Civil Writ - SARFAESI – Classification of MSME Account as NPA – RBI Guidelines – Petitioners, an MSME unit, challenged classification of loan as NPA without following RBI circulars dated 29.05.2015, 21.07.2016 and 17.03.2016 – Alleged denial of mandatory restructuring process under RBI framework – Held: No evidence that petitioners raised the issue of MSME protection before issuance of Section 13(2) notice or in reply – Prima facie, contention of lessee operations by third party supported by bank – Ext.P10 framework not mandatorily applicable absent revival potential – Writ jurisdiction not invoked in such disputed facts [Paras 7–9, 11]

Banking Law – Interest Hike – Usurious Charges – Petitioners alleged arbitrary hike of interest from 10% to 18.15% and imposition of penal interest for SMA classifications – Contended that interest manipulation violated Central Bank of India v. Ravindra ratio – Held: Issue requires adjudication on evidence – Not fit for determination under Article 226 at threshold stage [Paras 2.1, 4.3]

Maintainability – Alternate Remedy – DRT Jurisdiction – Petitioners argued that writ is maintainable as challenge pertains to jurisdictional illegality in NPA classification – Held: Since bank has already acted under Section 13(4) SARFAESI Act, and no prima facie illegality shown in NPA classification or denial of MSME framework, petitioner relegated to DRT under Section 17 SARFAESI Act – Writ dismissed with liberty [Paras 10–11]

CERSAI – Challenge to Mortgage Registration – Petitioners alleged absence of valid CERSAI registration under Section 26D SARFAESI Act – Bank produced documents showing registration of security interest – Held: No cause to interfere in writ jurisdiction on this ground [Para 2.4]

Disputed Facts – Lease to Third Party – Petitioners denied leasing operations to third party; bank relied on site visit photos and claimed unit was non-operational – Held: Disputed factual matrix regarding actual operations and eligibility under MSME revival framework not suitable for resolution under Article 226 – Left open for appropriate forum [Paras 9–11]

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Petitioners at liberty to approach Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act – No opinion expressed on merits.

Section 21(c), 23(c), 27(A), 28, 29, 30, 35, 54 read with Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act – Bail – Section 37 – Rejection – Applicant alleged to be part of international drug trafficking syndicate – Co-accused arrested with 1970 grams of cocaine – Though confessional statements under Section 67 NDPS Act are inadmissible, prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence including WhatsApp chats, forensic analysis, call logs (117 calls), and bank transactions – Applicant linked to operations via logistical support, communication with foreign national ‘Mr. Morris’, and financial trail through wife’s bank account – Held: Prima facie material establishes Applicant’s role in smuggling network – Reasonable grounds to believe Applicant is not guilty not made out – Long incarceration alone not a ground for bail in commercial quantity offences – Section 37 bar not overcome [Paras 8–12].

Decision: Bail application rejected – Court finds sufficient prima facie evidence to deny relief under Section 37 of the NDPS Act – Observations to not affect merits at trial [Paras 13–14].

Juvenile Justice – Habeas Corpus – Illegal Detention – Petitioner No. 1, arrested for murder under Section 302 IPC, was in judicial custody since 2017 – During trial in 2024, he raised a claim of juvenility and produced a scholar register showing his date of birth as 13.12.2002 – The trial court failed to determine his age as required under Section 9(2) of JJ Act and mechanically forwarded the matter to the Juvenile Justice Board – The Board declared him juvenile on 15.05.2025 – Held: Since the claim was raised before the trial court, only the court was competent to determine age – Board’s order was without jurisdiction and a nullity – Petitioner’s continued detention in jail thereafter was illegal

Juvenile Justice – Detention in Jail – Prohibition under JJ Act – Under Section 10(1) of the Act, a child in conflict with law cannot be placed in police lock-up or jail – Even during age inquiry, such person must be kept in a place of safety – Petitioner’s detention in Naini Central Jail after raising juvenility claim was contrary to statutory mandate – Held: Present custody illegal

Habeas Corpus – Judicial Custody – Maintainability – Although habeas corpus is generally not maintainable against judicial remand, an exception arises where the detention is shown to be patently illegal or without jurisdiction – In present case, remand was mechanically passed without determination of age – Held: Writ of habeas corpus maintainable

Constitution of India – Article 21 – Right to Liberty – Juvenile in conflict with law can be detained for maximum three years under JJ Act – Petitioner had been in jail for over 8 years – Continued detention violative of Article 21 – Illegal and unconstitutional

Decision: Petition partly allowed – Writ of habeas corpus issued – Superintendent, Naini Central Jail, Prayagraj directed to release Petitioner No. 1 immediately – Commissioner of Police to produce Petitioner before trial court – Trial court directed to determine age under Section 9(2) JJ Act – If found juvenile, he to be forwarded to the Juvenile Justice Board for further action – If not, trial to proceed as per law

Service Law – Departmental Inquiry – Delay in Disciplinary Proceedings – Petitioner placed under suspension on 16.05.2011 – Charge-sheet issued after six months and inquiry report exonerating petitioner submitted on 18.10.2012 – Managing Director issued dissenting note after two years (15.01.2014) – Petitioner reinstated on 27.02.2015 and retired on 28.02.2015 – Punishment order passed on 10.11.2015 treating suspension period as leave of kind due – Held: Inquiry proceedings delayed for over four years without justification – Prolonged and unexplained delay vitiates disciplinary proceedings; prejudice presumed to the employee [Paras 4, 6, 9–10].

Suspension – Entitlement to Salary and Treatment of Suspension Period – Suspension for 3½ years without valid justification cannot be converted into leave of kind due – Such prolonged suspension amounts to punishment before conclusion of inquiry – Suspension period directed to be treated as duty period for all purposes [Paras 4, 11].

Retiral Benefits – Gratuity and Leave Encashment – Gratuity released belatedly on 27.10.2017 after filing of writ petition – Leave encashment cannot be withheld in absence of statutory authority – Delay in payment of retiral dues entitles employee to interest – Direction to pay all retiral dues with 6% per annum interest on delayed payments beyond two months from retirement [Paras 5, 11].

Disciplinary Proceedings – Duty to Conclude Expeditiously – Court relied upon Supreme Court precedents in State of Punjab v. Chaman Lal Goyal, (1995) 2 SCC 570 and Prem Nath Bali v. Registrar, High Court of Delhi, (2015) 16 SCC 415 – Held: Employer is bound to conclude disciplinary inquiry within a reasonable period, preferably within six months, and not exceeding one year save in exceptional circumstances – Unexplained delay reflects administrative apathy and undermines fairness [Paras 7–8].

Decision: Both writ petitions allowed – Suspension period directed to be treated as duty period – Respondents to release all retiral dues including gratuity and leave encashment with 6% per annum interest on delayed payments – Compliance within three months [Para 11].

Hindu Marriage – Restitution of Conjugal Rights – Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Appeal against decree – Allegations of cruelty, dowry demand, and suppression of husband’s mental illness not proved – No FIR or complaint filed – Evidence produced by wife unreliable and hearsay – Husband made genuine attempts to resume cohabitation which wife refused – Decree for restitution of conjugal rights upheld – No error found in judgment of Family Court [Paras 2–5].

Maintenance and Permanent Alimony – Sections 24 and 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Nature and Scope – Interim maintenance under Section 24 can be granted during pendency of proceedings when applicant lacks independent income – Permanent alimony under Section 25 may be granted at the time of decree or subsequently – Right to maintenance available to either spouse but is discretionary – Conduct of parties is relevant consideration after 1976 amendment inserting “conduct of parties and other circumstances of the case” [Paras 7–11].

Discretionary Relief – Fault Principle – No party can take advantage of its own wrong – Maintenance cannot be claimed as of right by a spouse found at fault – However, to prevent destitution or vagrancy, Court may grant limited maintenance even to erring spouse – Quantum of maintenance to be proportionate to basic needs in such cases [Paras 11–12].

Restitution Decree – Effect on Claim for Maintenance – Court cannot direct that decree for restitution of conjugal rights shall have no effect on consideration of maintenance application – Wife, however, may apply separately for maintenance to avoid destitution; relief under Sections 24 and 25 remains discretionary and fact-dependent [Paras 13–14].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Decree of Restitution of Conjugal Rights dated 27.11.2014 in Civil Suit No. 37-A/2014 affirmed – No order directing that decree shall not affect claim for maintenance – Liberty reserved to appellant to apply independently for maintenance as per law [Paras 15–16].

Motor Vehicles Act – Claim under Section 163-A – Borrower of Vehicle – Tortfeasor – Not Third Party – Claim Not Maintainable – Deceased, who died in a self-accident, had borrowed the vehicle from his brother and was driving it in a rash and negligent manner – Held: Once the deceased stepped into the shoes of the owner, he ceased to be a third party – Claim under Section 163-A is not maintainable against insurer by borrower/tortfeasor – Tribunal erred in awarding ₹3,93,500 as compensation – Award set aside [Paras 13–19].

Insurance Law – Liability of Insurer – Borrower Driving Vehicle – No Coverage – Deceased was neither a paid driver nor a third party – Policy did not cover owner’s relatives or gratuitous users – Supreme Court in Ramkhiladi v. United India Insurance Co. [(2020) 2 SCC 550] relied upon – Held: No liability on insurer for self-inflicted accident by borrower of vehicle – Deceased, being tortfeasor, not entitled to compensation [Paras 15–16].

Motor Accident Claim – Tribunal's Failure to Determine Negligence – Perverse Award – Tribunal failed to determine culpability despite clear evidence (FIR and claimant’s admission) that deceased was driving negligently – Award granted without proper reasoning or findings on responsibility – Held: Award unsustainable in law and liable to be set aside [Paras 17–19].

Appellate Review – Error in Applying Multiplier – Irrelevant in Present Case – Though appellant argued Tribunal applied incorrect multiplier (16 instead of 15), Court found issue moot since claim itself was not maintainable [Para 10].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in MCOP No.696 of 2012 dated 03/12/2012 set aside – Claim petition dismissed – Appellant insurer entitled to recover any amount deposited before Tribunal by filing appropriate application – No costs – Connected miscellaneous petition closed [Paras 19–20].

Land Acquisition – Due Process – Sections 3A, 3D & 3G(3) of National Highways Act – Gazette Notification issued in 2022 under Section 3A did not include all petitioners’ properties – Declaration under Section 3D dated 03.07.2024 and subsequent compensation proceedings initiated – Petitioners allege interference with possession without due acquisition – Held: Respondents directed to follow due process before acquisition – Acquisition without compliance violates Article 300-A [Paras 2–2.2, 9]

Constitutional Law – Article 300-A – Right to Property – Seven essential rights recognised by Supreme Court in Kolkata Municipal Corporation v. Bimal Kumar Shah (2024) 10 SCC 533 form core of Article 300-A – Includes rights to notice, hearing, reasoned decision, fair compensation, expeditious process, public purpose and conclusion – Held: Absence of these renders law vulnerable to challenge – These principles now part of administrative law jurisprudence [Paras 5–7]

Property Law – Completion of Acquisition – Mere compensation not sufficient – Possession of property is essential for valid acquisition – Court reiterates that unless physical possession is taken, acquisition remains incomplete [Para 8]

Decision: Writ Petitions disposed of with direction to follow due process of law – No order as to costs – Miscellaneous petitions closed.

Tenancy Law - Civil Procedure – Partnership Dispute – Order 30 Rule 8 CPC – Eviction Petition – Respondents filed eviction petition against M/s Indian Furniture Store through alleged partner Satish Grover – Petitioner filed application under Order 30 Rule 8 CPC read with Section 151 CPC, contending that his appearance be treated as under protest and Court must first determine whether he was a partner – Rent Controller, instead of deciding the application, directed petitioner to disclose partnership details on affidavit – Held: Impermissible – Rule 8 CPC envisages preliminary adjudication – Person disputing partnership cannot be compelled to furnish details before Court determines his status as partner – Impugned order set aside [Paras 5-7].

Civil Revision – Rent Controller’s Jurisdiction – Rent Controller must first adjudicate application under Order 30 Rule 8 CPC before proceeding with eviction petition – Only upon deciding petitioner’s status as partner can he be compelled to disclose partnership particulars – Impugned order contrary to the scheme of the Code – Civil revision allowed – Rent Controller directed to decide application under Order 30 Rule 8 CPC in accordance with law [Paras 8-9].

Decision: Civil Revision allowed – Impugned order dated 22.08.2025 set aside – Rent Controller directed to first decide application under Order 30 Rule 8 CPC and then proceed with eviction petition [Paras 8-10].

Criminal Law – Murder – Dying Declaration – Victim named appellants Dilip Dey and Manoj Singh as shooters in statement recorded by police officer in presence of doctor and relatives – Statement corroborated by brothers of deceased (PWs 5 and 7) – Medical officer (PW9) confirmed victim was conscious – Objection to lack of medical certificate of mental fitness rejected – Court held dying declaration reliable and consistent with medical evidence [Paras 3, 6, 42–45, 49–53]

Criminal Law – Firearm Recovery – Weapon recovered on basis of disclosure by Manoj Singh under Section 27 Evidence Act – Seizure corroborated by police witnesses (PWs 20, 25) – Forensic expert (PW22) confirmed bullet retrieved from victim matched the recovered firearm – Held: Recovery legal and directly links appellant to the crime [Paras 34–36, 57–58]

Evidence – Hostile Witness – PW16 (friend of deceased) turned hostile but admitted being present, taking victim to hospital, and confirming victim’s consciousness – Statement of hostile witness corroborated by medical and family witnesses – Held: Partial reliability sufficient for corroboration of prosecution version [Paras 16, 28–30, 47–48]

Criminal Procedure – FIR based on Dying Declaration – Statement of victim formed basis of FIR – Recorded by police in presence of attending doctor and family members – FIR and injuries consistent with post-mortem report – Held: FIR valid, dying declaration admissible under Section 32 Evidence Act [Paras 49–51]

Forensic Evidence – Ballistics – Recovered firearm found to be in working condition – Expert confirmed bullet removed from body fired through same weapon – Court accepted ballistic report as conclusive link to accused [Paras 36, 57–58]

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Section 302/34 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act affirmed – Sentence to run concurrently – Detention already undergone to be set off under Section 428 CrPC [Paras 59–61]