Criminal Law - Extension of Remand - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 - Section 36A(4) - Independent Application of Mind by Public Prosecutor - Petitioner challenged order dated 05.05.2026 passed by X Additional District and Sessions Judge Anakapalli extending remand beyond 180 days - High Court found Public Prosecutor failed to file a valid report indicating independent satisfaction with investigation progress - Prosecution merely filed an application without disclosing consideration of investigation material or satisfaction with progress - Trial Court failed to assign special reasons for continued detention beyond 180 days and failed to inform the accused of the extension application - Held - Statutory requirement of a Public Prosecutor report is a vital safeguard for liberty and not a mere formality - Absence of such report or failure to put accused on notice renders the extension order vulnerable - Impugned order set aside and petitioner enlarged on bail with conditions - [Paras 1-10].

Criminal Law - Role of Public Prosecutor - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 - Section 36A(4) - Statutory Duties - Public Prosecutor is an independent statutory authority and not a part of the investigating agency - Prosecutor is not a post office or forwarding agency for the investigating officer - Report for extension must disclose on its face the application of mind to investigation progress and specific reasons for further detention - Application of mind must be demonstrated through a formal report rather than mere reproduction of the investigating officer request - Held - Failure to provide an appropriate report results in an indefeasible right for the accused to be released on default bail - [Paras 3-6].

Decision: Revision Case allowed – Order dated 05.05.2026 in Crl.M.P.No.56 of 2026 set aside – Petitioner/Accused No.1 enlarged on bail subject to executing a bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties and specific conditions including weekly appearance before the SHO and surrender of passport.

Writ Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Delay in Conclusion - Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 21 - State challenged Single Judge order quashing enquiry against respondent-retired Inspector of Police - Charges of corruption and harassment framed in 2012 - Enquiry delayed due to administrative transfers respondent non-cooperation and interceding criminal trials leading to dismissals and subsequent reinstatements after acquittal - Single Judge quashed proceedings relying on P.V. Mahadevan case and G.O.Ms.No.679 citing failure to conclude enquiry within six months - Division Bench observed that P.V. Mahadevan dealt with delay in initiation of proceedings whereas present case involved delay in conclusion - Held - Reliance on P.V. Mahadevan was misplaced - Delay not solely attributable to appellants and respondent conduct contributed to time lapse - Single Judge order set aside - [Paras 1-15].

Writ Law - Administrative Law - Mandatory vs Directory Provisions - G.O.Ms.No.679 dated 01.11.2008 - Disciplinary Enquiry Timeline - Court interpreted the six-month timeline for concluding disciplinary proceedings under G.O.Ms.No.679 - Held - Such timelines are directory and not mandatory - Interdicting proceedings solely on delay would permit dilatory tactics and frustrate the object of departmental action - Judicial review should not generally quash enquiries on delay grounds without balancing the gravity of charges and interest of clean administration - [Paras 18-19].

Writ Law - Police Service - Integrity and Discipline - Ratio Decidendi - Disciplinary enquiries aim to maintain service discipline and efficiency - Police department commands high standards of honesty - Grave allegations of corruption cannot be ignored due to procedural delays - Held - Court directed completion of the enquiry within three months with a mandate for respondent cooperation - Failure to complete within stipulated time would lead to automatic termination - [Paras 17-21].

Decision: Writ Appeal allowed – Order of the Single Judge set aside – Department directed to complete the disciplinary proceedings within three months – Failure to do so will result in automatic termination.

Writ Law - Police Transfer - Karnataka Police Act - Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India - Tenure and Discipline - Petitioner was posted as Sub-Inspector Law and Order at Yelawala Police Station on 30-06-2025 after Respondent No. 3 was suspended for dereliction of duty - High Court subsequently quashed the suspension of Respondent No. 3 in W.P.No.33384/2025 and directed reinstatement - Official respondents posted Respondent No. 3 back to Yelawala Police Station displacing the Petitioner - Petitioner challenged the transfer as premature before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT) - KSAT upheld the transfer but directed Petitioner be accommodated in a vacant post at the same station - Petitioner challenged KSAT order and subsequent posting order dated 04-05-2026 - High Court noted that Respondent No. 3 suppressed material facts in previous proceedings regarding the Petitioner's seniority and posting - Court observed that members of a disciplined force are expected to work in a disciplined manner and not quarrel over specific postings - Held - Such conduct affects the larger public interest and the ability to maintain law and order - Both officers directed to be transferred out of Yelawala Police Station and Mysuru District - [Paras 1-15].

Writ Law - Suppression of Facts - Conduct of Litigant - Respondent No. 3 failed to bring to the notice of the Court the posting of the Petitioner in his place while seeking reinstatement after suspension - Proper course was to implead the Petitioner - Held - A person who approaches the Court by suppressing material facts and failing to bring relevant facts to notice is not entitled to relief - [Paras 11-13].

Service Law - Transfer - Right to Posting - Karnataka Police Act - Tenure Protections - Petitioner and Respondent No. 3 both claimed right to continue at Yelawala Police Station based on tenure provisions - Held - No Government servant or official has a right to seek posting to a particular post or place - It is open for the Government to utilize services wherever needed subject to statutory provisions - If two Sub-Inspectors fight for a post they would not be in a position to maintain law and order - [Paras 11-13].

Decision: Writ petition disposed of – Order of the Tribunal and the transfer order modified – Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 directed to post both the Petitioner and Respondent No. 3 out of Yelawala Police Station and out of Mysuru District within two weeks.

Civil Law - Real Estate - RERA Act 2016 - Section 18 - Delayed Possession - Appellant promoter challenged the Appellate Tribunal order directing payment of interest for delay in handing over possession of apartments in the Wintergreen project - Possession was contractually due by 30th June 2017 under a MOFA agreement - MahaRERA initially directed possession by December 2019 allowing allottees liberty to demand interest at an appropriate stage following their request for parity with a previous order - Allottees appealed and the Tribunal awarded interest from 1st July 2017 until actual possession - Promoter argued that allottees accepted delayed performance by making payments under revised schedules and failed to give notice of intention to claim compensation as required under Section 55 of the Contract Act - Held - Section 18 of RERA Act confers an unqualified absolute statutory right to interest for delayed possession - This right is sacrosanct and linked to the date specified in the agreement - It is not affected by contingencies outside the terms of the agreement or acceptance of delayed performance - The requirement of notice under Section 55 of the Contract Act cannot be read into the summary proceedings of Section 18 RERA - Appeal dismissed - [Paras 1-62].

Civil Law - Statutory Interpretation - RERA Act 2016 - Section 89 - Indian Contract Act 1872 - Section 55 - Overriding Effect - Interplay between special and general law - Appellant contended that Section 55 of the Contract Act disentitles the promisee from compensation if delayed performance is accepted without notice - Court examined the inconsistency between the unqualified right in Section 18 RERA and the conditional right in Section 55 Contract Act - Held - RERA Act is a special enactment and Section 89 provides that it shall have overriding effect over anything inconsistent in other laws - Section 18 RERA gives an absolute right unimpeded by conditions whereas Section 55 Contract Act lays fetters on that right - The special law prevails over the general law - Promoter is obligated to pay interest from the date specified in the agreement even in the absence of notice by the allottee - [Paras 27-51].

Civil Law - Force Majeure - RERA Act 2016 - Section 18 - Covid-19 Pandemic - Moratorium benefit - Appellant sought to exclude the pandemic period from interest calculation - Possession was due in June 2017 and project completion date under RERA registration was 2019 - Held - As the date of performance was prior to the pandemic the subsequent Covid-19 lockdown cannot aid the promoter to escape liability for interest - Moratorium circulars do not apply where delay was pre-existing - [Paras 52-53].

Civil Law - Maintainability of Appeal - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 96(3) - Estoppel - Concession on law - Appellant argued that allottees invited the original MahaRERA order by requesting parity and thus were precluded from appealing - Held - A plea of parity or a request for an identical order does not constitute an express waiver or abandonment of the right to interest - There is no estoppel against law - Advocate's submission on a question of law does not prevent an allottee from filing an appeal - For estoppel to operate there must be an express relinquishment of a benefit which was not present in this case - [Paras 54-61].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Appellate Tribunal order confirmed – Execution proceedings deferred for four weeks from 24th June 2026.

Writ Law - Maintainability - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order XXIII Rule 4 - Principle of Abandonment - Withdrawal of proceedings before National Green Tribunal (NGT) - Petitioners had previously filed an Original Application before the NGT seeking similar reliefs including the rejection of E.C. applications based on the same cause of action - The said O.A. was withdrawn without seeking liberty to initiate further proceedings - Respondents contended that the present Writ Petitions were an attempt to resuscitate a concluded challenge - Held - The principles analogous to Order XXIII Rule 4 of the CPC apply to Writ Jurisdictions - A party who withdraws a proceeding without liberty to file a fresh one is precluded from instituting a second litigation on the same cause of action to prevent abuse of process of court - The present petitions are not maintainable as they are hit by the ratio in Sarguja Transport Service v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal - [Paras 27-29].

Environmental Law - Environmental Clearance - Site Specificity - Project Proponent - Project Specificity - Petitioners challenged E.C. granted to 10th respondent on the premise that it was a proxy for the 8th respondent which had committed mining violations and failed to satisfy reparations - Amicus Curiae submitted that E.C. is site-specific and project-specific under E.I.A. Notifications - No provision exists in relevant environmental statutes to refuse E.C. based on violations in a previous project at a different site - Held - Environmental Clearance is 'site-specific' and 'project/activity-specific' as affirmed by the Supreme Court in Rajeev Suri v. DDA - The violations of a previous entity at a distinct site cannot be a ground to deny E.C. to a project proponent for a different site - [Paras 11-13, 30-31].

Civil Law - Lifting of Corporate Veil - Separate Legal Entity - Salomon v. Salomon Principle - Petitioners alleged that respondents 8, 9, and 10 were acting in unison to perpetrate fraud and conceal environmental crimes - They sought to lift the corporate veil to show that the promoters and directors were the same - Court found that the companies were incorporated at different times (1996 and 2018) and operated at different sites - No evidence of fraudulent transfers or shell companies created to evade legal obligations - Held - While the power to lift the corporate veil exists in environmental law it was not warranted in the present facts as no fraudulent constitution was proved - Merely having common directors does not justify ignoring separate legal identities - [Paras 5, 30, 41-44].

Writ Law - Public Interest Litigation - Locus Standi - Characterization of Petition - Respondents argued the petitions were PILs and should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as per roster - Petitioners claimed they were residents near the site whose right to life and property were affected - Held - Since the petitioners essentially espoused their own cause regarding impact on life and livelihood the petitions are not liable to be characterized as P.I.Ls - [Paras 32, 45-46].

Writ Law - Bona Fides of Petitioner - Extraordinary Jurisdiction - Respondents alleged the litigation was used as a weapon for blackmailing and extracting money - FIR was registered against one petitioner for such acts - Held - The record indicates a lack of bona fides on the part of the petitioners - The extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked where the conduct of the petitioner is suspect or motivated by collateral purposes - [Paras 33, 47-48].

Decision: Writ Petitions dismissed – Interim orders vacated.

Civil Law - Land Acquisition - Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 - Section 34 - National Highways Act 1956 - Section 3G(5) and 3-J - Entitlement to Solatium - Appellants challenged District Court order dismissing Section 34 application where Arbitrator failed to award solatium - Appellants relied on Tarsem Singh case declaring Section 3-J of National Highways Act ultra vires Article 14 of Constitution of India - Respondents argued limited scope of Section 34 and 37 and highlighted Supreme Court Review Petition clarifying interest on solatium starts from date claims raised - High Court found Civil Court failed to decide Section 34(4) application for fresh adjudication by Arbitrator - Held - Non-grant of solatium constitutes a ground for challenge under Section 34(2)(3)(ii) as being against fundamental policy of Indian law - Quantum of compensation remains Arbitrator's domain - Impugned order set aside and matter remanded to Arbitrator for decision on solatium in light of Tarsem Singh and subsequent Review Petition - [Paras 1-12].

Civil Law - Remand - Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 - Section 34(4) - Failure to Adjudicate Solatium - District Judge failed to deal with application under Section 34(4) and relief for just compensation including solatium - Supreme Court settled law that land owners under National Highways Act are entitled to solatium - Held - Civil Court ought to have remanded matter to Arbitrator under Section 34(4) to decide quantum of compensation and solatium application - Matter remanded for decision in consonance with Union of India Vs Tarsem Singh - [Paras 7-9].

Civil Law - Arbitral Award - Rectification of Errors - Khasra Numbers - Appellants pointed out clerical or typographical mistakes in identity of land regarding Khasra numbers in specific appeals AA 53/2024 and AA 55/2024 - Held - Arbitrator directed to look into identity of property and verify whether mentioned properly in award - [Para 10].

Decision: Appeals allowed to a limited extent – Order of 24th District Judge Jabalpur dated 05.03.2024 set aside – Matter remanded to Arbitrator for fresh decision on solatium and interest – Parties directed to appear before Arbitrator on 16.07.2026.

Writ Law - Regularization of Service - Constitution of India - Article 141 - Respondent joined appellant University as Casual Labour in 1992 - Continued as Time Scale Worker from 2008 onwards - Obtained requisite educational and technical qualifications during service - University rejected representation for regularization as Junior Assistant-cum-Typist on grounds that Respondent had not completed 5 years of service as on 25.11.1993 per G.O.Ms.No.212 - Single Judge directed regularization in Junior Assistant cadre or equivalent post from date of order with notional seniority - Division Bench observed Respondent completed 33 years of service without any major punishment or court stay - Bench relied on Supreme Court precedents in Umadevi and Jaggo cases - Held - Procedural formalities cannot be used to perpetually deny substantive rights accrued over a considerable period through continuous service - University cannot rely on Act 2 of 1994 or G.O.Ms.No.212 to deny regularization to employees satisfying criteria laid down in Para 53 of Umadevi - Single Judge order sustained - Appeal dismissed - [Paras 1-13].

Service Law - Regularization - State of Karnataka v. Umadevi 2006 (4) SCC 1 - Interpretation of Para 53 - Distinction between illegal and irregular appointments - University argued respondent was over-aged for direct recruitment and failed cut-off date for regularization - High Court held that Umadevi does not intend to penalize employees fulfilling ongoing and necessary functions of the State for long years - Selective application of Umadevi to argue no vested right exists for temporary employees distorts the judgment's spirit - Prolonged and unblemished service performing inherently regular tasks transforms ad-hoc scenarios into those demanding fair regularization - Held - State instrumentalities must not weaponize the judgment against employees who rendered indispensable services over decades - [Paras 10-12].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Order of the learned Single Judge directing regularization of the respondent affirmed – No costs.

Banking Ombudsman Scheme 2002 - Clause 17 - Review Jurisdiction - Limitation and Natural Justice - Appellant Bank challenged an initial award of the Banking Ombudsman through a review application - The review was filed beyond the prescribed one-month period without an application for condonation of delay - No notice or opportunity of hearing was afforded to the respondent as required under Clause 17(3) of the Scheme - The Reviewing Authority remanded the matter resulting in the subsequent rejection of the complaint - The Single Judge set aside the rejection citing procedural lapses and limitation bar - Held - The mandatory procedural safeguards including notice and hearing are essential - Absence of compliance with these safeguards and the limitation period vitiates the review proceedings and renders consequential orders unsustainable - [Paras 1, 16-17].

Banking Law - Maintainability of Complaint - Banking Ombudsman Scheme 2002 - Clauses 12 and 13 - Definition of Aggrieved Person - Ombudsman rejected the complaint on remand holding it was not maintainable because the respondent was not a customer of the bank - The writ court found this interpretation erroneous based on the language of the Scheme - Held - Clauses 12 and 13 of the Scheme confer a right upon any aggrieved person to lodge a complaint regarding non-payment or delay in payment of cheques - Complaint cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner was not a customer of the appellant bank - [Paras 7, 15, 18].

Civil Law - Legal Identity of Business Concerns - Partnership vs Proprietorship - Distinction and Continuity - Cheques were issued from a partnership account which was later reconstituted as a proprietorship concern - The account number and authorized signatory remained unchanged - Bank dishonoured cheques with the remark Title of Account Modified - Held - A proprietorship concern does not possess a separate legal identity distinct from its proprietor - Change in the constitution of a business does not automatically render previously issued cheques invalid if the banking relationship continues with the same credentials - [Paras 4, 12, 19].

Banking Law - Deficiency in Service - Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 - Sections 31 and 77 - Wrongful Dishonour - Bank failed to direct the account holder to surrender unused cheque leaves or cancel issued cheques prior to account conversion - The holder presented cheques which were returned despite no stop-payment instructions - Held - Bank had no authority to refuse honouring the cheques merely on account modification - Section 77 is squarely applicable where a banker negligently deals with an instrument causing loss to the holder - Dishonour of the cheques constituted a deficiency in service warranting compensation - [Paras 14, 20-22].

Decision: Writ appeal dismissed – Order of the learned Single Judge dated 12.02.2026 affirmed – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law - Discharge - Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 - Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 120-B 420 468 and 471 - Applicants being directors of distillery companies were accused of conspiring with excise officials to evade taxes worth approximately Rs 340 crore during 2005-2010 through forged transport bills and bogus manufacture records - Applicants moved for discharge on the basis that they were fully exonerated by the Excise Commissioner and VAT authority on identical allegations of tax evasion - Special Judge Daman rejected the discharge application at Exhibit-47 - High Court found that while departmental proceedings primarily concerned the validity of show-cause notices - the CBI investigation had collected distinct and prima facie evidence of criminal conspiracy - including forged transport bills - bogus invoices - and confessional statements of witnesses - Held - Exoneration in departmental adjudication proceedings does not automatically warrant discharge in a criminal case if the investigating agency produces substantial and different material establishing a prima facie case - scope of departmental adjudication and criminal trial are vastly different - revision application rejected - [Paras 1-11].

Criminal Law - Parallel Proceedings - Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 - Section 13 - Distinction between departmental adjudication and criminal prosecution - Applicants relied on Radheshyam Kejriwal case to argue that criminal proceedings cannot continue after departmental exoneration on merits - Court distinguished the facts noting that the CBI investigation unearthed evidence of forgery and cheating that was not placed before or considered by the adjudicating authorities - Held - Findings of adjudicatory bodies do not bind the criminal court when the investigating agency produces cogent evidence of conspiracy and forgery - evidence collected by CBI including bogus bills and recorded statements provides a sufficient basis to proceed to trial - [Paras 9-11].

Decision: Criminal revision application rejected – Rejection of discharge application by Special Judge, Daman, upheld.