Banking Law - Jurisdiction – Bar under SARFAESI Act and RDB Act – Guarantor filed suit seeking declaration that no liability accrued under guarantee and obtained injunction restraining bank from proceeding under guarantee – Held: Suit in substance sought adjudication of liability forming subject matter of recovery proceedings – Section 34 SARFAESI Act bars civil court jurisdiction in respect of matters which DRT is empowered to determine and prohibits injunction against actions “taken or to be taken” – Section 18 RDB Act similarly bars jurisdiction in matters relating to recovery of debts – Commercial Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain suit and could not grant injunction restraining recovery proceedings [Paras 48, 50-57, 64-68, 72].

Injunction – Restraint on recovery proceedings – Scope of Section 34 SARFAESI Act – Expression “taken or to be taken” covers even prospective actions – Even if no proceedings under RDB Act were pending on date of suit, civil court could not injunct institution or continuation of such proceedings – Injunction restraining bank from proceeding under guarantee unsustainable [Paras 55-57, 72].

Guarantee – Extent of liability – Guarantor contended liability limited to value of share in mortgaged land and required prior determination – Held: Such plea constitutes defence to recovery claim and can be agitated before DRT/NCLT – Bank not required to obtain prior civil court determination before initiating proceedings under SARFAESI, RDB Act or IBC – Liability of guarantor co-extensive with principal borrower in absence of clear restrictive covenant in body of guarantee – Commercial Court misdirected itself in holding liability must first be determined in separate suit [Paras 45-48, 77-79, 87-88, 90].

IBC – Proceedings under Section 7 – Jurisdiction of NCLT – Bank initiated CIRP against guarantor – NCLT required to ascertain existence of default under Section 7(4) IBC – Section 63 IBC bars civil court from entertaining proceedings in matters within jurisdiction of NCLT/NCLAT – Civil court cannot interdict NCLT proceedings by injuncting bank from acting on guarantee [Paras 80-86].

Pleadings – Objection to jurisdiction – Whether can be raised in appeal – Held: Pure question of law going to root of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage – Court bound to take note of statutory bar even if not expressly pleaded – Bank not estopped from challenging jurisdiction despite filing separate writ against rejection of Order VII Rule 11 application [Paras 73-77].

Parallel proceedings – Independent suit by borrower/guarantor – Even assuming maintainability of independent suit, DRT proceedings cannot be stayed – Declaratory suit cannot impede expeditious adjudication under special statutes meant for recovery of bank dues [Paras 69-71].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned order dated 25.07.2024 granting temporary injunction set aside – Commercial Court held to have no jurisdiction to grant injunction restraining bank from proceeding under guarantee or under SARFAESI, RDB Act or IBC.

Temporary Injunction – HUF Property – Burden to Prove Joint Family Nucleus – Plaintiff alleged that disputed property “Shanker Godam” purchased in 1943 in name of Gaya Prasad was from HUF funds – No documentary evidence of existence of HUF in 1943 or of adequate joint family nucleus produced – Estate duty assessment order of 1974 insufficient to establish title – Held: Plaintiff failed to establish prima facie case of HUF ownership [Paras 27–34, 41–42].

Hindu Law – Presumption of Joint Family Property – Mere existence of joint family does not raise presumption that property standing in name of member is joint – Initial burden lies on person asserting coparcenary character – Only upon proof of adequate nucleus does onus shift – In absence of proof of nucleus in 1943, no presumption attracted [Paras 33–34].

Admission – Effect on Title – Reliance placed on estate duty assessment proceedings wherein share of deceased noted as 20% in HUF – Held: Title cannot pass by mere admission – Assessment order not conclusive proof of ownership – Photocopy inadmissible and information supplied by third party not binding [Paras 37, 42].

Interim Injunction – Prima Facie Case, Balance of Convenience and Irreparable Injury – Plaintiff neither sought declaration of title nor partition – Property already sold to third parties during pendency and construction raised – Held: No prima facie right shown – Balance of convenience not in plaintiff’s favour [Paras 45–46].

Suppression of Material Facts – Earlier Suits – Prior suits (O.S. No. 259 of 1991 and O.S. No. 156 of 2024) involving same property and similar reliefs not disclosed – Discretionary relief of injunction can be declined on ground of concealment [Para 44].

Precedent – Distinguishable Facts – Judgment in Writ-B No. 6108 of 2014 relating to different plot (No. 1866, purchased in 1956) held not applicable to property purchased in 1943 – No identity of subject property established [Paras 35–36, 43].

Appellate Jurisdiction – Interference with Discretionary Orders – Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) – Appellate Court can interfere only if order is perverse, arbitrary, capricious or contrary to settled principles – If view taken by trial court is a possible view on material, interference not warranted – No perversity found [Paras 38–40, 47].

Decision: Appeal dismissed at admission stage – Order dated 29.08.2025 rejecting injunction applications 6-C2 and 31-C2 affirmed – Trial court directed to decide suit preferably within six months – Observations confined to disposal of appeal [Paras 48–50].

Service Law – Recruitment – Change of Eligibility Criteria Midway – Advertisement prescribed 10+2 with Diploma in Knitting from ITI – During selection, Board issued clarification extending eligibility to Diploma in Knitting/Textile from recognized Institution/ITI – Selected candidates possessed qualifications like Diploma in Handloom Technology and Textile Technology (Spinning) not borne out from advertisement or draft Recruitment Rules – Held: Board clandestinely added qualification not notified to candidates – Change of criteria midway violative of Articles 14 and 16 – Selection vitiated ab initio [Paras 27-31, 34-35].

Recruitment – Draft Recruitment Rules – Legal Sanctity – Selection sought to be justified on basis of un-notified draft Rules – Even draft Rules did not include certain qualifications considered for selection – Held: Un-notified draft Recruitment Rules cannot override advertisement – Selection dehors notified criteria unsustainable [Paras 25, 29, 31].

Estoppel by Participation – Unsuccessful Candidate Challenging Selection – Respondent participated in interview but challenged selection after result – Where selection process suffers from glaring illegality and undisclosed criteria – Held: Doctrine of estoppel by participation not applicable – Candidate cannot be estopped from challenging unconstitutional and arbitrary process [Paras 30, 32-33].

Natural Justice – Service of Notice – Plea of being condemned unheard – Notices issued through registered post – Deemed service under Section 27 of General Clauses Act – Held: In absence of proof of wrong address or non-issuance, service deemed valid – Plea rejected [Paras 14-17].

Judicial Review – Scope – Tribunal quashed select and wait list for post of Knitting Instructor – High Court found no perversity or illegality in Tribunal’s reasoning – Where illegality in process is widespread and affects entire selection, Court need not segregate beneficiaries – Matter left to competent authority for remedial steps [Paras 35-37].

Equality in Public Employment – Non-Arbitrariness – Inclusion of ineligible candidates and deviation from notified criteria renders selection arbitrary – Selection failing test of non-arbitrariness under Articles 14 and 16 cannot be sustained [Paras 29, 35].

Decision: Impugned Order dated 16.11.2021 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench in TA No. 61/6718/2020 upheld – Select list and wait list for post of Knitting Instructor, Divisional Cadre Jammu quashed – Both Writ Petitions dismissed – Interim directions vacated – Matter left to competent authority to take steps in accordance with law.

Trade Mark – Renewal – Section 25(3) Trade Marks Act – Mandatory Notice – Registrar removed trademarks on ground of non-renewal – Notices (RG-3) issued to erstwhile agent despite prior intimation of change of proprietor and authorized agent – Held: Section 25(3) casts mandatory obligation on Registrar to send notice to registered proprietor – Issuance of notice to person who was no longer authorized agent does not constitute compliance – Provision is sacrosanct in view of drastic consequences of removal [Paras 16, 18-19].

Change of Proprietor and Agent – Effect – Assignment deed executed and Form TM-P filed reflecting petitioner as proprietor – Registry effected change of ownership but failed to update authorized agent despite Form TM-M and Power of Attorney – Registrar cannot rely on alleged non-payment of fee for TM-M without intimating defect – Once change of proprietorship recorded, Registrar ought to ensure compliance with Section 25(3) by notifying registered proprietor directly [Paras 14-17].

Section 25(3) – Nature of Obligation – Statutory mandate places positive duty on Registrar to send notice intimating date of expiration and conditions for renewal – Mere generation of notice or dispatch to incorrect agent insufficient – Removal not automatic consequence; expression “may remove” indicates discretion [Paras 18, 21].

Delay and Laches – Renewal after Expiry – Objection that petitioner approached Court after 1½–2 years rejected – Where mandatory notice under Section 25(3) not validly issued, question of laches does not defeat statutory right – Reliance placed on Division Bench judgment in Charanjiv Kumar Taneja – Renewal permitted even after substantial delay in absence of valid notice [Paras 21-22].

Registrar’s Contention – Alternate Remedy to File TM-R – Argument that petitioner could have applied for renewal within statutory period despite non-receipt of notice – Rejected – Primary obligation under Section 25(3) lies on Registrar, not proprietor – Failure of Registrar to comply cannot prejudice registered proprietor [Para 20].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Removal of eight trademarks for non-renewal set aside – Petitioner permitted to file Form TM-R with prescribed fee and fine within 10 days – Registrar directed to process renewal within eight weeks.

Criminal Law – Defamation – Section 199 Cr.P.C. – “Person aggrieved” – Complaint filed by Bharatiya Janata Party represented by State Secretary – Authorization issued by President of State Unit – No material to show authorization by National Party – Held, complaint not instituted by competent person representing alleged aggrieved entity – Proceedings vitiated [Paras 20-21].

Defamation of Political Party – Explanation 2 to Section 499 IPC – Imputation against identifiable body required – Advertisement referred to constitutional functionaries and Government schemes – No specific imputation against political party as identifiable collection of persons – Party cannot be treated as “person aggrieved” on vague or inferential allegations – Complaint not maintainable [Paras 28-31].

Issuance of Process – Requirement of Prima Facie Material – Advertisement contained only photograph of accused No.4 – No material showing publication at his instance or requisite mens rea under Section 499 IPC – Essential ingredient of intention to harm not established – Mere presence of photograph insufficient to fasten criminal liability [Paras 22-25, 33].

Electronic Evidence – Tweet Allegedly Forwarding Advertisement – Not marked as exhibit – No Section 65B certificate produced – Trial Court while issuing process relied only on Ex.C1 to C14 which did not include tweet – Held, absence of tweet on record at stage of cognizance renders material insufficient to connect accused No.4 – Subsequent production cannot cure defect [Paras 26-27, 34].

Section 202 Cr.P.C. – Mandatory Enquiry – Accused residing outside territorial jurisdiction of Magistrate – No enquiry conducted before issuance of summons – Non-compliance prejudicial and reflects casual approach – Proceedings liable to be quashed [Para 32].

Inherent Powers – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Where continuance of proceedings amounts to abuse of process – High Court justified in quashing complaint insofar as accused No.4 concerned [Para 35].

Decision: Criminal Petition allowed – Proceedings in C.C. No.7399/2024 (P.C.R. No.3878/2023) set aside insofar as petitioner/accused No.4 – Continuance of proceedings held to be abuse of process of law.

Rape – Consent on Promise of Marriage – Discharge – Prosecutrix alleged physical relations on false assurance of marriage – Record revealed long-standing relationship of two years – Single incident alleged – Delay in complaint and FIR – No material indicating force, coercion or false inducement from inception – Held: No prima facie material to show consent was vitiated under Section 90 IPC – Trial Court rightly discharged accused under Section 376 IPC [Paras 12-17].

Section 90 IPC – Misconception of Fact – Scope – For consent to be vitiated on ground of false promise of marriage, prosecution must prima facie show that promise was false at inception and intended solely to obtain consent – In present case, parties were in consensual relationship and prosecutrix voluntarily accompanied accused – No grave suspicion of deception or fraudulent inducement made out [Paras 15-17].

Discharge – Standard under Sections 227/228 Cr.P.C. – Court at stage of charge to assess whether material gives rise to “grave suspicion” and not merely suspicion – Where two views possible and evidence gives rise only to suspicion, discharge justified – Trial Court cannot conduct mini-trial but must evaluate whether essential ingredients of offence are disclosed – Impugned order consistent with principles laid down in Prafulla Kumar Samal [Paras 6, 18].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope of Interference – Under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C., interference warranted only in case of patent illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error – Where Trial Court’s view is plausible and based on record, High Court not to substitute its own view – No glaring perversity or illegality found in discharge order [Paras 19-20].

Delay and Conduct – Relevance at Stage of Charge – Prosecutrix lodged complaint nearly one month after alleged incident and FIR registered thereafter – No allegation of repeated acts – Conduct of parties, including voluntary travel and continued communication, relevant in assessing existence of grave suspicion at threshold stage [Paras 14-16].

Decision: Revision petitions dismissed – Order dated 31.05.2017 discharging respondent from offence under Section 376 IPC upheld – No interference warranted in revisional jurisdiction.

Criminal Law – Withdrawal from Prosecution – Section 321 CrPC – Dismissal of State's Revision Upheld – FIR No. 53/2018 registered for offences under Sections 147, 148, 332, 333, 353, 336, 307 and 436 r/w 149 IPC and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act arising from stone-pelting by protesters during "Bharat Band" on 02.04.2018 at Raniwada, Jalore – During trial, State filed application under Section 321 CrPC for withdrawal from prosecution – Trial court dismissed the same by order dated 16.01.2021 – State preferred revision (S.B. CRLR No. 953/2021) – Accused's revision (S.B. CRLR No. 444/2024) dismissed as not pressed – Held: Trial court's order refusing consent to withdrawal neither perverse nor illegal – Revision petition devoid of merit – Order dated 16.01.2021 affirmed [Para 4-5].

Role of Public Prosecutor – Independent Discretion – Not a Postman of the State – Section 321 CrPC structures the withdrawal provision in three parts: (i) prosecution part — who can apply; (ii) judicial part — consent of court; and (iii) victim part — rights of unattended complainant – Public Prosecutor must exercise independent legal discretion before filing withdrawal application and must not act as a mere delivery agent or postman of the executive – An application filed under an incorrect provision of law (Section 311 CrPC instead of Section 321 CrPC) conclusively demonstrates non-application of mind and utter disregard to legal parameters – Held: Public Prosecutor cannot abdicate independent judgment merely to relay State Government's resolution [Paras 18-29].

Grounds for Withdrawal from Prosecution – Section 321 CrPC – Four Valid Grounds Enumerated – Following grounds recognized in Sheonandan Paswan (supra) for seeking withdrawal: (1) bleak possibility of successful prosecution bearing in mind evidence; (2) incrimination of individuals born out of political or personal vendetta; (3) inexpediency of prosecution for reasons of State and public policy; (4) unfavourable impact of continued prosecution on public interest in light of altered scenario – In the present case, none of the four grounds existed — evidence showed prospects of successful prosecution, no signs of political vendetta, no public policy impediment, and continued prosecution would not cause pernicious impact on public interest [Paras 30-31].

Judicial Check and Balance – Court's Role – Consent Not a Rubber Stamp – Section 321 CrPC vests supervisory, not merely adjudicatory, function in the Court — Court must satisfy itself that: (a) application is made in good faith in the interest of public policy and justice; (b) application does not suffer from improprieties causing manifest injustice; (c) grant of consent sub-serves administration of justice; and (d) permission not sought with ulterior purpose unconnected with vindication of law – Court cannot act as a mere stamp or rubber stamp while granting consent and must guard against executive interference in judicial process – Trial court that allowed withdrawal merely because State did not wish to continue, without independent application of mind, deserves deprecation [Paras 44-57].

Victims' Rights – Prosecution Withdrawal – Non-Participation Tantamounts to Denial of Access to Justice – Wrongful withdrawal from prosecution leads to: (i) denial of victims' rights; (ii) loss of public faith in legal system; (iii) encouragement of impunity; (iv) weakening of deterrence; (v) wrong perception and threat to majesty of law – Victim's right to review prosecution withdrawal decisions, as available under England's VRR scheme and recognised in R Vs. Christopher Killick [2011] EWCA Crim 1608, could be adopted in India to fulfil fundamental right of access to justice under Articles 14 and 21 – Non-participation of victim in withdrawal proceedings amounts to deviation from "Access to Justice" [Paras 60-68].

Decision: S.B. CRLR No. 444/2024 dismissed as not pressed – S.B. CRLR No. 953/2021 dismissed as devoid of merit – Order dated 16.01.2021 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhinmal, Jalore in Sessions Case No. 14/2020 (FIR No. 53/2018) refusing withdrawal from prosecution hereby affirmed.

Petitioner sought quashing of FIR alleging forgery and tampering of complainant’s ACR to obstruct promotion to IFS – Held: As per Bhajan Lal principles, FIR can be quashed only where allegations do not disclose any offence or are absurd on face of record – Defence pleas and disputed questions of fact cannot be examined at this stage – Prima facie material including statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. disclose commission of cognizable offences – Petition dismissed [Paras 9-11, 15-16].

Forgery – Manipulation of ACR – Prima Facie Evidence – Statements of co-accused Superintendent and Clerk indicated that forged remarks were inserted in ACR at behest of petitioner – Allegation of payment to secure favourable FSL report – Held: Such material creates grave suspicion sufficient to proceed to trial – Motive and comparative merit in promotion list are matters of evidence to be adjudicated during trial [Paras 7, 15].

Sanction – Section 197 Cr.P.C. – Public Servant – Fabrication of Record – Petitioner contended sanction required prior to framing of charges – Held: Forgery or conspiracy to fabricate ACR of colleague cannot be said to be act done in discharge of official duty – Protection under Section 197 not available where act not integrally connected with official functions – Sanction not required [Paras 12-13, 15].

Framing of Charges – Standard – Grave Suspicion – Court reiterated that at stage of framing charges, existence of grave suspicion is sufficient – Detailed appreciation of defence impermissible – Material on record adequate to frame charges under IPC and PC Act [Paras 14-15].

Successive Petition – Withdrawal of Earlier Quashing Petition – Petitioner earlier withdrew petition with liberty to raise pleas before Trial Court – No new material shown – Five prosecution witnesses already examined – Held: No ground to exercise inherent powers at advanced stage of trial [Para 16].

Decision: Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed – FIR No. 201 dated 30.07.2011 and order framing charges dated 03.12.2018 upheld – Trial Court directed to expedite proceedings and conclude trial preferably within six months – Pending applications disposed of.

Contempt of Court – Scope – Preferential Right in Re-engagement – High Court in earlier judgment (O.P.(KAT) Nos. 564 & 565 of 2024) directed that if fresh temporary hands are recruited in the place of petitioners, such appointments shall not be made without giving petitioners preferential right for engagement on daily wage basis – Petitioners alleged violation on basis of subsequent appointment order dated 12.06.2025 – Held: Contempt jurisdiction attracted only on wilful and deliberate disobedience of specific direction – No prima facie case made out [Paras 1, 8–9].

Daily Wage Engagement – Replacement – Distinction Between Fresh Scheme and Replacement – Appointments made pursuant to notification dated 18.02.2025 under special scheme “Karunya Arogya Surakhsha Padhathi (KASP)” for 179 days – Age criteria 21–42 years – Petitioners not within prescribed age group – Engagement not in posts earlier held by petitioners – Held: Appointments not “in the place of the petitioners” as contemplated in earlier judgment [Paras 7, 9].

Compliance with Judgment – Interpretation – Earlier judgment clarified that petitioners, being daily wage workers without sanctioned posts, cannot claim continuity – Protection limited to preferential right only if fresh temporary hands are recruited in their place – Since impugned appointments were under a distinct notification and scheme, no violation established [Paras 8–9].

Contempt Proceedings – Standard of Proof – Court must be satisfied of clear, wilful disobedience – Where respondents demonstrate appointments were under separate scheme and not replacement, contempt not made out [Paras 7–9].

Decision: No prima facie case of wilful disobedience established – Contempt Cases (C) Nos. 1992 and 2011 of 2025 closed.