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.

Public Interest Litigation – Maintainability – Challenge to Government programme involving expenditure of ₹20 Crores – Allegation of misuse of public funds and violation of Rules of Business – Held: Petitioners, as citizens raising issue of public finance and constitutional compliance, have locus – Court can examine policy decisions where arbitrariness, illegality or violation of constitutional/statutory provisions alleged [Paras 21–22].

Executive Action – Article 166(3) – Rules of Business – Mandatory Compliance – Programme involving collection of development data and welfare study placed under Information & Public Relations Department under head “Special PR Campaign” – Rules of Business allocate planning, evaluation and development studies to Planning and Economic Affairs Department / Programme Implementation, Evaluation and Monitoring Department – Held: Allocation contrary to Rules of Business – Compliance with Rules framed under Article 166(3), especially where public finance involved, is mandatory – Cabinet approval or post facto justification cannot cure inherent defect [Paras 31–37].

Public Finance – Constitutional Scheme – Articles 202 to 207 – Withdrawal from Consolidated Fund – No money can be withdrawn except under appropriation made by law – Supplementary/Additional grants require legislative procedure under Article 205 – Budget Manual mandates that expenditure beyond scope of sanctioned grant cannot be incurred without legislative approval – Held: Allocation and utilisation of ₹20 Crores under “Special PR Campaign” head, beyond sanctioned scope and in violation of Rules of Business, unsustainable [Paras 40–42, 46].

Colourable Exercise of Power – Allocation of Funds – Funds earmarked for “Special PR Campaign” utilised for programme essentially involving development planning and evaluation – Held: Allocation of ₹20 Crores to I&PR Department for functions squarely falling under other Departments amounts to colourable exercise of executive power [Paras 32–33, 46].

Use of Social Volunteer Force Portal – Deviation from Original Purpose – Portal created in 2020 for disaster management and local crises – Used for implementation of development survey programme without adequate clarification or wide publicity – Alleged prior communication by political party before issuance of Government Order lends credence to apprehension of oblique motive – Held: Government failed to satisfactorily explain deviation and transparency concerns [Paras 38–39, 45, 51].

Judicial Review – Limits in Policy Matters – Though Courts ordinarily refrain from interfering in economic and policy decisions, they are duty-bound to intervene where public funds are utilised de hors financial rules and in violation of constitutional framework – Court not examining wisdom of programme but legality of expenditure and adherence to Rules [Paras 21, 52].

Financial Discipline – Fiscal Norms – Government expected to adhere scrupulously to Rules of Business, Budget Manual and constitutional provisions – Deviation in allocation and utilisation of public funds invites judicial scrutiny [Paras 43–44].

Decision: Respondents directed to keep in abeyance all steps pursuant to Exhibit P1 Government Order dated 10.10.2025 – Exhibit P1 set aside to the extent it authorises utilisation of ₹20 Crores under head “2220-01-001-96 – Special PR Campaign” by Information and Public Relations Department – Exhibits R1(a) and R1(b) issued in furtherance thereof also set aside – Writ Petitions (PIL) allowed [Para 54].

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.

Payment of Wages Act, 1936 – Section 2(vi) – Pension under Non-Contributory Superannuation Trust – Whether “Wages” – Employees resigned after completing qualifying years of service – Filed Form-N under Rule 31 claiming pension – Authority held pension payable under trust deed amounts to wages – Single Judge affirmed – Held: Any definite sum payable on fulfilment of employment conditions constitutes wages – Exclusion under Section 2(vi)(3) applies to employer’s contribution to fund, not pension payable from accumulated fund – Pension under trust scheme falls within inclusive definition of wages – Appeals dismissed [Paras 12–18, 22–24].

Jurisdiction – Shops and Establishments Act, 1963 – Competent Authority – Challenge to assumption of jurisdiction – Special statutory forum created for recovery of wages – If subject matter falls within statutory definition of wages, authority has jurisdiction – Civil Court jurisdiction impliedly barred to that extent – No jurisdictional error or erroneous assumption of jurisdiction by Referee – Writ Court rightly declined interference [Paras 15–17, 22–23].

Pension – Effect of Resignation – Superannuation Trust Deed – Eligibility based on completion of 5/10/15/20 years of continuous service – No clause restricting benefit to only superannuated employees – No forfeiture clause upon resignation – Respondents completed qualifying service before resignation – Held: Resignation after crystallization of eligibility does not defeat vested pension rights – Pension treated as earned remuneration and legal right [Paras 11, 19–20].

Definition of Wages – Judicial Interpretation – Scope extends beyond express contractual stipulations – Includes remuneration payable under contract, law, award or instrument upon fulfilment of service obligations – Termination by resignation or superannuation immaterial once entitlement accrues – Pension under trust deed covered within broad interpretation of “wages” [Paras 12–14, 17–18].

Non-Contributory Pension Fund – Legal Character – Employer-funded trust not a discretionary bounty – Once scheme framed and eligibility satisfied, benefit becomes enforceable obligation – Non-contribution by employee affects funding mechanism only – Employer cannot deny disbursement arbitrarily – Pension protected as earned benefit under principles of fairness and administrative law [Para 21].

Maintainability – Form-N Application – Status as “Person Employed” – Eligibility accrues on completion of qualifying service – It is immaterial whether employee continues in service on date of application – Right crystallized upon fulfilment of service slabs under trust deed – Application under Rule 31 maintainable [Para 13, 22].

Decision: MAT 682 of 2025, MAT 683 of 2025, MAT 684 of 2025 and MAT 685 of 2025 dismissed – Judgment dated 11.04.2025 in WPA 1617 of 2025 affirmed – Order dated 18.11.2024 passed by competent authority under West Bengal Shops and Establishments Act, 1963 upheld – Connected applications (CAN 1 of 2025) disposed of.

Dacoity – Appreciation of Evidence – Failure to Prove Occurrence Beyond Reasonable Doubt – Trial Court presumed factum of dacoity without proper analysis – Material lapses in investigation including non-seizure of empty cartridges despite alleged firing by both sides, non-recovery of broken lock, and failure to verify alleged possession of Rs.6,000/- – No recovery of looted articles – Held: Prosecution failed to establish foundational fact of dacoity beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 16-18, 26].

Identification – Co-villagers – Inconsistencies – Witnesses gave contradictory versions regarding number of dacoits, covering of faces, weapons carried and injuries caused – Medical evidence did not corroborate allegation of knife injury – Site plan did not support position from where accused allegedly identified – Identification in torch light doubtful – Benefit of doubt extended [Paras 21-25].

Interested Witnesses – Village Enmity – Possibility of False Implication – All witnesses related or interested – Prior complaint and village rivalry including Pradhani election dispute on record – Accused residents of same village with no criminal antecedents – Improbable that villagers would commit dacoity barefaced in same village – Prosecution version not free from doubt [Paras 21, 25-26].

Appellate Interference – Benefit of Doubt – Where prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and material infirmities exist in appreciation of evidence, appellate court justified in reversing conviction – Reliance placed on Jitendra Kumar Mishra alias Jittu v. State of M.P. [Para 27].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence dated 29.08.1983 under Sections 395 and 397 IPC set aside – Surviving appellants acquitted – Appeal already abated qua deceased appellants.

Criminal Law – Proclamation Proceedings – Non-compliance of Section 82 Cr.P.C. – Petitioner declared proclaimed person without strict adherence to mandatory statutory requirements – Record did not reflect proper public reading of proclamation nor recording of judicial satisfaction regarding absconding or concealment – Mechanical exercise of jurisdiction vitiates proclamation – Impugned order set aside [Paras 5-8].

Section 82 Cr.P.C. – Mandatory Nature – Before issuance of proclamation Court must record satisfaction that accused has absconded or is concealing himself so that warrant cannot be executed – Requirements under Section 82(2) including public reading, affixation at residence and court-house are conjunctive and mandatory – Any deviation renders proceedings nullity – Reliance placed on Sonu v. State of Haryana, 2021(1) RCR (Criminal) 319 [Paras 6-7].

Absconding – Foundational Requirement – Mere non-appearance does not ipso facto establish absconding – Where material indicated petitioner had gone abroad for higher studies and such fact was within knowledge of Court – Satisfaction regarding willful evasion not properly recorded – Jurisdictional precondition absent [Paras 8-8.1].

Inherent Powers – Section 528 BNSS / Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Proclamation having serious civil and criminal consequences cannot be sustained when passed in violation of due process – High Court justified in exercising inherent powers to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice – Consequential proceedings also quashed [Paras 9-11].

Decision: Petition allowed – Order dated 09.12.2024 declaring petitioner as proclaimed person and all consequential proceedings quashed – Pending applications disposed of.

Public Employment – Recruitment Process – Prescription of Minimum Threshold Marks – Power Reserved in Advertisement – Recruitment Advertisement expressly stipulated that “minimum threshold marks, wherever prescribed/required, shall be decided by the Competent Authority” and that process was “suggestive only” – Minimum qualifying marks for Paper-III notified prior to conduct of Stage-II – Held: Prescription of threshold marks in exercise of expressly reserved power does not amount to changing rules of the game mid-way – No arbitrariness established [Paras 20-23].

Rules of the Game – Alteration Mid-way – Distinction between Post-Evaluation Change and Pre-Stage Prescription – Petitioners contended that introduction of qualifying marks after commencement of recruitment vitiated process – Court held that what is impermissible is change in criteria after evaluation or after conclusion of relevant stage – Prescription of benchmark prior to conduct of Paper-III falls within permissible domain – Reliance placed on Constitution Bench decision in Tej Prakash Pathak – No violation of settled principles governing recruitment [Paras 22-24].

Shortlisting – Functional Requirement of Post – Administrative Discretion of Expert Body – Threshold justified by CSIR on basis of functional requirements of Section Officer post – No material produced to show benchmark was manifestly arbitrary or disproportionate – Courts slow to interfere in academic/expert matters when decision traceable to enabling clause – Held: Administrative decision valid [Paras 25].

Estoppel – Participation without Protest – Petitioners appeared in Stage-II after notification dated 28.06.2024 prescribing minimum marks and challenged process only after being unsuccessful – Held: Candidates who participate in selection process without demur and take chance cannot challenge criteria after failing to qualify – Principle of acquiescence attracted [Paras 26].

Judicial Review – Scope under Articles 226/227 – Tribunal upheld prescription of minimum marks on basis of enabling clause and prior notification – No illegality, perversity or arbitrariness in Tribunal’s reasoning – High Court declined to reappreciate administrative discretion absent constitutional or statutory violation [Paras 27-28].

Non-joinder of Necessary Parties – Selected Candidates not Impleaded – Preliminary objection raised – Court declined to examine in detail as challenge failed on merits – Held: Once prescription upheld, issue of non-joinder academic [Para 27].

Decision: Batch of Writ Petitions dismissed – Impugned order dated 08.09.2025 of Central Administrative Tribunal upheld – Prescription of minimum qualifying marks in Paper-III of CASE-2023 sustained – All pending applications closed.

Matrimonial Law – Return of Gold Ornaments – Entrustment and Misappropriation – Wife Established Possession of 82¾ Sovereigns at Time of Marriage – Marriage Photographs and Purchase Estimates Accepted – Locker Opened in Names of Husband and Mother-in-law Prior to Marriage – Failure to Examine Material Witnesses – Probabilised Entrustment and Misappropriation – Respondents Held Liable to Return 72¾ Sovereigns after Reasonable Deduction for Personal Retention [Paras 6–12, 15–16].

Evidence – Family Court – Section 14 Family Courts Act – Relaxation of Strict Rules of Evidence – Bank Statements Bearing Seal of Bank Accepted Despite Objection Under Section 65B Evidence Act – Technical Objections Cannot Defeat Substantive Justice in Family Proceedings [Paras 13–14].

Money Claim – Transfer of Funds from Wife’s Irish Bank Account – Documentary Evidence (Ext.A3, A5, X4) Established Transfer of Rs.10,88,529/- to Mother-in-law – Husband’s Meagre Income Disproved Defence That Funds Originated from Him – Decree for Recovery Upheld [Paras 13–14, 16].

Joint Liability – Involvement of Husband and In-laws – Pleadings and Oral Evidence Established Common Benefit and Participation – No Ground to Interfere with Finding of Liability of Appellants [Para 17].

Interest – Modification – Interest Reduced from 12% to 9% per annum till Date of Decree Considering Prevailing Rates – 6% per annum Thereafter Maintained [Para 18].

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – Decree modified – Appellants directed to return 72¾ sovereigns of gold ornaments within one month, failing which value at time of realization recoverable – Decree for Rs.10,88,529/- with interest at 9% p.a. from date of petition till date of decree and 6% p.a. thereafter till realization – Other findings of Family Court confirmed.

Contempt of Court – Civil Contempt – Alleged breach of interim injunction restraining interference with possession – Petitioner alleged that respondents entered suit land on 28.05.2021, abused and assaulted him and attempted dispossession despite injunction dated 14.10.2008 – Affidavits of witnesses and FIR No. 232 of 2021 did not disclose actual dispossession or change in possession – Mere entry into land and assault, without proof of willful and intentional disobedience of injunction order, insufficient to constitute civil contempt – Held: Essential ingredient of willfulness not established – Petition dismissed [Paras 22-25].

Injunction Order – Scope and Compliance – Interim relief granted in terms of prayer clause (C) in Second Appeal restraining interference with possession – Record shows petitioner continues in possession – No material demonstrating that respondents have taken over possession or committed overt act in violation of specific terms of injunction – Allegations of obstruction and threats, even if true, do not ipso facto amount to contempt unless clear breach of court’s mandate is proved [Paras 15-17, 21-23].

Limitation – Section 20 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Bar of one year for initiation of contempt proceedings from date of alleged act – Alleged incident dated 28.05.2021 – Contempt petition filed on 25.02.2025 after more than four years – No satisfactory explanation for delay – Held: Petition hopelessly barred by limitation and not maintainable [Para 27].

Civil Contempt – Requirement of Willful Disobedience – Mere disobedience not sufficient – Element of willingness indispensable – Reliance placed on Supreme Court decision in Anil Ratan Sarkar v. Hirak Ghosh – In absence of clear, deliberate and intentional violation, contempt jurisdiction cannot be invoked [Paras 24-25].

Decision: Contempt Petition dismissed – No willful disobedience proved – Petition also barred by limitation under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.