26 April 2025 Legal Updates

  MISGUIDING COURT TO PASS AN ORDER WITH NO INTENTION TO COMPLY AMOUNTS TO CONTEMPT OF COURT: SUPREME COURT  

(a) Case Name:

• M/s Chithra Woods Manors Welfare Association vs. Shaji Augustine

(b) Court:

• Supreme Court of India

(c) Date of Decision:

• April 24, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih

Key Facts

The Petitioner Association owned a property in Munnar, Kerala consisting of 96 furnished studio apartments. In 2014, an agreement was entered between the parties allowing the Respondent to use the property for 10 years for a license fee of ₹12 lakhs per month. The Respondent defaulted on payments shortly thereafter, leading to arbitration proceedings.

A settlement agreement was reached in 2017, reducing the monthly license fee to ₹8 lakhs and the arrears to ₹75 lakhs. The Respondent again defaulted, leading to execution proceedings and eventual orders for delivery of possession. 

The matter reached the Supreme Court, which directed the Respondent on November 7, 2022, to pay use and occupation charges at ₹12 lakhs per month from September 20, 2021, with arrears to be paid in six monthly instalments. Despite this order, the Respondent failed to make any payments, leading to the contempt petition.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Respondent's conduct amounted to civil contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
• Whether financial inability can be a valid defense against contempt proceedings.

Court's Analysis and Decision

• The Court found that the Respondent had "deliberately and with malafide intention" violated the court's order dated November 7, 2022. The Court rejected the Respondent's claim of financial inability as he had been generating income from the property without accounting for it.
• The Court observed that the Respondent's actions reflected an intent to retain possession of the property without paying dues, thus misusing judicial processes. The Court emphasized that any person who misuses court processes cannot be said to have approached with clean hands.
• Citing previous judgments including Sitaram Enterprises v. Prithviraj Vardichand Jain (2024), the Court reiterated that contempt powers are integral to maintaining the sanctity of judicial proceedings.

Decision

The Court held the Respondent- Shaji Augustine guilty of civil contempt and imposed simple imprisonment for three months along with a fine of ₹20,000 to be deposited within two weeks. In case of default in paying the fine, further simple imprisonment for one month was directed. 

  NDPS ACT- ABSENCE OF RECOVERY FROM ACCUSED INSUFFICIENT FOR BAIL WHEN NEXUS WITH NARCOTIC NETWORK IS DISCLOSED: DELHI HC  

(a) Case Title:

• Praveen v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi

(b) Court:

• High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

(c) Date of Decision:

• April 21, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Hon'ble Ms. Justice Shalinder Kaur

Background

The case originated from information received by Delhi Police Special Cell about drug trafficking activities. The investigation began with the arrest of one Umesh Singh with 3 kg of heroin. Umesh's interrogation led to the arrest of Shailender (the petitioner's brother), from whose residence the petitioner was also apprehended. Though no contraband was recovered directly from the petitioner, 1 kg of heroin was later recovered from his shop. Additionally, based on the petitioner's disclosures, two more suspects were arrested - a Nigerian national named Chimuanya Levi Chukwunde (with 500g of heroin) and Mohan Babu Gupta (with 360g of heroin).

ARGUMENTS

1. Petitioner's Arguments:

Petitioner argued that no contraband was directly recovered from the petitioner. There were procedural inconsistencies in the investigation. The co-accused Jaipal was granted bail and therefore on the principle of parity, they should also be granted bail. The trial is also likely to take a considerable time. The petitioners showcased good conduct during previous interim bail. 

2. Prosecution’s Arguments:

The Call Detail Records of the accused petitioners show connectivity with other accused. The forensic reports confirmed that the intercepted voice calls match the petitioner’s voice. The recovery of the contraband was also based on the petitioner’s disclosure. The Petitioner also played a role as a key operative in the drug syndicate. 

Court's Findings

The court noted that although the petitioner was arrested based on his brother's disclosure, the following several  subsequent events like the recovery of 1 kg heroin from the petitioner’s shop, incriminating intercepted calls discussing the contraband and also his previous criminal records, strengthened the case against him.

Legal Reasoning

The court emphasized that Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes stringent conditions for bail, especially in cases involving organized narcotic networks. The twin conditions require:

• Reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty.
• The accused is not likely to commit any offense while on bail.

The court found that the petitioner appeared to be involved in an organized narcotic network with frequent contact with suppliers and receivers of contraband. This raised serious concerns about potential re-offending or tampering with evidence if released.
Decision
The bail application was dismissed as the court determined it was not a fit case for granting bail at that stage.

  REGISTRATION OF GIFT DEED DOES NOT MAKE IT VALID UNDER MUSLIM LAW WITHOUT DECLARATION OR FORMAL ACCEPTANCE OF PROPERTY: J&K HIGH COURT  

(a) Case Title:

• Abdul Majid Bhat & Anr. vs. Gulzar Ahmad Bhat

(b) Court:

• High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar

(c) Date of Decision:

• April 18, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Hon'ble Mr. Justice Javed Iqbal Wani

Facts

The appellants (Abdul Majid Bhat and his wife Humeera) filed a suit claiming ownership of land measuring 14 Kanals and 11 Marlas based on an oral gift made by Abdul Majid's father (Mohammad Ismail Bhat). The appellants argued that following a family settlement, the father had orally gifted the disputed property to them and had made formal declarations of this gift before religious authorities on three dates (1987-1989).
The respondent (Gulzar Ahmad Bhat, brother of Abdul Majid) contested these claims and raised doubts about the validity of the gift. The trial court ruled in favor of the appellants, but the appellate court reversed this decision, finding that the gift deeds should have been registered under Section 17 of the J&K Registration Act.

Legal Issues

The High Court examined two substantial questions of law:

• Whether the declarations made on the specified dates constituted a valid gift under Islamic law?
• Whether the appellate court's finding that the appellants were not in possession of the suit property was perverse?

Key Legal Principles

The court articulated that there must exist three essential requirements for a gift to be valid under Islamic law:

• Declaration of the gift by the donor
• Acceptance of the gift by the donee
• Delivery of possession of the gifted property

Court's Decision

The High Court set aside the appellate court's judgment and remanded the case back for fresh consideration.
The court held that the appellate court erred in requiring registration of the gift deeds, as Section 129 of the J&K Transfer of Property Act specifically exempts gifts under Islamic law from registration requirements.
The court cited the Supreme Court case of Hafeeza Bibi v. Sheikh Farid (2011 SCC 654), which established that written documentation of a gift under Islamic law does not require registration to be valid if the three essential requirements are met.
However, the High Court refrained from making a final determination on whether all three essential requirements of a valid gift had been satisfied in this case.