Criminal Procedure – Anticipatory Bail – Maintainability of direct approach to High Court – Concurrent Jurisdiction – Section 482 BNSS gives concurrent powers to the High Court and Sessions Court to entertain anticipatory bail applications – Normal rule requires approaching the Sessions Court first, but High Court can entertain directly in special or extra-ordinary circumstances – FIR was lodged on the direction of Special Judge (POCSO) under Section 173(4) BNSS – Special Judge acts in dual capacity as Magistrate and Sessions Court – Held: The present application comes within the purview of special/extra-ordinary circumstances; preliminary objection of the State against direct maintainability before the High Court is rejected [Paras 26–32].

Criminal Law – POCSO Act – Section 29 Presumption of Guilt – Applicability at pre-arrest bail stage – State opposed anticipatory bail relying on the statutory presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act – Held: Presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act cannot be invoked at the stage of pre-arrest bail before the framing of charges – Requiring an accused to rebut the presumption of guilt before foundational facts are established and charges are framed would do violence to fundamental criminal jurisprudence and Article 21 of the Constitution – Grant or refusal of bail at this stage is to be decided on usual and ordinary settled principles [Paras 40–45].

Criminal Procedure – Anticipatory Bail – Factual Matrix and Conduct of Parties – Delay in FIR and unnatural conduct – FIR lodged after 6 days delay by a stranger claiming to be the guardian of the victims – Victims did not inform their natural parents but confided in a stranger – Material improvements in victims' statements regarding date and place of incident – Victims were interviewed by media in violation of POCSO and Juvenile Justice Act protocols – Dispute regarding bathing rights in Magh Mela coincided with the date the informant allegedly received information of the offence – Medical report noted no external injuries and only stated sexual assault cannot be ruled out – Held: Considering the factual matrix, discrepancies, and unnatural course of human conduct, a case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out [Paras 33–39, 51–52].

Procedural Law – Filing of Affidavit – Defective Affidavit – State objected that the affidavit in support of the anticipatory bail application was not sworn by Applicant No.1 but by Applicant No.2 and a stranger (pairokar), allegedly violating Rule 18-A of Allahabad High Court Rules – Held: Procedural laws are handmaids of justice and not meant to defeat the ends of justice – Hyper-technical approach cannot be adopted to throw out the application when Applicant No.2 explicitly stated he is doing pairavi on behalf of Applicant No.1 [Para 46].

Decision: Anticipatory bail application allowed – In the event of arrest, applicants are directed to be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each, subject to conditions including not tampering with evidence, not leaving India without permission of the Court, and all parties refraining from giving media interviews regarding the present case during the pendency of the investigation/trial.

Commercial Law – Contracts – Suit for Recovery of Money – Breach of Contract – Demurrage and Excess Freight Charges – The plaintiff/appellant filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,18,70,115/- (principal and interest) against the defendant/respondent regarding a contract for transportation services – Defendant contended that plaintiff breached the contract by failing to place trailers at the designated time, forcing the defendant to hire alternate transporters and incur demurrage charges imposed by port authorities – Defendant recovered Rs. 29,61,000/- by encashing bank guarantee, retaining EMD, and from pending bills – Held: Trial Court correctly concluded that plaintiff failed to prove the basis of its claim, having produced no supporting documents like invoices – Defendant produced adequate material, including bills from port authorities, to justify deductions made strictly in accordance with the contract terms – Dismissal of suit upheld [Paras 15, 20, 23, 30–34].

Evidence – Burden of Proof – Claim for outstanding dues – Plaintiff claimed a specific sum but failed to enumerate details or produce any material/invoices to substantiate the claim other than a statement of accounts and a demand letter – PW1 admitted no separate bills were raised – Held: Plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proving the amount due and payable – Defendant justified its deductions with documentary evidence (Ex. D28) which went unimpeached in cross-examination – Appeal dismissed [Paras 20, 26, 32–34].

Decision: Appeal dismissed as being devoid of merit with costs. All pending applications disposed of.

Civil Law – Territorial Jurisdiction – Waiver of Objection – Section 21 and Order VII Rule 10 CPC – Suit for recovery of Rs. 10 lacs where Trial Court allowed the respondent's application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC to return the plaint for lack of territorial jurisdiction – Appellant contended that the respondent did not object to territorial jurisdiction in the written statement and no issue was framed on this aspect – Held: In terms of Section 21 CPC, an objection to territorial or local jurisdiction must be taken at the earliest possible opportunity, and in any case at or before the settlement of issues – If not taken at the earliest, the objection is deemed to be waived – Territorial jurisdiction can be assumed by the Court upon waiver, as it does not go to the root of the matter unlike inherent lack of subject-matter jurisdiction – Since the respondent raised no objection at the first instance or at the stage of framing issues, the objection stands waived – Impugned order returning the plaint is set aside and the suit is restored [Paras 3–10].

Decision: Appeal succeeds and is disposed of – Impugned order dated 23.07.2022 is set aside – Suit is restored to its original number and directed to be listed before the concerned Trial Court on 30.03.2026.

Family Law – Alienation of minor's undivided interest in joint family property – Requirement of Court's permission – Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956; Sections 6, 8 and 12 – Appellant-mother sought permission to sell minor daughter's 1/4th share in undivided joint family property for her higher education – Lower court appointed her guardian but refused permission to sell – Held: Under Section 12, no guardian can be appointed for a minor's undivided interest in joint family property if it is under the management of an adult member – Father having died, the mother is the adult member managing the joint family property and the natural guardian under Section 6 – Restrictions under Section 8(2) do not apply to the fluctuating undivided interest of a minor in joint family property managed by an adult member – Mother is competent to sell the minor's share for legal necessity and welfare – Refusal of permission by the lower court is unsustainable [Paras 26–29, 34–36].

Family Law – Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956; Section 12 – Interpretation of "adult member" – Held: The adult member of the family managing the joint Hindu family property may be either male or female, not necessarily the Karta – Mother, being an adult female member in management of the joint family property after the death of the father, is fully competent to manage and deal with the undivided interest of the minor – Minor being a Hindu and having an interest in undivided joint family property is protected by the management of the mother – Lower court's order set aside and permission granted for the welfare of the minor [Paras 27, 31–36].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment and order dated 17.07.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge is set aside – Prayer of the appellant to sell the minor's undivided share for her higher education is granted.

Civil Law – Preliminary Issues – Order XIV Rule 2 CPC – Discretionary Nature – Post-1976 Amendment – Suit for cancellation of Will instituted in 2006 – Issues framed in December 2008 – Plaintiff's evidence substantially recorded – Application by defendant filed in July 2025 to decide issues of limitation and bar under Section 331 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act as preliminary issues – Held: After the 1976 Amendment, Rule 2 of Order XIV is no longer mandatory – The word "shall" of the unamended rule has been replaced by "may," making it discretionary for the court to decide issues of jurisdiction or bar to suit as preliminary issues – Only issues of law which do not require inquiry into facts can be tried as preliminary issues – Plea of limitation being a mixed question of fact and law cannot be decided as an abstract principle of law divorced from facts – Application filed after 18 years is not bona fide – Direction to decide all issues simultaneously at the time of final decision issued [Paras 4–23].

Preliminary Issue – Limitation – Mixed Question of Law and Fact – A plea of limitation cannot be decided as a preliminary issue as the starting point of limitation is entirely a question of fact requiring evidence – Where the decision on an issue of law depends upon decision of facts, it cannot be tried as a preliminary issue – Court has no jurisdiction to try a suit on mixed issues of law and fact as preliminary issues [Paras 17–18].

Bona Fides – Belated Application – Where defendant chose not to press for decision of issues as preliminary issues for 18 years from the date of framing of issues, and the application was filed only after substantial recording of plaintiff's evidence, such application cannot be regarded as bona fide – It would be appropriate for the court below to consider and decide all issues simultaneously at the time of final decision [Paras 21–23].

Decision: Petition disposed of – Trial court directed to decide all issues framed in Original Suit No. 859 of 2006 simultaneously – Trial court to endeavour to decide the suit expeditiously, preferably within one year from production of certified copy of this order.

Municipal/Planning Law – Unauthorised Construction – Demolition Order – Applicable Law – Jurisdiction – Petitioner constructed a dwelling house on a leasehold plot within the BDA planning area pursuant to development permission granted by the Burdwan Development Authority subject to compliance with the LUDCP – Sub-Divisional Officer directed demolition under Section 23(5) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 – Held: Once the plot falls within the BDA planning area and development permission is granted under the West Bengal Town and Country (Planning and Development) Act, 1979, the provisions of Section 23 of the Panchayat Act cease to apply – Alleged contravention of LUDCP must be dealt with exclusively under Sections 52 and 53 of the Act of 1979 – Impugned demolition orders are without jurisdiction and unsustainable [Paras 6–11].

Overriding Effect – West Bengal Town and Country (Planning and Development) Act, 1979 – Section 137 – Section 137 of the Act of 1979 gives overriding effect to its provisions over any inconsistent law – Development carried out in contravention of LUDCP conditions attracts penal provisions under Section 52 read with mandatory notice procedure under Section 53 – No notice under Section 53 was served upon the petitioner before passing the demolition orders – Orders therefore do not conform to the mandatory procedural requirements of law [Paras 8–11].

Mandatory Notice – Section 53 of the Act of 1979 – Prerequisite to Demolition – Before directing demolition or alteration of any building on the ground of deviation from LUDCP, the Planning Authority or Development Authority is mandatorily required to serve a notice under Section 53 upon the owner specifying the steps to be taken within one month – Non-compliance with this mandatory requirement vitiates the demolition orders [Paras 9–11].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Orders dated 6th October, 2023 and 15th October, 2025 set aside – BDA directed to deal with the issue in accordance with Sections 52 and 53 of the West Bengal Town and Country (Planning and Development) Act, 1979 – No order as to costs.

Recruitment – DSSSB – Rejection of candidature – Non-submission of e-dossier – Effective communication – Requirement of SMS/email along with website notice – Mere uploading on website not sufficient where scheme mandates dual communication – burden on authority to prove intimation – failure vitiates rejection [Paras 21–29, 33–37]

Legitimate Expectation – Recruitment process – Assurance of communication through SMS/email – Candidates entitled to rely on such representation – authority cannot rely solely on website notice – violation renders action arbitrary [Paras 31–34]

Public Employment – Procedural timelines – Balance with fairness – Strict adherence to cut-off dates subject to effective communication – rejection at final stage must satisfy fairness test – Courts to balance administrative efficiency with equity [Paras 38–41]

Proof of Communication – Electronic records – OARS portal showing dispatch of SMS/email – where contact details undisputed, presumption of due service arises – rejection upheld in such cases [Paras 43–46]

Delayed Intimation – Truncated opportunity – Late communication reducing available time – unequal treatment vis-à-vis other candidates – rejection unsustainable [Paras 47–48, 68–70]

Defective Communication – Erroneous result notice / lack of clarity on timing – benefit of doubt to candidate – candidature cannot be cancelled where confusion attributable to authority [Paras 49–51, 55–56]

No Proof of Intimation – Absence of documentary evidence of SMS/email – adverse inference against recruiting authority – rejection invalid [Paras 57–62, 64–66, 71–74]

Equitable Considerations – Special circumstances such as disability, pregnancy, higher merit – leniency justified where communication deficient – procedural lapses not to defeat substantive rights [Paras 6, 8, 73]

Change in Procedure – Shift from offline submission to e-dossier – obligation to clearly notify candidates – failure to communicate procedural change invalidates strict enforcement [Paras 23–26]

Decision: W.P.(C) 938/2026, W.P.(C) 14309/2025, W.P.(C) 506/2023 and W.P.(C) 12996/2024 allowed – remaining connected petitions dismissed – Tribunal orders partly upheld and partly set aside depending on proof of effective communication – pending applications disposed of.

Service Law – Departmental Proceedings – Acquittal in Criminal Case – Effect on Disciplinary Action – Constable dismissed from service on charges of misconduct arising out of alleged involvement in narcotic trafficking under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29 of the NDPS Act – Criminal court acquitted the respondent recording categorical finding that prosecution failed to establish his involvement and that plea of alibi stood proved by cogent documentary and oral evidence – Disciplinary authority proceeded to dismiss despite acquittal, relying on same set of witnesses whose testimony was discarded by the criminal court – Single Judge set aside dismissal and directed reinstatement – Held: Where the foundation of the departmental proceedings rests on the same factual matrix as the criminal case and the same witnesses whose evidence was rejected by the criminal court form the basis of the inquiry, the departmental proceedings are based on "no evidence" and are unsustainable – Writ Appeal dismissed [Paras 3–21].

Plea of Alibi – Established by Cogent Evidence – Effect on Departmental Proceedings – Respondent established during criminal trial that on the date of alleged offence he was undergoing official training at Phulbani from 25.05.2015 to 30.05.2015 – Training records and testimony of D.W.1 accepted by the trial court – Criminal court recorded that respondent was not even present at the spot – Inquiry officer relied on the very same witnesses whose statements before the criminal court were rejected – Held: Once the plea of alibi is judicially accepted and attains finality, the entire genesis of the departmental charge stands washed away on facts – Departmental findings based on no evidence [Paras 17–20].

Judicial Review – Scope in Disciplinary Matters – Perversity of Findings – Appellants contended that the Single Judge exceeded permissible limits of judicial review by re-appreciating evidence – Held: High Court's interference was not by way of appellate re-appreciation but on the ground that the findings of the disciplinary authority were based on no evidence, being premised entirely on witnesses whose version stood judicially discredited – Interference was warranted and cannot be faulted on law or facts [Paras 13–14, 20].

Decision: Writ Appeal dismissed – Order of Single Judge setting aside dismissal and directing reinstatement with all consequential service and financial benefits upheld.

Companies Act – Appointment of Woman Director – Section 149 – Compliance – Triable Issue – Petitioner company alleged to have violated Section 149 of the Companies Act, 2013 by failing to appoint a woman director within the prescribed period ending 31st March, 2015 – Petitioners claimed appointment of Ms. Kirti Sanghavi as woman director by Board resolution dated 3rd January, 2015, but Form DIR-12 uploaded before the Registrar of Companies only on 6th October, 2015 upon payment of penalty – Petitioners failed to disclose when DIN was applied for and allotted to the newly appointed director – No reply to show cause notice produced – Held: Whether the appointment was actually made within the statutory timeframe is a triable issue requiring evidence by parties and cannot be adjudicated in revisional jurisdiction – Revision dismissed [Paras 6–11].

Quashing of Proceedings – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Scope – Petitioners contended that the complaint was an abuse of process of law as they had complied with the statutory requirement and also paid the prescribed penalty – Held: In the absence of satisfactory material before this Court establishing compliance within time, the revisional application is not entertainable and the matter is to be decided by the trial court after leading of evidence – Application dismissed [Paras 3–4, 10–11].

Decision: Criminal Revisional application dismissed – Proceeding before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore to continue – Interim order, if any, vacated.