Civil Law - Breach of Contract - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 96 - Appeal against money decree for balance price of machinery - Appellant purchaser issued purchase order Ex.A.3 for manufacturing a 1100-ton Hydraulic Valve Testing Press - Agreement included 30 percent advance and 60 percent payment after inspection - Supplier manufactured machinery and purchaser’s engineer conducted trial runs finding performance satisfactory as per minutes recorded in Ex.B.7 and Ex.B.8 - Purchaser subsequently refused to pay 60 percent balance cost along with statutory duties claiming they never agreed to taxes and citing delay in delivery - Trial Court rejected purchaser's suit for refund of advance and decreed supplier's suit for balance amount with interest - High Court found that the Purchase Order clearly stipulated excise duty at 16.32 percent and sales tax at 3 percent - Evidence showed the purchaser waived the requirement for a bank guarantee to initiate manufacturing - Held - Purchaser is liable for the balance amount including statutory taxes as per the specific terms of the contract - Trial Court judgment confirmed - [Paras 1-25].

Evidence Law - Doctrine of Estoppel - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 96 - Conduct of parties - Purchaser’s representative inspected the manufactured machinery and conducted load tests - Satisfactory trial run reports were issued and recorded in meeting minutes - Purchaser later attempted to cancel the order and claim refund of advance alleging manufacturing delay - Held - Purchaser actively shown interest in purchasing and participated in trial runs - Having expressed satisfaction through authorised technicians the purchaser is estopped from withdrawing the promise of taking delivery or denying the contract - [Paras 20-21].

Civil Law - Sale of Goods - Sale of Goods Act 1930 - Section 2 - Liability for Statutory Duties - Unilateral alteration of terms - Appellant contended that the supplier unilaterally added taxes to the price - High Court perused Ex.A.3 and found that the rate of machine was fixed exclusive of excise duty and sales tax which were recorded separately - P.W.1 admitted that taxes were to be borne by the purchaser - Held - The moment delivery is made the application of taxes and duties is legally unavoidable - Delivery without collection of statutory dues is unlawful - Purchaser cannot deny such payment on the ground of manufacturing delay when the contract explicitly provided for such duties - [Paras 22-24].

Civil Law - Res Judicata - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 11 - Maintainability of appeal after joint trial - Two suits O.S.No.696 of 2011 and O.S.No.182 of 2009 were tried together and a common judgment was passed - Appellant challenged only one decree - High Court examined whether the appeal was maintainable in view of Section 11 CPC - Held - Since the court found no merit in the appellant's claim the judgment and decree of the Trial Court is confirmed on merits - [Paras 13 and 24].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 23.06.2017 in O.S.No.696 of 2011 confirmed – Connected miscellaneous petitions closed – No order as to costs.

Civil Law - Ad-interim Injunction - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order XXXIX Rules 1, 2, 3 and 3A - Procedural Irregularity - Petitioner filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction regarding residential house plots - Filed an application for ad-interim injunction alleging attempts by respondent to dispossess the petitioner - Trial Court passed a docket order directing issue of urgent notice on payment of process but adjourned the matter from 01.05.2026 to 03.07.2026 - High Court observed that the object of ad-interim injunction is the preservation of property till adjudication - Adjourning such applications beyond a reasonable time defeats the very purpose of the relief and leads to public loss of confidence in the judiciary - Relying on Nama Ramprasad vs Kristam Reddy Raju the court reiterated that once urgent notice is ordered the court shall not adjourn the I.A. beyond fifteen days - Held - The docket order suffers from illegality and irregularity warranting interference under Article 227 - Trial Court directed to advance the hearing suo moto - [Paras 1-17, 24-30].

Civil Law - Process Fee and Urgent Notice - Process Fee Rules 1965 - Rules 3 and 4 - Legislative Intent - High Court examined the relevant provisions of the Process Fee Rules 1965 - Rule 3(3) mandates payment of one and a half times the normal fee for emergent service - Administrative practice involves marking such process covers with a Red mark to ensure priority by the Nazarath department - Held - Directing a litigant to pay higher emergent fees while simultaneously adjourning the matter for a long duration is contradictory and legally impermissible - Reasonable shortest date for such applications should be 10 to 15 days or even 7 days depending on facts - [Paras 18-23, 25].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition disposed of - Trial Court directed to advance the hearing of I.A. No. 294 of 2026 in O.S. No. 29 of 2026 suo moto by putting parties on notice and to adhere to guidelines in Nama Ramprasad case - Registrar Judicial directed to circulate the order to all District Heads and the Judicial Academy.

Criminal Law - Money Laundering - Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 - Sections 3 and 4 - Discharge - Petitioner a retired Forest Range Officer accused of amassing assets worth 608 percent of known income - FIR registered by ACB under PC Act for disproportionate assets - ED recorded ECIR and filed prosecution complaint - Petitioner sought discharge under Section 227 CrPC and Section 250 BNSS claiming assets belonged to wife and were from legitimate sources including agriculture and dairy farming - Special Judge rejected discharge application - High Court in revision noted total salary was 57.12 lakhs while assets stood at 4.04 crores - Found specific layering of funds through family bank accounts and investment in real estate named Ashirwaad - Held - prima facie case of money laundering established - no error in trial court order - [Paras 1-119].

Criminal Law - Discharge Principles - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 227 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 250 - Scope of judicial mind - Trial court at discharge stage must sift evidence only for limited purpose of finding prima facie case - Not required to conduct mini-trial or evaluate probative value of defense evidence - High Court should exercise self-restraint in revision unless glaring injustice is shown - Held - standard of proof at this stage is ground for presuming commission of offense not ground for conviction - [Paras 46-79].

Evidence Law - Statutory Presumption - Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 - Section 24 - Reverse burden - Prosecution established foundational facts showing huge disproportion between known income and acquired assets - Assets quantified as proceeds of crime - Mandatory statutory presumption arises that such wealth is involved in money laundering - Held - burden shifts to accused to prove funds are untainted during trial - cannot discharge this burden at the stage of framing charges by attaching unverified documents - [Paras 5-99].

Criminal Law - Proceeds of Crime - Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 - Section 2-1-u - Definition - Explanation added by Act 23 of 2019 - Includes property derived from scheduled offense and property relatable to scheduled offense - Petitioner argued no specific identification of property from criminal activity - Court found cash seizures and construction of residential building from unexplained funds squarely fall under proceeds of crime - Held - wide definition covers properties acquired through misuse of official position - [Paras 31-94].

Criminal Law - Predicate Offence - Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 - Section 3 - Survival of proceedings - Petitioner argued wife was exonerated in predicate offence final form - Court noted charge sheet against petitioner in scheduled offence is still alive and pending trial - Held - person need not be an accused in scheduled offense to be prosecuted for laundering - decision not to prosecute wife does not legitimize tainted funds parked in her accounts - [Paras 87-97].

Decision: Revision dismissed – Rejection of discharge application by the Special Judge affirmed – Trial to proceed independently on merits.

Civil Law - Appointment of Receiver - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order XL Rule 1 - Breach of Undertaking - Appellant sought removal of Respondent No. 2 as Agent of Court Receiver for Shop No. 15A at Heera Panna Shopping Centre - Respondent No. 2 was permitted to remain in possession via 1986 undertaking to use premises exclusively for her department store business - Discovery in 2017 that son Sanjay Mehra was conducting independent watch business under name M/s. Fifth Season - Trial Court dismissed Notice of Motion holding no breach occurred as son was a family member - High Court found undertaking contained two cumulative conditions being that business must be of Respondent No. 2 herself and it must be a department store - Held - Respondent No. 2 acted in breach of undertaking by permitting independent business by another person without informing Receiver - Long possession of forty years and pending title dispute justified modifying relief instead of immediate dispossession - Finding of Trial Court set aside - [Paras 1-32].

Evidence Law - Adverse Inference - Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 - Section 119 - Presumption of facts - Respondent No. 2 failed to produce financial records or documentary evidence to establish when the department store business ceased or that the current watch business was carried on for her benefit - Held - Failure to produce relevant evidence warrants an adverse inference under Section 119 sub-section 1 illustration g - Court unable to accept contention that new business was merely an extension of the original permitted business - [Paras 13-16].

Civil Law - Agency of Court Receiver - Continuing Obligations - Role of Agent - Respondent No. 2 occupied suit shop as Agent of Court Receiver - Under continuing obligation to keep Receiver informed of material developments including changes in user or nature of business - No disclosure made regarding the role assumed by the son or change in business nature - Held - Cumulative effect of circumstances proves breach of the 1986 order and undertaking - Trial Court erred in disregarding evidentiary significance of C-Register extract and misconstruing undertaking terms - [Paras 18-22].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Findings of Trial Court regarding absence of breach set aside – Respondent No. 2 permitted to continue as Agent only upon payment of monthly royalty and furnishing security as determined by Court Receiver – Fresh Agency Agreement to be executed by 31/07/2026 – Failure to comply will result in cessation of agency and dispossession by Court Receiver.

Writ Law - Transfer - Service Law - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Petitioner appointed as LDC Stores in Canteen Stores Department under Ministry of Defence - Transferred from Bathinda to Jaipur on own request in 2023 - Subsequently transferred to Head Office Mumbai in February 2025 - Petitioner challenged transfer before Central Administrative Tribunal CAT on grounds of violation of transfer policy and mala fides - CAT dismissed Original Application holding that transfer policy is not mandatory and administrative exigencies prevail - High Court observed that transfer is an incident of service and employee has no vested right to remain at one station - Record showed transfer was due to functional requirements and staff shortage at Mumbai - Petitioner failed to prove malice in fact or law - Transfer order was not passed in isolation as two other employees were also transferred - Petitioner already served more than two years at Jaipur Depot - Held - Tribunal committed no error in dismissing the challenge as transfer policy constitutes broad guidelines and not enforceable statutory rules - Writ petition dismissed - [Paras 1-35].

Writ Law - Transfer Policy - Guidelines - Constitution of India - Article 226 - CSD Transfer Policy dated 04.10.2011 - Clause 3 xxvi - Longest stayee and choice station formula - Petitioner contended that respondents failed to follow the longest stayee principle and ignored station seniors - Held - Transfer policies are broad guidelines for administrative convenience and do not confer legally enforceable rights - Interference by Courts only warranted in cases of statutory violation or established mala fides - Administration reserves the right to deviate from guidelines based on organizational interest and functional requirements - Suitability of an employee for a post is the sole discretion of the employer - [Paras 20-26].

Writ Law - Mala Fides - Burden of Proof - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Petitioner alleged transfer was vindictive action for seeking information under RTI Act and raising bonus issues - Held - To establish mala fide there must be a firm foundation of facts pleaded and established rather than vague insinuations - Issues like non-payment of bonus or working under a junior do not per se suggest personal vendetta or hostile atmosphere - Court cannot interfere with transfer orders issued purely on administrative needs in the absence of evidence of personal malice - [Paras 27-33].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – CAT order upheld – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law - Narcotics - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 - Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 37 - Bail - Recovery of commercial quantity - Petitioner was intercepted while driving a hired vehicle containing three nylon sacks of Ganja weighing 104.6 kg - Bail sought on grounds of five-day delay in producing inventory before Magistrate under Section 52A - Allegations of using uncertified weighing machine and overwriting in seizure list - Claims of violation of Article 39A due to non-supply of translated statements - State contended search was videographed and independent witnesses were present - Held - To overcome the rigors of Section 37 the court must find reasonable grounds that the accused is not guilty - Recovery of commercial quantity and statutory presumption under Section 54 create a prima facie case - Procedural issues regarding inventory delay or seizure list overwriting are matters for trial - Bail application dismissed .

Criminal Law - Procedural Compliance - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 - Section 52A - Inventory Procedure - Delay in production - Petitioner argued that inventory forwarded to Magistrate after five days breached the mandatory requirement of being done forthwith - Held - Delay or non-compliance with the procedure envisaged under Section 52A is at most an irregularity and not an illegality that nullifies the prosecution or entitles the accused to bail - Mere non-compliance does not affect the search and seizure if otherwise established by sufficient material .

Evidence Law - Statutory Presumption - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 - Section 54 - Possession - Petitioner found in possession of a large quantity of contraband in a vehicle booked through a rental app - Held - Courts are entitled to presume commission of an offence unless the accused rebuts the presumption during trial - Non-compliance with early disposal procedures under Section 52A does not vitiate the trial when possession is found.

Decision: Prayer for bail dismissed – Petitioner to remain in custody.

Civil Law - Review Jurisdiction - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order 47 Rule 1 - Applicant sought review of judgment dated 21.04.2025 passed in Writ-A No. 4076 of 2025 on grounds that a page containing his EWS certificate was omitted from written instructions - Contended that he secured higher marks than the last selected EWS candidate and was illegally denied reservation - State argued that applicant consciously applied under Unreserved (UR) category in the online form and the EWS certificate produced was not in the prescribed format - High Court summoned original records and found that the allegedly missing pages were identical to existing records and no prejudice was caused - Held - review is maintainable only upon discovery of new matter or an error apparent on the face of the record - omission or misplacement of a document does not automatically render a judgment erroneous unless it results in a patent error or manifest miscarriage of justice - Court cannot re-appreciate evidence or re-hear the matter on merits under the guise of review - applicant having opted for UR category at the initial stage cannot later claim migration to EWS contrary to selection conditions - application dismissed - [Paras 1-20].

Civil Law - Scope of Review - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order 47 Rule 1 - Principles of Review - Court reiterated that review is not an appeal in disguise - Error apparent on the face of the record must be manifest and self-evident without requiring a process of reasoning - Held - a plea requiring elaborate examination and factual adjudication does not satisfy the settled parameters for review - [Paras 6, 17].

Decision: Review Application dismissed - No error apparent on the face of the record found.

Criminal Law - Bail - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 - Section 43D(5) - Prolonged Incarceration - Appellant-human rights activist was arrested for allegedly recruiting OGWs for LeT-facilitating contacts with Pakistan-based handlers-collecting data on Indian Army movements and bribing an NIA officer to compromise a separate investigation - Trial Court denied bail holding allegations prima facie true based on approver statements and seized documents - Appellant argued 4.5 years of custody with 197 witnesses yet to be examined violated Article 21 - High Court conducted surface evaluation of evidence noting that documents like the Structures of Violence Report were in public domain and approver testimony was yet to be tested - Court observed that trial was only at the stage of framing charges - Held - Statutory restrictions under Section 43D(5) UAPA must melt down where there is no likelihood of trial completion in reasonable time and incarceration period is substantial - Right to speedy trial under Article 21 may trump statutory bars on bail - Impugned order set aside and bail granted - [Paras 1-76].

Constitutional Law - Right to Liberty - Constitution of India - Article 21 - Interplay with UAPA - Right to speedy trial - High Court reiterated the principle from K.A. Najeeb that constitutional courts retain the power to grant bail notwithstanding statutory restraints if the trial is unlikely to conclude within a reasonable period - Held - Pre-trial incarceration cannot assume the character of punishment through mere passage of time - [Paras 51-58].

Criminal Law - Bail - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 437(1) - Infirmity - Special consideration for disabled accused - Appellant lost a leg in a landmine blast in 2004 and uses a prosthetic limb - Prosecution argued infirmity did not hinder his activities - Court held that the appellant is infirm and deserves special consideration under the proviso to Section 437(1) CrPC which applies even to UAPA cases - [Paras 24, 73-74].

Decision: Appeal allowed - Rejection of bail by Trial Court set aside - Appellant released on bail subject to personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000 with two sureties and conditions including surrendering passport and reporting to Investigating Officer fortnightly.

Civil Law - Recovery of Money - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 100 - Loan versus reimbursement of expenses - Plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs 2 lakhs advanced to the Defendant via two cheques in May 2009 - Defendant admitted receipt and encashment of cheques but claimed the amount was partial discharge of Plaintiff liability towards litigation expenses for ancestral property in Bhatinda - Trial Court found that the Plaintiff proved the loan through bank statements and ITR verification forms for 2010-2011 where the loan was reflected as an asset - Defendant failed to provide particulars of legal proceedings or prove that such litigation expenses were due from the Plaintiff - High Court observed that the Defendant defense was mutually contradictory as the Sale Deed Ex DW1/1 cited by him was executed after his father death and did not reflect the father as a party or mention the alleged litigation debt - Held - Concurrent findings of fact based on cogent evidence do not warrant interference in second appeal - [Paras 1-37].

Civil Law - Additional Evidence - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order 41 Rule 27 - Filling of lacunae - Appellant moved an application to examine three additional witnesses at the appellate stage claiming they were inadvertently not examined before the Trial Court - Record indicated that the Appellant had voluntarily closed his evidence after examining himself and DW2 - High Court held that Order 41 Rule 27 cannot be invoked to fill gaps or lacunae in evidence when the party had the opportunity but chose not to examine witnesses during the trial - Held - Application for additional evidence is a mere attempt to fill lacunae and is liable to be dismissed - [Paras 34-35].

Civil Law - Second Appeal - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 100 - Substantial Question of Law - Appellant challenged the concurrent findings on grounds of shifting onus of proof and closure of evidence - High Court found that the grounds urged by the Appellant were purely factual in nature - The court noted that since the Plaintiff established the loan through bank records and tax filings the burden shifted to the Defendant to prove his specific defense of reimbursement which he failed to do - Held - No substantial question of law arises for consideration and the appeal is dismissed - [Paras 38-39].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Concurrent judgments of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court affirmed – Pending applications disposed of.