Cheques drawn on State Bank of Patiala presented after its merger with State Bank of India – Cheques returned with remark “Funds Insufficient” and not “Invalid” – Contention that cheques became invalid after 31-12-2017 due to amalgamation – Held: Expression “within the period of its validity” in proviso (a) to Section 138 is elastic and may cover invalidity arising from merger – However, where cheque is dishonoured for “Funds Insufficient”, presumption under Section 146 NI Act operates – Whether cheque had become invalid and could not have been honoured is a triable issue – Cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 CrPC – Complaints not liable to be quashed [Paras 19–23, 29–31, 40–41].

Criminal Procedure – Section 482 CrPC – Quashing of Process – Disputed Questions of Fact – Accused relying on Acquisition Order and RBI Circular not produced before Trial Court – Cheques dishonoured for insufficiency of funds – Statutory presumptions under Sections 139 and 146 NI Act applicable – Rebuttal requires evidence – Held: Inherent jurisdiction cannot be invoked to decide disputed factual issues requiring trial – No interference with orders issuing process [Paras 13–15, 29–30, 35, 37–39, 41].

Negotiable Instruments – Presumptions – Sections 139 & 146 – Cheque Returned for “Funds Insufficient” – Mandatory presumption that cheque was dishonoured – Onus shifts to drawer to rebut – Where return memo does not indicate invalidity but insufficiency of funds, burden lies on accused to establish invalidity at trial – Quashment at threshold impermissible [Paras 29–30, 32–34, 40–41].

Presentation of Cheque – Proviso (a) to Section 138 – “Within the Period of its Validity” – Interpretation – Term not confined only to period printed on cheque – May include circumstances rendering cheque invalid before expiry of printed validity – However, no straightjacket formula that merger automatically nullifies liability under Section 138 – Attendant facts and bank endorsement decisive [Paras 20–23, 40].

Decision: Applications under Section 482 CrPC dismissed – Orders of Magistrate issuing process and Sessions Court dismissing revisions upheld – No costs [Paras 42–43].

Anticipatory Bail – Section 482 BNSS – Murder Case – Allegation of Instigation by MLA – Petitioner (Accused No.5) alleged to have instigated co-accused in fatal assault resulting in death of informant’s son – Prior written complaint by deceased naming petitioner and alleging threats to life – Prima facie material including CDRs and photographs requiring confrontation – Held: Not a fit case for anticipatory bail – Petition rejected [Paras 22-26, 35, 41, 45].

Interim Anticipatory Bail – No Vested Right to Confirmation – Interim protection granted earlier by Vacation Bench – Court held that interim anticipatory bail does not create a vested right for regular anticipatory bail – Court entitled to independently assess merits after hearing prosecution – Interim order discharged [Paras 14-16, 46].

Custodial Interrogation – Necessity and Scope – Prosecution contended petitioner misled investigation and feigned ignorance regarding co-accused despite contrary material in CDRs – Court observed custodial interrogation qualitatively different from interrogation under protection of anticipatory bail – Effective confrontation of material required – Accused cannot dictate manner of interrogation – Custodial interrogation justified [Paras 35-39, 41-42].

Influence of Accused – Political Position – Petitioner a sitting MLA and former Minister – Court held social and political stature relevant while considering likelihood of influencing investigation or witnesses – Investigation transferred from local police to CID – Possibility of hampering fair investigation cannot be ruled out [Paras 18-20, 44].

Scope of Judicial Interference in Investigation – Court reiterated that investigation must ordinarily be left to investigating agency – Courts should not interfere in manner or course of interrogation – Relied on State rep. by CBI v. Anil Sharma and P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement – Anticipatory bail to be granted only in exceptional circumstances [Paras 38, 40, 43].

Statement under Section 164 CrPC – Fear of Witness – Court perused Section 164 statement of deceased’s mother – Prima facie explanation to allegations regarding naming of petitioner found – Prosecution’s contention that witness was under fear found to have substance [Paras 31-33].

Decision: Criminal Petition dismissed – Interim anticipatory bail granted on 26.12.2025 discharged – Petitioner not entitled to anticipatory bail.

Partition Suit – Death of Plaintiff – Claim of Legatee – Substitution under Order XXII CPC – Original plaintiff died issueless during pendency of suit – Alleged Will executed in favour of nephew – Application filed for substitution as legal representative – Trial Court, upon direction of High Court, conducted inquiry and held Will not proved – Substitution rejected – Suit dismissed for want of legal representative – Appellate Court affirmed – Held: No perversity in findings [Paras 8–10, 22–23].

Proof of Will – Suspicious Circumstances – Attesting witness examined – Contradictions regarding presence of parties, drafting, typing and thumb impressions – Difference in thumb impressions on pages – Non-registration and absence of scribe/advocate particulars – Trial Court and Appellate Court found evidence not credible – Finding of fact not liable to be re-appreciated under Article 227 [Paras 21–23].

Order XXII Rule 5 CPC – Nature of Inquiry – Though inquiry is summary and findings do not operate as res judicata inter se rival claimants, Court must be satisfied prima facie about legal representation – Where evidence found unreliable, Court justified in rejecting substitution – Detailed evaluation already undertaken – No requirement of repetitive proof [Paras 14–15, 22].

Article 227 – Scope of Interference – Supervisory jurisdiction confined to jurisdictional error, patent perversity or manifest failure of justice – High Court cannot act as Court of appeal or re-appreciate evidence – Reliance placed on Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil – No ground for interference made out [Paras 24–25].

Transposition in Partition Suit – Interchangeability of Plaintiff and Defendant – Though in partition suits parties may be transposed, claim must be legally sustainable – In absence of valid substitution as legal representative, continuation of suit not permissible [Paras 12–13 (argument), 23].

Non-production of Original Will – Only copy filed – Petitioners failed to establish authenticity and due execution – Courts below justified in rejecting claim of legal representation [Paras 18, 23].

Decision: Miscellaneous Petition dismissed – No interference under Article 227 warranted – Liberty reserved to petitioners to file fresh partition suit, if so advised.

PIL - Constitution of India – Art. 226 – Judicial Review – Policy Decision – Scope of Interference – Petitioner challenged the closure of fresh registrations and the fixation of age-related eligibility criteria (21 to 60 years) under the Mukhyamantri Ladli Behna Yojana, 2023, alleging arbitrariness and violation of Art. 14 – Held: Judicial review of a policy decision is limited to examining its legality, not its wisdom. Courts do not substitute their opinion for that of experts in policy matters. A policy decision can only be interfered with if it is unconstitutional, arbitrary, malafide, or dehors the provisions of a statute. The fixation of the date for commencement and closure of a scheme, as well as the determination of the age of entitlement, falls squarely within the executive domain of the State. The court found no arbitrariness in the State’s exercise of discretion regarding the implementation and continuation of the policy. [Paras 9, 10, 11]

Constitution of India – Art. 14 – Equality before Law – Hostile Discrimination – Allegation of arbitrary exclusion of newly eligible women from a welfare scheme – Held: The State has the discretion to decide the implementation period and the scope of beneficiaries for a welfare policy. Stoppage of fresh registrations from a specific date does not, per se, constitute hostile discrimination. The fixation of minimum and maximum age limits for entitlement is a policy matter within the domain of the State Government and does not warrant judicial interference unless proven to be manifestly arbitrary. [Paras 10, 11]

Public Interest Litigation – Maintainability – Locus Standi – Enhancement of Financial Benefits – Petitioner sought a direction to enhance the amount provided under the scheme as per alleged promises – Held: The petitioner is admittedly neither an aspirant nor a beneficiary of the scheme. Claims regarding the enhancement of financial benefits under a social welfare scheme cannot be entertained at the instance of a third party in a PIL. Such matters pertain to the discretionary executive functions of the State. [Para 12]

Ratio Decidendi: The Court’s power of judicial review over executive policy is restricted to assessing whether the policy is unconstitutional, contrary to statutory provisions, or ultra vires the powers of the delegatee. The determination of eligibility criteria, including age limits and registration timelines for a welfare scheme, is a matter of administrative policy within the State's domain and does not attract judicial interference under Art. 226 unless it is demonstrated to be palpably arbitrary or malafide.

Decision: The Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Banking Law – Fraud Classification – RBI Master Directions – Declaration of account as “Fraud” during pendency of writ petition – Petitioners challenged show cause notices dated 28-02-2025 alleging non-supply of Forensic Audit Reports and relied upon documents – During pendency and after conclusion of hearing, bank issued letters dated 15-01-2026 declaring account as “fraud” – Held, action of bank in passing impugned orders without supplying requested documents and without considering petitioners’ request violates principles of natural justice – Orders dated 15-01-2026 set aside and quashed – Bank directed to furnish documents/allow inspection and thereafter proceed afresh in terms of law [Paras 1, 10, 16-21].

Natural Justice – Audi Alteram Partem – Supply of Forensic Audit Report – Petitioners contended that show cause notices were issued mechanically on basis of KPMG and Saxena & Saxena Forensic Audit Reports without furnishing copies thereof or underlying documents – Held, where FAR forms basis of show cause, effective opportunity of reply requires supply of relevant documents sought – Non-supply renders subsequent declaration unsustainable [Paras 4-9, 16-18].

RBI Master Directions – Summary Procedure – Balance between Speed and Fair Hearing – Respondent relied on earlier decision in Hemant Kanoria v. Bank of India – Court reiterated that though fraud classification is summary in nature and time-bound, principles of natural justice must be read into the process – Procedure laid down in earlier judgment regarding issuance of show cause, furnishing of documents, inspection and supplementary reply to be followed – Mechanical adherence to speed cannot defeat fair opportunity [Paras 12-15, 17-20].

Judicial Review – Post-Hearing Developments – Bank’s action in declaring account as fraud after matter reserved for judgment – Held, passing adverse order during pendency of writ petition without addressing grievance regarding non-supply of documents amounts to arbitrary exercise of power – Writ court justified in setting aside such action and issuing procedural directions [Paras 1-2, 10, 17].

Decision: Impugned letters dated 15-01-2026 declaring petitioners’ account as “fraud” set aside – Respondent directed to supply documents specified in para 14 within two weeks or permit inspection if voluminous – Petitioners to file reply within two weeks thereafter – Bank to pass reasoned order within two weeks of receipt of supplementary reply – Writ petition and connected application disposed of.

Employment Contract – Restrictive Covenants – Non-Competition Clause – Section 27 Contract Act – Appeal against refusal of ad interim injunction – Clause restraining employee from joining competing business for two years post cessation – Held, once employee ceased to be in service upon resignation, post-employment non-compete clause is prima facie void under Section 27 – Section 27 applies to partial as well as absolute restraints – Trial Court rightly refused injunction restraining respondent from joining rival concern [Paras 26-35, 51-54, 67-69].

Employment – Continuation in Service – Implied Contract by Conduct – Though confirmation letter dated 01-03-2024 doubtful and probation extended – Respondent continued to draw salary and tendered resignation on 08-10-2025 – By conduct, continuance of service till resignation established – However, resignation as probationer not invalid for want of 30 days’ notice since no penal consequence stipulated in Clause 15 – Employment ceased on resignation – Section 27 attracted post resignation [Paras 37-46, 48-52].

Non-Solicitation Clause – Distinction from Non-Compete – Clause restraining ex-employee from soliciting employer’s employees does not restrain employee from exercising his own profession – Section 27 not attracted to such covenant – Prima facie apprehension of “poaching” made out from contemporaneous communications – Ad interim injunction justified restraining respondent from soliciting or inducing appellant’s employees [Paras 53-55, 60-63, 70].

Confidentiality and Trade Secrets – Enforceability – Confidentiality clause and Non-Disclosure Agreement not hit by Section 27 – Company entitled to protect trade secrets, proprietary data and confidential information – Negative covenant enforceable under Section 42 Specific Relief Act – Imminent apprehension of disclosure sufficient at ad interim stage – Injunction granted restraining use or disclosure of confidential information [Paras 32-33, 56, 59-63, 70].

Injunction – Damages – Distinct Reliefs – Trial Court erred in holding damages to be adequate remedy in blanket manner – Claim for liquidated damages under Clause 15.3 distinct from reliefs enforcing confidentiality and non-solicitation covenants – Loss from disclosure of trade secrets and employee poaching not readily quantifiable – Monetary compensation not adequate substitute [Paras 57-63].

Appellate Interference – Ad Interim Stage – Appellate Court ordinarily confines itself to materials before Trial Court – No gross suppression established – Prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury satisfied in respect of non-solicitation and confidentiality, but not non-compete – Order modified accordingly [Paras 64-67, 70-71].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Impugned order modified – Respondent restrained till disposal of temporary injunction application from (i) soliciting or inducing employees of appellant to leave service and (ii) using or disclosing confidential information or trade secrets of appellant – Refusal to restrain respondent from joining or continuing with rival company upheld – Observations tentative – CAN 1 of 2025 disposed of – No order as to costs.

Arrest – Non-Furnishing of Grounds of Arrest in Writing – Article 22(1) of Constitution – Section 47 BNSS – Court secured trial court records and found that grounds of arrest were not furnished to petitioner prior to production before Magistrate – Held: Non-supply of written grounds of arrest within stipulated time renders arrest illegal – Petitioner entitled to release [Paras 8-12].

Grounds of Arrest vs Reasons for Arrest – Distinction – Reasons of arrest are general and formal in nature – Grounds of arrest must contain specific facts necessitating arrest and must be communicated in writing in language understood by accused – Constitutional safeguard not a mere procedural formality – Relied on Prabir Purkayastha and Mihir Rajesh Shah – Arrest vitiated for non-compliance [Paras 9-11].

Effect of Illegal Arrest – Release of Accused – Following Mihir Rajesh Shah, Court held that if written grounds are not supplied prior to or within reasonable time (in any case two hours before production for remand), arrest becomes illegal – Accused to be released – However, prosecution at liberty to seek fresh remand after supplying grounds of arrest in writing [Paras 11-12].

Merits of Bail – Serious Offence – Prima facie material including statements of nine eyewitnesses (CWs.1-9), two injured witnesses (CWs.2 & 3), and post-mortem report showing death due to penetrating chest injury – Offence under Section 103(1) BNS punishable with death or life imprisonment – On merits, petitioner not entitled to bail – Release ordered solely on ground of illegal arrest [Paras 6-7, 12].

Directions to Investigating Officer – Lapse in Compliance – Court noted lapse by CPI, Arsikere Rural Circle, in not complying with Section 47 BNSS (Section 50 CrPC) – Copy of order directed to be sent to Superintendent of Police and concerned CPI [Order clauses iii & iv].

Decision: Petition partly allowed – Petitioner set at liberty due to illegal arrest – Prosecution at liberty to move application for remand/custody after supplying written grounds of arrest – Administrative directions issued.

Matrimonial Law – Transfer of Petition – Section 24 CPC – Wife seeking transfer of divorce petition from Family Court, Siwani (Bhiwani) to Rohtak – Applicant-wife residing at Rohtak with a 5-year-old son – Respondent-husband, an Army officer, opposing transfer on grounds of job constraints and paralyzed mother – Held: While the convenience of the wife is generally a primary consideration in matrimonial transfer applications, it is not an absolute "thumb rule" and must be weighed against other circumstances. However, the fact that the applicant is caring for a minor child as a single parent is a significant factor. Furthermore, since a criminal case under IPC and a complaint under the PWDV Act are already pending at Rohtak, where the respondent is required to appear, it is in the interest of justice and convenience for both parties that all litigations arising from the matrimonial dispute be heard at a single station. – [Paras 1-5]

Matrimonial Law – Concealment of Income vs. Convenience – Respondent alleging wife is a qualified professional (Dentist) with prior employment and suppressed income – Applicant asserting no current source of earning – Held: Even if the applicant is a qualified professional, the overarching consideration for transfer remains the practical challenges of "single parenting" a 5-year-old child and the logistical benefit of consolidating multiple pending litigations (Criminal and DV Act) at one station. The respondent's job constraints as an Army officer are noted, but the court may provide relief by allowing virtual appearances where necessary. – [Paras 3-5]

Ratio Decidendi – In matrimonial transfer applications, although the wife’s convenience is a significant factor, the court must adopt a balanced approach considering the entirety of the material on record. Where multiple proceedings (civil and criminal) are already pending at a particular station, judicial efficiency and the parties' convenience are best served by consolidating the matters at that station to avoid conflicting dates and unnecessary travel. – [Para 4-5]

Decision: Transfer application allowed. The petition under Section 13(1) (ia) (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, titled ‘Dr. Ravi Ramphal Ghangas vs. Dr. Anjali Ravi Ghangas’ (DMC-3-2024), is transferred from Family Court, Siwani, District Bhiwani, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Rohtak. The District and Sessions Judge, Rohtak, is directed to assign the matter to the Family Court, Rohtak. Parties directed to appear within one month. The concerned Courts are encouraged to list all related matters on the same date and allow the respondent to move applications for appearance through virtual mode.

Service Law – Age of Superannuation – Central Health Service Doctors – Amendment to FR 56(bb) – Age of superannuation stipulated as 62 years with conditional continuation up to 65 years upon exercise of option – Continuation confined to teaching, clinical, patient care, public health and advisory functions – Challenge to amendment as arbitrary and unconstitutional – Held: 62 years is the normal age of superannuation – Continuation up to 65 years is enabling and conditional – No vested right to continue with administrative charge – Amendment valid – Writ petitions dismissed [Paras 21-25, 56-61].

Service Conditions – Reduction in Rank – Exclusion from Administrative Posts after 62 years – Petitioners contended that restriction amounts to divestment of status and reduction in rank – Court held that administrative charge is assignment of duties and not substantive rank – No reversion, reduction in pay or change in cadre – Regulation of duties during extended tenure does not amount to reduction in rank – Condition attached to optional extension cannot be termed punitive [Paras 26-32].

Vested Right – Enhancement of Retirement Age – Whether Notification dated 31.05.2016 created indefeasible right to continue up to 65 years – Held: Age of superannuation is a condition of service amenable to amendment under proviso to Article 309 – No government servant has vested right in continuance of statutory regime – Subsequent amendment dated 11.08.2018 validly regulates conditions of continuation – No crystallised right to hold administrative post till 65 years [Paras 34-39].

Delegated Legislation – Scope of Power under Article 309 – Challenge on ground of lack of Cabinet approval and excess of delegated authority – Court held that Rule 56(bb) forms part of statutory Fundamental Rules framed under Article 309 – Nature of duties during extended tenure falls within “conditions of service” – Once rule is notified, internal procedure of approval not justiciable absent statutory mandate – Option form merely operationalises statutory rule – No excess of power [Paras 40-44].

Equality – Articles 14 and 16 – Differential Treatment of Doctors in CAPFs and Assam Rifles – Proviso to FR 56(bb) provides distinct retirement age for specified categories – Reasonable classification permissible – Petitioners failed to establish manifest arbitrariness – Alleged isolated deviations cannot invalidate statutory rule – No hostile discrimination established [Paras 45-49].

Promotion – Exclusion from Consideration after 62 Years – Petitioners challenged non-inclusion in seniority list for promotion to HAG after attaining 62 years – Court held that 62 years being normal age of superannuation, promotional rights do not extend beyond that stage as of right – Conditional continuation up to 65 years does not carry automatic entitlement to administrative promotions – Exclusion consistent with statutory framework [Paras 50-53].

Judicial Review – Policy in Service Matters – Court reiterated limited scope of interference in statutory policy decisions concerning age of superannuation and utilisation of personnel – In absence of manifest arbitrariness or constitutional violation, Court will not substitute its view for that of rule-making authority – Impugned amendment upheld [Paras 54-59].

Decision: Batch of writ petitions dismissed – Notification dated 11.08.2018 substituting Rule 56(bb) of the Fundamental Rules upheld – Age of superannuation of CHS doctors remains 62 years with conditional continuation up to 65 years limited to specified non-administrative functions – All pending applications closed [Paras 60-61].