(A) Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), O.21, R.64, O.21, R.66, O.21, R.90 (3) (As amended by Act 104 of 1976) - Execution of decree - Auction sale - Belated objection - On objection raised by judgment debtor, sale was set aside by High Court on the ground that executing Court had not examined whether sale of a part of the property would have satisfied the decree - After amendment of 1976, O.21 R.90(3) of CPC prohibits any ground being raised for setting aside sale if such ground could have been taken before the date of drawing up sale proclamation - Judgment debtors were put on notice at every stage, participated to an extent and then refrained from doing so - Since judgment debtors failed to raise objection at the appropriate stage despite due notice, they would be barred from doing so belatedly - Setting aside of sale by the High Court assuming that obligation under O.21, R.66(2)(a) of CPC would operate independently upon the executing Court, irrespective of lapse on the part of judgment debtors, was erroneous. (Para 15, 17, 18, 19)

(A) Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974), S. 482 - Quashing of proceedings - Prima facie case - Offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust in furtherance of criminal conspiracy - Complaint against accused related to sale of partnership property by accused - Offence of cheating was not made out in the absence of material to attribute any fraudulent or dishonest intention to accused at time of creation of partnership agreement - Merely alleging that accused dishonestly induced complainant to part with property of partnership firm and subsequently sold it to a third party would not satisfy the test of dishonest inducement to deliver a property or part with a valuable security - Offence of criminal breach of trust was also not made out in the absence of material to show entrustment of property to accused, especially since partnership and supplementary deeds clearly indicated that property was solely owned by accused - Offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust are antithetical to each other and cannot coexist simultaneously in same set of facts - Allegations had been made against accused with mala fide intent - Complainant was already pursuing remedy of civil suit - Continuing criminal proceedings would cause undue harassment - Complaint and all consequent proceedings were quashed (Para 19 to 25, 27, 29)

(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (46 of 2023), S.528 - Quashing of proceedings - Offence of rape - Consensual relationship - Allegation that accused, a practising advocate, established physical relations with complainant on pretext of marriage - Accused allegedly met complainant for the first time in reference to a case which was instituted by her against her husband - The relationship had continued for a long period of 3 yrs - FIR showed that complainant met accused whenever he expressed a desire to meet her - Complainant who was a major and an educated individual, voluntarily associated with accused and entered into physical intimacy on her own volition - Physical intimacy that occurred during the course of a functioning relationship cannot be retrospectively branded as instance of offence of rape merely because relationship failed to culminate in marriage - At the relevant time, marriage of complainant was subsisting - Continuation of criminal proceedings would be abuse of process of court - FIR and chargesheet was quashed. (Para 28, 33, 34, 37, 40, 41)

(A) Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (2 of 1965), S. 18, S. 12(1) - Eviction - Appeal against order for - Fresh application u/S. 12(1) - Whether mandatory - In an Appeal challenging eviction order u/S. 12(3) of the Act of 1965, a fresh application u/S. 12(1) of the Act, 1965 is not mandatory - In cases where supervening events have taken place during the pendency of Appeal, parties would have the liberty to file an application u/S. 12 of the Act, 1965 once again before the Appellate Authority.

(B) Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (2 of 1965), S. 12(3), S. 11 - Eviction - Non-payment of rent - Grant of time to pay rent - Plea of tenant that Appellate Authority erred in granting only four days instead of four weeks' time to deposit arrears - Act does not provide that even the Appellate Authority must give four weeks' time to the tenant to pay outstanding rent determined by Rent Controller - Further, as the Appellate Authority does not have to pass an order u/S. 12(3) once again, it is not obliged to give four weeks' time to deposit the outstanding rent - Tenant was occupying two premier shops in prime location of the city, for the last more than five years without paying any rent, despite a money decree passed against him - Plea was not tenable (Para 43, 44, 45, 46, 47)

(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act (26 of 1996), S. 36 - Letters Patent (Bombay), Cl. 15 - Letters Patent appeals - Maintainability - On application for execution of arbitral award, filed by appellant , seeking issuance of notice under O.21, R. 22 of CPC , Single Judge of High Court held that execution must proceed and a notice under O.21, R. 22 of CPC should issue - Respondent uncle of appellant filed a chamber summons raising objections, to the execution of the arbitral award and assailing the same as being a nullity - Single Judge held that arbitral award had attained finality and could neither be set aside under the Act nor could be declared as nullity - Letters patent appeals were filed challenging both the orders - Orders had been passed by single judge in course of execution of arbitral award and therefore, were traceable to Act of 1996 and not to CPC - Respondent was arrayed in execution proceedings as legal representative/executor of the Will of appellant's father and not in his individual capacity - Respondent would step into shoes of judgment debtor for limited purpose of execution - The Letters Patent Appeals were not maintainable - Division Bench had erred in admitting appeals without assigning any reasons - Execution proceedings were restored. (Para 19, 22)

(B) Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), O. 21, R. 22, O. 21, R. 23 - Execution proceedings - Notice to show case - Nature of provision for - Explained