Civil Law - Procedure - Family Courts Act 1984 - [Not stated in judgment] - Restoration of application - Revision petitioner challenged the dismissal of his application C.M.P No. 2/2024 which was filed to restore an earlier petition to set aside an ex-parte order - The Family Court dismissed the application on the technical ground that the prayer was to set aside the order dated 30.08.2024 instead of explicitly seeking restoration - The High Court held that the nomenclature of the relief sought should not have been the primary focus of the lower court while ignoring the actual purpose sought to be achieved by the petitioner - Held - The decision of the lower court to dismiss the petition on purely technical grounds cannot be justified - Order set aside - [Paras 1-5].

Civil Law - Maintenance - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - [Not stated in judgment] - Conditional Restoration - Petitioner sought to set aside an ex-parte maintenance order directing payment of Rs 8000 per month - High Court observed that huge arrears were due to the respondent wife and further procrastination would cause hardship - As a pre-condition for the restoration of the petition to set aside the ex-parte order the Court directed the petitioner to deposit Rs 200000 out of the arrears within two months - Held - Restoration of C.M.P No. 1/2024 directed subject to the condition of partial deposit of arrears to balance the interests of both parties - [Paras 2-5].

Decision: Revision petition allowed in part – Order of Family Court in C.M.P No. 2/2024 set aside subject to petitioner depositing Rs 200000 within two months – Family Court directed to restore and decide C.M.P No. 1/2024 on merits upon compliance – Execution proceedings in M.C No. 289/2022 stayed for two months.

Criminal Law - Sentence Modification - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 307 read with Section 34 - Attempt to Murder - Appellants Saghir Ahmad and Mohammad Iliyas convicted in 1985 for an incident occurring in 1981 - Trial court awarded five years rigorous imprisonment - During the pendency of the appeal the injured informant Smt Dharmi Devi moved a compromise application in 1986 stating that injuries were minor and received under pressure of local police - Compromise was verified by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Azamgarh in 1993 - Appellants are currently octogenarians and senior citizens - Matter has been pending for nearly forty-five years since the incident - Prosecution case involved fire opened by Iliyas resulting in gunshot injury to Smt Dharmi Devi during a village marriage party - High Court noted the long passage of time and the reformative nature of punishment in India - Reliance placed on Supreme Court precedents favoring the reduction of sentence to the period undergone in old cases involving elderly convicts - Held - Conviction maintained but sentence modified to the period already undergone - [Paras 1-22].

Criminal Law - Sentencing Policy - Reformative Justice - Proportionality - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 374 - Court observed that the law of punishment in India is reformative and not corporeal - Sending eighty-year-old appellants to jail after forty-one years of conviction would not serve the basic principles of law - Sentencing must be just adequate and proportionate to the gravity of the offence - Undue sympathy is harmful but sending senior citizens to serve a remaining sentence after a long lapse of time is not justified - High Court exercised judicial discretion to balance the ends of justice with the specific circumstances of the case - Held - Judicious and purposeful punishment requires modification of sentence to the period undergone - [Paras 17-19].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Substantive sentence modified to the period already undergone – Bail bonds and sureties discharged.

Writ Law - Custodial Torture - Public Humiliation - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Police Misconduct - Petitioner alleged that after arrest he was subjected to custodial assault - forcibly shaved - dressed in women’s clothing - and paraded through a crowded marketplace - Photographs and videos were circulated on social media causing irreparable damage to reputation and dignity - Police authorities contended petitioner was apprehended in female attire while trying to evade arrest and no acts of forced dressing or shaving occurred - Court found the police explanation implausible and contrary to ordinary human conduct - Held - The conduct reflects a palpable overreach of authority not sanctioned by law - Police cannot assume the role of a judge or engage in acts that resemble judicial determination - Petition disposed of with mandatory directions - [Paras 1-18].

Constitutional Law - Right to Dignity - Constitution of India - Article 21 - Institutional Humiliation - The right to life is not merely a physical existence but encompasses the right to live with dignity free from humiliation and unwarranted public exposure - Parading an accused before the media and capturing images within police stations constitutes a systematic erosion of individual reputation - Such acts leave indelible scars on the psyche even if the person is eventually acquitted - Held - Institutional humiliation is wholly inconsistent with the constitutional promise of dignity and is incompatible with the tenets of constitutional morality - [Paras 15-16].

Criminal Law - Media Trial - Role of Police - Presumption of Innocence - The phenomenon of media trial by police through press conferences and orchestrated disclosures seeks to project an accused as culpable before due process of law - Such conduct violates the bulwark against arbitrary State action - Presumption of innocence remains a cherished right until a finding of guilt is established through due process - Held - Investigative officers must refrain from prematurely informing media of breakthroughs to claim investigational credit as it jeopardizes the integrity of the investigation - [Paras 14-16].

Criminal Law - Police Powers - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 53 - Extra-legal Punishment - The power to investigate does not encompass the power to declare guilt or inflict punishment - Police role is confined strictly to investigation and maintenance of law and order - Statutory framework exhaustively prescribes the nature and extent of punishments that may be imposed solely by the Judiciary - Held - Subjecting an accused to public parading or social media condemnation orchestrated by police is an extra-legal penalty not recognized by law and amounts to an unwarranted usurpation of judicial function - [Paras 17-18].

Decision: Writ Petition disposed of – Court issued mandatory directions for strict adherence to SOPs – Prohibited public parading or disrobing of individuals lacking serious criminal antecedents – Declared social media condemnation orchestrated by police as an unauthorized form of punishment – Directed display of Do’s and Don’ts at all police stations – Reserved liberty for petitioner to pursue civil remedies for damages.

Service Law - Pension Entitlement - Employees’ Pension Scheme 1995 - Paragraph 11 - Determination of Pensionable Salary - Petitioners challenged the application of a pro-rata methodology introduced via internal e-mail dated 14.02.2024 and Circular dated 18.01.2025 for calculating pensions of members contributing on higher wages post 2014 amendment - Court examined the statutory object of EPS 1995 and the distinction between Paragraph 11(1) and Paragraph 11(4) - Found that while Paragraph 11(1) explicitly mandates pro-rata computation for wage-capped members - Paragraph 11(4) which governs higher wage cases contains no such stipulation or bifurcation based on wage ceilings - Held - Executive instructions cannot amend or override statutory rules - The introduction of pro-rata bifurcation for higher wage cases via administrative circulars travels beyond the statutory framework and is legally unsustainable - Respondents directed to recalculate pensionable salary on the basis of average monthly pay of 60 months preceding exit without applying pro-rata formula - [Paras 11-24].

Writ Law - Interest on Delayed Arrears - Employees’ Pension Scheme 1995 - Principle of Reciprocity and Equity - Respondents recovered differential contributions from petitioners with retrospective interest to neutralize imbalances but released the resulting pension arrears after an inordinate delay of over five years without interest - Court noted that the delay was attributable to the restrictive and erroneous interpretation of the scheme by the EPFO which was eventually corrected by the Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar B. - Held - Principles of equity and fairness demand reciprocity - Since the respondents levied interest upon the petitioners for delayed deposits of contributions - they cannot escape liability to pay interest for the corresponding delay in releasing pension arrears - Simple interest at 8 percent per annum awarded on arrears arising from recalculation - [Paras 25-32].

Writ Law - Wage Parity - Employees’ Pension Scheme 1995 - Paragraph 12 - Disparity in Calculation - Petitioners demonstrated that respondents included higher wage elements like DA arrears and pay revision benefits for collecting differential contributions but excluded the same while determining pensionable salary - Court observed that any divergence between wages used for contribution and wages used for determining benefits is inherently discriminatory - Held - There must be complete parity between the wages taken into account for recovery of differential contribution and those adopted for determination of pensionable salary - Respondents directed to ensure due apportionment of arrears to respective months for correct calculation - [Paras 33-36].

Writ Law - Nature of Relief - Judgment in Rem - Applicability to non-petitioners - Given the large volume of connected cases and the fundamental nature of the legal issue regarding pro-rata pension calculation - the Court determined the judgment to be a judgment in rem - Held - The benefit of this judgment must be extended to all similarly situated persons regardless of whether they approached the Court - Respondents directed to process representations of such persons within three months - [Paras 37-39].

Decision: Writ petitions allowed – Circular dated 18.01.2025 and e-mail dated 14.02.2024 quashed to the extent of pro-rata methodology – Respondents directed to recalculate pensions and pay interest within twelve weeks.

Civil Law - Rent and Eviction - Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act 1973 - Section 13 - Unsafe and unfit for human habitation - Respondent landlord sought eviction of petitioners on grounds of non-payment of rent and building being unfit for habitation - Rent Controller and Appellate Authority ordered eviction primarily due to the building being 70 to 80 years old and constructed with small bricks and mud mortar - High Court scrutinized the Local Commissioner report and found the official had not physically entered the premises and merely observed it from an adjoining roof - Court determined that mere age of a structure or the nature of construction material used cannot be the sole basis for declaring a building unsafe - Held - Findings of lower authorities were based on surmises and conjectures without substantive evidentiary foundation - Revision petitions allowed and eviction orders set aside - [Paras 1-17.3].

Civil Law - Eviction Ground - Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act 1973 - Section 13 - Standard of Proof - Building condition - Ratio Decidendi - Mere antiquity of a structure or the use of traditional materials like small bricks or mud mortar does not constitute conclusive proof that a building is structurally unsafe or unfit for human habitation - Findings of unfitness must be supported by cogent evidence such as expert testimony showing collapse of portions or extensive cracks or weakening of structural components - Held - Absence of independent evidence regarding actual physical deterioration renders eviction orders legally unsustainable - [Paras 17-17.2].

Civil Law - Landlord and Tenant Relationship - Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act 1973 - Section 13 - Admissibility of Evidence - Petitioners relied upon assessment record Ex.A3 to argue premises were fit for habitation - Same document recorded their predecessor as a tenant under respondent - Held - A document relied upon by a party for one purpose can be read in its entirety and the party cannot selectively rely on parts favorable to their case - Relationship of landlord and tenant confirmed - [Paras 12-12.1].

Decision: Revision petitions allowed – Impugned orders and judgments of the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority quashed – Eviction petitions dismissed.

Writ Law - Service Law - Regularization of Guest Lecturers - Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 16 - State challenged Single Judge order quashing G.O. (Ms). No. 247 and 248 (2022) - Petitioners were working as Guest Lecturers in Government Arts and Science Colleges appointed through college-level committees - Government initially proposed regularization of 1146 lecturers under G.O. (Ms). No. 56 (2020) through a special test - Subsequent 2022 policy mandated a written competitive examination for 4000 posts and canceled earlier notifications - Single Judge quashed 2022 G.O.s holding that rules of selection cannot be altered mid-process - Division Bench found that original appointments were made through walk-in interviews at the college level without State-wide advertisement - No final selection list was ever published under the 2020 policy - Principle of changing rules of the game applies only when selection is concluded or final list is published - Held - Single Judge order set aside - Writ petitions dismissed - Guest Lecturers have no fundamental right to be absorbed in service - Mere receipt of salary or provident fund does not equate to legal appointment - [Paras 1-63].

Constitutional Law - Public Employment - Open Competitive Process - Article 14 - Definition and Requirements - Court examined the validity of college-level recruitment for public posts - Open competitive process requires widely published and circulated advertisements - equal opportunity for all qualified persons under Article 14 - objective selection based on marks rather than pick-and-choose method - and transparent independent conduct - Held - College-level selection committees do not constitute an open competitive process - State-wide publication is mandatory for regular recruitment to substantive vacancies - [Paras 30-36, 42].

Service Law - Policy Revision - Rules of the Game - State of Bihar Vs. Mithilesh Kumar distinguished - Distinction between completed recruitment and ongoing policy change - In Mithilesh Kumar the candidate was recommended by the Public Service Commission before the policy changed - In the present case the regularization process under G.O. 56 was only underway and no final list was published - Held - Government is entitled to change its policy especially when informed by Supreme Court directions in Dr. K. Ragu case - Changes in recruitment rules cannot be equated with change in policy of regularization - [Paras 45-55].

Service Law - Regularization vs Recruitment - Right to Absorption - State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi (III) applied - Differences in goals and legal status - Recruitment is rule-based filling of substantive vacancies through statutory methods - Regularization is a remedial measure for irregular appointments - Held - Contractual employees cannot claim equality with regular employees - No fundamental right to claim absorption for those employed on daily wages or contractual basis - [Paras 37-41, 80-82].

Decision: Writ Appeals allowed – Single Judge order set aside – Writ petitions dismissed – State directed to notify additional 1292 posts to reach the original 4000 vacancies – Selection to be made through open competitive process – Guest Lecturers to be granted maximum 15 weightage marks based on experience and age relaxation – Guest Lecturers not to be ousted from service until fresh recruitment process is completed.

Service Law – Disciplinary Proceedings – Special Procedure – Dispensing with Regular Inquiry – Rule 12 MARKFED Punishment and Appeal Rules – Petitioner was Branch Incharge and joint custodian of wheat stocks at MARKFED Branch Office, Batala – Physical verification revealed shortage of 21,973 bags (10,986.04 quintals) valued at Rs. 2,56,77,891/- – Petitioner signed physical verification report acknowledging shortage – Managing Director dispensed with regular inquiry under Rule 12(ii) and (iii) and dismissed the petitioner recording reasons that the petitioner caused heavy loss to MARKFED by embezzlement in connivance with co-custodian – Held: Essential precondition for invoking Rule 12, namely recording of reasons by punishing authority for dispensing with regular inquiry, stands duly satisfied – Power under Rule 12 was not exercised mechanically or without application of mind – Order of dismissal upheld – Writ petition dismissed [Paras 8–9, 22–23].

Natural Justice – Useless Formality Theory – Admitted and Indisputable Facts – Petitioner, as joint custodian, had signed the physical verification report unequivocally recording a massive shortage – These are not disputed facts requiring adjudication through a contested inquiry but self-evident circumstances acknowledged by petitioner's own signatures – Where on admitted or indisputable facts only one conclusion is possible and under the law only one penalty is permissible, the court may not issue its writ to compel observance of natural justice as courts do not issue futile writs – Movement of more than 22,000 bags of wheat weighing over 10,986 quintals could neither occur silently nor overnight without the knowledge of the custodian – Even if non-holding of regular inquiry amounted to procedural violation, no real prejudice has been caused to the petitioner – Compliance would be a useless formality [Paras 13–18].

Disciplinary Proceedings vs. Criminal Proceedings – Standard of Proof – Departmental proceedings are entirely distinct and independent from criminal proceedings – Standard of proof in criminal trial is proof beyond reasonable doubt whereas in departmental proceedings it is the much lower threshold of preponderance of probability – Petitioner cannot seek absolution merely on the basis of police investigation report finding him innocent of criminal conspiracy or on the basis of an affidavit filed by co-custodian assuming full responsibility – Supervisory liability is intrinsic to the office held and is not transferred by self-serving documents [Para 19].

Quantum of Punishment – Dismissal – Proportionality – Penalty of dismissal from service is neither disproportionate nor shocking to the conscience of the court – Petitioner was holding a position of trust responsible for public property worth crores of rupees – Shortage of 21,973 bags constitutes gross negligence if not outright embezzlement causing immense financial loss – Appellate and Revisional Authorities have affirmed the dismissal – Interference with quantum of punishment warranted only if punishment is so shockingly disproportionate as to call for no other conclusion than that it is arbitrary and perverse – Present case does not fall in that category [Para 21].

Scope of Judicial Review – Disciplinary Matters – Scope of judicial review under Article 226 in disciplinary matters is extremely limited – Court cannot re-appreciate evidence or interfere with findings of fact recorded by departmental authorities unless they are perverse or based on no evidence – Findings of departmental authorities being based on clear evidence including physical verification report signed by petitioner, no perversity or arbitrariness is made out [Para 22].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Orders of Punishing Authority dated 28.11.2018, Appellate Authority dated 27.03.2019 and Revisional Authority dated 03.03.2020 upheld – Dismissal from service confirmed [Para 23].

Civil Law - Fraud and Deception in Deeds - Indian Contract Act 1872 - Sections 16 and 17 - Cancellation of Gift Deeds - Plaintiff entered into a sale agreement for 12 Bighas of land - Defendants 1 and 2 were entrusted to prepare sale deeds but instead prepared gift deeds in their favour - Plaintiff was an elderly man who executed the documents in good faith without perusing them - Trial court and first appellate court concurrently found that the deeds were obtained through fraud and collusion - High Court observed that the recitals in the deeds regarding sound mind and understanding did not negate evidence that the plaintiff was not allowed to read the contents - Held - The deeds were fraudulent and sham transactions - Concurrent findings of lower courts upheld - Appeal dismissed - [Paras 1-16].

Evidence Law - Burden of Proof - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Sections 101 and 102 - Shifting of Onus - Plaintiff pleaded and proved fraud by adducing evidence that his signatures were tactfully obtained - Appellants contended that the burden was wrongly shifted to them - High Court held that the initial burden lies on the party asserting fraud - Once the plaintiff discharged the initial burden and made out a prima facie case - the onus shifted to the defendants to prove that the transaction was voluntary and not induced by undue influence - Held - Defendants failed to discharge their shifted liability - [Paras 10-10.6].

Civil Law - Suit for Declaration - Specific Relief Act 1963 - Section 34 - Maintainability - Proviso to Section 34 - Appellants argued the suit was not maintainable as the plaintiff did not seek consequential relief of recovery of possession - High Court examined evidence showing the plaintiff remained in possession of the suit land - Held - A suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction is maintainable without seeking recovery of possession if the plaintiff is already in possession - The bar under the proviso to Section 34 does not apply when no further consequential relief is required by the plaintiff - [Paras 12-12.4].

Civil Law - Second Appeal - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 100 - Concurrent Findings - High Court will generally not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence - Appellants raised new pleas regarding Section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act - Held - New pleas cannot be raised in second appeal for the first time - Substantial questions of law not involved when findings are based on a proper appreciation of facts and evidence - [Paras 11.2-14].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Concurrent findings of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court affirmed – Parties directed to bear their own costs.

Commercial Courts Act – Jurisdiction – Section 2(1)(c)(vii) – Immovable Property Used Exclusively in Trade or Commerce – Plaintiff permitted defendant (his elder brother) to use commercial/industrial shed at Okhla Industrial Area for running business activities without consideration – Trial Court returned plaint holding the dispute to be a commercial dispute under Section 2(1)(c)(vii) – Held: The suit property is admittedly a commercial/industrial shed and as per the plaint itself, the defendant was permitted to use it for running business activities – The arrangement has a commercial character and concerns immovable property used for commercial purposes – Alleged permissive gratuitous use does not render the agreement non-commercial for the purpose of applicability of the Commercial Courts Act [Paras 8, 11].

Gratuitous Licence – Commercial Character – Section 52, Indian Easements Act – Payment of licence fee or consideration is not an essential attribute for the subsistence of a licence under Section 52 of the Indian Easements Act – A licensor can permit a person to enter property without any consideration – Gratuitous licence is legally valid – However, the issue in the present case is not the validity of a gratuitous licence but whether the arrangement possesses the commercial character contemplated under Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Commercial Courts Act – Gratuitous nature of the arrangement does not negate its commercial character [Paras 10–11].

Return of Plaint vs. Transfer – Section 24 CPC – Section 12-A Compliance – Where a suit filed prior to the Supreme Court's declaration of prospective applicability in Patil Automation (P) Ltd. vs. Rakheja Engineers (P) Ltd. ought to have been filed as a commercial suit, the abrupt remedy of return of plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC is not the appropriate course – In order to avoid loss of all proceedings before the earlier court, recourse to Section 24 CPC empowering transfer to the competent court is a more appropriate remedy – Section 24 CPC is not amended by the Schedule to the Commercial Courts Act and continues to apply in full force – Question of Section 12-A compliance is kept open for the transferee court [Paras 13–16, 18].

Commercial Dispute – Definition – Strict Construction – The expression "used exclusively in trade or commerce" in Section 2(1)(c)(vii) refers to property actually being used for commercial purposes and not property merely ready for use or likely to be used in future – Strict construction of the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act is required, as any liberal interpretation would defeat the object of speedy disposal of high-value commercial disputes – For a dispute to qualify as a commercial dispute, the transaction must carry a commercial flavour encompassing elements of trade and business [Paras 8–9].

Decision: Appeal disposed of – Impugned order returning the plaint set aside – Suit transferred in exercise of powers under Section 24 CPC to be listed before the concerned Principal District and Sessions Judge on 06.07.2026 for directions – Question of compliance of Section 12-A kept open for the transferee court to decide in accordance with law [Paras 17–19].