent
   • The Court dissolved the marriage under Article 142 of the Constitution of India based on the mutual settlement.

Legal Provisions 

1. Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act, 1908 – Exempts certain documents from registration, including property transfers made as part of court orders or settlements.
2. Article 142 of the Constitution of India – Gives the Supreme Court power to pass orders to ensure complete justice, including granting a divorce.

Significance of the Judgment

1. Clarifies Stamp Duty Exemption in Matrimonial Settlements
   • The ruling sets a clear precedent that property transfers made as part of a court-approved divorce settlement are exempt from stamp duty.
2. Eases Financial Burden on Divorcing Parties
   • The decision prevents additional financial stress on spouses who receive property as part of a divorce settlement.
3. Promotes Efficient Resolution of Matrimonial Disputes
   • The judgment encourages amicable settlements in divorce cases by ensuring that court-approved compromises are legally protected.

The Supreme Court ruled that since the flat was transferred as part of a court-approved divorce settlement, the wife was exempt from paying stamp duty under Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act, 1908.

The Court directed the Sub-Registrar to register the flat in the wife's name and dissolved the marriage under Article 142 of the Constitution.

This judgment provides important clarity on stamp duty exemptions in matrimonial settlements and promotes fair and efficient dispute resolution in divorce cases.

Case Title: ARUN RAMESHCHAND ARYA VERSUS PARUL SINGH

2). Jammu and Kashmir High Court: Accused Granted Bail Cannot Be Re-Arrested for Another Offence After Unreasonable Delay

Case Background

The case involves a petitioner-accused who was originally arrested under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and the Essential Commodities Act in connection with an FIR registered at a police station. The accused was granted bail the next day after his arrest.

However, the police continued the investigation for nearly 15 years and later added Sections 8/21 of the NDPS Act at the final stage of the case. The trial court rejected the final report, stating that the investigation had initially started under different laws and adding an NDPS offence after 15 years was improper.

The petitioner argued that adding NDPS charges after such a long delay was an abuse of the legal process and sought relief under Section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR.

Issues Before the Court

1. Can an accused, who was already arrested and granted bail in an FIR, be arrested again after 15 years on newly added charges under the NDPS Act?
2. Does the addition of NDPS Act offences at the last stage of investigation violate the fundamental right to life and liberty?
3. Does the recovered quantity of the narcotic substance affect the severity of the charges?

Court Observations

Bench Composition

The case was heard by Justice Mohd Yousuf Wani of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court.

1. Arrest After 15 Years Violates Fundamental Rights

• The Court observed that the accused was already arrested and granted bail in the same FIR.
• Arresting him again after 15 years under new charges would be a gross violation of his fundamental right to life and liberty.

2. Long Delay in Investigation Raises Serious Concerns

• The police took 15 years to complete the investigation, which originally began under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act but later included an NDPS offence at the last stage.
• The Court found this unjustified and improper.

3. The Seized Quantity Falls Under the “Small Quantity” Category

• The case involved the seizure of 35 bottles (100 ml each) of Codeine Phosphate mixture.
• The Court noted that, based on legal standards, this falls under the "small quantity" category, which reduces the severity of charges under the NDPS Act.

4. No Need for Arrest Under NDPS Act After 15 Years

• The Court noted that the investigating officer never felt the need to arrest the accused under NDPS Act for 15 years.
• There was no evidence suggesting the accused would misuse bail or evade trial.

Court Rulings & Decisions

1. Anticipatory Bail Granted
   • The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
   • If arrested under Sections 8/21 of the NDPS Act, the accused must be released upon furnishing a surety and personal bond of Rs. 20,000/- each.
2. Adding NDPS Charges After 15 Years is Unjustified
   • The Court disapproved of adding NDPS Act offences at the final stage of investigation after 15 years.
3. Protection of Fundamental Rights
   • The Court ruled that arresting the accused again under the same FIR violates his right to life and liberty.

Legal Provisions 

1. Section 8/21 of the NDPS Act – Deals with the possession, sale, or purchase of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.
2. Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 – Regulates the manufacture and sale of drugs.
3. Essential Commodities Act, 1955 – Controls the production and distribution of essential commodities.
4. Section 482 CrPC – Grants High Courts the power to quash proceedings if they amount to an abuse of law.
5. Article 21 of the Constitution of India – Protects the right to life and personal liberty.

Significance of the Judgment

1. Prevents Misuse of Law Against Accused
   • The ruling protects individuals from being unfairly arrested after long delays in investigations.
2. Reinforces Fundamental Rights
   • The Court emphasized that unnecessary arrests after a long delay violate the fundamental right to life and liberty.
3. Clarifies the Impact of "Small Quantity" in NDPS Cases
   • The Court ruled that the actual quantity of the narcotic substance matters when deciding the severity of charges.
4. Ensures Fair Investigation Practices
   • The judgment sends a strong message that law enforcement agencies must not delay investigations and add serious charges at the last stage.

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, ruling that arresting him again after 15 years under newly added NDPS charges was unjustified and violated his fundamental right to life and liberty.

The Court emphasized that the long delay in investigation and the small quantity of narcotics involved further justified the relief granted. This judgment is significant in preventing misuse of legal provisions and ensuring fairness in criminal investigations.

Case-title: Mohammad Abass Magray vs Union Territory of J&K, 2025, Livelaw (JKL)

3). Rajasthan High Court Upholds 34-Year-Old Murder Acquittal, Says Witness Statements Under Section 161 CrPC Insufficient for Conviction

Case Background

The case dates back to 1988, when an accused was charged with the murder of a woman. The prosecution claimed that the accused had frequent quarrels with the deceased's son over land use. One day, the accused started beating the son, and when the deceased intervened, he allegedly assaulted her with his fists, leading to her death.

In 1991, a Sessions Court acquitted the accused, stating that the prosecution's case lacked sufficient evidence. 34 years later, in 2024, the Rajasthan High Court was hearing:

1. An appeal by the State against the 1991 acquittal.
2. A criminal revision petition filed by the informant (the son of the deceased).

Issues Before the Court

1. Can statements recorded under Section 161 of CrPC (during police investigation) be used as the sole basis for convicting an accused, especially in serious offences like murder?
2. Was there enough reliable evidence to overturn the Sessions Court’s 1991 acquittal order?
3. Does an acquittal by the trial court create a stronger presumption of innocence for the accused?

Court Observations

Bench Composition

The case was heard by a Division Bench of Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Yogendra Kumar Purohit.

1. Section 161 CrPC Statements Cannot Be Sole Basis for Conviction

• The Court ruled that statements made by witnesses during police investigation under Section 161 CrPC cannot be used as the primary basis for convicting an accused, especially in serious cases like murder.
• Such statements are only meant to contradict witnesses during the trial and cannot replace direct, reliable evidence.

2. Witness Testimonies Were Inconsistent with Medical Evidence

• The Court noted that the prosecution witnesses’ statements did not match the medical evidence, which was a serious defect in the case.
• There was no proof that the accused assaulted the deceased with enough force to break her ribs or rupture her spleen.

3. Acquittal Creates a Double Presumption of Innocence

• The Court referred to the Supreme Court ruling in Kalyan v. State of UP, which held that when a trial court acquits an accused, it creates a stronger presumption of innocence.
• Trial courts are in a better position to assess the credibility of witnesses because they directly observe their demeanor and conduct.

4. The Prosecution's Case Contained “More Chaff Than Grains”

• The Court found serious inconsistencies in the statements of key prosecution witnesses (PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-6, PW-9, and PW-11).
• The prosecution failed to prove that the accused intentionally caused the victim’s death.

5. The Principle of “Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus”

• The Court noted that in India, the legal principle "false in one thing, false in everything" (falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus) is not strictly followed.
• However, if a witness is found lying on key details, their entire testimony must be carefully scrutinized.

Court Rulings & Decisions

1. The 1991 Sessions Court Acquittal Was Upheld
   • The Court found no reason to overturn the acquittal and ruled that the trial court correctly disbelieved the prosecution’s unreliable witnesses.
2. The State’s Appeal Was Dismissed
   • The Court rejected the State’s attempt to overturn the acquittal after 34 years.
3. The Criminal Revision by the Informant Was Also Dismissed
   • The Court ruled that prosecution witnesses’ statements to the police could not be the sole basis for conviction.

Legal Provisions 

1. Section 161 CrPC – Statements given by witnesses to the police cannot be treated as direct evidence and are only used to contradict witnesses during the trial.
2. Section 302 IPC – Punishment for murder.
3. Section 323 IPC – Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.
4. Case Precedents:
   • Omkar Namdeo Jadhao v. Second Additional Sessions Judge – Statements under Section 161 CrPC cannot be the sole basis of conviction.
   • Kalyan v. State of UP – Acquittal by a trial court creates a stronger presumption of innocence.

Significance of the Judgment

1. Protects Fair Trial Principles
   • The judgment reinforces that convictions cannot be based solely on police statements but must be supported by reliable evidence.
2. Prevents Misuse of Section 161 CrPC Statements
   • It clarifies that witness statements recorded during investigation have limited evidentiary value.
3. Strengthens the Presumption of Innocence
   • It highlights that trial court acquittals deserve strong respect, as trial judges directly observe the demeanor of witnesses.
4. Ensures Consistency Between Witness Testimony and Medical Evidence
   • Courts must scrutinize prosecution cases carefully, especially when medical evidence contradicts witness statements.

The Rajasthan High Court upheld the 1991 acquittal of the accused, ruling that witness statements under Section 161 CrPC cannot be used as the sole basis for conviction. The Court found serious inconsistencies in witness testimonies, which did not match medical evidence.

The judgment reinforces fair trial principles, strengthens the presumption of innocence, and ensures that criminal convictions are based on strong and reliable evidence.

Case Title: State of Rajasthan v Abdul Jabbar

4). Punjab & Haryana HC Affirms Mortgagee's Right to Auction Property in Case of Payment Default

Case Background

The case involved a writ petition filed by the buyers of a property that was auctioned by the State Bank of India (SBI). The petitioners sought a No Objection Certificate (NOC) and a re-allotment letter from the Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran (HSVP) to register the property in their name.

Key Events:

1. Mortgage & Default: A property was mortgaged with SBI, and the borrower failed to pay loan installments.
2. Public Auction: SBI sold the property in a public auction for ₹2.28 Crores and issued a sale certificate to the buyers in 2021.
3. Legal Dispute:
   • HSVP refused to issue an NOC, arguing that while mortgaging the property was permitted, the bank did not take permission for its sale via auction.
   • HSVP claimed that without an NOC, the auction was illegal.
4. Buyers’ Argument: Since they legally purchased the property through an auction and completed all payments, HSVP’s refusal to grant an NOC was unjustified.

Issues Before the Court

1. Does a mortgagee (bank) have an inherent right to sell the mortgaged property through public auction if the borrower defaults?
2. Is a separate NOC required for auction when mortgage permission was already granted?
3. Was the auction process legally valid despite the lack of a separate NOC?

Court Observations

Bench Composition

The case was heard by Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Vikas Suri.

1. Mortgagee’s Right to Sell Property via Auction

• The Court ruled that when a property is mortgaged, the lender (mortgagee) automatically gets the right to sell it if the borrower defaults.
• A separate NOC for auction is not required, as permission to mortgage already implies permission to auction in case of default.
• The Court stated:

  “There is an inherent right in the mortgagee to, on the failure of liquidation of the relevant installments by the borrower, thus to subject the subject plot to sale through public auction.”

2. Lack of NOC is Irrelevant

• The Court rejected HSVP’s argument that the auction was illegal due to the lack of an NOC.
• It clarified that once mortgage permission is granted, the lender does not need a separate approval to auction the property.
• The Court observed:

  “The lack of NOC by the respondents concerned, to the lending institution for making sale of the subject plot, through public auction, is completely meaningless.”

3. No Evidence of Illegality or Fraud in the Auction

• HSVP failed to prove any wrongdoing in the auction process.
• The only objection raised was the absence of an NOC, which the Court deemed immaterial.

Court Rulings & Decisions

1. The Bank Had the Right to Auction the Property
   • The Court ruled that once a mortgage is approved, the lender has an automatic right to sell the property in case of borrower default.
   • A separate NOC for auction was unnecessary.
2. HSVP’s Objection Was Unfounded
   • The Court held that HSVP’s refusal to issue an NOC was unjustified.
   • It directed HSVP to issue the NOC and complete the re-allotment process.
3. Auction Sale Was Valid & Legally Binding
   • Since the petitioners legally acquired the property through auction and paid the full amount, their ownership must be recognized.

Legal Provisions 

1. Transfer of Property Act, 1882
   • Section 69: Gives the mortgagee (lender) the right to sell the property without court intervention if the borrower defaults.
2. SARFAESI Act, 2002
   • Empowers banks to recover debts by selling mortgaged properties in case of default.

Significance of the Judgment

1. Strengthens Lenders’ Rights
   • Confirms that banks & financial institutions do not need additional approval to auction mortgaged properties after default.
2. Prevents Unnecessary Bureaucratic Delays
   • Ensures that buyers of auctioned properties do not face obstacles due to unnecessary NOC requirements.
3. Protects Property Buyers’ Interests
   • Buyers who legally acquire properties through auctions cannot be denied registration or possessionbased on technical objections.
4. Reinforces the Principle of Mortgage Enforcement
   • Clarifies that mortgage permission inherently includes the right to auction in case of non-payment.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that a mortgagee (lender) has the automatic right to auction a mortgaged property if the borrower fails to pay the loan installments. The Court held that once a mortgage is permitted, a separate NOC for auction is not required.

Since the auction sale was valid and legally conducted, HSVP’s refusal to issue an NOC was unjustified. The Court directed HSVP to grant the necessary approvals for property registration.

This judgment reinforces lenders' rights, protects buyers of auctioned properties, and eliminates unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles in mortgage enforcement.

Title: SUNIL KUMAR AND OTHERS v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

5). Delhi High Court Informed of Revocation of Wrestling Federation of India Suspension by Centre

Case Background

The Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) was suspended by the Union Sports Ministry on December 24, 2023. This led to the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) appointing an ad-hoc committee to manage WFI’s activities.

WFI challenged this decision before the Delhi High Court, arguing that the ad-hoc committee’s control over WFI was affecting preparations for upcoming international wrestling events, including the Senior Asian Championships starting on March 23, 2024, in Amman, Jordan.

On March 10, 2024, the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports revoked WFI’s suspension, restoring its recognition as the national sports federation for wrestling.

The matter was placed before a division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, which was hearing WFI’s appeal against a single judge’s order from August 16, 2023. The single judge had upheld the role of the IOA’s ad-hoc committee in managing WFI’s affairs.

Meanwhile, wrestlers Bajrang Punia, Vinesh Phogat, Sakshi Malik, and Satyawrat Kadiyan had filed a petitionbefore the single judge to prevent the Central Government from revoking WFI’s suspension.

Issues Before the Court

1. Is the ad-hoc committee still required to oversee WFI’s affairs after the government revoked the suspension?
2. Does the revocation of suspension automatically restore WFI’s management rights?
3. What impact does this decision have on the pending writ petition filed by wrestlers?

Court Observations

Bench Composition

The division bench comprised:

• Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya
• Justice Tushar Rao Gedela

1. Ad-Hoc Committee’s Mandate Was Temporary

• The Court noted that the single judge’s order had clearly stated that the ad-hoc committee would only manage WFI until the Central Government revoked the suspension.
• Since the government revoked the suspension on March 10, the ad-hoc committee’s mandate automatically ended.

2. WFI’s Suspension Order Was Subject to Government Review

• The Court pointed out that the single judge’s order allowed the Central Government to withdraw or review the suspension if needed.
• Now that the suspension had been formally revoked, there was no legal reason for the ad-hoc committee to continue managing WFI.

3. No Further Adjudication Needed on WFI’s Appeal

• Since the government had already revoked WFI’s suspension, the division bench found no reason to interfere further.
• The Court disposed of WFI’s appeal, meaning no further action was needed on this issue.

4. Single Judge to Expedite Pending Writ Petition by Wrestlers

• The Court directed the single judge to expedite proceedings in the writ petition filed by Bajrang Punia, Vinesh Phogat, Sakshi Malik, and Satyawrat Kadiyan, who opposed WFI’s reinstatement.

Court Rulings & Decisions

1. The suspension of WFI was officially revoked by the Central Government on March 10, 2024.
2. The ad-hoc committee’s role ended automatically after the revocation.
3. Since the suspension was lifted, WFI’s appeal required no further adjudication and was disposed of.
4. The single judge should expedite the pending writ petition filed by wrestlers challenging WFI’s reinstatement.

Legal Provisions 

1. National Sports Development Code of India, 2011
   • Governs recognition and functioning of sports federations in India.
2. Indian Olympic Association (IOA) Rules
   • Allow for appointment of ad-hoc committees when a national sports body is suspended.
3. Constitution of India, Article 226
   • Empowers High Courts to issue directions or orders in matters of public interest.

Significance of the Judgment

1. Restores WFI’s Authority
   • The ruling reinstates WFI’s control over wrestling administration in India.
2. Ends Role of Ad-Hoc Committee
   • Since the government revoked WFI’s suspension, the ad-hoc committee has no further role in managing WFI.
3. Clears Path for Asian Championships Preparations
   • With WFI’s reinstatement, India’s wrestling teams can now prepare smoothly for international competitions.
4. Allows Wrestlers’ Petition to Proceed
   • The wrestlers who opposed WFI’s reinstatement will have their case heard on a priority basis.

The Delhi High Court dismissed WFI’s appeal, as the government had already revoked its suspension. The Court ruled that the ad-hoc committee’s role automatically ended with WFI’s reinstatement. However, it directed the single judge to expedite the hearing of the writ petition filed by wrestlers opposing WFI’s reinstatement.

This judgment ensures that WFI can resume its administrative functions while also allowing concerns raised by wrestlers to be addressed separately in court.

Title: WRESTLING FEDERATION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT MR. SANJAY SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY MINISTRY OF YOUTH AFFAIRS AND SPORTS & ORS.