LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

S.P. Tanti vs. Union of India and Anr.

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal · 2026:DHC:7577Decided 20 Aug 2026New Delhi Bench
CMI 18/2026CNR: DLHC010390312026
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar

Background

The appellant, formerly a CBI Public Prosecutor, was prosecuted in 1999 for allegedly submitting a fake Scheduled Caste certificate to obtain his government job, based on a district magistrate's report that questioned the certificate's authenticity. He was acquitted by a magistrate in 2018 after the prosecution failed to prove the certificate was fake, and his job had earlier been terminated (a termination later upheld by the High Court). He then sued the government for nearly Rs 2 crore, claiming the prosecution was malicious and had ruined his career and reputation.

Decision Breakdown

The trial court dismissed his damages suit, and the High Court, acting as a first appellate court, upheld that dismissal. It held that an acquittal alone does not prove a prosecution was malicious: the appellant also had to separately prove the government acted without any reasonable basis and out of an improper motive. Since the prosecution had been triggered by an actual official verification report (even though that report was itself later shown to be flawed and unproven at trial), and there was no evidence of personal ill-will, the essential ingredients of "malicious prosecution" were not made out. His claims for defamation and other damages also failed for lack of evidence of the actual scale of harm claimed.

Lesson Learnt

Being acquitted in a criminal case does not by itself entitle a person to compensation for "malicious prosecution": the person suing must separately and affirmatively prove both that there was no reasonable basis for the prosecution and that it was driven by malice.

Search on eCourtsView Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Smt Nisha Sharma vs. M/S Intec Capital Limited and Ors

The Court held that because the property had already been specifically identified in the pending execution case before the transfer happened, the transfer remained subject to the execution proceedings under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, and didn't place the share beyond the lender's reach. It also found the appellant couldn't reopen the same ownership argument a second time, since an identical objection had already been rejected earlier and not appealed, and that the surrounding facts (payment timing, continued family occupation, auction bought by a relative) suggested the transfer was intended to defeat the lender's claim. The appeal was dismissed and the auction sale of the guarantor's half-share was upheld.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Shakeel Qureshi & Ors. vs. Rashid Qureshi & Ors.

The Court held that since the plaintiffs' own claims were entirely built on the MoU, the MoU's exclusionary jurisdiction clause (Clause 10, conferring jurisdiction only on Bareilly courts) had to be examined and applied. It rejected the plaintiffs' "approbate and reprobate" argument (that defendants couldn't rely on the MoU in other suits yet deny Delhi's jurisdiction here), finding the defendants' conduct in earlier, differently-framed suits didn't amount to such inconsistency. The plaint was returned under Order VII Rule 10 CPC to be filed before a court of competent jurisdiction at Bareilly, without any opinion expressed on the merits of the fraud/breach allegations.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

M/S Siddhivinayak Coal Carriers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Coal India Limited & Ors.

The Division Bench held that an appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 only lies against orders specifically listed in Order XLIII of the CPC or Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, relying on Supreme Court authority (Kandla Export Corporation) confirming this is an exhaustive, not illustrative, list. Since an order converting a summary suit into a regular suit isn't among the orders listed in Order XLIII, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Ramesh vs. Smt. Geeta

The High Court agreed with the lower courts that the document recorded only a loan transaction, not a sale, so the appellant's argument about an illegal/void sale (under Section 23 of the Contract Act) didn't apply. Since the respondent was relying on her own allotment rights rather than enforcing the disputed document, and the appeal really just disputed how the evidence had been weighed, no substantial legal question arose, and the second appeal was dismissed.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Pooja Singh vs. Gulab Devi Prasad Singh

While the appeal was pending, the parties settled the matter in execution proceedings for Rs. 9,50,000, and part of that settlement had already been acted upon. Rs. 1,98,000 had been paid to the Plaintiff, and the balance of Rs. 7,52,000 had been deposited in the High Court. The Court held that the Defendant could not go back on a settlement that had been acted upon, and that no monetary dispute remained for adjudication. The Court directed that the deposited balance be released to the Plaintiff and disposed of the appeal in terms of the settlement.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Richmond Global School vs. Shri Vijay Kumar Jain

The Court considered the legal meaning of "sufficient cause", explaining that it requires the party to show that it was not negligent or lacking in bona fides, and that the facts must support the exercise of discretion judiciously. Finding that the District Judge's view was correct, the High Court held that the appeal was devoid of merit and dismissed it, with no order as to costs.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case